The Fourth “Last Thing”: The Millennial Kingdom of Christ (Rev. 20:4-6)

By David J. MacLeod

David J. MacLeod is a member of the faculty of Emmaus Bible College in Dubuque, Iowa, and is associate editor of The Emmaus Journal.

This is article five in an eight-part series, “Expositional Studies of the Seven ‘Last Things’ in the Book of Revelation.”

In The Film Grand Canyon (1991) an immigration attorney breaks out of a traffic jam and tries to bypass it by taking another route. His new route takes him along streets that seem progressively darker and more deserted. Then the predictable nightmare: The man’s fancy sports car stalls in an alarming inner-city neighborhood whose streets are terrorized by armed teenage gangsters. He manages to phone for a tow truck. But before it arrives, five young street toughs surround the lawyer’s car and threaten him with considerable bodily harm. Just in time, the tow truck shows up and its driver—an earnest, genial man named Simon—begins to hook up the sports car. The young toughs protest that the tow truck driver is interrupting their payday. So the tow truck driver takes the group leader aside and attempts a five-sentence introduction to morality. “Man,” he says, “the world ain’t s’pposed to work like this. Maybe you don’t know that, but this ain’t the way it’s supposed to be. I’m s’pposed to be able to do my job without askin’ you if I can. And that dude is s’pposed to be able to wait with his car without you rippin’ him off. Everything’s s’pposed to be different than what it is here.”[1]

As Cornelius Plantinga, professor of systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, has written, “Central in the … Christian understanding of the world is a concept of the way things are supposed to be. They ought to be as designed and intended by God.” The way things are supposed to be includes peace on earth, justice for all mankind, mutual respect and goodwill among people, and widespread concern for the good of one’s neighbor.

As everyone knows, however, “things are not that way at all. Human wrongdoing … mars every adult’s workday, every child’s schoolday, every vacationer’s holiday.” Plantinga asks his readers to think of the corrupt influences of sin. “A moment’s reflection yields memories and images of wrongdoing so commonplace that we are likely to accept them as normal.” A criminal in an old 1940s movie hangs up a telephone receiver; before exiting the phone booth, he rips the page he had consulted from the phone book and pockets it. A third-grader distributes party invitations in a manner calculated to let the omitted classmates clearly see their exclusion. Two old flames meet at a high school reunion and begin to chat intimately with nostalgia and boozy self-pity over what might have been. Although each feels happily married to someone else, somehow the evening ends for the two grads in a hotel room.[2]

The Bible assures us that God hates sin. He hates it because it violates His laws. He also hates sin, Plantinga astutely observes, because it breaks the peace, because it interferes with the way things are supposed to be. “Sin offends God not only because it bereaves or assaults God directly, as in impiety and blasphemy, but also because it bereaves and assaults what God has made.”[3] Sin spoils everything God has made. It adulterates a marriage. It uses an excellent mind to devise an ingenious tax fraud.

The great writing prophets of the Bible knew that “sin has a thousand faces.”[4] They looked on in hope to a new age in which human wickedness would be straightened out, the foolish would be made wise, and the wise humble. They dreamed of a time when the Lord Himself would be present to teach people His ways, when He would sort out the differences between peoples, and warfare between nations would end (Isa. 2:2–4). They spoke of a time when a great anointed Son of David will judge and rule the earth (11:1–9), treating all classes of people fairly and immediately crushing all wickedness. They prophesied that the desert places will flower as new streams of water appear, the blind will see, the deaf will hear, and the lame will leap for joy (ch. 35). People will go to sleep without weapons in their laps (32:14–20). They will work in peace and honesty. A wolf will lie down with a lamb (11:6), and all nature will be fruitful, benign, and filled with wonder. All nature and all mankind will look to God, lean on God, and delight in God (42:1–12; 60; 65:17–25; Joel 2:24–29).[5]

When Jesus Christ appeared on the scene, He came to fulfill all these dreams of the prophets. At His first coming He died on the cross to provide forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God. At His second coming He will reign on the earth and restore things to the way they are supposed to be.

In the present study of Revelation 19 and 20 it has been seen that John wrote to describe in chronological order a series of events that will transpire at the time of the Lord’s return. First, He will return as a Warrior-King to make war against His enemies (19:11–16). Second, He will destroy the armies of Antichrist and cast him into the lake of fire (19:17–21). Third, Satan will be imprisoned in the abyss (20:1–3), and Christ will reign on the earth for one thousand years (20:4–6). This length of time is known as a millennium. The word “millennium” is from two Latin words, mille (“one thousand”) and annus (“year”).

Three Approaches to Revelation 20:4-6[6]

The Premillennial View

According to this view Christ will return before the one thousand years and will reign on the earth. His return is “pre,” that is, “prior to” or “before” the millennium. This view has also been known as chiliasm, because of the Greek word χιλιάς (“thousand”). A straightforward reading of the passage leads to this view, and it is the interpretation of the early church, so far as is known.[7] No writer for the first two hundred years of church history advanced any other view.[8]

Most modern commentators agree that the apostle John here taught the premillennial return of Christ.[9]

The Amillennial View

According to this view there will be no future reign of Christ on earth (the Latin prefix a means “no”).[10] It is not really precise to say that amillennialists do not believe in a millennium. They do not believe in a future millennium; they believe that the millennium is now.[11] The one thousand years refer symbolically to the present reign of the saints in heaven. Satan, the amillennialists argue, was bound during Christ’s first advent, and the first resurrection (Rev. 20:5) takes place when a person is born again or when a believer dies and goes to heaven.[12]

This view was unknown in the early postapostolic church.[13] However, war was declared on the premillennial view by the formidable Alexandrian scholars Dionysius (died ca. 264),[14] Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215),[15] and Origen (ca. 185–254).[16] They accused the premillennialists of being Judaistic and literalistic, charges which are repeated even now.[17]

 Sadly, the great theologian Augustine (354–430)[18] was the one who developed the amillennial interpretation, which replaced premillennialism for hundreds of years. Augustine said that he was at one time a premillennialist. But he abandoned the view because he objected to the carnal way some premillennialists were describing life in the millennial kingdom (e.g., a time of gluttonous and drunken banqueting).[19]

The Postmillennial View

According to this view Christ will return after a one-thousand-year period, which may be literal or may be an indefinite, long period of time. Proponents argue that Revelation 19 (with the rider on the white horse) describes not the second advent of Christ but the victorious preaching of the gospel in the present age. In the present age the gospel will make great inroads and the world will be Christianized. This age will culminate in a long period of spiritual prosperity, increasing peace and economic well-being. This long period (perhaps shorter than one thousand years, perhaps longer) is the millennium. Only after this period of time will Christ return to earth.

Postmillennialists also like to claim Augustine as the “father” of their view.[20] A number of able theologians of the past have held the view.[21] It has not been very popular in the twentieth century, but recently a small and growing group of Christians have embraced the viewpoint.[22]

In this article Revelation 20:4–6 will be expounded from the premillennial point of view because the writer believes that interpretation is the only one that is theologically meaningful.[23] A number of reasons for accepting the premillennial view will be presented in the following exposition.

The Millennial Kingdom: The Reign of Christ on the Earth (20:4-5)

The Victorious Christ

In his vision[24] John saw thrones and people sitting on them, and they “reigned with Christ for a thousand years” (20:4). Verse 6 adds that they “will reign with Him.” The great millennial hymn of Isaac Watts expresses the age-long hope of the people of God:

Jesus shall reign wher-e’er the sun
Does his successive journeys run;
His kingdom spread from shore to shore,
Till moons shall wax and wane no more.

From north to south the princes meet
To pay their homage at His feet;
While western empires own their Lord,
And savage tribes attend His word.

To Him shall endless prayer be made,
And endless praises crown His head;
His name like sweet perfume shall rise
With every morning sacrifice.[25]

The promise of the angel Gabriel to Mary will at last be fulfilled: “The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:32–33).[26] The age-long request of the church, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10), will finally be granted. The promise of Jesus to His own will be honored, “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth” (5:5). The earth they inherit will be changed from its present condition (Isa. 35). The apostles’ question, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6), will then be answered. Israel will be converted (Rom. 11:26) and returned to her land (Isa. 14:1), and her temple and rituals shall be restored (Ezek. 40–48).[27] The Lord Jesus Christ will dwell in Jerusalem (Zech. 8:3), and the nations will call that city, “the city of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel” (Isa. 60:14; cf. 2:3; Pss. 2:6; 48:2; 110:2). This King will be characterized by a love of righteousness and a hatred for lawlessness (Heb. 1:8–9). No frustrated United Nations will be trying to solve differences between nations with conflicting political philosophies and ideologies. The millennium will be a “Christocracy,”[28] wherein the “King of kings and Lord of Lords” (Rev. 19:16) will rule the nations with a “rod of iron” (19:15).[29] He will rule with complete power and authority.

Alexander Woollcott met G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936) for lunch at a London restaurant. Chesterton expounded on a variety of philosophical topics, including the relationship between power and authority. “If a rhinoceros were to enter this restaurant now, there is no denying he would have great power here. But I should be the first to rise and assure him that he had no authority whatever.”[30] When Jesus Christ reigns on earth, as the great Chesterton would surely agree, He will have both the power and the authority to do so!

All dissension among nations will be removed, and war will be nonexistent: “And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares [i.e., their tanks and machine guns will be melted down and turned into trucks and tractors], and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they learn war” (Isa. 2:4).[31] The poor and the needy will be given special protective care (cf. Ps. 72:4, 12–13), and every human being will be tenderly guarded, “A bruised reed He will not break, and a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice” (Isa. 42:3).[32] The moral virtue of truth will be exalted in every phase of the kingdom. In contrast to the rulers of today—who seem to justify almost any sort of untruth on the ground of political expediency—the coming King will “faithfully bring forth justice” (Isa. 42:3). Jerusalem will be called “the City of Truth” (Zech. 8:3).[33]

Revelation 20:3 states that Satan deceives the nations, so it is not surprising to find governments often using deceit as a deliberate policy both to their own citizens and toward each other. Such cynicism is not new. Over twenty-three centuries ago Plato (427-347 B.C.) wrote that Socrates said, “Then if anyone at all is to have the privilege of lying, the rulers of the State should be the persons; and they, in their dealings either with enemies or with their own citizens, may be allowed to lie for the public good. But nobody else should meddle with anything of the kind; and although the rulers have this privilege, for a private man to lie to them in return is to be deemed a more heinous fault.”[34]

During the millennium Satan, “the father of lies” (John 8:44), will be in the abyss where he can deceive the nations no longer, and the earth will be ruled by Christ who is called “Faithful and True” (Rev. 19:11).

His Enthroned Saints

Their Identity

As John looked he saw two groups of people[35] reigning with Christ: one group to whom judgment is given and another group made up of the martyrs of the Tribulation. Of the first group he wrote, “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them” (20:4). To whom does this refer? Of whom did John say that “they sat” and “judgment was given to them”? They are not the beasts and their armies (19:19–21) because they will have been destroyed. The only possibility is “the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean” (19:14), that is, God’s redeemed people.[36]

In light of the prophecy in Daniel 7:18, “But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom,” Revelation 20:4 most likely includes Old Testament saints. Also the apostles will be included, for Jesus said to His disciples, “In the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28). Also the saints of the present age, the church, are included, for Paul wrote, “The saints will judge the world [and] we shall judge angels” (1 Cor. 6:2–3;[37] cf. Rev. 2:26–27; 3:21; 5:10).[38] The occupants of the thrones, then, will be the redeemed of all the ages. They will be the Messiah’s assessors, that is, His assistants in the work of judging.[39] They will be the King’s associate justices in the affairs of the kingdom.

These thrones should not be thought of as mere ceremonial positions; these are not make-believe judges.[40] The kingdom will begin on earth after the defeat of the Lord’s enemies, and many crucial matters will need to be settled without delay.[41] Throughout the millennial kingdom human life will continue with the possibilities of sin and error (Ps. 72:4, 9, 14; Isa. 65:20; Zech. 14:17), though sin will be greatly restrained and controlled. These justices will not be marked by the prejudice and fallibility so characteristic of our present judicial system.[42]

John saw another group in his vision, namely, “the souls” (τὰς ψυχὰς)[43] of the Tribulation martyrs,44 those who refused to worship the Antichrist or go along with his cause.[45] During the Tribulation, they identified with Jesus Christ by proclaiming and obeying Him. John had in mind the martyrs of the Tribulation, but the Tribulation martyrs will be the final group of those faithful Christians who loved Christ more than life. With great courage they took to heart the words of their Savior, “Do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul” (Matt. 10:28).

The stories of the martyrs are almost without number, and Revelation 20:4 tells of their special place in the heart of God, for they are singled out for special mention. James Hannington, an Anglican, toiled for Christ in Africa until his work was cut short by violent death. “I felt,” he wrote in his diary just before the end, “that they were coming upon me to murder me; but I sang ‘Safe in the arms of Jesus,’ and laughed at the agony of my situation.” That is the spirit of martyr Christianity—safe in the arms of Jesus, and laughing at the agony.[46]

Their Resurrection

In standing against the beast the martyrs paid the penalty of death. If they received death from the state, what will they receive from God? The answer is quick and dramatic. The martyrs—and all of God’s people—will receive life and a place in the government of Christ’s kingdom.[47] The verb ἔζησαν (“they came to life”) is the major interpretive problem in the passage. What does it mean?

Some say ἔζησαν refers to the new birth of the soul.[48] But this is impossible, as a careful reading of the verse will show. These people came to life after they were beheaded.[49] They were put to death because they were born again. Their new birth came before their martyrdom, not after it. If this verse refers to the new birth, then the martyrs were beheaded before they were born again.[50]

Others say it refers to the death of the Christian and his or her entrance into heaven. But this makes the words “they came to life” mean “they died.”[51] Others say it speaks of a symbolic resurrection, that is, the influence of the martyrs’ lives in the hearts of all succeeding generations.[52] However, as most modern interpreters agree,[53] the verb ἔζησαν speaks here of bodily resurrection.

There are four reasons for saying ἔζησαν refers to bodily resurrection. First, the immediate context requires it. In verse 5 the same verb occurs, and almost everyone concedes that there it means physical resurrection. If one is spiritual, then the other must be spiritual. On the other hand if one is physical, then the other must be physical.[54] If not, then language can be twisted to mean anything.[55] Second, the context of the book demands it. In Revelation 2:8 ἔζησαν is used of the physical resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in 13:14 it is used of the beast who was physically wounded and was resuscitated. Third, the use of the term “resurrection” (ἡ ἀνάστασις) in 20:5 also demands it. This word occurs forty-two times in the New Testament, thirty-nine times outside this chapter. In thirty-eight of those occurrences it clearly means physical resurrection. The one place where it does not refer to bodily resurrection is Luke 2:34.[56] This strongly suggests that physical resurrection is the meaning intended here. Fourth, this is the interpretation of the earliest interpreters of the Revelation. Later interpreters adopted what is called a spiritualizing method of interpretation, that is, the allegorical method.[57]

In a very real sense believers are more truly alive in heaven than they are on earth. Nevertheless the New Testament teaches that salvation is not complete until their bodies are resurrected. At that moment their souls will be reunited with their bodies—real bodies, the same body, yet changed bodies. The believers’ bodies will then be incorruptible and immortal (1 Cor. 15:52–54).

When Dwight L. Moody was a young man, he was called on to preach a funeral sermon. He searched through the Gospels to find one of Christ’s funeral sermons. He said, “I searched in vain. Our Lord broke up every funeral He ever attended. Death could not exist where He was!”[58] One day all of God’s dead people will rise in new bodies. And those who are alive at that time will also receive glorified, resurrection bodies as their salvation is brought to perfection (1 Cor. 15:51–52).

Their Millennial Reign

What is the purpose of the millennial reign of Christ? The Old Testament predicts the restoration of Israel and the establishment of the reign of the Davidic Messiah (Dan. 7; Ezek. 36–37). One reason for the millennium, then, is to fulfill the Old Testament covenant promises of God. Other commentators suggest that the millennium will bring about vindication for the cause of Christ. The very world where He was rejected will see the manifestation of His glory. Furthermore, some scholars suggest, God is the Creator (Rev. 4:11), and so in the millennium He will be proven to be the Lord of the world and of history.[59]

Yet none of these things is the emphasis of 20:4–5. What John noted was those who reign with Christ. One of the early premillennialists was Tertullian (ca. 160–225), the noted teacher from North Africa. The reason he found the millennial hope so necessary is so that Christians might be rewarded on the very scene of their suffering and striving.[60] In this life many believers, Jesus said, will be brought before courts, governors, and kings and be scourged for His sake (Matt. 10:17–18). Many will be beaten and killed. But Jesus also promised authority over cities in His kingdom to those who are faithful (Luke 19:11–27).

At the Lord’s appearing His people will receive crowns. “In the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing” (2 Tim. 4:8). The apostle Peter adds, “And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory” (1 Pet. 5:4). In the end the Lord will give His people “authority over the nations” (Rev. 2:26). At the Lord’s second advent, not today in heaven or on earth, the saints will begin to rule.[61]

Henry C. Morrison, after serving for forty years on an African mission field, headed home by boat. On that same ship also sailed Theodore Roosevelt. Morrison was dejected when, on entering New York harbor, President Roosevelt received a great fanfare as he arrived home. Morrison thought he should get some recognition for forty years in the Lord’s service. Then a small voice came to Morrison and said, “Henry—you’re not home yet.”[62] Morrison’s real fanfare did not come when he died and went to heaven, either. It is yet to come in the millennial kingdom.

The faithfulness of the martyrs is stated both positively and negatively.[63] Positively they were faithful in proclaiming Jesus Christ in obedience to God’s Word.[64] Negatively they did not cave in to the pressures of the world system of the beast by worshiping him or receiving his mark.

In one of Jesus’ kingdom parables (Luke 19:11–27) He spoke of differences of authority in the kingdom. Some, He said, will have authority over ten cities (v. 17), and others will have authority over five cities (v. 19). Apparently their authority will depend on the extent of their faithfulness in this present life.

The reign of the saints will follow the second advent of Jesus Christ, while Satan is imprisoned in the abyss. Their reign will occur between the resurrection of the righteous and the resurrection of the unrighteous.[65]

In the millennium the saints will evidently reign on the earth. Several writers insist that Revelation 20:4 does not state that the saints will reign on the earth.[66] However, this ignores several facts. Revelation 5:10 says of God’s people that “they will reign upon the earth.” Second, the clear implication of 19:11–16 is that Christ will return to earth to defeat the nations. Third, when Satan is released after the thousand years, he will again attack God’s people. Verse 9 clearly says the saints are living “on the broad plain of the earth.” Fourth, the Old Testament looked forward to an earthly kingdom of the kind described here (Ps. 2:8; Ezek. 36–37; Dan. 7:14).[67]

Those who will occupy thrones in the millennium will not be sham rulers; their presiding will be genuine. Nor will they be idle.[68] But whom will they judge and over whom will they rule? Revelation 20:4 does not answer this question, but possibly they will rule over Gentiles and Jews who will pass through the Tribulation and be alive at the Second Advent. No unbelievers will be alive to enter the kingdom for they will have either been killed in the Battle of Armageddon or they will have faced Christ at the judgment of the nations (Matt. 25:31–46), at which time they will be denied entrance into the kingdom.[69] Saved Jews and Gentiles will enter the millennium in natural bodies, will marry and have children, and will carry on normal lives.

Some question the idea of unglorified people in their earthly bodies walking the same earth with the Lord’s immortal ones in their resurrected, glorified bodies. One writer calls this a mixed gathering.[70] Yet such a thing has already happened. The Lord Jesus Christ in His resurrection body spent forty days instructing His disciples, who had unglorified bodies.[71]

John wrote that resurrected saints will reign with Christ “for a thousand years” (χίλια ἔτη, Rev. 20:4). The millennium will be an intermediate kingdom. It will be a transitional phase—an interlude (“an intermezzo of history”)[72] —leading up to the eternal kingdom described in Revelation 21. Amillennialists say the number “one thousand” should not be taken literally. Rather, they assert, it is a symbolical number standing for a complete period, a very long period of indeterminate length.[73] They also argue that this passage is the only one in which the Bible speaks of a millennium. They assert that in a book full of symbolism we should expect to take this number symbolically as well.

In response, it should be pointed out, first, that while this is the only Bible passage that mentions the length of Christ’s earthly kingdom, it is not the only passage to speak of that kingdom. Second, all the numbers in Revelation have literal meanings. For example, chapters 2 and 3 include seven letters addressed to seven actual churches in Asia Minor. The 144,000 Israelites (Rev. 7:4–8; 14:1, 3) must be understood literally because John stated that they are made up of 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. When the two witnesses (11:3) are granted authority for 1,260 days the preceding verse interprets this literally as referring to forty-two months (of thirty days each).[74] Third, whenever the word “year” is used with a numeral, it always refers to literal years.[75] Likewise, whenever Revelation refers to days or months with a numeral, they are to be taken literally, so there is no reason why the same should not apply to years.[76]

The reign of Christ’s assessors or assistants will introduce a change in the world’s history. The nations of the earth will be under the administration of immortal rulers whose commands they will be required to obey. There will be a rule “with a rod of iron” (Ps. 2:9). There will be a sudden collapse of all the usual haunts of sin, a rooting out of all the nurseries of iniquity, the clearing away of the marshes and bogs of crime. The phrases “with Christ” (Rev. 20:4) and “with Him” (v. 6) suggest that for the first time this earth will have a perfect government.

A Stark Contrast: The Fate of Those Who Are Unbelieving (20:5)

The “Second Resurrection” Is a Resurrection of the Unbelieving Dead

A stark contrast faces the reader in verse 5. John saw a group of people who will not rise at the coming of Christ. They will not sit on thrones nor will they reign with Christ. These are the “rest of the dead,” unbelievers who have died in their sins without the Savior. At the end of verse 5 John mentioned the “first resurrection.” That is the resurrection he described in verse 4, the resurrection of believers to eternal life. The expression “first resurrection”[77] suggests that there will be a “second,”[78] and this is confirmed in verses 12–13, which refers to those who will be raised to face God in judgment.[79]

The first resurrection will restore believers to bodily life for their millennial reign. The second resurrection will bring the “rest of the dead” (all unbelievers) before the great white throne (v. 11).[80] John here viewed the terrible judgment scene in which all who have rejected the truth will be raised bodily to face God.

The First Resurrection Is A Resurrection Of The Believing Dead

The resurrection of believers, John said, is “the first resurrection” (ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη).[81] In John 5:29 Jesus distinguished between “a resurrection of life” and “a resurrection of judgment.” The first resurrection[82] is the “resurrection of life.” In Luke 14:14 it is called “the resurrection of the righteous,” and in Hebrews 11:35 it is called “a better resurrection.” The Dutch have a wonderful word for resurrection that captures the meaning exactly. It is oopstanding. At the resurrection, believers in their glorified bodies will stand up, they will be raised from the dead.[83]

An Interpretive Beatitude: The Blessings of Those Who Participate in the First Resurrection (20:6)

Those who will participate in the first resurrection are pronounced “blessed and holy” (μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος). The word μακάριος introduces the fifth of seven beatitudes in Revelation (1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14). The word means “happy” or “good.” It was used in Greek literature to mean extraordinary good fortune. It can have the sense of “fortunate” (Acts 26:2), of being “better off” (1 Cor. 7:40).[84] In Revelation 20:6 the source of spiritual prosperity and well-being is God.[85]

The word “holy” (ἅγιος) occurs several times in Revelation, but this is the only one of the seven beatitudes that has the term. It speaks of the privileged position of those who will participate in the first resurrection.[86] It focuses especially on the priestly position of God’s people in the millennial age. During the millennium both the royal and priestly character of God’s immortal ones will be evident.[87] Those who are part of the first resurrection will escape the second death, they will serve as priests, and they will reign with Christ.

They Will Escape the Second Death

Resurrected saints in the millennium will not experience “the second death.” This is also mentioned in verse 14 and in 21:8. To suffer the second death is to be cast into the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet are. It was prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). The first death is physical death, the death of the body. The second death is when the soul is cut off from the presence of God.

They Will serve as priests of God and of Christ

The second blessing of the first resurrection is that those who rise will serve as “priests of God and of Christ.” The linking of God and Christ together, coupled by their being worshiped together in 5:13, clearly indicates that in the Book of Revelation Christ is regarded as the equal of the Father.[88] The term “priest” suggests worship and service. The millennial saints will be the means by which Christ’s redemptive work will be mediated throughout the world. The gospel will continue to be presented throughout the millennial period, for these who enter it with natural bodies will bear children, who will be unsaved and will need the gospel.[89]

They Will reign with Christ for one thousand years

Besides having a priestly work, saints will also have a regal work. These blessed and holy immortals will share the transcendent glory of their Messiah King.

Verse 6 is an interpretive beatitude, that is, it is not part of the vision; it interprets the vision. It is striking that the one thousand years are mentioned in both the vision and the interpretation.[90] If the one thousand years were to be interpreted in a spiritualized or allegorical way John would have said so here. He would have perhaps written of the saints reigning for a long time.

Furthermore, in verse 4 the phrase “they came to life and reigned” is in the past (aorist) tense. But in the interpretation (v. 6) the future tense is used (“they will be priests and they will reign”). In other words in his interpretation John stated that the privileges he saw in the vision of verse 4 are yet future! As Everett Harrison remarked, “That nails the argument for premillennialism down tight!”[91]

Conclusion

P. T. Barnum (1810–1891), the famous circus showman, delighted in showing to visiting clergymen an exhibit he called “The Happy Family,” in which lions, tigers, and panthers squatted around a lamb, without a predatory smack of the lips. Dexter Fellows, Barnum’s press agent, declared that when a minister asked Barnum if the group ever caused any trouble, Barnum replied, “Apart from replenishing the lamb now and then, they get along very well together.”[92] No, the world is not not what it is supposed to be, but a day is coming when “the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little boy will lead them” (Isa. 11:6).

A man and a woman were talking about their faith in Christ. The woman was thrilled about her assurance of safety in the Savior and she said, “I have taken a one way ticket to heaven, and I do not intend to come back.” The man, who was a minister of the Word, replied, “You are going to miss out on a lot. I have taken a return ticket, for I am not only going to meet Christ in Glory, but I am coming back with Him in power and great glory to the earth.”[93]

The world cannot be changed by the sword or with social action. Final victory will come only through death and resurrection.[94] The “first resurrection” will include all who have put their faith in Jesus Christ as personal Savior. All of these will rise someday to serve in Christ’s kingdom. But “the rest of the dead” (those who reject Christ) will have no part in the millennial kingdom. Their destiny is the lake of fire. Believers everywhere should passionately urge men and women and boys and girls to come to Christ, to receive His offer of eternal life, and thus escape eternal judgment in “the second death.”

Notes

1. For this summary of the scene from Grand Canyon the present writer is indebted to Cornelius Plantinga Jr., Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be: A Breviary of Sin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 7–8.
2. Ibid., 8.
3. Ibid., 14.
4. Ibid., 9.
5. Ibid., 9-12. For a fuller discussion of the prophets’ description of the messianic kingdom, see Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Chicago: Moody, 1959), 217–54.
6. See Robert G. Clouse, “The Christian Hope: A History of the Interpretation of the Millennium,” in New Testament Essays in Honor of Homer A. Kent, Jr. (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1991), 203–17. The three views are ably presented in Millard J. Erickson, Contemporary Options in Eschatology: A Study of the Millennium (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 55–106; Robert G. Clouse, ed., The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977); and Darrell L. Bock, ed., Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999). Clouse’s work includes four views because he chose to have a representative from two different schools of premillennialism. These two schools (historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism) do not differ significantly, however, in their exegesis of Revelation 20:1–6.
7. In making this assertion the writer claims no patristic support for later developments in premillennialism such as the tenets of classic dispensationalism (e.g., the distinction between Israel and the church and the pretribulational rapture). Cf. Alan Patrick Boyd, “A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (Until the Death of Justin Martyr),” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1977), 88–92.
8. Those writers who spoke to the subject were, without exception, premillennial. They include Papias (ca. A.D. 60-130), Barnabas (70–132), Irenaeus (ca. 135-ca. 200), Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165), Tertullian (ca. 150–225), and Hippolytus (ca. 170–235). See Hans Bietenhard, “The Millennial Hope in the Early Church,” Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953): 12-30. This comment should be qualified in that Justin Martyr conceded to Trypho, after affirming his own premillennialism, that “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise” (Dialogue with Trypho 80, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. A. C. Coxe [1884; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967], 1:239). Relevant documentation is as follows: Papias’s views are found in Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.33.3–4, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:562–63. Also see Epistle of Barnabas 15.3-9, in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Kirsopp Lake, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912), 1:395–97; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.28-36, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:556–67; Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.24, in Tertullian, trans. Ernest Evans (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 1:247; and Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 19, 25, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3:558–59, 563.
9. R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1920), 2:182–86; Martin Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John, Moffatt New Testament Commentary (New York: Harper, 1940), 390–97; Hans Lilje, The Last Book of the Bible, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1957), 248–53; Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 154–63; T. R. F. Glassen, The Revelation of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 111–13; G. B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, Harper New Testament Commentary (New York: Harper, 1966), 248–56; Mathias Rissi, Time and History: A Study on the Revelation (Richmond, VA: Knox, 1966), 13–14; John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 282–300; George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 259–68; G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, New Century Bible (London: Oliphants, 1974), 287–97; E. Lohse, “χιλιάς,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 9 (1974), 470–71; J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 349–54; J. Ramsay Michaels, “The First Resurrection: A Response,” Westminster Theological Journal 39 (1976): 100-109; Jack S. Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (1978): 58-73; Jeffrey L. Townsend, “Is the Present Age the Millennium?” Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (1983): 206-24; F. F. Bruce, “Revelation,” in The International Bible Commentary, ed. F. F. Bruce, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 1624; Harold W. Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20, ” in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, ed. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 235–62; J. Ramsay Michaels, Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 142–47; Jürgen Roloff, The Revelation of John: A Continental Commentary, trans. John E. Alsup (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 222–29; David E. Aune, Revelation 17–22, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 1084, 1104–8; and Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, New International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 360–71.
10. Examples of commentators who are amillennial include Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (London: Macmillan, 1906), 260–63; William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1939), 221–32; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943), 564–90; Leon Morris, The Revelation of St. John, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 233–38; Michael Wilcock, I Saw Heaven Opened (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1975), 187–94; Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The Book of the Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 208–16; and G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 972–1021. In addition to the commentaries, see W. J. Grier, The Momentous Event (London: Evangelical Bookshop, 1945; reprint, London: Banner of Truth, 1970), 103–24; Jay Adams, The Time Is at Hand, rev. ed. (Greenville, SC: Attic, 1966); G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 291–322; William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1975), 7–12, 99–111; and Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 223–38. See also the following essays in Westminster Theological Journal: James A. Hughes, “Revelation 20:4–6 and the Question of the Millennium,” 35 (spring 1973): 281-302; Meredith G. Kline, “The First Resurrection,” 37 (spring 1975): 366-75; idem, “The First Resurrection: A Reaffirmation,” 39 (fall 1976): 110-19; Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, “The First Resurrection: Another Interpretation,” 39 (spring 1977), 315–18; and R. Fowler White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Rev. 20:1–10, ” 51 (1989): 319-44.
11. Various amillennialists have suggested new terminology to replace the term “amillennialism.” For example Adams suggested “realized millennialism,” Poythress preferred “preconsummationism,” and Hendriksen called himself a “nunc millennialist,” that is, “one who believes that the millennium is now” (Adams, The Time Is at Hand, 9; Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 2d ed. [Phillipsburg, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1994], 36); and William Hendriksen, “Review of George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John,” Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973): 353.
12. Postmillennial and amillennial writers are quick to point out that premillennialists differ with each other on a number of details (e.g., Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 187–88). On the key exegetical points in Revelation 20:4–6, however, it is the postmillennialists and amillennialists who lack a consensus, not the premillennialists. To cite just two examples, there is substantial difference of opinion on the nature of the first resurrection and on the one-thousand-year reign. The first resurrection has been interpreted as the regeneration of the sinner (Augustine, City of God 20.6), the death of the believer (Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 233), or the resurrection of Christ (Hughes, The Book of Revelation, 316–17). The reign of the saints has been explained as the present spiritual reign of Christ in the hearts of believers (Cox, Amillennialism Today, 64), the present reign of disembodied saints in heaven (Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 231–33), or the present church age during which believers rule in this world as kings and priests (Wilcock, I Saw Heaven Opened, 192).
13. It is not uncommon for amillennial scholars to sift through the early fathers and announce that only a few were premillennial (e.g., Grier, The Momentous Event, 19–27; and Albertus Pieters, “Chiliasm in the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers,” Calvin Forum 4 [August and September 1938]: 9-11, 37–39). However, this is an argument from silence that works against them. In point of fact the only fathers who addressed the millennial question were without exception premillennial.
14. Dionysius’ allegorical approach to the Book of Revelation is known through Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 7.25, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), 2:197–209.
15. Clement did not refer directly to chiliasm in his writings; yet he was probably unfavorable to it because of his allegorical approach to the Scriptures (Bietenhard, “The Millennial Hope,” 20). Beginning with Philo (ca. 20 B.C.-A.D. 50), the Jewish philosopher and exegete, and on into the Christian era, Alexandrians sought a way to make the Old Testament compatible with Platonic thought. Furthermore the doctrine of an earthly millennium seemed crass to the ascetic worldview of these fathers (Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought [Nashville: Abingdon, 1970], 1:83–84).
16. Origen, On Principles 2.11.2, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4:297. Bietenhard wrote, “A Greek dualism of above and below replaced the NT contrast between this world and the world to come…. The basic principle that Scripture must be interpreted according to the Spirit and not the flesh was a right principle, but Origen’s application of it was disastrous, for he identified the spiritual with neo-Platonic philosophy” (“The Millennial Hope,” 21).
17. To many students of Revelation, under the sway of the rigid metaphysical dualism of Plato, the premillennial doctrine of a divine kingdom established on earth, having political and physical aspects, seems to be sheer materialism. For example, see Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, 294, 308; and Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’sRevelation, 570–71.
18. Augustine, The City of God 20.6-14, trans. Marcus Dods, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff (1886; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 2:425–35. Schaff wrote, “Augustine … revolutionized the prevailing ante-Nicene view of the Apocalyptic millennium by understanding it of the present reign of Christ in the Church” (ibid., 426, n. 5 [italics his]).
19. Expanding on the prophecies of Isaiah 11 and 35, Irenaeus wrote, “The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, ‘I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.’ In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour” (Against Heresies 5.33.3). Eusebius charged that the heretic Cerinthus taught that there would be an earthly kingdom “given up to the indulgence of the flesh, i.e., eating and drinking and marrying, and to those things which seem a euphemism for these things, feasts and sacrifices and the slaughter of victims” (Ecclesiastical History 3.28.2–6). How much of Eusebius’s commentary is dispassionate and how much is fueled by antichiliasm is not known. Bietenhard says that Cerinthus was “one of the first exponents of the so-called chiliasmus crassus” (“The Millennial Hope,” 17).
20. Loraine Boettner, The Millennium (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1957), 10.
21. For example Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (New York: Scribners, 1872; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 3:858–59; David Brown, Christ’s Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial? (Robert Carter, 1876; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983); A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (1879; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 568–69; and A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1907), 1010–15. See also Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Millennium and the Apocalypse,” in Biblical Doctrines (New York: Oxford University Press, 1929; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 643–64.
22. Postmillennial commentaries are rare, but at least three are currently available: Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament Explanatory and Practical (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1962), 419–32; David S. Clark, The Message from Patmos: A Postmillennial Commentary on the Book of Revelation (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 119–32; David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance (Fort Worth: Dominion, 1987), 481–519. See also Allan R. Ford, “The Second Advent in Relation to the Reign of Christ,” Evangelical Quarterly 23 (1951): 30-39; J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1975), 177–233; Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism,” Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3 (winter 1976–77): 48-105; Boettner, The Millennium; John Jefferson Davis, Christ’s Victorious Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 83–99; Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1999); Martin G. Selbrede, “Reconstructing Postmillennialism,” Journal of Christian Reconstruction 15 (winter 1998): 146-224; and Vern Crisler, “The Eschatological A Priori of the New Testament: A Critique of Hyper-Preterism,” Journal of Christian Reconstruction 15 (winter 1998): 225-56.
23. Missionary theologian (and amillennialist) Harry R. Boer complained, “The Reformed view of the millennium [i.e., amillennialism] suffers from a suspicious peculiarity. It appears to mean little or nothing in the life of the Church. Where is the joy, the comfort, the triumph of knowing that Satan is bound, even if only partially? Who is thrilled about living in the millennium? When and where are we told about its blessing and its power?” (“What about the Millennium?” Reformed Journal 25 [January 1975]: 26-27). In another place he asserts that his denomination, the Christian Reformed Church, “continues to live in a state of near if not complete eschatological unawareness” (“The Reward of the Martyrs,” Reformed Journal 25 [February 1975]: 8).
24. Some commentators point to the intertestamental literature and to the theology of the rabbis as the source of John’s idea of an intermediate kingdom. In the intertestamental literature the doctrine is taught in the second century B.C. in the apocryphal books of 1 Enoch and Jubilees, in the first century B.C. in the Psalms of Solomon and the Sibylline Oracles, in the early first century A.D. in the Assumption of Moses and in 2 Enoch, and in the late first century A.D. in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. The rabbinic authorities are as follows: Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (A.D. 90) suggested a thousand years; Joshua (A.D. 90), two thousand years; Eleazar ben Azariah (A.D. 100), seventy years; Akiba (A.D. 135), forty years; Jose of Galilee (A.D. 110), sixty years; Dasa (A.D. 180), six hundred years; Eliezer ben Jose of Galilee (A.D. 150), four hundred years. The intertestamental literature is conveniently cataloged in R. H. Charles, Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity, 2d ed. (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1913; reprint, New York: Schocken, 1963), 219–20, 239–40, 270–71, 273, 301–2, 315, 324–37. The list of the rabbis comes from Ford, Revelation, 353. The sources of John’s concept of the millennium, however, lie elsewhere than in contemporary Jewish speculations. His sources were twofold: (1) The Old Testament prophecies in Ezekiel 36–37 (with its description of the resurrection of Israel and the restoration of the nation to the land) and Daniel 7 (with its description of the Son of Man’s temporal kingdom over earthly nations and peoples), and (2) a vision from God. See Beasley-Murray, The Book ofRevelation, 288; and Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” 59.
25. Isaac Watts, “Jesus Shall Reign,” in Hymns of Truth and Praise (Fort Dodge, IA: Gospel Perpetuating, 1971), 196. Watts lived from 1674 to 1748.
26. The kingdom of the Messiah will last forever, but the millennium will last only one thousand years. As Culver has demonstrated, the millennium is the initial stage of that future kingdom (Robert Duncan Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, rev. ed. [Chicago: Moody, 1977], 49–52). Culver follows George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972), 2:630–31.
27. It is true that Revelation 20 says nothing about “a conversion and return of the Jews, of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, of a restoration of the temple and temple worship, of an initial renewal of the earth” (Herman Bavinck, The Last Things, trans. John Vriend [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996], 115). However, many biblical texts do refer to such a conversion of Israel (e.g., Isa. 14:1–2; Jer. 31:33–34; Rom. 11:26–27), and the apostles—after a forty-day seminar on the kingdom with Christ—clearly expected it (Acts 1:6). This is true of the other elements mentioned by Bavinck (rebuilding of Jerusalem [Isa. 2:3; Ezek. 43:1–7; Zech. 14:4–11; Ps. 110:2], restoration of the temple and temple worship [Ezek. 40:1–46:24], and the renewal of the earth [Isa. 32:13–15; 35:1–2; Ezek. 36:4–11]). Every systematic theologian must fit the pieces of the prophetic puzzle together, and the premillennialists have done it most successfully.
28. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, 317.
29. Seiss argues that the “rod of iron” cannot be understood as an instrument of destruction but only as a tool for gracious and merciful care (Joseph A. Seiss, Lectures on the Apocalypse, 9th ed. [New York: Cook, 1906], 3:292–94). The example of David in 1 Samuel 17:34–36 demonstrates that shepherding involves violently dealing with predators (see S. Lewis Johnson Jr., The Old Testament in the New [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980], 12–19).
30. G. K. Chesterton, quoted in Clifton Fadiman, ed., The Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes (Boston: Little, Brown, 1985), 117.
31. Isaiah 2:4 is inscribed on the well-known statue (donated by the Soviet Union) on display at the United Nations in New York. Significantly the following part of the verse is omitted: “And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples.” The Warrior-King of Revelation 19, not the United Nations, will bring peace to the earth.
32. “As long as men live in the flesh on earth, there will be differences in abilities and needs” (McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 226).
33. Ibid., 222-23.
34. Plato, The Republic 3.189, in Great Books of the Western World, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, trans. Benjamin Jowett (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 7: 326.
35. Some see only one group, namely, the martyrs (e.g., Morris, The Revelation of St. John, 236). However, the martyrs are not mentioned until later in the verse after John had already seen the thrones and their occupants (Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” 63). Charles argues that the text is unintelligible and ungrammatical, with two clauses coming between εἶδον (“saw”) and its accusative τὰς ψυχὰς (“the souls”). Charles adds another εἶδον before τὰς ψυχὰς, but he radically reconstructs the verse in doing so (Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 2:182–83).
36. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 219; and John Peter Lange, The Revelation of John, trans. Evelina Moore, in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 25:350.
37. Mounce argues that because the text is silent about the identity of the occupants of the thrones, one should not speculate. However, the rest of the Bible is not silent, and surely the unity of Scripture requires that verses such as Daniel 7:18; Matthew 19:28; 1 Corinthians 6:2–3; and Revelation 3:21 cannot be readily dismissed. Mounce’s own suggestion is that the occupants are a heavenly court (Mounce, The Book ofRevelation, 365).
38. Other occupants have been suggested: (1) The twenty-four elders (Friedrich Düsterdieck, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Revelation of John, trans. Henry E. Jacobs, 6th ed. [New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884], 464; Walter Scott, Exposition of theRevelation of Jesus Christ, 4th ed. [London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.], 400; and Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 296). However, these “elders” are a representative group, whereas the occupants are individuals. (2) God the Father, God the Son, the seven angelic assessors and the apostles. The phrase “and judgment was given to them” excludes God the Father and the Son, and 1 Corinthians 6:3 precludes angels (E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse, 3d. ed. [London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1935; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1984], 613).
39. In the judgment scene in Daniel 7:22 judgment is passed in favor of the saints. Here, however, the clause “and judgment was given to them” indicates those to whom the right has been given to serve as judges, not those in whose favor judgment is given (Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, 252).
40. Cf. Seiss, Lectures on theApocalypse, 3:337–38. Seiss remarks that in the kingdom there will be no “sinecures” that is, offices requiring little or no work.
41. Bullinger suggests that those on the thrones judge or vindicate those who shall have a part in the first resurrection (The Apocalypse, 612). However, those on the thrones will themselves be part of the first resurrection.
42. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, 484–85.
43. Some scholars (e.g., Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 262; Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, 230–31; and Grier, The Momentous Event, 116) make much of the term τὰς ψυχὰς, arguing that Revelation 20:4 describes disembodied believers presently reigning with Christ in heaven. Others (e.g., Seiss, Lectures on theApocalypse, 3:305; and Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, 304) argue that the term means no more than individuals, that is, persons in the body (as in Acts 2:41; 7:14; 27:37). It seems better to understand the term as referring to disembodied souls, as in Revelation 6:9. John first saw the souls, and then he saw them raised from the dead in their resurrection bodies (Scott, Exposition of theRevelation of Jesus Christ, 400).
44. Warfield’s great exegetical skills left him when he wrote on Revelation 20:4–6. For example he says here that these are “not literal martyrs” (Warfield, “The Millennium and the Apocalypse,” 652). However, John spoke of actual martyrs, for those who refused to worship the beast were put to death (13:15). Cf. Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (London: Macmillan, 1991; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 740.
45. Some commentators see three groups in verse 4 (e.g., Seiss, Lectures on theApocalypse, 3:303; and Bullinger, The Apocalypse, 615): (1) the saints, (2) the tribulation martyrs, and (3) the living survivors of the beast’s reign. They point out that τὰς ψυχὰς (“the souls”) is in the accusative case while οἵτινες (“those who”) is in the nominative. Their argument is that τὰς ψυχὰς cannot be the antecedent of οἵτινες and that οἵτινες is the subject of an entirely new sentence. There are two objections to this view: (1) The use of a relative pronoun without formal agreement with its antecedent is not uncommon in Revelation (e.g., 1:15, 19, 20; 5:6; 11:4, 9, 11, 15; 14:7; 17:3; 19:1; cf. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961], 74, § 134; 147, § 282; 155, § 296). (2) The following statement, “they came to life,” governs both groups and cannot refer to living saints (Ladd, A Commentary on theRevelation of John, 265; Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” 65). In this verse, then, οἵτινες introduces a relative clause which emphasizes a characteristic quality of its antecedent, and the καὶ serves as an explicative (“namely”; Mounce, The Book ofRevelation, 365, n. 8). Incidentally the distinction between the martyrs and the living survivors of the tribulation is supported by Swete (The Apocalypse of St. John, 259), Lenski (The Interpretation of St. John’sRevelation, 581), and William Barclay (The Revelation of John, rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], 2:192).
46. James S. Stewart, The Wind of the Spirit (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968), 54.
47. Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” 65.
48. For example Augustine, City of God 20.6; Kik, An Eschatology of Victory, 181–82; Cox, Amillennialism Today, 99–100; and Wilcock, I Saw Heaven Opened, 192.
49. John saw the souls “of those who had been beheaded.” The instrument of execution in republican Rome was the πελεκύς, a double-edged ax. By the time Revelation was written the ax had been superseded by the sword (Acts 12:2). Cf. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 2:183; and Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 258.
50. Seiss, Lectures on theApocalypse, 3:306.
51. For example Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, 230; Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 233; Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’sRevelation, 581; and Morris, The Revelation of St. John, 237. Morris lamely remarks that this is not the usual word for resurrection. Mounce notes that other words used for rising from the dead (e.g., ἄνί́στημι, ἐγείρω, ἀναζάω) are used with other meanings in different contexts (Revelation, 366, n. 10). James A. Hughes argues that the verb ἔζησαν is a constative rather than an ingressive aorist and describes the present intermediate state (“Revelation 20:4–6, ” 290–92). It must be a constative aorist, he argues, in that ἐβασίλευσαν (“they reigned”) is constative. However, there is no rule of grammar that says ἔζησαν cannot be ingressive while ἐβασίλευσαν is constative (Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” 66). Recognized grammarians take ἔζησαν as ingressive while they understand ἐβασίλευσαν to be constative (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [Nashville: Broadman, 1943], 833; and Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek [Edinburgh: Clark, 1963], 71).
52. For example Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 263. This, of course, is a farce. What kind of a hope and reward does this offer the souls under the altar? The Scriptures do promise that a recompense of the sacrifices of devotion of the saints will be given at “the resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:14; cf. Seiss, Apocalypse, 3:308).
53. For example Beasley-Murray, The Book ofRevelation, 295; Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, 253–54; Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 2:183–84; Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 265–66; Thomas, Revelation 8–22, 416–17; Mounce, The Book ofRevelation, 366; Seiss, Lectures on theApocalypse, 3:306; and Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 297.
54. James Hughes argues that verse 5 also refers to a spiritual resurrection (“Revelation 20:4–6, ” 301–2). But this presents a real dilemma. The word “until” (ἄχρι) suggests that the rest of the dead will rise after the one thousand years. If coming to life means going to heaven, then after the one thousand years the unbelieving dead live spiritually in heaven. Hughes is aware of his dilemma, but he fails to resolve it. He cites the use of ἄχρι in Romans 5:13, where it is used as an improper preposition with the meaning “before” (see also Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 236). In Revelation 20:5, however, ἄχρι is used as a conjunction with the aorist subjunctive and has the force of a future perfect, “until, to the time that” (Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979], 129; and Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” 68–69).
55. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (reprint, Chicago: Moody, 1958), 4:732. Certainly it is possible to speak of a spiritual reality and a literal reality in the same context. Jesus did in John 5:25–29. The two passages are different, however. In John 5 the context shows that the Lord was speaking in two senses. But there is nothing in Revelation 20:4–5 to indicate a change in meaning (Ladd, A Commentary on theRevelation of John, 266).
56. In Luke 2:34ἀνάστασις is used in its etymological sense of “rising.”
57. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 2:185. Postmillennial scholar John Jefferson Davis concedes, “On this point the premillennial school appears to have the better argument” (Christ’s Glorious Kingdom, 95). To understand the resurrection of 20:5 as a bodily resurrection, says Swete, is “to interpret apocalyptic prophecy by methods of exegesis which are proper to ordinary narrative” (The Apocalypse of St. John, 259). Isbon T. Beckwith writes, “Apocalyptic prophecy is not allegory, and in our passage it is not possible upon any sound principles of exegesis to take the first resurrection as different in kind from that of ‘the rest’” (The Apocalypse of John [New York: Macmillan, 1919; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979], 738). It is antichiliastic prejudice and party loyalty, not biblical exegesis, that continues to provide the impetus for scholars to engage in hermeneutical experimentation to find excuses to ignore the clear teaching of this text. Amillennial scholar Harry R. Boer confesses, “In terms of the traditional interpretation of the thousand years as a literal reality, whether in the a- or pre- or post-millennial sense of the word, no other view than the premillennial is possible for an exegesis that puts scripture above the harmonistic demands of doctrine or tradition” (“The Reward of the Martyrs,” 7).
58. Adapted from Paul Lee Tan, Encyclopedia of 7,700 Illustrations, 1142.
59. Cf. Mounce, The Book ofRevelation, 369; and Roloff, The Revelation of John, 225.
60. Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.24; cf. Bietenhard, “The Millennial Hope in the Early Church,” 15.
61. Seiss, Lectures on theApocalypse, 3:311–12.
62. Michael P. Green, ed., Illustrations for Biblical Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 306.
63. Cf. Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” 64–65.
64. The phrase “the testimony of Jesus” (διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Λησοῦ) should be understood as containing an objective genitive, that is, believers had been beheaded because of the testimony they had borne about the Lord Jesus.
65. Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, 23. Culver gives a helpful discussion of the millennium (ibid., 23–100).
66. Bavinck, The Last Things, 115; Bruce, “Revelation,” 1624; Grier, The Momentous Event, 105; and Mounce, The Book ofRevelation, 360.
67. Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” 69.
68. Seiss, Lectures on theApocalypse, 3:338.
69. Cf. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah, 1980), 288–92.
70. Grier, The Momentous Event, 107.
71. Ladd, A Commentary on theRevelation of John, 268.
72. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, 292.
73. Grier, The Momentous Event, 104–5; Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 227; and Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’sRevelation, 577.
74. Hoehner also cites the 7,000 killed in an earthquake (Rev. 11:13), the carnage covering 1,600 stadia (14:20), and the length of the New Jerusalem, namely, 12,000 stadia (21:16) (“Evidence from Revelation 20, ” 249).
75. Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” 70. As Deere notes, it is futile to argue for a symbolic meaning of “one thousand years” on the basis of Psalm 90:4 or 2 Peter 3:8. These texts do not say that a thousand years are a day. Rather they point to God’s transcendence in respect to time.
76. Five months are referred to in Revelation 9:5, 10, and forty-two months in 13:5. Revelation 11:3 and 12:6 refer to 1,260 days.
77. Kline has argued on the basis of certain texts (Rev. 21:1, 4; Heb. 8:7, 8, 13; 9:1, 15, 18; 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:45) that “first” (ἡ πρώτη) refers to the present world order. The first resurrection, then, is the death of the Christian (Meredith G. Kline, “The First Resurrection,” Westminster Theological Journal 37 [1975]: 366-75; idem, “The First Resurrection: A Reaffirmation,” Westminster Theological Journal 39 [1976]: 110-19). As Deere notes, however, Kline has begged the question (“Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” 72, n. 55). The key term here is not the adjective “first” but the noun “resurrection.” Significantly Kline does not discuss the New Testament usage of this term. For further interaction with Kline’s position, see J. Ramsay Michaels, “The First Resurrection: A Response,” Westminster Theological Journal 39 (1976): 100-109.
78. Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, 232; and Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’sRevelation, 586. Most commentators agree that a “first resurrection” implies a “second.” They do not agree, of course, on the nature of the two resurrections.
79. For Bavinck to say that “John … does not know of a physical resurrection that precedes the millennium and a second that follows it” (The Last Things, 115) willfully ignores the text.
80. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, 254.
81. Hughes concludes that both the first and the second resurrections are physical, but the first resurrection is Christ’s resurrection, and the second resurrection is the general resurrection of everyone at Christ’s return (Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, “The First Resurrection: Another Interpretation,” Westminster Theological Journal 39 [1977]: 315-18; idem, The Book of theRevelation, 213–16). However, there is nothing in Revelation 20 about Christ’s resurrection; it is all about the resurrection of the martyrs and those who sit on the thrones.
82. The first resurrection takes place in stages. Only some of the participants are mentioned in Revelation 20:4–5. The stages of the first resurrection are these: (1) Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:23–24), (2) certain saints after His resurrection (Matt. 27:52–53), (3) the church age saints prior to the tribulation (1 Thess. 4:13–18), (4) the two witnesses in the middle of the tribulation (Rev. 11:11), and (5) the Old Testament saints and tribulation martyrs at the second advent (Dan. 12:1–3). See Roy L. Aldrich, “Divisions of the First Resurrection,” Bibliotheca Sacra 128 (1971): 117-19; Deere, “Premillennialism in Revelation 20:4–6, ” 71–72; and Seiss, Lectures on theApocalypse, 3:321–24.
83. Ray C. Stedman, God’s Final Word: Understanding Revelation (Grand Rapids: Discovery, 1991), 324.
84. G. Strecker, “μακάριος,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:376–77.
85. A. C. Myers, “Bless,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1 (1979), 523.
86. The fact of the resurrection suggests, of course, the acquired holiness or complete sanctification and glorification of those who will reign with Christ (1 John 3:2). Revelation 20:6, however, emphasizes the position and privilege of the resurrected ones.
87. Düsterdieck, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Revelation of John, 465.
88. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 260.
89. Caird, TheRevelation of St. John the Divine, 255–56. Charles wrote, “These facts suggest that the priestly offices of the blessed in the Millennial Kingdom have to do with the nations, who are to be evangelized during this period (14:6–7; 15:4)” (The Revelation of St. John, 2:186).
90. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 293.
91. Everett F. Harrison, quoted by S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “The Millennial Kingdom of Christ” (cassette tape, Believers’ Chapel, Dallas, Texas, 1989–90). Johnson said Harrison made this remark when Johnson was his student in a class on Revelation at Dallas Seminary in the 1940s.
92. Tan, Encyclopedia of 7,700 Illustrations, 800.
93. Adapted from ibid., 798.
94. J. Ramsey Michaels, Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 143.