 |
 |
 |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
 |
Who Reigns with Christ?
A preliminary judgment as to the problem of who reigns with Christ in the millennial kingdom
(from Revelation 20:4)
by Joel S. Gillespie
Exegesis Assignment
For “Revelation”
Dr. Paul Stevens, RegentCollege
March 8, 1988
Revelation 20:4
a) “And I saw thrones,
And they sat upon them,
And judgment was given to them.
b) And I saw the souls
Of those who had been beheaded
Because of the testimony of Jesus
And because of the word of God,
c) and those who had not worshipped the beast nor his image,
And had not received the mark upon their forehead
And upon their hand;
d) and they came to life
And reigned with Christ
For a thousand years.”
The Test of Revelation 20:4 with Subdivisions in English and Transliterated Greek
a) And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them,
kai eidon thronous, kai ekathisan ep autous, kai krima edothê autois
b) and the souls of the (ones) having been beheaded
kai tas psuchas tôn pepelekismenôn
because of the witness of Jesus and because of the word of God,
dia tên marturian Jêsou kai dia ton logon tou theou
c) and who did not worship the beast nor the image of it
kai hoitines ou prosekunêsan tô thêrion oude tên eikona autou
and did not received the mark upon the forehead and on the hand of them;
kai ouk elabon to chargma epi to metôpon kai epi têv cheipa autôn
d) and they lived (again) and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
kai edzêsav kai ebasileusav meta Christou chilia etê
The Problem
In Revelation 20:4, there are four groups of people distinguished. There are
a) those given authority to judge who are seated on the thrones,
b) the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the witness of Jesus (martyrs)
c) those who had not worshipped the beast (confessors)
d) those who lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
As to how these groups relate to one another, there are many divergent views, partly because of the ambiguity of the Greek text. R. H. Charles speaks of the “ungrammatical structure of the text and its unintelligibleness,” and says with some understatement that “the construction of the verse is difficult”(1)His solution is to rearrange the text into an order which makes more sense (2). For the purpose of this paper, the text will be taken as it stands, even though the verse can be so construed as to support almost any view as to its meaning. The question of who reigns in the millennial kingdom with Christ thus has to be decided by means which takes one far afield from the text itself.
The immediate question is this: who are those (d) who live and reign with Christ for a thousand years? Specifically, who are they in relation to a) those given authority to judge who are seated on the thrones, b) the souls of those who had been beheaded, c) those who had not worshipped the beast
Some of the options are given below with the names of their proponents.
I) a = b + c = d
advocates: Hendricksen(3), and Hockema(4)
Those who reign with Christ (d) are those who sit on the thrones (a), and these are made up of the combined separate groups of the beheaded souls (martyrs) (b) and those who did not worship the beast (c) but who had died. Some commentators cited see the confessors as a separate but living group.
II) a = d = a large group of all the saints
b = c = martyrs
advocates: Ladd(5) and Beasley-Murray (6)
In this view, the martyrs (b) are not a separate group; they are the same ones as those who did not worship the beast (c). These martyrs are a subgroup of the saints reigning on the throne (a), singled out for special attention.
III) a = b = c = d
proponents: Sweet(7) and Morris(8)
In this view, the martyrs are meant to stand for all of the saints, and the larger group of all the saints reigns on the thrones.
IV) a (occupants of the thrones)
b = c (a separate group)
espoused by Mounce(9) and Charles(10)
In this view, the millennial reign with Christ (d) is limited to only the martyrs (a) who receive the reign as a special reward.
Some Specific Considerations
A) There is excellent reason to suppose, unlike some of the commentators, that those who lived and reigned with Christ are the same as those who sat on the thrones. Revelation 20:4 draws significantly from Daniel 7. Briefly, it can be said that in Daniel 7, the throne of judgment or the locus of judging activity is equivalent to the center of ruling activity. The king on the throne is the judge on the throne. Although the saints are not specifically said to judge in Daniel 7, they are given (along with the Son of Man, who in Revelation becomes the great judge) authority, power, and greatness as they possess and rule in the everlasting kingdom of the Most High. Loshe notes that in Revelation, there is a fusion of the concepts of the nationalistic Davidic kingdom (i.e. Messiah as King) and the universal eschatology (i.e. Messiah as Judge of the world), “even though this already seems to be seen in Daniel.
In addition, throughout the book of Revelation, the saints are seen as sharing in the everlasting rule of the kingdom. As Beasley – Murray notes, the assurance of participation in the kingdom (as co-rulers as well as inhabitors) is the substance of the promises made to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 (12). For example, those who overcome in Laodicea are promised the right to sit with Jesus on His throne (3:21), just as Jesus sat down on His throne. The Thyatiran overcomers are promised authority over the nations (2:26). In Revelation 5:9-10, men of God from every tribe and nation are made by Jesus to be “a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign over the earth.” And the one with whom the saints reign is the Lord who judges (16:4-7), who is He who reigns forever and ever (11:15). The saints thus share in a rule with Christ which involves judgments.
A central conclusion of this paper is that those who are seated on the thrones and who are given authority to judge are the same as those who reign with Christ, and these are the entire body of the saints.
B) For two reasons, it is difficult to see that those who reign and rule with Christ are the martyrs only (option 4).
First, the “they lived” of 4d does seem to refer back to 4bc as Mounce suggests(13) That is, the martyrs/confessors seem to be included among those who reign. Yet, as has been shown in (A) above, the thrust of Daniel 7 and Revelation is that the saints as a whole are the ones who share in the rule of Christ, and that this rule involves judgment. Therefore, the reigning in 4d seems to refer both to the martyrs/confessors (4bc) and to those who sit in judgment (4a). Thus, these who sit on the thrones must be a bigger group than just the martyrs, or the martyrs/confessors, if these latter are the same.
Second, the “overcomers” in Revelation 2-3 seem to suggest a larger group than the martyrs. In Thyatira and Laodicea where rule and thrones respectively are promised to the overcomers, there is nothing about obeying the command of Christ to that specific church which necessitates or evens implies martyrdom. This is the case for all the churches with the possible exception of Smyrna. It can in fact be argued that the combined promises to all of the seven churches make up the total reality of what is in store for every Christian. The Dispensationalist of course would claim that obedience in the Laodicean “era” of church history would in fact require martyrdom.
In support of this option, Revelation 13 is raised by Charles as a definitive challenge to any view which sees those reigning as a broader group than the martyrs(14) In 13:8 every person is said to worship the Beast except those whose names are in the Book of Life. That is, “the saints” equals “those who do not worship the Beast.” In 13:15, the Beast is given authority to kill all of those who do not worship him (all the saints). Thus every saint is a martyred saint, which means that in Revelation 20:4 only martyrs are seated on the throne.
One can counter Charles’ argument as follows: The killing of the martyrs in Revelation 13:15 occurs during a short time of intense persecution just before the end, and thus it is then only that all or most of the saints become martyrs. For the amillennialical interpreter, this short time (3 ½ days) corresponds to Satan’s short time in Revelation 20:8 (15)
C) There is much disagreement as to the relationship between the “martyrs” in 20:4b and the “confessors” in 20:4c. The problem lies partly with the ambiguity of the indefinite relative pronoun hoitines which with kai joins the two clauses. Normally in the NT, the indefinite relative pronoun acts as a simple relative (hos) and joins the clause to which it is a part to that which precedes it(16). In this case, those who do not worship the beast seem to further identify the martyrs, and hoitines would thus read “these which” or “such that” or, simply, “who.”
But it is also possible that the clause beginning with kai hoitines is governed separately by “I saw” in 20:4a, in which case it would describe another distinct group seen (i.e. b ≠ c). The fact that it is nominative masculine rather than nominative feminine (in which case it would surely refer back to “souls”) or accusative masculine (in which case it would certainly be a direct object of eidon (I saw) lends to the confusion(17).Ladd comments that as a rule, John is careless about his cases anyway!(18)
It does not seem possible based on the grammar of the text to determine whether or not there are two distinct groups or the same groups apart from exploring further the broader issues which arise out of the verse.
D) Those who reigned with Christ are those who lived, or came to life. The “they” of “they lived” and “they reigned,” as has been shown in A, must in a broad sense refer back to those who are on the thrones. Yet, “they lived” certainly seems to be referring in the text to the “souls of the ones having been beheaded.” This lends some credence to Morris’ view that the martyrs represent all of the saints, yet that view suffers from the possibility that John seems to be seeing two groups in Revelation 20:4ab. “I saw thrones” and “I saw souls.”
If 4b and 4c refer to two different groups, those who have not worshipped the beast (4c) as well as those who have been martyred (4b), both of which make up the general grouping of the saints, then the “they lived” and “they reigned” of 4d could refer back grammatically to the 4bc as well as generally to all the saints. In this view, 4c is taken to refer to the Christian dead in general sense. Thus the problem in Ladd’s position is sidestepped; that is, although the martyr-confessors are understood as a special subgroup of the saints, the “they” of “they lived” seems in some specific way to refer back to the martyr-confessors and not to those on the thrones in 4a.
This is all complicated by an analysis of “edzêsav” in 4d, which can mean “they lived” or “they came to life.” Moulton explains that the aorist here can have either meaning(19) while Ladd is convinced that because of the implication of the respective meanings “edzêsav” is the most important word in the passage(20). Those who see “edzêsav” as “ they came to life” see it as referring to a bodily resurrection of the martyred souls of 4b, a resurrection which in a sense answers the prayers of the souls under the altar in Revelation 6:9. Those who take “edzêsav” as “they lived” see it as referring to a spiritual resurrection of the souls and/or the confessors in 4bc. In the New Testament, the word has both meanings. “edzêsav” is used to refer to entrance into the new life in Christ (John 5:25; Ephesians 2:1-6; John 5:25-9) and is used to refer to bodily resurrection (John 11:26; Revelation 2:8; Romans 14:9). A detailed examination of this problem would require a separate essay. In this writer’s opinion, the word studies undertaken by the various authors are inconclusive (see Ladd in “The Meaning of the Millennium” and the essays by Kline and Shepherd).
A related problem is the meaning of “” in 4b. If “psuchas” or “souls” means simply “people” as in for example, Acts 2:41, then the bodily resurrection view of “edzêsav” is more credible. However, when “psuchas” does mean “people,” the English word “people” can be used rather than “souls” and still preserve the natural meaning. Obviously, this is not the case in Revelation 20:4. Why? Because the clause would then read with the meaning, “And I saw the people of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus.” That reading seems unlikely. Nor in the important sister verse of Revelation 6:9 can “soul” refer to people in a general sense for the same reason Thus it seems that “disembodied souls” is the meaning here.
If “they lived” refers to a physical resurrection, then those who reign would do so in a physical sense, and the reign would likely take place on earth. I know of no Scriptural reason to believe that the glorified post physical resurrection saints, like Jesus, are or will be able to reign both “bodily” and “from heaven” at the same time. But there is no reason to try to suppose this. If the “they lived” refers to a spiritual resurrection, then the reigning likely takes place in heaven in a spiritual sense. The word “thronos” (throne) occurs forty-seven times in Revelation. Three of these cases refer to the throne of Satan on earth or the beast on earth. In the other forty-three cases (other then 20:4), the throne is clearly in heaven(21) As Otto Schmitz writes “… it [the throne] is located in heaven, and in the vision it is inseparably linked with him that sits on it ”(22). The throne of God is the throne of the Lamb(23). And as has been shown, Jesus promises to share His throne with those who overcome (3:21). The overcomers are the saints who sit on the thrones in 20:4. The issue seems decided here. Given the strong likelihood that the thrones are in heaven, the case for the incorporeality of the souls in 20:4b is made stronger as is the probability that the resurrection given by “edzêsav” speaks of a spiritual resurrection.
A preliminary answer to the question “Who shares in the millennial reign with Christ?” can now be given. The ones who reign with Christ are those who sit on the thrones, i.e. all the saints (probably the combined company of the souls of the martyred saints and those of the departed confessors). This reign is a spiritual reign centered in heaven.
The writher has intentionally avoided the issue of the millennium, although his conclusions point to a traditional amillenial position. Much more could be said about the first resurrection, the second death, and the nature of the millennial reign itself.
Endnotes
(1) R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 2 volume, The International Critical Commentary. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1920), p. 182.
(2) ibid, p. 182
(3) William Hendricksen, More than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), pp. 191-3.
(4) Anthony A. Hockema, “Amillenialism,” in The Meaning of the Millenium, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, S.V.P., 1977), pp. 155-187.
(5) George E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1977) pp. 263-8.
(6) G. R. Beasley – Murray, The Book of Revelation, The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1974) pp. 292-6.
(7) John P.M. Sweet, Revelation (London: SCM Press, 1979), pp. 288-99.
(8) Leon Morris, The Revelation of St. John, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 230-1.
(9) R. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1977), pp. 354-360.
(10) Charles, p. 183.
(11) Edward Loshe, “Chilias” In The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, (Grand Rapidd: Eerdman’s, 1978), p. 466.
(12)Beasley-Murray, p. 294.
(13) Mounce, p. 355.
(14) Charles, p. 182.
(15) Hendricksen, p. 143.
(16)A.L. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, (Nashville, Broadman Press, 1934), p. 726.
(17) ibid, p. 729.
(18) Ladd, p. 265.
(19) James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume III Syntax, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963), pp. 71-2.
(20) Ladd, p. 265.
(21) Morris, p. 230.
(22) Otto Schmitz, “thronos“ in Theological, Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1978), p. 165.
Bibliography
Beasley – Murray, G.R. The Book of Revelation: The New Century Bible Commentary. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1974.
Charles, R.H. The Revelation of St. John, 2 volumes: The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1920.
Hendricksen, Williams. More than Conquerors – Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967.
Hockema, Anthony A. “Amillenialism” in The Meaning of the Millenium. ed. Robert G. Clouse. Downer’s Grove: S.V.P., 1977.
Hughes, James A. “Revelation 20:4-6 and the Question of the Millenium. Westminster Theological Journal 35 (March. 1973): 281-302.
Kline, Meredith G. “The First Resurrection,”Westminster Theological Journal 37 (March, 1975): 366-75.
Ladd, George E. A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John.Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s 1972.
Loshe, Edward. “Chilias” In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. ed Gerhard Kettel. Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1978.
Morris, Leon. The Revelation of St. John: The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1987.
Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Volume III Syntax. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963.
Mounce, R. The Book of Revelation: The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1977.
Robertson, A. L. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.
Schmitz, Otto. “Thronos“ in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. ed. Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s, 1978.
Schweizer, Edward. “Psuchê“ in The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. ed. Gerhard Kittel. Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s 1978.
Shepherd, Norman. “The Resurrection of Revelation 20.” Westminster Theological Journal 37 (January, 1974): 34-43.
Sweet, John P.M. Revelations. London: SCM Press, 1979.
|
 |
|
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
