Foundations of Premillennialism. . .Part 2

REVELATION 20 AND
THE REIGN OF CHRIST OVER THE NATIONS
Robert Shank

Amillennialists assert that neither premillennialism nor postmillennialism would exist were it not for the presence of Rev. 20:1-10 in the Bible. The passage, they say, is the “foundation passage” for the whole concept of a millennium, and apart from Rev. 20:1-10 the doctrine of the millennium could not be established from the Bible. With respect to the “thousand years” aspect, they are correct. But the fact of the Messianic Age and kingdom as an interim between the Second Advent and the Eternal Age would still remain an essential facet of Bible prophecy, for it is well established elsewhere in the Scriptures.

Some have asserted that Rev. 20:1-10 lends no real support to premillennialism because “nothing is said in the passage about Christ coming to earth to reign over the nations.” (The argument is the same sort of dodge to which many resort in their opposition to the place of baptism in conversion: “There is nothing in John 3:16 about baptism. . .where is anything about baptism in Acts 16:30, 31?” etc.) We are not at liberty to isolate Rev. 20:1-10 from its context --- both the context of the total eschatological disclosure of the Bible, and also its immediate context in the Revelation. Rev. 19:11-21, which is an integral part of the complete episode (Rev. 19:11 - 20:15) posits the coming of Christ to earth in power and righteous judgment to “smite the nations” and to “rule them with a rod of iron” (v. 15). In the prophetic episode, the reign of Christ over the nations (the central thesis of 20:1-6) follows his advent. If Rev. 20:1-6 were to be excised from the Bible, the integrity of the episode would be destroyed, for 19:15 posits that after “smiting the nations” in righteous judgment, Christ will “rule them with a rod of iron,” and without 20:1-6 there remains no place in the episode for such a reign to occur. Thus 20:1-6 is essential to the continuity and integrity of the episode, and its position in the episode posits premillennialism.

For opponents of premillennialism, Rev. 19:11-21 is a “difficult” passage and poses a crucial problem: if the passage depicts the Second Advent, it predicates a realistic interpretation of Rev. 20:1-6 and establishes premillennialism. In order to defend their figurative interpretation of Rev. 20:1-6, antimillenarians must assume that the Second Advent of Christ is not in view in Rev. 19:11-21.

Some say that the coming of Christ in view in Rev. 19:11-21 is not his Second Advent at the end of the age, but rather a “spiritual” coming in judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, or at the Fall of Rome in 410 (or whatever, whenever), and that his “rule over the nations” is a “spiritual” reign through the influence of the churches over the nations in the present age.

(If the present era is the rule of Christ over the nations, as the allegorizers contend, it is indeed a strange reign which bears no resemblance to the descriptions in the OT prophecies of the Messianic kingdom on earth. If the present age is the Messianic kingdom foretold by the prophets, the nations have been a bit slow to get the message about swords and plowshares, spears and pruning hooks, and the decision to “learn war no more” is long overdue. If the present era is the Messianic kingdom of OT prophecy, as amillennialists assert, the kingdom has not been overly successful.)

Loraine Boettner writes that Rev. 19:11-21 “sets forth in figurative language the age-long struggle between the forces of good and the forces of evil in the world, with its promise of complete victory.”¹ He Quotes Warfield:

The thing symbolized is obviously the complete victory of the Son of God over an the hosts of wickedness . . . . The sword by which the victory is won proceeds out of the mouth of the conqueror (verses 15 and 21). . . . The conquest is wrought by the spoken word --- in short, by the preaching of the Gospel. In fine, we have before us here a picture of the victorious career of the Gospel of Christ in the world. . . . The Gospel of Christ is. . .completely to conquer the world.²

Warfield paints a pleasing picture. Revelation 19:11-21 does not stand alone, however, and the assumptions of Boettner and Warfield are forbidden by the cognate passage 2 Thess. 2:1-8. There Paul writes of “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him” (v. 1) when he comes in power “in the day of the Lord” (v. 2). Christ will destroy the AntiChrist (the “man of sin,” the “lawless one”) “by his appearing and his coming,” slaying him “with the breath of his mouth” (v. 8) --- the spoken command, which in Rev. 19:15 is “the sharp sword issuing out of his mouth” with which Christ will “smite the nations” and dispatch the beast and the false prophet and the remnant of the armies of the beast (vs. 20, 21, cf. Isa. 11:4).

Paul pictures Christ’s conquest, not as an “age-long struggle between good and evil” with victory won at last through the long process of “the preaching of the gospel” (As Boettner and Warfield on Rev. 19), but as a spectacular event when “by his appearing and his coming” Christ will destroy the Antichrist and the hosts of wickedness by his spoken command. Rev. 19:11-21 and 2 Thess. 2:1-8 are obviously cognate, and the significance of 2 Thess. 2:1-8 forbids the figurative interpretation of Rev. 19:11-21 by which opponents of premillennialism propose to nullify its significance as the context of Rev. 20:1-6.

In his book Christ’s Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial?, long a second “bible” for opponents of premillennialism, David Brown recognizes the critical importance of 2 Thess. 2:1-8, which obviously governs the interpretation of Rev. 19:11-21, which in turn governs the interpretation of Rev. 20:1-6 and determines whether the passage affirms premillennialism. He devotes nine pages to an attempt to establish that the coming of Christ in 2 Thess. 2:8 is figurative. The issue turns on whether the coming of Christ in v. 8 is the coming of Christ indicated in v. 1, “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him,” which obviously is the Second Advent, as Brown acknowledges. If the “comings” in the two verses are the same, then the coming of Christ in v. 8 is the Second Advent, and the coming of Christ in the cognate passage Rev. 19:11-21 must also be the Second Advent, which confirms the truth of premillennialism, as Brown well understands. It is a crucial juncture, for the validity of his whole anti-premillenarian eschatology hangs on the question. Brown hesitates, but concludes that

I can see nothing requiring us to take this incidental “brightness of his coming” [v. 8] to be the same with that personal “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him” [v. I]. . ‘.’ I do not say it cannot be. All I say is, I see nothing which imperatively requires us so to understand it.³

Brown recognizes that his position is extremely questionable. Actually, it is not only questionable, it is preposterous. To accept Brown’s thesis is to assume that Paul inserted in his letter to the Thessalonians a deliberate subtlety that could not be recognized and understood by his readers without special comment, first to call it to their attention, and then to explain it. Such an assumption is absurd. Paul wrote to enlighten, not to mislead. He was not given to inserting deliberate covert subtleties in his letters of instruction and encouragement to the churches. Without special explanation, the natural understanding of every reader of 2 Thess. 2 is that the coming of Christ in v. 8 is the coming of Christ in view in v. 1. This Brown fully concedes. But he devotes nine pages to an extremely ingenious attempt to prove that the natural understanding and obvious meaning of the passage is incorrect. But who explained all this to the Thessalonians? I cannot accept Brown’s preposterous assumption that, writing to the Thessalonians about so solemn a matter as the coming again of Jesus Christ, Paul inserted in his letter a great hidden subtlety --- a covert shift of reference that cannot be detected or understood without extensive supplementary comment, explanation, and interpretation.

The natural, obvious understanding of 2 Thess. 2:1-8 is the only. acceptable understanding, and the coming of Christ in v. 8 is the coming of Christ in v. 1. Furthermore, the coming of Christ in view in 2 Thess. 2:1 and 8 is in view also in 1:7-10, and the obvious parallel between 1:7-10 and Rev. 19:11-21 will not be lost to any except those who choose not to see. In 2 Thess. 1:7-10 and 2:1-8 the coming of Christ is a spectacular cataclysmic event at the end of the age. The same great end-of-the-age event --- the Second Advent --- is in view in the cognate passage Rev. 19:11-21. The significance of Rev. 19:11-21 as context of Rev. 20:1-6 posits a realistic rather than an allegorical-mystical understanding of 20:1-6, and thus confirms the truth of premillennialism.

From the foregoing considerations it is obvious that the reign of Christ over the nations which the faithful of the churches will share with him is not from heaven in this present age, but will be on earth following his triumphant return in glory, power, and righteous judgment, when “the world to come” will be “put in subjection” to him (Heb. 2:5-8). The reign of Christ and the saints in view in Rev. 20:4-6 is precisely the reign in view in the promise of Jesus in Rev. 2:25-29:

That which you have [the gospel and true faith] hold fast until I come. He that overcomes and keeps my works to the end, to him will I give authority over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to pieces, even as I have received authority from my Father. And I will give him the morning star.⁴ He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Let us compare the two passages, Rev. 19:11-20:6 and Rev. 2:25-29:

In Rev. 19:11-20:6 Christ comes to earth in righteous judgment, and then rules over the nations. Please read the passage and observe three things:

1. Christ comes to earth to “smite the nations” in judgment and to “rule them with a rod of iron” (19:15).

2. Christ’s reign over the nations follows his coming (as context indicates).

3. Those who take part in “the first resurrection” will share Christ’s reign over the nations (20:4-6).

In Rev. 2:25-29 Christ speaks “to the churches” concerning his coming to judge and to rule over the nations. Please read the passage and observe three things (precisely the three things observed in Rev. 19:11-20:6):

1. Christ will come to judge (“break in pieces”) the nations and to “rule them with a rod of iron” as the Father has promised him (v. 27, cf. Ps. 2:7-9, Ps. 110:5,6).

2. Christ’s reign over the nations will follow his coming (v. 25).

3. Those who “overcome and keep my works to the end” in their pilgrimage of faith will share Christ’s reign over the nations (vs. 26,27, cf. 2 Tim. 2:11, 12, Rev. 5:9,10).

From the above passages four things are evident: (I) the reign of Christ and the faithful of his churches is future, beyond our present life pilgrimage of faith; (2) the reign will follow the coming of Christ and the end of the age; (3) the reign will follow “the first resurrection”; and (4) the reign will be over the nations on earth.

THE FIRST RESURRECTION AND THE GENERAL RESURRECTION

The realistic understanding of Rev. 20:4-6 predicated by the foregoing considerations forbids the fanciful interpretations of “the first resurrection” resorted to by antimillenarians in their opposition to the premillenarian faith of the apostolic and early-centuries churches of Christ. Nevertheless, let us consider briefly the question of the meaning of “the first resurrection” in view in Rev. 20:4-6.

Among the most popular interpretations of “the first resurrection” advocated by antimillenarians is the assertion that it is spiritual resurrection in the experience of conversion. Conversion indeed is a spiritual resurrection (Jn. 5:24, 25, Eph. 2:1-6, Col. 2:12, 13; 3:1, Rom. 6:3,4, 1 Jn. 3:14), and when we are baptized into Christ we “pass from death to life.” But the very real spiritual resurrection of conversion is not “the first resurrection” in view in Rev. 20:4-6.

According to the passage, “the first resurrection” is in order to “reign with Christ for a thousand years.” But the issue of who is to reign with Christ over the nations is not determined by conversion alone, but by faithfulness to Christ “until the end. . .until I come” (Rev. 2:25-29). Christ’s exhortation to qualify for sharing his reign over the nations is addressed “to the churches” (2:29), the company of those who already have experienced conversion. Since the invitation to share his reign is addressed by Christ to those who already have experienced conversion, and since Christ exhorts them to continue to hold fast the faith they already have and to overcome “until the end . . . until I come” in order to share his reign over the nations, it is obvious that “the first resurrection” (which is in order to reign with Christ) cannot be conversion, as some have assumed. Furthermore, with reference to the resurrection in view in Rev. 20:4-6, special mention is made of martyrs, who obviously had come to faith and conversion prior to both their martyrdom and the subsequent resurrection. Thus the “first resurrection” which the martyrs (and all the faithful dead) are to experience is physical resurrection. That the death from which the martyrs are to be raised is physical rather than spiritual is also established by Rev. 6:9-11, where the death is defined as physical. The resurrection which corresponds to physical death obviously is physical.

In their contention that “the first resurrection” is spiritual and the resurrection of “the rest of the dead” is physical, some have appealed to Jn. 5:25-29 where Jesus distinguishes between spiritual resurrection (v. 25) and physical resurrection (vs. 28, 29). But the passage does not afford a valid analogy of Rev. 20:4-6. Context in the passage in John 5 clearly defines the character of the resurrection in “the hour that now is” as spiritual, and the resurrection in “the hour that is coming” as physical. In Rev. 20:4-6 there is no such contextual definition to establish such a distinction. The only differentiation is between the time of “the first resurrection,” that of the “blessed and holy,” and the time of the subsequent resurrection of “the rest of the dead,” who “did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.”

Rev. 20:4-6 does not differentiate between two kinds of resurrection, one spiritual and the other physical, but between two occasions of physical resurrection, the first of “the blessed and holy” at the outset of “the thousand years,” and the second of “the rest of the dead” after “the thousand years were ended.” The same verb form (ezesan, ingressive aorist, came to life) is used in reference to both groups, and to assume a distinction between the two references without any contextual definition to indicate it is totally arbitrary and absurd.

The spiritual resurrection in this present life which men may experience through faith and obedience to Christ and his gospel is not “the first resurrection” of Rev. 20, but is instead the necessary prerequisite for participation in the First Resurrection, which will be the physical resurrection of “the blessed and holy” who, in “the first resurrection,” will “come to life and reign with Christ a thousand years.”

Other fanciful interpretations of “the first resurrection” have been offered: the translation of the souls of the faithful to heaven at the time of their death; the steadfast devotion of successors of the early martyrs, who likewise faithfully endured persecution; the revival of the gospel cause for which early martyrs died, which at the time of their death seemed doomed under the relentless persecution of the pagan Romans; the “triumph” of the church in the Edicts of Constantine; the survival of the church after the collapse of the Roman Empire; the Reformation; etc., etc. In the various conjectures offered by antimillenarians, the First Resurrection bears no relation at all to the statement that “the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.” All allegorical-mystical interpretations of “the first resurrection” are forbidden by the realistic understanding of Rev. 20:4-6 predicated by the significance of Rev. 19:11-21 as context and the significance of 2 Thess. 2:1-8 and 1:7-10 as cognates governing the interpretation of Rev. 19:11-21, as we have earlier observed.

Some have objected that Rev. 20:4-6 cannot posit physical resurrection because John saw only “the souls” of the martyrs who “came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” But psuche is used elsewhere in the NT of the total person (Acts 7:14; 27:37, 1 Pet. 3:20) and the Hebrew equivalent nephesh is so used many times in the OT. The use of “soul” for the total person is well established biblical usage. Furthermore, souls who already share eternal life with Christ can “come to life” only in the sense of physical resurrection of the body.

Some have objected that the Bible teaches a general resurrection and judgment, and that this forbids the possibility of a special resurrection at some other time. The Bible does indeed disclose a great general resurrection and judgment, and this is precisely what is in view in Rev. 20:11-15. But a general resurrection of all the dead that are in the grave on a given day is not necessarily a universal resurrection of all who ever have lived, and in no way does it preclude the possibility of a prior resurrection of others at some other time. The Bible discloses both a general resurrection of all the (remaining) dead --- “the rest of the dead” --- and a special resurrection of a privileged class a thousand years prior to the general resurrection.

Against the doctrine of a special resurrection for the faithful, some have cited Jn. 5:28, 29, “the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.” If nothing more were said in the Scriptures concerning the time of resurrection, we should conclude from this passage that there will be only a universal resurrection at one specific hour. But other passages forbid such a conclusion, and the language of the text does not require it. Just before his statement concerning the resurrection, Jesus declared that “the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live” (v. 25). Meyer says of vs. 28, 29 that

Here it is as little said that all shall be raised at the same time as in ver. 25 that all the spiritually dead shall be quickened simultaneously. The tagmata [ranks, orders, classes] which Paul distinguished in the resurrection, I Cor. xv. 23, 24, and which are in harmony with the teaching of Judaism and of Christ Himself regarding a twofold resurrection. . .find room likewise in the hora [hour] which is capable of prophetic extension. ⁵

The assumption of “prophetic extension” in the “hour” of the resurrection of all mankind is, of course, the assumption of an interval of time between “the resurrection of life” and “the resurrection of judgment.” The assumption is not without warrant, for the presence of undisclosed intervals in simple statement is a well established facet of biblical rhetoric. The Bible declares that “in the day that God created man. . . .male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day when they were created” (Gen. 5:1,2). There is no suggestion of an interval of time between creation of Adam and creation of Eve; it appears from the statement that both were created the same day. From the complete biblical disclosure, however, it is evident that an interval of time occurred between creation of Adam and of Eve (Gen. 2:18-23). In like manner, in Jn. 5:28, 29 there is no suggestion of an interval between “the resurrection of life” and “the resurrection of judgment,” but from the complete biblical disclosure, it is evident that an interval will occur between the two resurrections.

Antimillenarians sometimes quote passages which speak of “a resurrection” or “the resurrection” and then point out that the passages do not speak of “resurrections.” Such argument reflects a superficial approach to the eschatological disclosure of the NT and failure to observe the difference between “resurrection of the dead” and “resurrection from the dead,” a NT distinction of critical significance. Baines writes

That a “resurrection from the dead” differs from a “resurrection of the dead” is, owing to our constant confusion of the phrases, little understood. Everybody would see the difference between speaking of “the departure of a company” and “the departure from a company.” The first implies the departure of the whole assembly, the second of one or more persons out of the assembly. This is just the difference between a “resurrection of the dead” and a “resurrection from the dead.” “The dead” is the whole company of dead persons. A “resurrection of the dead” simply means that dead persons are raised. But a “resurrection from the dead” means that one or more persons are raised from amongst the company of the dead. So the phrase is invariably used in Scripture. ⁶

In the NT the “resurrection of the dead’ is expressed simply as anastasis nekron (genitive of description). The “resurrection from among the dead” is expressed by the use of the ablative case nekron (same form as the genitive) with the preposition ek (out of , from within, from among), anastasis ek nekron. The ablative construction nekron with anastasis, anistemi, or some cognate verbal or substantival construction appears 52 times in the NT (48 times with ek, four times with apo). It is used once with reference to spiritual resurrection in conversion (Rom. 6:13) and twice metaphorically (Rom. 11:15, Eph. 5:14). With respect to physical resurrection, it is used 49 times: 35 times with reference to the resurrection of Jesus, three times with reference to the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany, four times in Herod’s references to the supposed resurrection of John the Baptist, twice in Dives’ request of Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers, once with reference to Abraham’s faith that God would raise Isaac from the dead, and four times with reference to the future privileged resurrection of the faithful.

Only the ablative construction could describe the past instances of resurrection (real in the cases of Jesus and Lazarus of Bethany, hypothetical in the cases of John, the beggar Lazarus, and Isaac), for they were not general resurrections of the dead, but instead were instances of the resurrection of individual men from among the total company of the dead: one man rose from the dead, the rest of the dead remained in death. In like manner only the ablative construction can describe the future resurrection of a privileged class (those who take part in “the first resurrection” of Rev. 20:4-6), for it will be the resurrection of a particular group from among the total company of the dead: “the blessed and holy” will rise from the dead, and “the rest of the dead” will remain in death. --- 624 King, Mt. Vernon, MO 65712. Order Until directly from Robert Shank, $11.95.

(To be concluded in the next issue.)