From: Reinterpreting Revelation Twenty Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2014
[Page 121]
Chapter Four:
The First Millennium,
of the Martyrs—The Gospel Age
(Revelation 20:4)
20:4 (KJV): And I
saw thrones, and they sat upon them: and
judgment was given unto them; and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded
for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped
the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their
foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand
years.
NASB:
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to
them. And I saw the souls of those who
had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of
God, and those who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not
received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to
life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
[Page 122]
1.
The meaning of “a thousand years” (20:1).
The dominant interpretation of this
verse among theological conservatives is almost certainly that a literal
thousand years is under discussion. Indeed,
the militant form of conservatism called “Fundamentalism” is often defined,
in part, in terms of accepting such a belief.
When it comes to the Apocalypse,
would be “literalists” are prone to astoundingly fanciful exegesis. R. G. Currell and E. P. Hurlbut are venting
some of their frustration at such behavior when they write:[1]
Considering that the Revelation (the only
book in the Bible in which this number appears in reference to Christ’s reign)
is one of the most symbolic books in all of the Word of God, we should have
little qualms about construing the number “1,000” as figurative. Indeed, the number 1,000 is used more than 20
times in Revelation, and not once is it meant literally.
And even some of the “letteristic”
premillennialists (cf. Hal Lindsey’s There’s a New World Coming) take
the locusts of chapter 9 metaphorically; they say they’re helicopters! In fact, others have understood verse 6 of
the same chapter (“And they had hair like the hair of women. . . .”) to mean
that the locusts were “hippies”; this was a particular popular opinion during
the counter-cultural decade of the ‘60s
.
[Page 123] So, if we can
“spiritualize” some passages in this highly imagistic book, why balk at
spiritualizing a number? If the texts
were direct in style and mood (as in a doctrinal section, for instance), then
we should be very careful about interpreting them in a figurative sense; in
fact, it would be difficult to do so and remain true to context at the same
time. But most of Revelation is so apocalyptic
in nature, so bulging and burgeoning with visions and symbols, that we
shouldn’t choose to understand it literally unless the setting of its
composition indicated as much.
Take one text that has nothing to do
with premillennialism and in which the interpretation seems as close to
absolutely certain as you can possibly find:
the Lamb that is honored in chapter 5 being Jesus. Is that to be taken as literally as the
thousand years? Is either description
literal? As an appropriately cynical
book reviewer once commented, “Though the lamb is commonly interpreted as
Jesus, the philosophical issue remains of how one can actually interpret
this book literally and still place it in our known universe.”[2]
I once mischievously suggested that
if the way some individuals interpreted prophecy were applied to the “thousand
years” itself, that they would result in a “millennium” many times over that in
actual length. And, to my surprise, I
later discovered an author who took exactly that approach in the last quarter
of the nineteenth century: “If the
thousand years are a prophetic thousand, there will be three hundred and
sixty thousand years, according to our usual computation of years, and I lean
towards this opinion, for our Saviour must ‘see the travail of his soul and be
satisfied.’ Isaiah 53:11.”[3]
[Page 124] Actually
it could be far longer than even than that.
If a day is as a thousand years to the Lord (2 Peter 3:8), wouldn’t we
have 365 days in each of the thousand years?
This would equal 365,000 years, but that is for only one year of the full thousand. Would not each and every other day be
365,000 years long as well?
*
If
one wished to take the time, one could multiply the exegetical excesses of
premillennialism at great length. Such
cases warn us to be cautious when we approach those texts that are especially
crucial to their doctrine and the current verse (Revelation 20:4) has to be
placed at or near the top of the list.
The sad fact is that to interpret
“literally” when the text is not intended to be taken literally, is to
do injustice to the passage. The
preceding verses should warn us against committing this folly with the
expression “a thousand years.” And,
again, in the same chapter: Where
would one find a literal bottomless pit?
Where would one find a literal chain adequate to bind Satan? How could Satan literally be both a
serpent and a dragon simultaneously? We
have no more need to make “a thousand years” literal than we do these other
expressions.
Indeed, we have strong textual
evidence of an even more immediate nature against even the possibility
of a literal construction. If one
accepts the contention—and we believe we have strongly vindicated it—that two
millenniums are under consideration, the post-resurrection one must, by the
very act of coming after that event, be picturing eternity under the
image of a millennium.
[Page 125] So
if the second millennium is inconceivably longer than a literal thousand
years why should the first millennium be arbitrarily limited to a mere
thousand earth years? If eternity itself
can be pictured as that long, then any extremely protracted period
of—from our human standpoint—indefinite duration can rightly be pictured the
same way. The Reign of Martyrs has now
lasted nearly two thousand years; it may end as you read this book or it may
not cease for a thousand more earth years. Either way, the symbolic usage of the
expression “thousand years” is quite adequate to cover such an extended period.
Not only are we compelled to
give up any idea of a literal thousand years if we accept
Bimillennialism, the Scriptures contain a number of cases where the symbolic
usage of the language is clearly present.
(The real challenge would be to uncover a text where, outside a
census, the number is used literally.)
A “thousand years” is used to show that
an indefinitely lengthy period of time is of no significance go God
Almighty:
For a thousand years in Your sight
are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night. You have swept them away like a flood, they
fall asleep; in the morning they are like grass which sprouts anew. In the morning it flourishes and sprouts
anew; toward evening it fades and withers away.
(Psalms 90:4-6)
But do not let this one fact escape your
notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day. The Lord
is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward
you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:8-9)
[Page 126]
“Thousand” is used non-literally as
equivalent to a huge number:
The Lord your God has multiplied you, and
behold, you are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude. May the Lord, the Lord of your fathers, increase
you a thousand-fold more than you are, and bless you, just as He has
promised you! (Deuteronomy 1:10-11)
“A
thousand-fold more” than the number of stars in the physical heavens—the size
of population they already are!
Literal in either case? Or used
as symbols of vast, “uncountable” numbers?
“For every beast of the forest is Mine; the
cattle on a thousand hills.”
(Psalms 50:10) Literally a “thousand”? Then what of the other tens of thousands of
hills in the world or even just the few (?) thousand other hills inside
geographic Palestine alone? Surely
symbolic of vast numbers rather than literal!
Even if the other man lives a thousand
years twice and does not enjoy good things—do not all go to one place? (Ecclesiastes 6:6) If he
lives for three thousand years, will it then be different? No!
The idea is clearly of a vast, “unimaginably long” lifespan. It isn’t meant as literal numbers.
[Page 127]
Hence “thousand” is used in the
sense found in regard to the two millenniums—as equivalent to unlimited,
unending, and permanent. Depending
upon textual intention it may seem to be such from our limited human
lifespans (as in the First Millennium) or literally so (as in the Second
Millennium of eternity). To provide only
two additional texts that point us in that direction:
“Know therefore that the Lord your God, He
is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His longingkindness to a thousandth
generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments.” (Deuteronomy 7:9)
Remember His covenant forever, the word
which He commanded to a thousand generations. (1 Chronicles 16:15)
Are these to be taken
literally? Does God’s love grind to a halt
at the 1,001st generation?
Does the obligation to obey God similarly cease with the
1,001st generation of humanity?
The point in both texts is that of permanency, transcending time
limitations. God’s love is unlimited in
time, unending and unceasing: it
extends, if you will, to “a thousandth generation”—to every generation both
before and after that as well. God’s
law is likewise unending and permanent.
Furthermore, note in 1 Chronicles 16:15 that “a thousand generations” is
expressly equated with “forever,” further verifying our point.
[Page 128] From
the above scriptures we amply establish the symbolic use of a “thousand” as
indicating duration so indefinitely long as equivalent to eternal—either in
comparison with our finite, highly limited lifespan or as literally so. Either approach firmly wrenches us away from
literalism for the term. Indeed, as we
are arguing both senses are used in Revelation 20: The First Millennium as something so
indefinitely long as functionally equivalent to “forever” and “eternity” and
the Second Millennium which literally is such.
2.
The Jewish interpretation of the length of Messiah’s reign.
When John spoke of the Messiah’s
reign in Revelation 20, he was not raising a subject that had never previously
been considered among Jews. Just as it
was natural to consider in what form and in what manner the Messianic
prophecies would be fulfilled, it was also natural to speculate on how long the
Messiah would rule once He came. Since
this is a subject rarely touched upon in detail, it would be useful to do so at
this point.
(As I prepared the final edit of
this volume, I uncovered some original notes on this theme that had apparently
not been included in the manuscript and placed it in a previous chapter. When I reached the current point, I
discovered that a drastically modified form including this material was already
present. Since the earlier material hit
hard on two useful points not emphasized here, I decided to leave the two
sections separate rather than merge them together.)
[Page 129]
Literally Unending
Jewish thought as it has survived in
various non-Biblical sources provide different figures for the reign of the
Messiah. In some places it describes it
as eternal. In the Psalms of Solomon
17:4 we read, “And the kingdom of our God is for ever over the nations in
judgment.”[4]
In First Enoch 62:13-14 it is said,
“And the righteous and the chosen will be saved on that day, and they will
never see the face of the sinners and the lawless from then on. And the Lord of Spirits will remain over
them, and with that Son of Man they will dwell, and eat, and lie down, and rise
up for ever and ever.”[5]
This concept seems to have been
widely popular in the first century for we read in John 12:34, “The multitude
therefore answered Him, ‘We have heard out of the Law that the Christ is to
remain forever; and how can You say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted
up’? Who is this Son of Man?”
7,000 Year Reign
The Rabbinic thought that has
survived provides an array of figures to choose from short of eternal, of which
this is the largest. “Abimi the son of R.
Abbahu learned: The days of Israel’s
Messiah shall be seven thousand years, as it is written, ‘And as the bridegroom
rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over them’ [Isaiah 62:5]”
(Sanhedrin 99).[6]
[Page 130]
Reign of Unidentified
Number of Thousands of Years
They had specifically in mind the
number of years from Genesis 1 until their own time, presumably upon the
assumption that it was most appropriate for God to bless the world in this
manner for as long as fallen mankind had ruined it previously.
“Rab Judah said in Samuel’s name:
The days of the Messiah shall endure as long as from the Creation until
now, as it is written, ‘[ . . . ] as the days of heaven upon the earth’ ”
(Sanhedrin 99).
R. Nahman b. Isaac and “said: As
long as from Noah’s days until our own, as it is written, ‘For this is as the
waters of Noah, which are mine, so I have sworn etc.’ [Isaiah 54:9]” (Sanhedrin 99).
2,000 Year Reign
A rabbi named Joshua spoke of a two
thousand year reign, according to the German commentators Strack and
Billerbeck.[7] This rabbi is dated by them as 90 A.D.,
though whether this refers to the time of his death or the center of his active
adult life is not stated. According to
Ford’s summary, the two German scholars note that “a number of rabbis about
A.D. 90 said two thousand years.”
Rabbi Kattina’s disciples took the same approach:[8]
[Page 131]
It has been taught in accordance with Rav
Kattina, Just as every seventh year is a year of sh'mittah [letting the land
lie fallow], so it is with the world: one thousand years out of seven are to be
fallow — as proved by the following three texts taken together [in which
the key word is day]: The Lord alone will be exalted in that day (Isaiah 2:11);
A psalm and song for the day of Shabbat (Psalm 92:1), meaning the day that is
entirely Shabbat; and, For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday
when it is past (Psalm 90:4). The school of Eliyahu teaches: the world exists for six thousand years —
two thousand of them tohu ["void"]; two thousand, Torah; and two
thousand, the era of the Messiah. But because of our numerous iniquities many
of these years have been lost (Sanhedrin 97a-97b).
1,000 Year Reign
Eliezer ben Hyrcanus refers to the
Messiah’s reign as of this duration.
Strack and Billerbeck provide 90 A.D. as the date for this rabbi and his
speculations.
Oddly, in contrast, we later provide quotations seemingly attributed to
the same rabbi that refer to a mere 40 year reign. Perhaps we have two different rabbis of the
same name. Adding further confusion,
some scholars deny he taught anything at all about the period![9]
[Page 132] According
to Ford, “The Samaritans entertained the belief in a temporary reign of the Taheb
(their name for the Messiah) who would restore the nation to God’s favor for a
thousand years and then would die until the time of the general resurrection.”[10]
Did
this strain of thought originate in Samaritanism or was it borrowed from
Judaism? The wide variety of Jewish
opinion on the matter would indicate that if it had such a Jewish source,
it was only one of a number of competing views available. On the other hand, to the degree that Jews
conceived of the figure as uniquely “Samaritan” to that extent their
prejudices would have caused the figure to be frowned upon within their own
community.
Some have found a thousand year
millennium implied in Second Enoch, chapters 25-33. The reasoning is that the “Enochian writer”
portrays the history of the world as seven “days” long, each apparently a
thousand years in duration. After the
final Sabbatical millennium of Messiah’s reign, eternity begins.[11]
600 Year Reign
According to Strack and Billerbeck,
this was the length of messianic rule adopted by Rabbi Dasa (180 A.D.)
[Page 133]
400 Year Reign
“R. Dosa said: Four hundred years. It is here written, ‘And they shall serve
them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years’ [Genesis 15:13]; whilst
elsewhere it is written, ‘Make us glad according to the days thou hast afflicted
us’ ” (Sanhedrin 99).
Turning to Fourth Ezra (Esdras)
7:27-33 we find the same sentiment:
(27)
And everyone who has been delivered from the evils that I have foretold
shall see my wonders. (28) For my Messiah shall be revealed with those
who are with him, and he shall make rejoice those who remain for four hundred
years. (29) And after these years my son (or: servant) the Messiah shall die, and all who
draw human breath.
(30)
And the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days,
as it was at the first beginnings; so that no one shall be left. (31)
And after seven days the world, which is not awake, shall be roused, and
that which is corruptible shall perish.
(32) And the earth shall give
back those who are asleep in it, and the dust those who rest in it; and the
treasuries shall give up the souls which have been committed to them. (33)
And the Most High shall be revealed upon the seat of judgment, and
compassion shall pass away, mercy shall be made distant, and patience shall be
withdrawn.
[Page 134]
365 Year Reign
An unidentified “Rabbi said: Three hundred and sixty-five years, even as
the days of the solar year, as it is written, ‘For the day of vengeance is in
mine heart, and the year of my redemption is come’ [Isaiah 53:4].”
In a footnote, Freedman cites a Rashi Maharsha who also spoke of the
punishment of God’s enemies lasting this length of time (Sanhedrin 99). Note that in both cases, the Messianic reign
is equated with a period of punishment for the wicked as well.
About a 100 Year Reign
An unidentified “Rabbi
said: Three generations; for it is
written, ‘They shall fear thee with the sun, and before the moon (they shall
fear thee), a generation and generations’ [Psalm 72:5]” (Sanhedrin 99). Freedman’s footnote interprets this, I
believe correctly, as intending three generations—note the singular and
plural generations; interpreted in a rabbinic style this easily creates three
generations. Defining how one defines a
generation, this can result in three generations being between 90 and 120 years
in length. Of course, the longer the
rabbi considered a generation to last—which we do not know—the longer this
period could have been.[12]
[Page 135]
70 Year Reign
“R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: Seventy years, as it is written, ‘And it
shall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years,
according to the days of one king’ [Isaiah 23:15]. Now, who is the one (uniquely distinguished)
king? The Messiah, of course” (Sanhedrin
99). This rabbi is dated 100 A.D. by
Strack and Billerbeck.
600 Year Reign
This was the figure preferred by
Rabbis Jose of Galilee (dated 110 A.D. by Strack and Billerbeck).
40 Year Reign
“R. Eliezer said: The days of the Messiah will last forty
years, as it is written, ‘Forty years long shall I take hold of the generation’
[Psalms 95:10]” (Sanhedrin 99).
Then at greater length we have
another citation from the same religious leader, “R. Eliezer said: The days of the Messiah will be forty
years. Here it is written, ‘And he
afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna’
[Deuteronomy 8:3); whilst elsewhere it is written, ‘Make us glad, according to
the days wherein thou hast afflicted us’ [Psalms 90:15” (Sanhedrin 99). Note how Rabbi Dorsa (above) used the same
“scriptural” reasoning to come to a 400 year reign by invoking the suffering in
Genesis 15:13.
[Page 136] Neither
of these two citations is included in Strack and Billerbeck’s in regard to a
forty year rule, but the name of Rabbi Akiba is and he is dated 135 A.D.
The Messianic Reign is
Past History
and Does Not Lie in the
Future
“R. Hillel said: There shall be no Messiah for Israel, because
they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah” (Sanhedrin 99). Freedman quotes a modern Jewish commentator
who suggests that Hillel may have been driven to this conclusion by the
Christian exegesis of Old Testament passages and their applying them to Jesus
of Nazareth.
We see from this collection of
quotations that Jewish opinion was very divided. It would seem fair to see in the opinion of
those who saw a relatively short (century or less) reign, individuals who
conceived of the Messiah as a strictly human figure, with a more or less
natural lifespan. When one ventures into
the citations that refer to a 400-7,000 year reign, their kind of
Messiah clearly has supernatural overtones (to say the least!) for how
else could he survive such an extended period of time?
To us today, these citations should
warn us that John was not working in a vacuum:
due to our ignorance of other Jewish sources, “the thousand years” may [Page
137] leap out at us as if it were the only
possible figure for a Messianic reign that he could have used. John utilized the figure—under Divine inspiration—because
it best fitted with the message he wished to convey: the Messiah reigns so far yet into the future
that its duration (from our modest lifespan) is as if it’s a thousand years. Twice over.
For its duration in our current cosmos is but its beginning for
an yet longer period when earth time has ceased to exist.
3.
The personal characteristics of those who reign in the First Millennium.
a.
They were “beheaded” for their faithfulness.
Revelation 20:4 tells us that John
“saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus
and because of the word of God. . . .”
These might be labeled their positive virtues: they upheld the commitment to the Lord and to
God’s word even at the cost of their lives.
Their negative virtues follow:
They refused to worship the beast and his image; they refused to be
marked by the beast.
[Page 138] Nowhere
in this short list of their creditable characteristics is there any mention of
their moral character. This
absence is not intended to imply that their martyrdom cancelled out any
character weaknesses—an erroneous assumption that gained currency a century or
so later. The New Testament is quite
clear that however brave and laudable martyrdom is, that it will not
compensate for ethical failures in life.
Paul touches on this in his famous chapter praising love, “And if I give
all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned,
but do not have love, it profits me nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:3).
Nor should the lack of any explicit
reference to their moral excellence be taken as a hint of any notable failures
in this area. Rather it is to be assumed
that because of their loyalty to Christ and to God’s law (which is
explicitly asserted) that they lived up to the moral demands of both.
Being “beheaded” was the traditional
Roman form of punishment. In fact it
might well be called a mark of (comparative) honor since being executed by the
sword was specifically reserved for Roman citizens. Of the various means of judicially ordered
death (the common crucifixion; death in the arena; etc.) John selected this
particular to make his point of the price they paid for loyalty. Indeed the unique “Romanness” of it may lie behind
its selection: The martyrs were composed
not merely of provincial “rabble;” they were composed of the kind of honorable
men that a Roman citizen was supposed to be—an unknown percentage were probably
such citizens literally.
It has been suggested—and it seems
reasonable—that “beheading” is intended as representative rather than
the exclusive means whereby these believers were executed. Indeed, why would a person beheaded
for his faith deserve a role in the Martyr Millennium while a person crucified
did not? Would it make any sense for a
man like Stephen (who was stoned) to be excluded from the class of reigners
because of the method of his death?
[Page 139] In
addition to the inherent logic of the situation, Revelation 6:9-11 should also
be considered. In that text what appears
to be the same group of martyrs is under discussion. They are pictured not in the narrower sense
of “beheaded” but in the broader sense of “slain because of the word of
God and because of the testimony which they had maintained” (6:9). Hence beheading was representative of
their manner of death rather than being the exclusive means. Martyrdom was still the result.
Other reasons for “beheading” being
specified could include such factors as the large number who were Roman
citizens who died and were entitled to such a means of execution. Also these were “citizens of the/God’s
kingdom” and they were being given a death worth of “citizens of the/Roman
kingdom.”
b.
They refused to worship the “beast” and his “image” (Verse 6).
Satan desires worship of
himself and of any entity that serves him for worshipping that is giving
honor and religious reverence to its master, Satan, as well. During the forty days of wilderness
temptation, he offered to trade Jesus “all
[Page 140] the kingdoms
of the world and their glory” . . . if He would worship him (Matthew
4:8-9). Whether Satan really had the
power to give it is really irrelevant in this context; what is of
importance is what he considered so vital to his own ego and success: being “worshiped.” The Beast in Revelation 20:4 naturally
desires and demands worship for he is the agent, representative, proxy of
Satan.
In Revelation 13, there are two
Beasts present but they both serve the same function as oppressor of the
faithful and the power of one is exercised in behalf of the other; hence
Revelation 20 can rightly speak in terms of the “Beast” singular. In actual life the “Beast” might take
multiple forms, but one ultimate evil power lay behind it and all the specific
manifestations represented arms of that Satanic original.
Of the first Beast, Revelation 13
says, “And the dragon [i.e., Satan] gave him his power and his throne and great
authority” (verse 2). This Beast in turn
passes his own Satanically originated power to the Second Beast, “And he
exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence” (verse
12a) This Beast forces the “worship [of]
the first beast” (verse 12b).
The two Beasts are normally
interpreted to refer to all religious power in the (probably unknowing) service
of the Devil and all secular/state authority that is perverted into an
instrument of demonic control. Aligned
together they seek the power that will both establish their own ends as well as
that of their master.
What was sought was not merely the “worship”
of the “beast,” but also of “his image.”
In other words, an expression of overt idolatry is sought. Just as generic man can not serve two
masters, neither can he worship two masters. Idolatry is an outward proof that the
object/person being worshipped is the wrong one.
[Page 141] It
is unlikely that literal worship of Satan’s representatives was the only
acceptable form of worshipping the “image” of the beast though it would be the
one a hostile state and polytheism would be most likely to insist upon (i.e.,
if nothing more than the proverbial pinch of incense at the emperor’s
altar). From Satan’s spiritually
perverse standpoint, giving to any person, institution, or movement the
service, dedication, and supreme loyalty that is due to God and Christ alone
would be, effectively, worshipping the “image” of the Beast.
False religion (including its
pseudo-Christian hybrids) demands just such loyalty: absolute adhere to the system, to the
religious bureaucracy even when its decrees and edicts are in such blatant
contradiction to the will of God that even the most unlearned should recognize
the discrepancy. Disguised by appeal to
its own (rather than Biblical) precedent and fleshed out in the rationalizations
of its scholarly theology.
It rests confident that it has
established both the usefulness and the necessity for the course it
demands. In its full modern arrogance it
even attempts to tell secular power “the” solution to its problems even when in
reality there is nearly always more than one path that will accomplish the
sought moral goal. Thus it does when the
political establishment is hostile to their preferred alternatives.
It does so even more enthusiastically when the current regime’s
political philosophy is in accord with what it is pleading for—and “the pedal
is put to the metal” in its most extreme form, when the political philosophy is
deemed so “right” that any inhibiting religious/moral objections are
automatically dismissed as “bigotry” and “prejudice.” Political ideology becomes the actual “soul”
of it as it fully transforms into a modern dangerous Beast and any scripture
that stands in the way is “interpreted” out of the way. When a religion has become so politicized
that it is virtually little more than the religious garb for furthering the
same religio-political agenda as the government—one hostile to the Bible--you
have the kind of situation depicted in the Apocalypse.
[Page 142] When
moral restraint is stigmatized and unrestrained sexual and behavioral excess are
glamorized as the ideal, taught as normal in the schools and public forums, and
opposition is branded as bigotry and denying others their “rights”—when such is
embraced by a political system, do we not have a Satanic political Beast
in existence? When such is rationalized,
embraced, and praised by religious leaders and denominational church
institutions, do we not have a religious Beast in existence? Both opposed to the teachings and
power of Jesus and the Father—both in service to the Satan who furthers their
base distortions, misrepresentations, and (sometimes) outright lies?
What John has in mind is a parallel situation in which secular and
religious power have both come down hard in suppression and persecution
of the moral dissenters. Via the “mark
of the beast”—demanding words and behavior supporting their agenda—the effort
is made to economically crush them: “he provides that no one will be able
to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name”
(13:17). The determination that the
anti-Christian Beast(s) will win at all costs is taken to its logical
outcome: to the point of even
exterminating those who refuse to yield their scruples.
c.
They refused to accept the mark of the beast (Verse 4).
[Page 143]
They “had not received the mark upon
their forehead and upon their hand . . .” (verse 4). Why these two “physical” locations? On the more “literal” level, one thing they
share in common is their visibility:
in other words, others could personally observe whether someone
bore the demanded mark.
On a more metaphorical level, it would surely be that the “forehead”
has reference to the impact of the one doing the marking upon one’s intellect,
thinking, and reasoning. The Beast
wants to transform you into its moral image and to assure that its depraving
“standards” are so deeply embedded in the thinking that you will not be able to
comprehend how anyone could possibly think differently. And a thick wall is erected against you ever
being convinced otherwise.
The reference to the hand would then refer to the Beast’s impact upon behavior
and conduct. For example: If “there’s nothing wrong with it,” why aren’t
you doing it? Or at least encouraging
those whose predilections are already in that direction? We humans are creatures of habit. If our habits habitually encourage the worst
aspects of our nature, we create a “behavioral narcotic” that assures we will continue
acting that way.
The two are never totally independent:
How we think reinforces behavior and how we act shapes our
thinking. We inevitably try to bring the
two into accord to reduce and eliminate anxiety and contradiction.
The observer can detect our sentiments by what we say or by our
behavior. By adopting the Beast’s
standards and conduct, we pattern ourselves after the model of Evil and not of
good.
[Page 144] Refusing
the Beast’s mark went hand-in-hand with rejecting worship of the Beast. An individual did both or did neither. Revelation 13 records these demands being
made:
And I saw another beast coming up out of
the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon. And he exercises all the authority of the
first beast in his presence. And he
makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose
fatal wound was healed.
And he performs great signs, so that he
even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of
men. And he deceives those who
dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in
the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an
image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life.
And there was given to him to give breath
to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast might even speak and cause
as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. And he causes all, the small and the
great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be
given a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead, and he provides
that no one should be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark,
either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the
number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six
hundred and sixty-six. (Verses
11-18)
Refusal to worship the Beast and the
image are the official reason for the [Page 145] death of the Christians (verse 15). But if, somehow, this edict should be
frustrated, the oppressor has another arrow in his bow: prohibiting all economic activity—either
buying or selling—by those who refuse to wear the mark (verse 17). This would prevent the believers in Christ
from being able to economically support themselves and their families; it would
starve them to death by prohibiting others from selling them even food and the
other basic necessities of life.
Economic strangulation and starvation and the resulting death would be
the bitter fruit of the policy—if successfully carried out.
In other words, martyrdom would
still be the outcome. Or, for that
matter, the unsuccessful boycotting could be assumed to lead to the
execution. Either way, one dies for
one’s faith.
Christians were easily subject to
both dangers: It was (at best) a
borderline “cult” and, at worst, an explicitly illegal religion. So long as Christianity appeared to the
authorities as a mere variety of Judaism, it enjoyed de facto protection due to
the special status of that faith. As it
grew more numerous, the Gentile proportion of the church became numerically
large and then dominant, outsider Gentiles became increasingly aware of not
only the similarities but also the profound differences between the two
movements. As the result, it inevitably
became recognized not as a tolerable sect of Judaism, but as a competitor
to it.
Thereby it stood stark naked before the Roman legal system. With no official protection, with no
recognition, all the anger at monotheism that could not legally be inflicted
upon the hated Jews could be poured out upon the Christians.
[Page 146] In
the first century, the Empire did not normally go out of its way to encourage
overt repression of a any illegal “sect,” including Christianity. The greatest danger lay not in an empire-wide
persecution, but in local pogroms stirred up by either Jewish or pagan
adversaries; Christianity’s perilous legal status could easily be used to
accomplish what argumentation could not.
Such legal and/or mob violence could be unleashed at any hour of any
day, given the right set of local conditions.
Hence the threat of persecution and death hung over every Christian—not necessarily
as happening right now, but as a storm cloud in the distance that might
(or might not) be moving in their direction.
They also faced potential economic strangulation. If the pagan merchants refused to sell or buy
from Christian merchants, they could be put out of business. Overt government action would not even be
necessary; just the ruthless boycott of those daring to be faithful to God in a
faithless age.
Indeed, even the “neutrality” of the government in doing nothing to
protect the believers could be interpreted by the persecuting element as
constituting implicit approval of their own destructive actions. If a defense (besides economic self-interest)
were required, one lay readily at hand:
they were only doing what the government should be doing to protect them
against such an “illegal” group of religious “extremists.”
Hence guild or large scale individual reaction by outraged pagans could
accomplish the task of making life difficult or impossible for converts to the
new faith. If Christian merchants
were obviously in an exposed position, to a lesser degree was any and all believers. Regardless of the occupation or social
position, if his economic welfare were in any way subject to business dealings
with outsiders he was subject to potential retaliation—which would cover just
about all Christians.
[Page 147] By
refusal to partake in immoral and idolatrous practices connected with their
society and business guilds, they would stand out like a sore thumb. A modest number of zealous idolators (or
outraged ultra-orthodox Jews of the day) and the economic screws could be turned
tight. And then violence.
These independent mob actions might well gain a certain “legality” in
the public eye by the intentional non-action by the local government: “Silence is consent,” is a handy euphemism
for “you do the dirty work while I get to play innocent.”
But what we have specifically in mind in Revelation 13:17 is something
far above and beyond this: the text
presents the economic embargo as not merely accepted by the government, but at
least, at that particular point in time, as both initiated and required by
the government. Explicit legislation
or decrees could be under discussion; however the advocate of such measures
could just as well argue that such local
actions were implicitly authorized by any laws that supported the
suppression of an illegal religion.
The nature of the “authority” authorizing the economic repression
would, in part at least, hinge upon what geographic area John has in mind and
the length of time he assumes the policy is carried out. The larger the area and the longer the
duration, the more likely for some type of explicit government support of the suppression.
Of course de facto law—custom as expected and customary to
follow—would have the same result as specific legislation. And the Roman legal structure of punishment
was of such a nature that the latter would seem, inherently, far more probable
to have in mind.
[Page 148] The
“mark” that was required would symbolize whatever un-Christian religious or
moral practices—adultery, ritual prostitution, drunk partying, offering incense
at a pagan altar, etc.—whereby the pagan would recognize a spiritual
compatriot. By refusing to practice the
immoralities and idolatries of a decayed society, the Christian would
“visibly” manifest the lack of the
mark.
The pagan would see one friend go into a brothel; he would see another
stoned drunk at a business guild party; he would see a third worshipping an
idol. In a hundred and one small and
major ways, he could deduce from the behavior of others that they were fellow
pagans. But the manifest lack of
such conduct would “expose” the Christian by his or her abstinence; the moral
restraint would become the very grounds for condemnation.
The same, we might add, is also true today.
d. Their “souls” do the
reigning.
In our four comparisons between the
two millenniums we stressed the fact that the reigning parties are identified
as “souls” in verse 4 while those who partake of the Millennium of Eternity
enter that realm via resurrection (verses 5-6). The specification of “souls” is
normally sufficient to indicate that the part of us that survives death is
under consideration, especially when it is contrasted with a resurrection in
the following verses.
[Page 149] Although
not conclusive in itself, the “normal usage” is just that—the typical, the
traditional, the standard. Any
divergency from that usage shifts the burden of proof to the individual who
claims that a particular text manifests such a departure. Statistically, a “spiritual” (rather than materialistic)
meaning for the word is not just dominant but overwhelming.
George L. Murray performed such an
analysis and came up with this conclusion, “The Greek word translated ‘souls’
is psueke; and while used in one hundred and five places in the New Testament,
there are only five places in which it can possibly have reference to the body,
and some of these five are debatable.”[13]
An
early twentieth century writer ably points out a major additional difficulty of
equating the term “souls” with living beings in physical bodies:[14]
The gloss that souls stand for persons, as
the seventy souls in the house of Jacob, and the two hundred and seventy-six
souls with Paul in the ship, stand for so many persons, is wholly inadmissible
[in this context]. If he had simply said
“souls,” without any qualifying word, the explanation might stand. But “souls of beheaded people” would
hardly mean the people themselves any more than the head or limbs of beheaded
people would mean the living people.
Herman
Hoeksema points out that whenever “souls” is used in the Bible as equivalent to
a physically embodied human being,[15]
[Page 150]
uniformly a numeral is used in connection with it. . . . Seventy souls came with Jacob into Egypt
(Genesis 46:27). Eight souls were in the
ark (1 Peter 3:20). Three thousand souls
were added to the church (Acts 2:41).
Two hundred seventy-six souls were in the ship (Acts 27:37). But in Revelation 20:4 we simply read, “And I
saw the souls.”
Even here one might suspect that the
term is used not because physical bodies are strictly equivalent to “souls” but
because each human body has a soul embodied within. Body count is not what is important, but the soul
count.
It is sometimes objected that
however appealing such reasoning as that of Hoeksema may be, in itself, these
“souls” are identified as wearing clothes (Revelation 6:11); hence they must be
in (an earthly sense) bodily form. This
text is well worth consideration since it not only represents commentary on the
nature of the “souls” but seems to concern the identical group of souls:
And when He broke the fifth seal, I saw
underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of
the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and
they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true,
wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the
earth?” And there was given to each of
them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little
while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who
were to be killed even as they had been, should be completed also. (Revelation 6:9-11)
[Page 151]
If in their state as “souls” they
were wearing literal clothes (verse 11) were they also walking
around and even verbally communicating as in the text (!) without anything
above their shoulders? If they are
the same group as in Revelation 20:4—and it must be if the “embodied soul”
argument is to hold up and if we are to avoid there being two different
sets of righteous deceased envolved—then they had been beheaded!
Whatever “embodiment” they may have,
it is not in the kind of body promised in 1 Corinthians 15. That is for eternity and not
before. And whatever kind of “embodiment”
there is in the interim until then—and the story of the beggar Lazarus surely
argues there is some kind—it can’t be parallel to that which we have
here and which is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15.
Furthermore, in chapter six they are
described as if literally beneath the altar (verse 9), like sacrificed
animals under the Old Testament? How
much literalism will be dare force on this image?
Consider this thought: how could you picture post-death
“souls” as if they were doing something—anything—without using bodily
imagery? To picture action we have to
supply the imagery of bodies for it to make sense; we know of no other
manner for real activity to occur. We
have no precedent in real life.
In regard to spiritual matters we
recognize there are severe limitations on how far symbolism represents the
objective reality. God is repeatedly
presented in anthromorphic terms, yet only extreme sectarian groups teach that
the Father possesses an actual body of flesh and blood. Yet being in such bodies ourselves—and having
no experience of anything else—we mentally require such imagery in order
to communicate the idea of genuine existence and real activity.
[Page 152] The
Revelation text adopts such terminology so that we can obtain the necessary images
of authentic events occurring yet it warns us against naïve literalism by
filling chapter twenty with imagery that cries out figurative: Can we imagine a literal chain holding Satan
in the other realm of reality? A literal
dragon? And if we can make our way
through those, does anyone really want to tackle what a bottomless pit
looks like?
To repeat ourselves: If we equate the “soul” with the “inner
person,” how else can we conceive of that soul when separate from the
body except in images that at least partially reflect what we see and
experience in the here and now? i.e.,
the soul acting within an outer “shell” of a “body” of some sort.
Yet the fact that we have the soul “in” the current physical body also argues
that we must be extremely cautious in adopting any strictly “physical”
existence of a soul when separated from the body. We simply don’t have precedents from our life
experience—and that of others—to work from.
4. Do more than just martyrs reign in the
First Millennium or are they representative
of all who stay faithful until death?
[Page 153]
Consider carefully the description
provided in Revelation 20:4 of those who reign:
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them,
and judgment was given to them. And I
saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus
and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or
his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life and
reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
So far we have tried to consistently
refer to these reigners as simply “martyrs.”
It should be recognized, however, that there are responsible
interpreters who are convinced that two categories of Christians are
under consideration: real martyrs
and the broader category of faithful Christians who did not pay that
ultimate price for their loyalty and steadfastness. They do this by dividing the text after “the
word of God,” accomplishing this result:
Martyrs: “Those who
had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of
God.”
Confessors/faithful
Christians who had not paid the price of death: “And those who had not worshiped the beast or
his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their
hand.”
[Page 154]
This approach has the advantage of
placing all Christians of the time at the same place, with the same
reward. Since they were all potentially
subject to the same death sentence, this would be extremely appropriate. Those who aren’t martyrs are all potential
ones.
On the other hand, we have two “ands:”
“and those who had not worshiped,” indicating the broader group
of Christians. But then what of “and
had not received the mark”? Are two
groups of non-martyrs under consideration?
How far do the “ands” disintegrate the text into separate groups or are
they intended to do so at all?
On behalf of the all explicit martyrs scenario, Revelation 6:9 may
prove helpful. There we read that those
being discussed were “the souls of those who had been slain because of the word
of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained.” Here it is hard to see what the “and”
introduces other than a description of the same group of people.
However the “and” functions in 20:4, in 6:9 it clearly sets up an
additional description of the same disciples.
However, there is also evidence for including both explicit martyrs and
those suffering sanctions for being believers as lumped together in the
same group in chapter 13. After all, Satan
was (and is) an opportunist and is willing to use whatever tool is
available. Hence he used government
sanctioned killing (13:15) but in addition he was quite prepared to
utilize economic destruction as well (13:16-17), i.e., to kill them by other
means than directly ordered death. To
make conditions so miserable for them that, with good fortune—from Satan’s
standpoint--they would ultimately die as well.
Both groups are, in effect, actual or potential martyrs for their faith.
[Page 155] Of
course we can also take the approach that the death sanction comes to all those
who survive the economic sanction—when that has failed to work. Either way they all seem to clearly belong in
the “martyr” category, do they not?
5.
Where do the martyrs reign: on
earth or in heaven?
Both the earthly and heavenly
scenarios have their strengths and difficulties. Either one, however, is compatible with our
assertion that all Christians living since the first century have lived within
the period of the First Millennium. The
interpretive options would include:
·
We could either say that martyrs reign exclusively in
the next world . . .
·
Or we could assert that the martyrs reign on earth as part of the general
Christian reign, while coming into their special and unique reign responsibilities and duties only after
suffering death for their faith . . .
·
Or we could argue
that all faithful Christians both reign in the current world and in the
next because they are all potential
martyrs.
[Page 156]
Whatever approach one embraces, the need is to accept both
strains of Bible thought—current earthly reigning and post-death
reigning--and unite them into one scenario rather than build a system of
interpretation solely around one theme alone.
a.
The heavenly scenario.
Perhaps the two strongest arguments
in this direction are (1) it is their
“souls” that are reigning, imagery that best fits with occurring after
their earthly demise. (2) They were beheaded and yet were
reigning. Those who have already
been beheaded aren’t going to be “reigning” in any sense involving actual
behavior and actions on this earth are they? The description is fully consistent with them
being rewarded in the next life rather than this one.
Also pointing in the same direction
is the fact that the martyrs are pictured as with Christ. As Bengel argues it, “They shall be with
Christ (verse 6), and with God (verse 6), not Christ and God with them. Therefore that kingdom will be in heaven.”[16]
The text Bengel quotes is verse 6,
which refers to the Second Millennium rather than the First. The same fact, though, can be found in verse
4 where it is the dead martyrs who “came to life and reigned with Christ for a
thousand years.” Again, “they shall be
with Christ . . . not Christ with them.”
[Page 157] Yet
on the other hand, the scriptures picture us as symbolically /
metaphorically with Christ already
due to our conversion:
But God, being rich in mercy, because of
His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our
transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been
saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:4-6)
Hence, in this type of imagery, being
“with Christ” would not require us to be there “physically.” A “physical” presence is not required for
reigning in this sense for it speaks not only of being “with Him” but
also of being “in Christ Jesus” as well.
Consider:
(1)
Both millenniums in Revelation occur after human death—not while
still alive, as in this Ephesians text.
Hence something significantly different must be under discussion. (Caveat:
This assumes that the vast bulk of Christians that are in the Second
Millennium via resurrection will far outnumber those currently alive at that
event.)
(2)
In this passage we are simultaneously on earth, alive while simultaneously being “with” and “in” Him
in heaven. In Revelation it is after
death, period.
[Page 158] We
rule with Him in heaven now because we are “in Christ Jesus” and
since He is in heaven, we are there with Him while He reigns. Hence we can be described as reigning in
heaven because our Lord—of which we are part—is already there and in
power. It is not because we personally
and individually are literally there.
Another major argument that in the
Martyr Millennium the martyrs do their reigning in heaven itself is based upon
the fact that they are pictured as being on “thrones.” Eugene C. Caldwell argues the significance of
this from two different perspectives.
First, he contends that this approach best fits the use of the term
throughout the Apocalypse:[17]
The word “throne” occurs 45 times in
Revelation and in all but two passages the throne is in heaven. The two exceptions are 2:13 and 16:10, where
we have the throne of Satan and the throne of the beast, referring to Pergamum
as the centre of Caesar worship in the province of Asia. Deducting these two, we have 43 “throne” texts,
of which we know that 42 refer to a throne in heaven. Hence it is highly probable that the 43rd
text, in 20:4, relates to the martyrs and confessors enthroned in heaven.
Having examined the question from a book-wide
approach, Caldwell next suggests that the same result is produced by a
concentration on chapter twenty by itself:[18]
In this very 20th chapter we
have three references to a throne. In
verse 11 we read, “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, [Page
159] from whose face the earth and the
heaven fled away.” In verse 12 we read,
“And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne: and the books were opened, which is the book
of life: and the dead were judged out of
the things that were written in the books, according to their works.”
In these two passages the reference is to a
throne in heaven. Hence we infer that in
the third passage also (verse 4) the thrones on which the martyrs sit are in
heaven and not on earth.
Of all the texts that mention the
“throne” in Revelation several explicitly and the remainder implicitly indicate
that it is in heaven. Nor does it profit
to contend that he is speaking of “throne” singular while Revelation 20:4 is
speaking of “thrones” (plural). The
plural is used twice:
Revelation 4:4: Around the throne were twenty-four thrones;
and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white
garments, and golden crowns on their head.
Revelation 11:16: And the twenty four elders who sit on their thrones
before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God.
Revelation 11:1-4 makes plain that
these “thrones” (plural) are in heaven as well:
[Page 160]
(11:1)
After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had
heard, like the sound of a trumpet
speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place
after these things.” (20:2) Immediately
I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne was standing in heaven, and
One sitting on the throne. (3) And He
who was sitting was like a
jasper stone and a sardius in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, like an emerald in
appearance. (4) Around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting,
clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.
So both the Divine “throne” and the
Divinely given “thrones” are in heaven.
Only the Satanic or Satanically given throne are placed on earth.
Finally, we know that this is a reign of martyrs and that in the
previous references to martyrs being alive they are pictured as with God
(i.e., in “heaven”). In Revelation
6:9-11 they are pictured as “souls” whose bodies had been martyred for the
faith (verse 9), that is killed (verse 11):
(6:9) And when he broke the fifth seal I
saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because
of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;
(6:10) and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy
and true, wilt thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those
who dwell on the earth?” (6:11)
And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they
should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow
servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, should be completed also.
[Page 161]
Note the contrast between when they
are where their persecutors are and when they are not: the manslaughters were “on the earth” while
they are in the presence of God which such folk are excluded from.
On a different theme raised by the verse, it would be only a “little
while longer” before “the Lord” would “judge and avenge” their persecutors “on
the earth” (i.e., on this side of the final judgment). It has been suggested that in Revelation 20,
the martyrs themselves carry out this task.
Although this may be true, that particular text does not directly assert
it and Revelation 6 only attributes it to God Himself.
The “judging and avenging” under discussion lay, chronologically,
only “a little while longer” in the future.
It is not the reign of the martyrs that lay in the future, but
God striking out against those who had made them martyrs. Nor could one properly resort to this text to
prove that “a little while” can last the “thousand years” of Revelation
20. Indeed, in the latter passage, a
synonymous term (“a short time”) is contrasted with “a thousand years”
(20:3).
But
now we start shifting to evidence that would point to the heavenly aspect of
the martyrs’ reign as continuing a status they already had in
this current world. Which would argue
that the evidence we have examined only describes part of a more complex
reality.
[Page 162]
Revelation 7 and
Where the Reign of Martyrs
Takes Place
As to the location of the martyrs/reigners in chapter 20, we are
provided evidence from Revelation 7:13-17, where they are portrayed as
worshipping God in His heavenly temple:
And one of the elders answered, saying to
me, “These who are clothed in the white robes who are they, and from where have
they come?” And I said to him, “My lord,
you know.” And he said to me, “These are
the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their
robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. For this reason, they are before the
throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and
He who sits on the throne shall spread His tabernacle over them. They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any
more; neither shall the sun beat down on them, nor any heat; for the Lamb in
the center of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall guide them to
springs of the water of life; and God shall wipe every tear from their
eyes.
Although describing the martyrs in
heaven, there seem undeniable allusions to their spiritual condition while on
earth as well—to things that either entirely occurred
on this side of eternity or which began in this current world and continued into
the next. In the former category
is that they had “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the
Lamb.” This was done prior to their
death, at their conversion:
[Page 163]
For if the blood of goats and the ashes of
a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of
the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the
eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:13-14)
The shed blood continues to
cleanse throughout one’s life as a loyal disciple, “But if we walk in the light
as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood
of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.”
(1 John 1:7)
The concept behind “washing” one’s robes and being made white in
Christ’s blood is clearly implied.
Revelation 22:14 goes a step further and applies not just the idea but
the actual phrase “wash their robes” to those then alive in the first
century, “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the
right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates in the city.”
The washing of the robes through faith--and a changed intellectual
orientation that puts God first—and persistent moral behavior as well—none of
these wait until death; they occur in this life if at all. “For this reason” (verse 15)—i.e., their
being washed in the blood of Christ and remaining faithful in spite of facing
death—“they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in
His temple. . . .”
[Page 164]
A second
allusion, this time to something heavenly that had already begun to
occur while alive on earth, is found in the reference to the fact that “the
Lamb in the center of the throne shall be their shepherd.” For His earthly followers, Jesus already
functions in that role; it does not wait until death to begin:
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd
lays down his life for the sheep. . . .
I am the good shepherd; and I know my own, and My own know Me, even as
the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And I have other sheep which are not of this
fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice; and they shall
become one flock with one shepherd.”
(John 10:11, 14-16)
Now the God of peace, who brought up from
the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal
covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will. .
. . (Hebrews 13:20-21)
For you were continually straying like
sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your
souls. (1 Peter 2:25)
A third
major allusion to something happening in the after-life existence that
is duplicated current life lies in the fact that “the Lamb . . . shall guide
them to springs of the water of life.
Jesus develops the same idea when He speaks to the Samaritan woman of
the “living water” that produces “eternal life:”
[Page 165]
Jesus answered and said to her, “If you
knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you
would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to
draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get the living water? You are not greater than our father Jacob,
are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself, and his cattle?”
Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone
who drinks of this water shall thirst again; but whoever drinks of the water
that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him
shall become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” (John 4:10-14)
Since it would produce or result in
“eternal life,” this “living water” was something accessible and available in
the current life of that woman at the well; they did not have to wait
for death to receive it.
A fourth
allusion to a heavenly phenomena that is also duplicated on earth is the
promise that they would not “thirst any more.”
In John 4, which we just quoted, Jesus gave the woman that very pledge,
“But whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst
. . .” (John 4:14).
[Page 166] Is
it likely that this one element was fulfilled in this life, but not the
closely related promises as well? I.e.,
“They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun beat
down on them, nor any heat” (Revelation 7:16).
The fulfillment of one argues for the accomplishment of all of
them. Indeed, spiritual hunger is
satisfied in this life; the spiritual thirst that indwells all human beings is
fully satisfied; all the spiritual discouragements that have come our way—the
“sun” and “heat” of earthly discouragements—is wiped away as if it had never
happened through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Heaven on earth? Of course not. But what about a heavenly satisfaction on
earth?
It is hard to reach any other conclusion than that these (or similar)
references are intended to come to our mind as we read Revelation
seven. It might be tempting to say, therefore, that these verses are a
conscious “projection” into a heavenly setting of the spiritual blessings of
Christians in the present world. Or
that the earthly references are a “projection” backwards from the heavenly
realm into the current world.
But the most accurate way to say it would seem to be: the
parallels are present not because of “projection” but because what begins
on earth only blossoms into full bloom and development in heaven. In other words, it isn’t a matter of choosing
either/or, but to recognize completion and maturity in heaven in matters that,
so to speak, are only foreshadowed on earth.
There we have the master portrait fully completed; comparatively
speaking, what happens on earth is only an introductory sketch. To use the language of Paul, though from a
much different context, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to
face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been
fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12).
[Page 167]
Furthermore of the four allusions to earthly events found in Revelation
7, only one had to take place exclusively on earth and that was
the securing of salvation through being washed in the blood of Christ (verse
14). Indeed verse 15 indicates that what
happens in heaven only begins at that point: Because of what they had done and endured on
earth (note the “for this reason”), they now served God in the heavenly
temple.
As to the other three examples, there is no inherent reason why they
would not represent phenomena found both in heaven and on
earth. We would expect Jesus to
act as Shepherd in both for He was and remains their leader. We would expect Him to guide them to
true “springs of life” in both places for He is passionately interested in
their welfare.
This is the key to the presence of such phenomena on both sides of the
earth time/eternity barrier: Christ
plays a similar role and function in such matters both on earth and in the afterlife. There is nothing unique to either
location in such actions.
Finally, as to the “earthlizing” of the reference to not “thirst[ing]
any more” by Jesus using such language to the Samaritan lady, the words were
clearly figurative in nature: that well
in front of them was not going to give her that “living water” that
would produce that result. But the
earthly “well”—Jesus—did stand in front of her and His teaching could provide it to her. Note the two symbolic usages of
language in the same passage. Literal
images were being used to portray spiritual truths.
[Page 168] Those
images were relevant in both earthly and heavenly contexts. In its heavenly context such imagery serves
to promise us a perfect relief from the hurts and aggravations of our
temporal/this world living. In its
earthly context it promises us an earthly introduction to blessings that will
be brought to completion only after our passing on to the next world.
Hence the language is germane to both locations—heaven and
earth—and therefore the use of it does nothing to exclude the application of it
to the other place.
b.
The earthly scenario.
Some of these evidences we have
already discussed. The strongest
evidence in its favor can be found in the fact that Christians are discussed as
if now/currently reigning with the Lord (see our discussion in the
following section). If our reign is
currently going on, then it is quite literally true that we are reigning “on
the earth”—this earth, at this time, though not in the carnal
literalistic fashion millennial expectation attributes to the reign of
Revelation 20.
This would not require the conclusion that it is entirely carried
out on earth; there would remain plenty of room for the martyrs to continue
whatever new special role God has assigned them in heaven. Or for the current earthly reign to be for all
believers while the martyrs enter into their special reigning role only upon death, fulfilling whatever
special role that has been assigned by God to them in Heaven.
[Page 169] The
strongest evidence against the reign being in heaven comes from the fact
(seen earlier in our book) that the Bible describes the faithful believer as
going to the Hadean world at death—NOT to
heaven. Yet the arguments we have examined hinge upon
the “proof texts” referring to heaven itself.
How can they do so if believers don’t enter there until after the
resurrection?
One way around this difficulty would
be to contend that for martyrs in particular God makes a special
exception. Having given that much
. . . their very lives . . . an exceptional reception into the next world would
seem quite appropriate—which doesn’t prove that it happens, only that it would
not be illogical in any way. If one goes
this route, one has to strongly insist that this group of reigners is composed only
of actual martyrs rather than including potential ones as
well. If one does not, one lands up with
no believers going to the Hadean world at all.
(One could argue that this
was true of the early generation(s) of Christians, but not of later ones. But that introduces difficulties also.)
Another approach would be to make the abode of the righteous in the
Hadean world Heaven itself.
However if this equating on the reward side is correct, we would
naturally expect an equating of Hadean punishment with the final Hell
(Gehenna) itself. Yet Revelation 20
distinguishes between the two places of punishment:
And death and Hades were thrown into
the lake of fire. This is the second
death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s
name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of
fire. (Verses 14-15)
[Page 170] (There would also be the significant problem
that if the Hadean world is conceived of as including Heaven and if
Hades, as our text says, is “thrown into the lake of fire,” that Heaven itself
is destroyed.)
As to objections to the earthly
reign scenario, we have already examined two of them in the previous section
and briefly examined ways of reconciling the text with a this-world-today
millennium. Also the fact that “souls”
are reigning would be interpreted to stress the spiritual nature of
Christ’s kingdom rather than the absence of physical bodies.
The fact that they are all pictured as martyrs is not contrary to the
reality of what happens in the world, for so long as sin permeates the life of
man, all believers are potential martyrs. Hence the depiction as a Reign of
Martyrs. Only good fortune, the accident
of time and place, and God’s blessing stand between a believer and such a
death.
In our judgment, such reasoning remains inadequate to justify
converting the Martyr Millennium to a strictly temporal basis.
The strongest objection lies in the internal chronology of the
reign,
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them,
and judgment was given to them. And I
saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus
and because of the word of God, and those who had not [Page 171] worshipped the beast or his image, and had
not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to
life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (Revelation 20:4)
Note that they were beheaded and then
entered the “heavenly” reign by being brought to life. This fits the individual martyr entering the
reign upon his execution, but if it refers to this life what is the
“beheading” the Christian goes through first? It can’t be conversion for this is certainly
not a punishment inflicted upon the believer! Can we have them reigning before they’ve met
the prerequisite for reigning—martrydom?
In all fairness, the text could be read to mean that martyrdom did
not stop them from continuing to
reign—this time in Heaven. We have
“read” the text as one traditionally does and made our argument based on
it. But we could argue that this would
be the superior way to approach the passage:
The verse actually—read it closely--does not introduce them as
martyrs and then mention them reigning.
Only after they are described as setting on “thrones” is the
subject of how they got there introduced—their execution for being faithful to
Christ.
This would be quite amenable to the construction that they are already reigning before
they were murdered. The point would be
that their execution had not stopped their reign; rather they were returned “to
life” and continued what they had already begun. But in a new place with new responsibilities.
This ties into a neat package two seemingly demonstrable facts: (1)
Christians are described as if reigning in the current life, prior to
death (see the next section for additional discussion of the evidence);
(2) the martyrs are represented as
reigning in heaven. Accept both assertions
and one could have this situation:
the Martyrs, indeed, reign in heaven, but while in their flesh and blood
bodies they joined with all other faithful Christians in reigning upon the
earth.
[Page 172] Neither
reign would match the traditional picture of millennial speculation, but they do
match the demands of the various Biblical texts. In heaven, it is currently a reign of
martyrs; on earth it is a reign of believers in general.
6.
The reward received by the martyrs.
a.
They sat on “thrones” / they “reigned with Christ.”
Continually, this is placed as
occurring in Heaven. The martyrs
participate with Jesus in His reign, being present on “thrones.” The nature of their duties and obligations are
not discussed except in the immediately following reference to the fact that
“judgment was given them.” Whether there
are any other functions is not stated and is really irrelevant; John isn’t
trying to provide all the details of this heavenly reward; he is simply
trying to picture for the reader its essence, its honor, and its glory in a few
short penstrokes.
[Page 173] That
the martyrs “reign” with Jesus is a logical outgrowth of two Bible
techings: (1) that Christians reign in the here and now
with or through Jesus and (2) that they will continue to reign in heaven. Hence one would not be surprised that in this
special reward the martyrs receive in Revelation 20, that they continue--in
a presumably dramatically enhanced form--of what they already were doing
and would continue to do in eternity.
Believers in general are presented
as having the power and authority that can be fairly described by the terms
“reigning” and “sitting on thrones:”
So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether
Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or
things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and
Christ belongs to God. (1 Corinthians
3:21-23)
Revelation 5:10 may be a
direct textual assertion that believers are currently reigning on earth:
And Thou has made them to be a kingdom and
priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.
[Page 174] The
key here is the “will”—does it belong in the text? Normally it is placed there. The ESV, God’s Word, Holman, ISV, NASB, NIV,
NKJV reflect this dominant approach.
Those omitting the “will” include
the American Standard, the English Revised, and the World English Bibles. As the Weymouth New Testament words it, with
the omission: “And hast formed them into
a Kingdom to be priests to our God, and they reign over the earth.”
A commentator who does not
believe that “John is here referring to a present spiritual reign of
believers,” concedes that, “Textual evidence is rather evenly divided
between ‘they reign’ (ASV) and “they shall reign’ (RSV), although the latter is
favored both by the Nestle text (25th edition) and the United Bible
Society text (3rd edition).”[19]
The text assures us three facts about believers and the internal logic
of the text argues for a this current world application:
* He made them a “kingdom”—Already FULFILED according to 1:13 itself which
refers to them as such a kingdom already: “have made them to be a
kingdom.” Other texts refer to this
as well: “For He rescued us from the
domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved
Son” (Colossians 1:13).
* He made them “priests”—Already FULFILLED according to 1:13 itself, which
describes them as having been made “a kingdom and priests to our
God.” Other texts refer to this as
well: “you also, as living stones,
are [Page 175] being built up as a
spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).
* He gave them a “reign upon the earth—After the other two FULFILLED items, would one not expect this
to be in the same time frame as well? Furthermore if they were already a
“kingdom”—both Revelation and Colossians above us tells us that they
were—wouldn’t it be incongruous if they weren’t also reigning in it in
some meaningful sense? At this point
aren’t we teetering at the edge of necessary
inference? (If not clearly
crossing over.)
Hence the “will” seems inherently
unlikely to be intended—unless we read it as implicitly carrying the message of
“they will continue to reign upon the
earth”--and in light of a divided textual tradition there is no necessity to
insert it in the present passage.
Believers are even painted as, in a sense, currently reigning in
heaven: they are said to be “seated”
with Christ (i.e., on His heavenly throne) by virtue of their conversion:
Even when we were dead in our
transgression, He made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been
saved), and raised up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly
places in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians
2:5-6).
Faced with such imagery of ruling
with Christ, is it any surprise that the martyrs are pictured in heaven as
unquestionably and explicitly reigning?
If their earthly status as believers carried at least serious overtones
of such status, would one not anticipate it being made definite, clear-cut
reality when it came time to enter heaven?
[Page 176] If
one wishes to consider the current “earthly” reign of believers as the
preliminary stage for completion of the Martyr Millennium in heaven . . . followed
afterwards by Jesus’ return to gather His people and inaugurate a heavenly and
eternal Second Millennium of all the Triumphant Saints, feel free to do
so. As to the reality of Bimennialism
this has no impact at all; it simply concerns the shading with which the few
details we are given are filled in. In
other words, we have been shown the framework, but nothing more . . .
leaving what the details will be a matter of speculation such as we have been
engaged in.
Of this we can be certain—all
believers and not merely martyrs—will play a similar role of “reigning:”
If we endure, we shall also reign with
Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us. (2 Timothy 2:12)
“He who overcomes, I will grant to him to
sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My
Father on His throne.” (Revelation
3:21)
(We have interpreted these as they
traditionally are—which is the approach that, indeed, seems the best. Yet perhaps we should ponder just a little
longer: Could not both texts fairly be
said to carry the overtone of not just faithfulness to death but to martyrdom
as well? And if that be the case,
might the reference be specifically to the Reign of Martyrs in particular? But since that element is not explicitly
introduced, we seem to have simply a promise of a place in Heaven regardless
of how we die—so long as we are faithful—a pledge that could equally well
be fulfilled in either Millennium.)
[Page 177]
Other Possible Evidence
of a Current Reign of
Believers
From considering Christians at
large, it would be useful to turn to that inner core of leadership which
Jesus left in the early church. From the
example of the apostles, we have evidence that at least for them the
Christian function of “ruling” and “judging” began in the first century. (In the apostolic earthly sense, judging
carries with it an even stronger corollary:
that of being lawmakers, i.e., that of being inspired to reveal
Divine law, of making definitive Divinely backed judgments as to what is
right and wrong and desirable versus undesirable [John 15:13-15]). The apostles were concerned with their status
as followers of Christ and Jesus responded by referring to this blessing:
Then Peter answered and said to Him,
“Behold, we have left everything and followed You: what then will there be for us?” And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you,
that you who have followed me, 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.”
(Matthew 19:27-28)
[Page 178]
The “regeneration” refers to the
salvation that is available in the Christian dispensation:
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds
which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing
of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5; cf. the similar concept—but not
the word “regeneration” in 2 Corinthians 5:17:
“Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things
passed away; behold, new things have come.”)
Hence they began to reign with
Christ after the gospel plan of salvation was announced to the world. They began to reign in their current lives—in
the first century. If post-apostolic
traditions are anywhere near accurate about their fates, nearly all (if not
all) of the apostles were martyrs as well.
As such they would not only have “reigned” and “judged” in the initial
sense spoken of in Matthew 19:27-28, but joined the other martyrs in
heaven to reign with those who shared with them in paying the ultimate price
for their convictions.
All this is quite logical, but
logical is not always right. We have to
also consider what comes immediately after Matthew 19:27-28: “And everyone who has left houses or brothers
or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will
receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life” (verse 29). Could this be said of what they receive in
the current life?
[Page 179] If
they are promised eternal life upon faithful obedience, do they or do they not
have it in the current life? If not, how
are they part of God’s people? If they do,
is not the promise of this verse fulfilled?
As to receiving a recompense far above and beyond what we have lost in
property and kin, that we gain in faithful friends and support should
occur in this life as well—and abundantly more in the next one.
However accurate the salvation
aspect is and however technically true all the remainder could be, it still
remains very hard to see that the reference is—at least primarily—to the current world.
But taken on those terms, those elements that do occur in the here and
now might well be looked upon as an earthly foreshadowing of the fully
developed accomplishment in the next one.
Hence a case of what begins now but is continued and fully
received only in the next life.
This might well be the intended
construction, but it still seems so far from the probable intent that we only
include it for your consideration and evaluation. It affects in no way the superstructure that
we have erected—only an element of possible evidence that may not have worked
out the way we thought it might.
b.
“Judgment was given to them.”
[Page 180]
“Judgment” is the carrying out, the
application, the implementation of royal power and law. Making judgments based upon the royal
law, if you will.
John is far more interested in the fact that martyrs judge than
in explaining just what it encompasses.
It is quite natural, however, that “judgment” in some form be given to
them since in a passage even clearer than the ones presented in the preceding
section, the apostle Paul teaches that believers judge both in this
life and in the one to come as well:
Does any of you, when he has a case against
his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the
saints? Or do you not know that the
saints will judge the world? And if
the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest
law courts? Do you not know that we
shall judge angels? How much more
matters of this life?
If then you have law courts dealing with
matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in
the church? I say this to your
shame. Is it so, that there is not among
you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother
goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? (1 Corinthians 6:1-6)
“Judging” is a flexible
concept. In the final verses of this
text, it includes settling disputes between brethren; yet the initial verses
clearly hint at something far more profound.
(As Weymouth renders it: “you are
the court before which the world is to be judged”) Yet Paul leaves the details vague and
unclear. Perhaps to shun the human pride
it might inflame; perhaps because, as mortals, we are not yet ready
psychologically or spiritually to grasp the full significance of that future
task.
[Page 181] Various
New Testament texts touch upon the characteristics that should accompany a
believer’s judging in this current life.
There must be fairness and equity that penetrates beneath surface
appeals and animosities. “Do not judge
according to appearance,” warns the Lord, “but judge righteous judgment”
(John 7:24). The standard of judgment is
the revealed word of God: Christ’s
judgment was based on what he “hear[d]” of God; combining this hearing with
seeking to do the will of God produces “judgment [that] is just” (John 5:30).
There is a form of prohibited
judgment that is widespread in this world (Matthew 7:1): condemning others for their sins while ours
are far, far worse (verses 2-5). The
solution to that is to get rid of one’s own impairment first; then one
will be in a position “to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (verse
5). Note that the purpose of this kind
of moral criticism/judging is not empty condemnation but to help the
person with his or her particular weakness.
A criticism that is purely negative and holds no willingness to assist
with curing the problem is empty posturing.
When we pass to the martyr’s judging
in heaven, we are faced with the more difficult question of how and in what
senses they did/do such. At the very
minimum there is a very real sense that the very lives of these martyrs were
the embodiment of judgment upon the world:
1.
They proved that intelligent, rational individuals could believe. They were all types of men and women, from
all types of places, with all [Page 182]
types of trades and backgrounds.
What united them was the conviction that Christianity gave them a
heavenly promise so certain and so worthwhile that nothing was worth rejecting
it.
2.
They proved that the Christian life could be lived successfully. The enduring myth is “everyone does
it”—whatever sin “it” may be. Well these
Christians didn’t. Thereby
proving that sin did not have to have the victory, that sin conquers only when
it enjoys a willing victim.
3.
They proved that Christianity can give one the strength to survive all
the difficulties of life. The pressures
of life did not weaken and evaporate their faith. Even the oppression of cruel, unthinking
governments did not guarantee the triumph of evil over their souls. These iniquities served as a convenient (and
even understandable) rationale for the weak and the wavering to reject their
faith, but the persevering minority proved that it did not have to have
that outcome.
In such ways, their lives
declared a judgment upon the failures and sins of this life. In what additional senses the martyrs “judge”
from heaven, we do not know. That they
have been assigned that function strongly argues that it must take some
positive, useful form in the Divine scheme.
Far more than the pious rhetoric of encouragement is being presented,
but an allusion to an important function whose details were only revealed to
the martyrs when they assumed their heavenly task.
[Page 183]
c.
“They came to life”
Both because it sounds good on its
own merits and to avoid conceding the viability of Bimillennialism, it is
natural to equate “they came to life” (verse 4) with “the first resurrection”
(verse 5). If there were only one
difference between the two millenniums, the strength of the argument would be
far, far greater.
When there are at least four differences between the Millennium
of the Martyrs and the Millennium of All the Triumphant Saints, the existence
of three additional discrepancies causes one to become extra cautious in
any a priori judgment that “came to life” and “resurrection” are intended here
as synonymous terms. If anything, the
existence of these additional contrasts create an automatic suspicion that the
two descriptions of the dead do not describe the same group.
We can responsibly go even further than that: isn’t it conclusive evidence that the
“aliveness” language was never intended to be taken as inherently carrying the
meaning of physical resurrection—at least in the book of Revelation
context? Doesn’t it reign as one of the
ultimate laws of linguistic analysis that language must be interpreted in light
of usage and context? Hence valid interpretation must take both
factors into consideration. And we
have—though it leads to a thoroughly unconventional interpretation.
[Page 184] The
same Greek expression rendered “came to life” (or its kin) is used in several
different senses in the Apocalypse. At
most, sometimes it may equate to resurrection, but even there it
seems the means of being alive rather than being intended as the
definition of the “aliveness”—the latter being the core truth being driven home;
furthermore, other usages of the expression are clearly dominant. (All of the following Revelation texts use
the same underlying Greek term. For a
concise list see Strong’s Concordance either in print—under entry
2198--or on-line at such sites as: http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2198.htm.)
The two places where the usage is closest to that of a
resurrection are Revelation 2:8 (“The first and the last, who was dead, and who
has come to life” [S2198]), and Revelation 1:18 where a parallel concept
is used (“I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead,
and behold I am alive [S2198] forevermore”). In both of these texts, though physical
resurrection was the methodology, the emphasis is still on result, not
the method, on the fact that the “dead” is now alive and not
on the means by which this was accomplished.
Hence the fairest interpretation would seem to be that the resurrection
was the tool whereby the Lord was “made alive” rather than being merely
a synonym for the resurrection—though the latter appears the traditional
interpretation. In other Revelation
texts, the usage of such language moves even further away from the requirement
that it functions as a synonym for physical resurrection—even the possibility
that it does. This reduces even lower
the essentiality—hence the probability—that it must carry this connotation in
Revelation 20.
[Page 185] A
third somewhat similar passage to these two is Revelation 1:17-18 (“I am the
first and the living [S2198] One; and I was dead, and behold, I am
alive [S2198] forevermore”). Yet is
not the central point here nowhere near that of physical resurrection—though it
unquestionably was involved in producing the desired result—but that He
is living because it is His inherent nature to live: “I am the first and living One”?
Hence death could not triumph over him for “I am alive
forevermore.” The point is that nothing
could triumph over His “aliveness.” When
there was such a thing as death, then it simply had to be removed—and was. But, again, the core point is He is Life
Triumphant, unconquerable life, unextinguishable life. Even in physical incarnation, death is shaken
off as nothing more than a dirty piece of linen.
The language of “living” is also used of the reality of God being alive
(i.e., not a myth, a “dead” idol, etc.):
He is the “living [S2198] God” (Revelation 7:2). This is living in a sense that cannot be
applied to humankind because the “living” is described as inherently eternal,
“as “liv[ing] forever and ever” (Revelation 4:9-10 [S2198]; 10:6 [S2198]). No beginning and ending. While we will have no ending (because
of God’s grant of eternal life) we did have a chronological in-time beginning. And we have even that life without end
because God wills it; not because we want it, have earned it, or can
create it.
The word used to describe the
condition of the beast and the prophet when they receive Divine punishment
is that of living:
[Page 186]
And the beast was seized, and with him the
false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived
those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped his
image; these two were thrown alive [S2198] into the lake of fire which
burns with brimstone. (Revelation
19:20)
Here it carries with it the ideas of
consciousness, awareness, existence—not resurrection.
Turning to Revelation 13:14, we find the word used to describe the fact
that the “dead” Beast now has life again (surely not referring to a bodily resurrection!):
And he deceives those who dwell on the
earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of
the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast
who had the wound of the sword and has come to life [S2198].
Most translations think the phrase
has the connotation of “yet lived” (ESV, ISV, God’s Word, Holman, NIV). Weymouth’s modern speech version goes with
the similar “yet had recovered.” All of
these opt for a meaning very different than resurrection yet the language is
remarkably similar: “has come to life”
(13:14) and “came to life” (20:4).
Furthermore Revelation 13:14 describes the injury as a “fatal
wound.” Hence he was dead and yet he
“has come to life”—without any intervening bodily resurrection. If it can happen to “evil incarnate” (or
whatever roughly equivalent expression you may prefer), why would it seem
incredible for it to happen to righteous martyrs?
[Page 187] Finally,
the word is used in Revelation not of physical life and death, but of
one’s spiritual condition:
And to the angel of the church in Sardis
write: “He who has the seven Spirits of
God, and the seven stars, says this: I
know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive [S2198], but
you are dead.” (Revelation 3:1)
So we are face to face with the fact
that in Revelation (1) the word has
several usages that do not relate to a physical resurrection and (2)
that even in the strongest texts pointing in that direction, the term is NOT a synonym but arises, at the best,
only to the level of a verbal allusion to that sense.
This is what we would expect if the Bimillennial scenario is
valid: It reinforces the conclusion that
by putting the resurrection at the end of the reign of the martyrs
(20:5) that the text is warning us that “came to life” (verse 4) refers to a different
phenomena. (Passing from Hades to Heaven
or even something else perhaps. It is
not really a necessity to explain how it was done, just that it was
done without physical resurrection being envolved.) The fact that the martyrs reign as “souls”
(verse 4) rather than as resurrected “bodies” also points to the same fact that
the bodily resurrection does not occur until the end of their reign.
Some way was needed to show that these martyrs enjoyed, a real,
objective, tangible existence—that John was not merely engaged in verbal
rhetoric to appease the hearts of the suffering righteous still on earth—that
the martyrs among them had already accomplished a triumph over death . .
. of being brought to the role of “judges” even though their physical
resurrection would only occur later.
“Came alive” allows him to accomplish this goal.
[Page 188] What
kind of “embodiment” they may have in order to be able to judge we have
no idea. Just like the souls in Hades in
the story of the righteous beggar Lazarus, they clearly have it in some
form. By putting the resurrection at the
end of their millennium of judging, John warns the readers that the physical
resurrection (such as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15 and promised in other
places) won’t occur until afterwards.
And it should be remembered that our restored physical bodies
won’t be such for long. Even there it is
but for that brief interim until “we will all be changed, in a moment, in the
twinkling of an eye” (15:51-52) to an embodiment that is not subject to aging
or decay as is the physical one we currently occupy.
Additional Thoughts on “Coming to Life”
As Not Requiring a Physical = Fleshly Body
Although we have presented considerable textual support for our
proposed distinction between “come to life” and physical/fleshly resurrection
in Revelation 20:4, there is one other
strand of evidence from the Apocalypse that is definitely worth considering as
well. We have further precedent for the
propriety of “coming to life” as being equivalent to something non-physical in
regard to the Christians in Sardis. In
Revelation 3:1 we read how those Christians had the reputation for being “alive
[S2198], but you are dead.” If they reversed
their perilous situation, would it not be true to say, “You were dead, but you have
come to life”—though no physical resurrection was involved?
[Page 189] In
other words spiritual rejuvenation, turning (or returning) to the Lord
could legitimately be pictured as “coming to life.” For those totally alien from God’s ways,
conversion would be the means of accomplishing this goal in the here and now. For the faltering and failing Christian, it
would be repentance and renewal of his prior vow of faithfulness. And for the dead Christian who is made to
“come alive” prior to the physical resurrection?
We aren’t provided the definition but one of those that might
well fit would be that of being brought from an existence involving
non-intervention in earthly affairs—as in the story of Lazarus the beggar in
Hades—to having heavenly responsibilities of “judging” that do—in some significant form—involve an earthly
impact. Being “made alive” to new
responsibilities and duties. (Intervention
from Hades was explicitly ruled out by the patriarch Abraham in Luke
16:27-31.)
Or, for that matter, an impact upon those unbelievers passing from life
into the world of the dead. What that
impact is, in either case, I have no ability to define beyond the fact that the
text itself says it involves, somehow, in some way, in some manner,
“judging.”
I would love to have an answer.
But the scriptural text simply does not provide it. The question really is: Will we accept what the text says and leave
the defining of method and manner to the Lord, who is the only one who really
knows what it is fully about?
[Page 190]
Outside the Apocalypse, we have yet additional examples of “alive”
language being utilized independent of a reference to bodily resurrection.
John 6:50-58 describes partaking of Christ as resulting in being alive: “will live” [all S2198] in verses 51, 57, and
yet again in verse 58.
Jesus refers to how one can be spiritually “alive” whether the body is
or not in John 11:25-26: “will live”
[S2198] in verse 25 and “lives” in verse 26.
Other passages use the imagery of continued discipleship as making alive
and maintaining believers alive:
Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to
discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to
the Father of spirits, and live [S2198]?
(Hebrews 12:9)
For now we really live [S2198], if
you stand firm in the Lord. (1
Thessalonians 3:8).
Even so consider yourselves to be dead to
sin, but alive [S2198] to God in Christ Jesus. (Romans 6:11)
“For in Him we live [S2198] and move
and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His
offspring.’ ” (Acts 17:28)
Again, nothing involved in a physical resurrection. The different usage yet again shows that the
language is capable of other, alternative applications. And is
so used in Revelation 20:4.
[Page 191] Hence
the terminology of “came to life” is fitting and appropriate both in reference
to this life and as a description of a pre-physical resurrection state of the
rewarded martyred dead. Perhaps for this
very reason John selected this terminology; it allows disassociation from the
physical aspects conveyed by the “resurrection” at the end of the First
Millennium and it provides a point of linkage between the lives they lived on
earth and the lives they live in Heaven.
There may well be additional reasons as well and, if valid, they further
disassociate the necessity of “coming alive” from any physical resurrection. We quote the following two authors not as
providing decisive argumentation but because their thoughtful remarks on the
subject have a relevance to our present theme.
(Both were believers in traditional monomillennialism.)
Samuel Fuller suggested over a century ago that the implications
behind the word choices used by John may well shed light on their meaning
and also show that a non-fleshly restoration to “life” would fit the text’s
intent quite reasonably:[20]
Our next resort for an explanation of “are
living” must be to the context.
In the context, “are living” is contrasted with “beheaded.” But beheading implies both degradation and
misery. The opposite of degradation
and misery is exaltation and happiness.
“Are living” may, then, mean the martyrs are exalted and happy. They are living an exalted and happy life.
[Page 192] Henry
Cowls suggested at an even earlier date that the contrast in “came to life” is
not between life and death, but between real, enjoyable, desirable life
and its burdened, discouraging and frustrating form:[21]
The state here tacitly antithetic to
“life”—out of which they come when they begin to live—was not nonexistence, but
was suffering, trial—the state of the praying and struggling martyred souls as
shown (6:9-11). And this is the common
usage of the word “live” taken figuratively:
“Now we live (i.e., in real life and
blessedness) if ye stand fast in the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 3:8).
“Shall we not much rather be in subjection
to the Father of spirits and live”—be richly blessed by means of our
affliction yielding the peaceful fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12:9).
So the “eternal life” of the righteous is
by no means a mere eternal existence.
The tree of life is not so called because it barely [= merely] prolongs
existence. If this were its only
significance, the devil himself and all the damned might eat of it. A little attention will show that this usage
of the words “live,” “life,” prevails throughout the Bible.
If you consider the reasonable
speculations of either of these gentlemen appealing, then they provide yet
further evidence of how the martyrs “came to life” in Revelation 20:4. The langiage did not have to have in John’s mind the concept of a physical
resurrection. Even rejecting what these
two writers have suggested, our [Page 193]
earlier evidence still establishes it as a responsible interpretation of
the text. Not to mention being required
to explain why there are four separate differences mentioned between the two
millenniums. To do full justice to
the text, whatever explanation of “came to life” we embrace, must do
full justice to that reality.
[1] R. G. Currell and E. P. Hurlbut. The Ruler of the Kings on the Earth: A Clear Look at Amillennialism for the Lay
Person. Phillipsburg, New
Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Company, 1982. Pages 51-52.
[2] Quinn A. Clark.
“Don Koenig's The Prophetic Years”: A Critical Assessment.” Dated November 18, 2010. Accessed October 2013. At:
http://revelationcourse.blogspot.
com/2010/11/don-koenigs-prophetic-years-critical.html.
[3] J. M. Connelly.
Revelation Explained.
Houston, Texas: E. H. Cushing,
1876. Pages 187-188.
[4] “Psalms of Solomon.”
Translated by J. A. Emerton. In The
Apocryphal Old Testament, edited by H. R. O. Sparks. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1984.
[5] “Enoch.”
Translated by Michael Knibb, with unspecified “very slight alterations”
by an unidentified party, in The Apocryphal Old Testament.
[6] All quotations from Sanhedrin 99 in the Talmud,
unless otherwise noted, come from H. Freedman, editor, Sanhedrin (Chapters
viii-xi). London: Soncino Press, 1935. The relevant citations and quotations are
found on pages 668-670.
[7] As cited
by J. Massyngberde Ford. Revelation. In the Anchor Bible series. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1975. Page 353.
All references to Strack and Billerbeck come from this source.
[8] The text is quoted from the translation of David H.
Stern in his Jewish New Testament Commentary as found at: John
Shepherd. “Jewish Millennial
Concepts.” Dated April 8, 2002. At:
http://www.northforest.org/Eschatology/JewishMill.html. Accessed October 2013. For most readers this is probably a more
useful translation than that found in “Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin (Folio 97)” at
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_97.html#PARTb. Accessed October 2013.
[Page 194] [9] “One
important theme is remarkable for its absence and that is the Messianic
expectation. Eliezer has no Messianic
sayings. The composite of his sayings
about the age and its destiny leaves no room for a Messiah, a Messianic war, or
a Messianic general.” Jacob
Neusner. Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus:
The Tradition and the Man (Volume 2).
Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill,
1973. Pages 420-421.
[10] Citing the work of several earlier scholars, J.
Massyngberde Ford. Revelation. Page 352.
[11] See the discussion in Ford, 352-353.
[12] Laying aside its premillennial intentions, there is
still some very useful comments on the flexibility of “generation” in Biblical
usage in J. Michael Hile’s article, “The Last Generation” on the Rapture Ready
website. At:
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-last-generation.html. Accessed:
October 2013.
[13] George L. Murray.
Millennial Studies: A Search
for Truth. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Books House, 1948. Page 183.
[14] James
Stacy. Handbook of Prophecy. Richmond, Virginia: Presbyterian Committee of Publication,
1906. Page 120.
[15] Herman Hoeksema.
Behold He Cometh: An
Exposition of the Book of Revelation.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed
Free Publishing Association, 1969. Page
647.
[16] John A. Bengel.
Gnomon of the New Testament.
William Fletcher translation.
Page 368.
[17] Eugene C. Caldwell.
Reprint from Union Seminary Review. Volume 31, No. 2 (April 1920). Pages 210-211.
[18] Ibid., page 211.
[19] Robert H. Mounce.
The New International Commentary on the Book of Revelation. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1977. Page 149.
[20] Samuel
Fuller. The Revelation of St. John the
Divine Self-Interpreted. New
Edition. New York: Thomas Whittaker; copyrighted 1884; 1885
edition. Page 330.
[21] Henry Cowles. The
Revelation of John. New York: D. Appleton and Company; copyrighted 1871;
1884 edition. Page 221.