J.S. Russell's
Position on the Millennium, the Neglected Third Way of Preterism
By Duncan McKenzie, Ph.D.
Duncan McKenzie Study Archive |
The Covenant Judgments of Revelation
|
The Antichrist Chronicles: vol. II
|
J.S. Russell's Position on the Millennium, the Neglected
Third Way of Preterism |
A
New Preterist Perspective |
Was All The Prophecy in the Bible Fulfilled by A.D.70?
|
Revelation: The Book of Fulfillment of the Covenant Curses
of Leviticus and Deuteronomy |
Babylon in Not Jerusalem
|
Premillennial Preterism |
The Serious Error of the Literal Hermeneutic in the
Interpretation of the Book of Revelation |
A Preterist Book on the Antichrist is Coming
|
Revelation Chapter 12
The position of
James Stuart Russell offers a third option
that is different from full preterism and traditional partial preterism.
Russell’s position is essentially like the full preterist position (i.e. the
one and only Second Coming, the judgment and the resurrection happened at AD
70, the resurrection having an ongoing fulfillment since AD 70. Russell’s
position sees us as currently in the new heaven and earth, a symbol of the
post AD 70 new covenant order). Where Russell position is different from
full preterism is that it does not hold that all Bible prophecy was
fulfilled by AD 70. Full preterism can be traced back to the 1970’s and Max
King. It was a fundamental shift away from Russell’s position that has never
been adequately discussed; in fact it is rarely even mentioned. Russell saw
the millennium as beginning at AD 70 not ending at that time as full
preterism necessitates. I believe that Russell was right and a wrong turn
took place with the advent of full preterism. I say this because of my study
of Daniel 7; I believe it lends support to Russell’s position.
It should be noted that in Russell’s system there will be a
future end to evil at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20:7-10). In my mind
this is an improvement over full preterist paradigm which sees evil as
existing into eternity (in men’s hearts). Also Russell’s position does not
necessitate the hypothesis of two millenniums. There is much more to be
said. I will be saying it in my forthcoming book, The Antichrist and the
Second Coming. (800 pages double spaced, see contents below).
The
Antichrist and the Second Coming
A Preterist Examination
Duncan McKenzie, Ph. D.
Contents
-
Introduction
-
The
Coming of the Kingdom of God (Daniel 2)
-
The
Little Horn of the Daniel’s Fourth Beast (Daniel 7)
-
The
King of the North and the Time of the End (Daniel 11:36-12:13)
-
The
Day of the Lord
-
The
Man of Lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2)
-
Introduction to the Book of Revelation
-
The
Beast and the False Prophet (Revelation 13)
-
The
Beast and the Harlot (Revelation 17)
-
The
Beast and the Fall of Babylon (Revelation 18)
-
The
Second Coming (Revelation 19)
-
The
Millennium and New Heaven and New Earth (Revelation 20-22)
-
Where
Are We Now?
Appendix A: Why I disagree with the Full Preterist Paradigm
A question that relates to the sequence of the millennium in
Revelation is that of the temporal relationship of the judgment committed to
those who come alive for the millennium in Revelation 20:4 (And I saw
thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them…”) and the
judgment in Revelation 20:11-15 (Then I saw a great white throne and Him who
sat on it…and the dead were judged, vv 11-12). I refer to these two visions
of thrones and judgment in Revelation 20:4 and 20:11-15 as the throne scene
judgments of Revelation 20. At first glance the sequence appears clear; the
setting up of thrones and judgment in Revelation 20:4 happens at the
beginning of the millennium and the setting up of the great white throne and
judgment in Revelation 20:11-15 happens at the end of the millennium. There
is another theory on the sequence of Revelation 20:4 and 11-15, however,
that is rarely discussed in the literature on Revelation;
i
it was proposed by James Stuart Russell. Russell’s position is that what is
being shown in Revelation 20 is not two separate throne scenes and judgments
(one in Rev. 20:4 and one in 20:11-15) separated by the millennium, but one
throne scene and judgment (composed of Revelation 20:4 and 11-15) with a
digression of what will happen at the end of the millennium (Revelation
20:7-10) in between. Russell’s position is that John begins describing a
throne scene judgment at the beginning of the millennium in Revelation 20:4.
At 20:7-10 John digresses about what would happen at the end of the
millennium, and then at 20:11 he takes up again the subject of the throne
scene judgment he started in 20:4. Russell thus saw the description of the
throne scene and judgment that is begun in Revelation 20:4 as being
continued in Revelation 20:11. The two sections (Rev. 20:4 and 11-15) are
thus describing one throne scene judgment (which happens at the beginning of
the millennium) not two throne scene judgments (one at the beginning of the
millennium and one at its end). Russell wrote the following on this.
…we
must consider the passage which treats of (sic) the thousand years, from
ver. 5 to ver. 10, as an intercalation or parenthesis. The Seer, having
begun to relate the judgment of the dragon, passes in ver. 7 out of the
apocalyptic limits to conclude what he had to say respecting the final
punishment of ‘the old serpent,” and the fate that awaited him at the close
of a lengthened period called ‘a thousand years.’ This we believe to be the
sole instance in the whole book of an excursion into distant futurity; and
we are disposed to regard the whole parenthesis as relating to matters still
future and unfulfilled. The broken continuity of the narration is joined
again at ver. 11, where the seer resumes the account of what…had been
interrupted by the digression respecting the thousand years, taking up the
thread which was dropped at the close of ver. 4.ii
What Russell is saying is that John begins to relate a throne
scene judgment in Revelation 20:4 (And I saw thrones and they sat on them…).
In verses 7-10 John digresses and talks about what will happen to Satan at
the end of the millennium (“Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan
will be released from his prison…” v. 7). At verse 11 the description of the
throne scene that was begun in verse 4 is continued (“Then I saw a great
white throne and Him who sat on it…).
If Russell’s position is correct (which I believe it is) then
the one throne scene and judgment described in Revelation 20:4 and 20:11-15
is as follows.
Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones and they sat on them and
judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been
beheaded for their witnesses to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not
worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their
foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a
thousand years
(Parenthesis of 7-10 of what happens at the
end of the millennium)
Rev. 20:11-15 Then I saw a great throne and Him who sat on
it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away and there was found no
place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God and
books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.
And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were
written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and
Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each
according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of
fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of
Life was cast into the lake of fire.
If Russell’s position is correct then the picture that
emerges is that of the saints of verse 4 (composed of either dead believers
or symbolically all believers, living and dead) joining in with God in
judging the unbelieving dead in verse 11. If this is true then verse 4 (“And
I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them…”)
is referring to the same judgment that verses 11-12 are (“Then I saw a great
white throne and Him who sat on it…and the dead were judged”). It should be
noted that Scripture supports this interpretation of Revelation 20:4, 11-15
and its picture of the saints joining with God in the judgment.
Matthew 19:28 Assuredly I say to you, that in the
regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who
have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes
of Israel.
1 Corinthians 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge
the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge
the smallest matters?
Initially I rejected Russell idea (that Revelation 20:4 and
11-15 were describing one judgment that happened at the beginning of the
millennium) as being interesting but unlikely. What finally convinced me
that Russell was right, was comparing what is clearly one throne scene and
judgment at the beginning of the saints possessing the kingdom in Daniel
7:9-10 (which is when thrones are put in place) with Revelation 20:4 and
11-12. In Daniel 7 there is only one throne scene judgment shown; it is at
the beginning of the saints possessing the kingdom, the beginning of the
millennium, and it contains the elements of both Revelation 20:4 and 11 (as
Russell’s position would predict). This is consistent with the proposition
that Rev. 20:4 and 11 are showing one throne scene judgment that happens at
the beginning of the millennium. Consider the following comparison of these
scriptures. I am using the New Revised Standard Version here and have added
the letters A-E for points of comparison. I have also added to Daniel 7 the
corresponding verses in Revelation 20 in parentheses.
Dan.
7:9-11 NRSV
As I
watched, [A] thrones were set in place (Rev. 20:4) and [B] an
Ancient One took his throne (Rev. 20:11), his clothing was white as snow
and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames and its
wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and flowed out from his
presence. [C] A thousand thousands served him and ten thousand times ten
thousand stood attending him (Rev. 20:12). [D] The court sat in
judgment (Rev. 20:4) and the [E] books were opened (Rev. 20:12).
I watched then because of the noise of the arrogant words that the horn was
speaking. And as I watched, the beast was put to death, and its body
destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. emphasis added
Rev.
20:4 NRSV
Then
[A] I saw thrones, and [D] those seated on them were given
authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God. They had not worshiped
the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or
their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
emphasis added
(Parenthesis of 7-10 of what happens at the
end of the millennium)
Rev. 20:11-12
Then I saw [B] a great white throne and
the one who sat on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence,
and no place was found for them. And I saw [C] the dead, great and small
standing before the throne, and [E] books were opened. Also
another book was opened, the book of life. And the dead were judged
according to their works, as recorded in the books. emphasis added
Notice that it is only by combining the elements of both
Revelation 20:4 and 11-12 that one gets all five of the elements of the one
throne scene of Daniel 7:9-10.
Daniel
7:9-10 Revelation 20:4, 11-12
[A]
7: 9. As I watched, thrones were set in place
20:4 I saw thrones
[B]
7:9 an Ancient One took his throne, his clothing white as snow.
20:11 I saw a great white throne and the one who sat on it.
[C]
7:10 A thousand thousands served him and ten thousand times ten thousand
stood attending him.
20:12 I saw the dead, great and standing before the throne.
[D]
7:10 The court sat in judgment
20:4 those seated on them [the thrones] were given authority to judge
[E]
7:10 books were opened
20:12 books were opened
Daniel 7:9-10 lends strong support for Russell’s idea
that Revelation 20:4 and 20:11-12 is one throne scene and judgment (at the
beginning of the millennium) not two judgments (separated by the
millennium).iii
Note that the NRSV makes element C look different in Daniel and Revelation;
the NRSV makes it sound like the ones before the throne are attending the
One on the throne. If you look at the NKJV and NASB, however, they give the
impression that there are two groups before the throne, those attending God
and those there for judgment (“thousands upon thousands were attending Him,
and myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; the court sat, and the
books were opened.” Dan. 7:10 NASB). If the NASB and NKJV give the
correct sense (which I believe they do) then the myriads before the throne
in Daniel 7:10 correspond to the dead before the throne in Revelation 20:12,
both groups are facing the judgment. If none of those before the throne in
Daniel 7:10 are facing judgment, then who is? It would be very strange
indeed to show a judgment with no one to be judged.
After examining Daniel 7:9-11, I came
to the conclusion that Russell was right; the throne scene and judgment
begun in Revelation 20:4 is then continued in Revelation 20:11. Revelation
20 is showing what Paul said would happen at the Second Coming (1 Cor. 6:2);
the saints in verse 4 are partnering with God as He judges the world in
verses 11-15. Notice how Daniel first saw thrones and then he saw the
Ancient of Days take His throne, Dan. 7:9 (“As I watched, thrones
were set in place {A} and an Ancient One took his throne” {B}).
This is exactly what one gets when one connects Revelation 20:4 with 20:11
(4. “And I saw thrones and they sat on them {A}…11. Then I saw a
great throne and Him who sat on it” {B}).
Again, what led me to accept Russell's
solution that Rev. 20:4 and 20:11-15 are really describing one throne scene
(with the parenthetical statement of what ultimately happens to Satan at the
end of the millennium in vv. 7-10) is that it is only in by combining both
Rev. 20:4 and 11-12 that you get all five of elements that are found in the
one throne scene (which happens at the beginning of the kingdom reign) in
Dan. 7:9-11. Daniel’s vision of this throne scene shows the elements of
Revelation 20:4 (thrones set up with those sitting on them given the
authority to judge) as happening at the same time that elements of
Revelation 20:11-12 happen (God takes His throne, myriads are before the
throne and the books are opened). This judgment was to happen at the
beginning of the saints possessing the kingdom, the AD 70 beginning of the
millennium. The millennium began right after the defeat of Antichrist
(the little horn/individual beast, Dan. 7:9-11, 21-22; Rev. 19:20-20:4);
this was the time of the AD 70 Second Coming not AD 30.
Revelation 20:4 and 11-12 are talking about
one throne scene and judgment explains the judgment that is committed to
those on the thrones in verse 4, the meaning of which is unintelligible if
verses 4 and 11-15 aren’t connected. Aune, commenting on this problem, said
the following on Revelation 20:4-6, “nothing remotely connected with [krima]
‘judgment’ is found in the narrative; i.e., the right to judge given to
those enthroned is apparently not exercised within this pericope.”
iv
brackets mine Aune further wrote that Rev. 20:4 “looks like the beginning of
a judgment scene that is fragmentary, for the judgment itself does not occur
(i.e., [krima], ‘judgment’ has no real function in this textual
unit)”v
brackets mine. This last point is very important; it is strong evidence
against the possibility that John was deliberating splitting of the judgment
in Daniel 7:9-10 into two separate judgments (not that I have ever seen
anyone make this argument). If John were deliberately splitting the throne
judgment of Daniel 7 into two judgments, one would think he would have done
a more coherent job. That is, the judgment that the saints on thrones in
Revelation 20:4 participate in does not make sense if it is not connected to
the throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-12. It thus see no indication that
John was separating the judgment of Daniel 7 into two judgments (separated
by the millennium) in Revelation 20. In Daniel 7:9 thrones are put in place
(cf. Rev. 20:4) at the same time that the Ancient of Days is seated (cf.
Rev. 20:11).
Some try to escape this problem of the
judgment that never happens in Revelation 20:4 by saying that judgment
committed to those on the thrones means that they rule, not that they are
involved in a judgment. Mounce noted, however, that although the OT term for
“to judge” (Heb. mishphat) has connotations of both judging and
ruling, the Greek word for “to judge” (krima) does not carry such a
range of meaning (he cites Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker “as showing no
such meaning for [krima]”)vi
Again, my position is that the judgment of Revelation 20:4 is not
fragmentary; the judgment John begins to describe at the beginning of the
millennium in Revelation 20:4 is continued in 20:11. Thus Revelation (like
Daniel) is showing one judgment at the beginning of the saints possessing
the kingdom (the millennium, Dan. 7:26-27), not two judgments (one at the
beginning of the millennium and one at the end).
That Revelation 20:4 and 11-15 are describing
one throne scene judgment at the beginning of the millennium (not one at the
beginning and one at the end) explains why there is no Second Coming shown
at the end of the millennium in Rev. 20:7-10 (which is a fatal problem for
postmillennialists). Both full preterists and most traditional partial
preterists are post-millennialists. Full preterists say that the Second
Coming happened in AD 70 at the end of the millennium. Most traditional
partial preterists say the Second Coming will happen in the future at the
end of some form of a millennium. Look at what Revelation says about the end
of the millennium, however; it does not mention the Second Coming as
happening at that time.
Rev. 20:7-10 Now when the thousand years
have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to
deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and
Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand
of the sea. They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp
of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of
heaven and devoured them. The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the
lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are.
And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
This is the only unequivocal statement in Revelation
concerning the end of the millennium, and the Second Coming is not even
mentioned. We are shown God’s judgment on Gog and Magog here (the fire
coming from God in vs. 9) but that is hardly the Second Coming. There is no
Second Coming mentioned in this section.vii
In the same manner there is no coming of God shown in Ezekiel 38-39, which
is the passage that Revelation 20:7-10 is referring to. The coming of God
happens at the beginning of the saints inheriting the kingdom (Dan.
7:21-27). This is when thrones are set up, at the beginning of the
millennium (Dan. 7:7-12). What many have construed as a judgment at the end
of the millennium in Revelation 20:11-15 is just the continuation of the
judgment John was describing that happens at the beginning of the millennium
in Revelation 20:4. Again, understanding that the judgment of Revelation
20:4 and 11-15 are one judgment at the beginning of the millennium helps to
explain why the Second Coming is not shown at the end of the millennium.
Daniel 7 (which is what the millennial teaching of Revelation 20 is drawn
from) only shows one judgment and it was to happen at the AD 70 coming of
God (the Second Coming) at beginning of the saints possessing the kingdom
(the beginning of the millennium, Dan. 7:7-11, 21-27).
As I mentioned earlier, I originally rejected Russell’s
position on the millennium. Allow me to share some of my earlier ideas on
the millennium, as I think they are initially attractive but ultimately lead
in the wrong direction. My earlier position (which I now think is mistaken)
was that Rev. 20:4 was the 70 AD beginning of the millennium and that Rev.
20:11-15 was the resurrection and judgment at the end of the millennium
(which I saw as the end of time). I thus was in agreement with Russell that
the millennium began at AD 70 but was extending Russell’s view on future
things (relative to us) from Revelation 20:10 to 20:15. That is, Russell’s
position is that only Revelation 20:7-10 speaks of future things whereas my
former position saw Revelation 20:5-15 as dealing with future things (i.e. I
saw Rev. 20:10-15 being a future judgment at the end of the millennium). In
my former position I saw Revelation 21 as returning to AD 70, as the topic
of the New Jerusalem/bride started in Revelation 19:7 is continued (Rev.
21:2, 9-10). My position seemed fine at first but on closer inspection I
discovered logistical problems that could not be remedied.
In Rev. 21:1 (which my old position had said was AD 70) there
is no more sea. If the sea (symbolic of Satan’s domain) ceased to exist in
AD 70 how could it be around to give up the dead in it at (what my old
position had said was) the end of time in Rev. 20:13? Also in Rev. 20:11
heaven and earth/Land flee and there is no place found for them. If this was
the end of time, how is it that there is a new heaven and earth/Land in Rev.
21:1 (which my old position said was AD 70)? The necessity of a new heaven
and Land in Revelation 21:1 (which I was saying was AD 70) was because the
old heaven and Land had fled in Rev. 20:11 (which I was saying was the end
of time). To say Revelation 21:1 is AD 70 while Revelation 20:11 is the end
of time did not make sense. If Revelation 21:1 is referring to an AD 70 new
heaven and new Land then the old heaven and old Land fleeing in Revelation
20:11 must also be referring to AD 70. Similarly, If Revelation 20:11 is the
end of time then Revelation 21:1 should be the end of time. The new heaven
and new Land in Rev. 21:1 is a direct result of the fleeing of the old
heaven and old Land in Rev. 20:11. If Rev. 21:1 is AD 70 then Rev. 20:11
should also be AD 70. Since one is the direct result of the other, one can
not separate the two time periods.viii
The logical inconsistencies of my previous position presented an
insurmountable challenge. Since I knew that the full preterist solution that
the millennium was the period from AD 30 to AD 70 was wrong, I went back and
reexamined, and ultimately accepted, Russell's position.
While I believe that Russell’s proposition that Revelation
20:4 and 20:11-15 form one judgment at the AD 70 beginning of the millennium
is correct, it does bring up a difficulty. Revelation 20:5a says, “But the
rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.”
This would seem to be at odds with the position which I am advocating which
sees one resurrection of the righteous and wicked happening at the beginning
of the “thousand years,” not a resurrection of the righteous at the
beginning of the “thousand years,” (Rev. 20:4, 6) and then another
resurrection, of the wicked (or wicked and righteous) at the end. As I
investigated this difficulty, I discovered that there is some question as to
whether the part of verse 5 (5a) that speaks of the rest of the dead coming
alive after the thousand years was in the original text of Revelation.
Notice how the NRSV highlights how Revelation 20:5a interrupts the flow of
John’s thought from verse 4 to 5b. In an attempt to smooth this interruption
out, the NRSV (as well as the NIV) puts 5a in parentheses (I have added a
and b to v. 5).
4.
Then I saw thrones, and those seated on them were given authority to judge.
I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to
Jesus and for the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image
and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came
to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5a. (The rest of the dead
did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) b. This is the
first resurrection. Rev. 20:4-5 NRSV
As it stands, Revelation 20:5 does not make sense, 5a. reads
“But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were
finished.” 5b. reads “This is the first resurrection.” This makes it
sound like the rest of the dead coming to life after the thousand years
constitutes the first resurrection. Aune said the following about how verse
5a interrupts this passage, “Since the clause interrupts the thought of the
passage, it may have been an annotation added at a final stage of
composition.”ix
Beale said the following on the awkwardness of Revelation 20:5a. The rest of
the dead did not come to life… “is omitted by several good mss. [see
footnote] because it was abrupt and seemed out of place or, more likely
because a copyist’s eye skipped from ‘years’ at the end of v. 4 to the
following ‘years’ [in verse 5].”x
I don’t believe that Revelation 5a is missing in some of the
best manuscripts of Revelation simply due to a copyist’s error (this type of
error is referred to as a “homoioteleuton”). Revelation 5a is absent in a
little over a third of all manuscripts of Revelation including two of the
three best (Sinaiticus and 2053 don’t have it, Alexandrinus does). James
Parkinson wrote the following on Revelation 20:5a and whether it is part of
the original text of Revelation.
In the Greek of Rev 20:5 the first sentence ends with “the
thousand years,” just as does the last sentence of the preceding verse.
Thus, if it is assumed both sentences were in the original, it would have
been an easy mistake for the copyist’s eye to skip from the first “the
thousand years” to the second, thus accidentally omitting a sentence.
Indeed, Tischendorf, Alford, and others automatically regard it as an
accidental omission (technically referred to as a “homoioteleuton”).
However, if the sentence in question were originally a comment, with the
same terminal words, the automatic judgment has no way to detect it as
spurious. In the case of Rev 20:5, the sentence, “The rest of the dead lived
not until the thousand years were finished” (Greek: ...until were finished
the thousand years) has sufficient theological import that it is unlikely it
would disappear quietly from about 37% of the manuscripts (from a
progressively higher percentage in centuries before the fourteenth). While
the Millennarian sentiment of Papias (early 2nd century) and others might
welcome accidental omission, the anti-Millennarian spirit from Constantine
onwards would severely punish it. The sentence itself interrupts the
context, perhaps implying that the first resurrection is the absence of a
resurrection! The earlier Aecumenius text (in manuscript 2053, preserving a
text of ca. A.D. 600) omits the sentence both times, but it is added in the
commentary; it suggests the sentence itself may have originated similarly.
Subsequent additions of the Words “But” and “again” seem like an effort to
smooth out a foreign sentence. The absence of the disputed sentence in two
of the three best manuscripts does not permit the question to be
automatically dismissed, particularly because its absence from the Aramaic (Syriac),
and from the popular family 82, implies that it is not a local accidental
omission. Nevertheless, the manuscript evidence is not so strong as to
remove all doubt; so it is here listed under Probable Corrections.
xi
I believe that Revelation 5a may well have been a gloss, an
early marginal comment by a scribe that got incorporated into the text of
Revelation. R.H. Charles wrote the following along these lines.
As another illustration of the critical value of the form of
the text I will give the vision of the kingdom of Christ and the glorified
martyrs in 20:4-6. This vision would consist of seven stanzas of two lines
each, but for the prosaic addition in the fifth stanza 20:5a: ‘the rest of
the dead lived not till the thousand years were fulfilled.’ If this were
original we should expect it to be introduced by a conjunction and that an
adversative one: ‘And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years,
but the rest of the dead lived not.’ But no such conjunction is given. Hence
the words appear to be a marginal gloss incorporated in the text. Moreover,
it intervenes between two lines which should not be separated; for the
second line (‘This is the first resurrection’) defines what the first line
means. Thus the first stanza should be read: 20: 4i And they lived and
reigned with Christ a thousand years; 5b This is the first resurrection.’xii
The Syriac Philoxenian version of the New Testament (from the
sixth century) reads the way that Charles suggests as being correct. It
omits Revelation 20:5a (“the rest of the dead did not come to life until the
thousand years were ended” NRSV) and connects the 2 lines that Charles felt
are incorrectly separated. It gives an idea of how I believe Revelation
20:4-6 should read.
04 And I saw thrones, and [persons] sat on them, and
judgment was given to them, and to the souls that were beheaded for the
testimony of Jesus and for the word of God: and these are they who had not
worshipped the beast of prey, nor its image, neither had they received the
mark upon their forehead or on their hand; and they lived and reigned with
their Messiah those thousand years. 05 This is the first resurrection. 06
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in this first resurrection: over them
the second death hath no dominion; but they shall be, [nay] are, priests of
God and of his Messiah; and they will reign with him the thousand years.xiii
brackets in original
This reading is much less awkward, but more importantly, it
is consistent with the teaching of the rest of Scripture that there is only
one resurrection event of the physical dead (although that resurrection
continues since its AD 70 beginning).xiv
Nowhere else in Scripture does it show two resurrections of the physical
dead separated in time. It should be clear that Revelation 20:4 is referring
to the time of the resurrection, as it shows the coming to life of the
souls of those who had been killedxv
by the beast. These were the souls of believers (the saints overcome by the
beast, cf. Rev. 13:7), being resurrected. This is not a spiritual coming to
life, as the dead here were saints; they were already spiritually alive (cf.
Rev. 6:9-11). Johnson said the following about how the coming alive of the
martyrs of the beast is not speaking of a spiritual coming to life.
The reference to “souls” (psychas) immediately recalls
6:9, where the same expression is used of the slain witnesses under the
altar. The word describes those who have lost their bodily lives but are
nevertheless still alive in God’s sight. This term prepares us for their
coming to (bodily) life again at the first resurrection. It is a mistake to
take psychas to imply a later spiritual resurrection or rebirth of
the soul, as did Augustine and many since. These martyrs are also those who
did not worship the beast or his image or receive his mark on them (cf.
13:1-17; 15:2).xvi
Only one resurrection, a first, is
explicitly mentioned in Revelation 20 (although such a designation could
infer a second). Personally I believe that two resurrections are inferred
here but that they are not separated in time. That is, they are two
aspects of one resurrection event. Again, this is consistent with the rest
of Scripture which shows only one resurrection of the physically dead that
includes the righteous and the wicked. Jesus talked about two resurrections
of the physical dead, but they were part of the same resurrection event. The
first resurrection was to life, the second was to condemnation, “Do not
marvel at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves
will hear His voice and come forth- those who have done good, to the
resurrection of life and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of
condemnation.” (John 5:28-29; cf. Dan. 12:1-2; 7). These two resurrections
that Jesus referred to were to happen at the same time; they were not to be
separated by a period of time (such as the millennium).
i
This position is not discussed by either Aune or Beale (who between the
two of them cover quite a lot of ground) or any other current day
commentary on Revelation that I am aware of.
ii
J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia, New Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1999), 523-524. Originally published in London by T. Fisher Unwin,
1887.
iii
Russell made little to no use of the book of Daniel in The Parousia.
This is unfortunate as Daniel supports his position.
iv
David Aune, Revelation 17-22, Word Bible Commentary vol. 52c,
gen. eds. Bruce Metzger, David Hubbard and Glen Barker, NT ed. Ralph
Martin (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 1079.
v
David Aune, Revelation 17-22, Word Bible Commentary vol. 52c,
gen. eds. Bruce Metzger, David Hubbard and Glen Barker, NT ed. Ralph
Martin (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 1084. Aune sees the seemingly
disorganized arrangement of this part of Revelation 20 as due to
“hysteron-proteron,” the reversing of the logical order of narrative
events.
vi In spite of this, Mounce suggests that “rule” may
be the meaning here. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation,
rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament,
gen. eds. Ned Stonehouse, F.F. Bruce and Gordon Fee (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 364. Mounces citation
for the meaning of krima is found in W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt, F.W.
Gingrich, and F. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
(2nd ed., Chicago, 1979), 450-51.
vii
Postmillennialists assume (as do most others) that the judgment of
Revelation 20:11-15 happens at the end of the millennium, it is taken
for granted by them that the Second Coming has to happen at this time
even though it is not shown.
viii
Some partial preterists maintain that Revelation 20:11 is the end of
time and yet Revelation 21:1 is AD 70. One can disconnect these two
verses in terms of their timing. The new heaven and new Land in Rev.
21:1 is a direct result of the fleeing of the old heaven and old Land in
Rev. 20:11. If Rev. 21:1 is AD 70 then Rev. 20:11 should also be AD 70.
If Revelation 20:11 is the end of time then Revelation 21:1 should be
the end of time. The new heaven and earth of Rev. 21 happen right after
the fleeing of the old heaven and earth in Rev. 20.
ix
David Aune, Revelation 17-22, Word Bible Commentary vol. 52c,
gen. eds. Bruce Metzger, David Hubbard and Glen Barker, NT ed. Ralph
Martin (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 1090.
x
G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Greek
Testament Commentary, eds. I. Howard Marshall and Donald Hagner, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1015. The manuscripts that Beale cites are the
following: Sinaiticus, 2030, 2053, 2062, 2377; also the better mss of
the Majority text of the Apocalypse, the Syriac, Vic, Bea. Note: ‘Vic’
stands for Victorinus Petavionensis, which means that Victor, a
Bishop in Austrian around 300 (very early) quotes the passage and omits
20:5a. ‘Bea’ stands for the Commentary on the Apocalypse written
by Beatus of Liebana (Spain) in the late 8th century which
quotes this passage, again without 20:5a. These are very
interesting-showing Western Europe’s acceptance of this version of the
text. This reading, then, occurred in Syria, Egypt, and Austria. I am
indebted to Stephen Douglas for helping me better understand the
manuscript evidence.
xi
“Manuscript Evidence and the English New Testament”
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/reference/mscript1.pdf
accessed 6-20-2006
The few references I know of that mention
the question of Rev. 20:5a are the following:
The Greek New Testament According to
the Majority Text - Hodges & Farstad
Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse
- H. C. Hoskier
International Critical Commentary on
Revelation - R. H. Charles.
See http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=448.
xii
R.H. Charles, The British Academy Lectures on the Apocalypse, (London:
Oxford University Press, 1922), 44-45.
xiii James Murdock, The New Testament: Translated from the Syriac
Peshitto Version (New York: Stanford and Swords, 1852), Gary Cernava
1996. The text that this version of Revelation is based on is from the 6th
century. Earlier editions of the Syriac New Testament did not contain
Revelation; see Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, 106.
xiv
The resurrection continues as people have continued to believe since AD
70. It continues in the spiritual sensed when one is born again. It
continues in its ultimate sense when the believer dies and puts on his
or her resurrection body (cf. Rev. 14:8-13).
xv
I have had full preterists try to make this fit an AD 30 beginning of
the millennium. They say that these are the souls of those who would
be killed by the beast (future to AD 30). Revelation 20:4, however,
says that these souls of the martyrs of the beast had been killed
(past tense). If the millennium began at AD 30 this would require a
pre-AD 30 individual beast and mark (Rev. 13:11-18) to produce the
martyrs that come alive in the millennium.
xvi
Alan F. Johnson, Revelation in The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary, Revised Edition: vol. 13 Hebrews-Revelation,
Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland gen. eds. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2006), 767. While Johnson and I agree that the souls coming
to life n Rev. 20:4 is a reference to dead people being resurrected (as
opposed to merely a spiritual coming to life) Johnson would not agree
with me that the Second Coming and resurrection happened (or more
correctly, started) at AD 70.
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam
Filtered and Posted Shortly..
Date: 04 Oct 2006
Time: 07:58:32
Comments0:
Thanks for presenting the pro's and con's on subject matters. This is a
great site. Christ is to be greatly exalted!
David; Pensacola, Florida
Date: 30 Dec 2009
Time: 03:00:34
Your Comments:
Is it at all possible that 5a is exactly as it should be? It just may be
possible that the resurrection of the dead(wicked) is set into motion at a
particular point in time and those who died before that time where brought
to life for judgement immediately by the newly set up system and that those
who died(wicked) after that point would come to life for judgement at the
end of the Millenium but sense the means by which it is accomplished and
executed is the same as the first except that it is simply delayed it is in
fact the same resurrection of the dead(wicked)? So it may be executed at a
later point within the Mellinium (at the end!) But since nothing of it's
nature is different it is still the same as the first only delayed, hence
the statement in 5a almost sounding to say..."Oh, by the way, as part of the
small print to the resurrection of the dead(wicked) those who die(wicked)
after the inception of the new heavens and land will incedentally be
processed at the end of the mellinium!
So it's the same processing of the dead(wicked) who are resurrected just 2
different times of processing as opposed to 2 different resurrections of the
dead(wicked) with 2 different types of procedures for the processing of the
dead(wicked). Maybe?
|