The key to
interpreting Revelation 20:4-6 lies in two highly debated areas. Firstly,
exegetes are divided as to the nature of the first resurrection (20:5, 6);
secondly, the meaning of the verb ezesan
(ἔζησαν) translated by the phrase “and they lived” is highly disputed. This
verb is the aorist active indicative form of the primary verb zao (ζάω), and occurs twice in this passage, once in verse 4,
and once in verse 5. The meaning of the verb ezesan in verse 4 determines the nature of the first resurrection
(20:5).
Premillennialists,
including Bible Presbyterians, contend that both occurrences of the verb (ezesan) refer to a bodily resurrection. Accordingly,
premillennialists – historic and dispensational - see at least a two-phase
resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6. George Eldon Ladd is correct to say that “this
is the most important word in the entire passage. The exegete must decide
whether or not it means resurrection; and upon this decision will be determined
how he interprets the entire passage.”[1]
We recall that
according to the premillennial understanding of Revelation 20:1-6, this passage
necessarily follows Revelation 19 chronologically. This interpretation ignores
the evidence for recapitulation in Revelation 20. Premillennialism requires
both occurrences of the verb (ezesan)
to mean a physical, bodily resurrection. In other words, Premillennialism
necessitates two bodily resurrections in Revelation 20:4-6. If this point can
be contested and repudiated by exegetes, then premillennialism will not stand.
Stanley Grenz, expressing the thoughts of Millard Erickson, perceptively notes
that “the linchpin of premillennialism is the doctrine of two bodily
resurrections. The first will occur at the Lord’s return. The righteous of all
ages will rise in order to share in the millennial reign of Christ. Only after
the golden age will the rest of the dead come forth from their graves, an event
that, however, will place the wicked in the presence of the judge who will
consign them to their eternal destiny.”[2]
Thus,
premillennialists find in this passage (20:4-6) two separate physical
resurrections: the resurrection of the saints, and the resurrection of the
wicked, both of which are separated by the millennium. Premillennialists, such
as Ladd, find no other resurrection mentioned in this passage other than two physical resurrections. Ladd writes,
“In Rev. 20:4-6, there is no such contextual clue for a similar
variation of interpretation. The language of the passage is quite clear and
unambiguous. There is no necessity to interpret either word spiritually in
order to introduce meaning to the passage. At the beginning of the millennial
period, part of the dead come to life; at its conclusion, the rest of the dead
come to life. There is no evident play upon words. The passage makes perfectly
good sense when interpreted literally.”[3]
In his commentary
on Revelation, Ladd quotes Henry Alford’s well-known words:
“If, in a passage where two
resurrections are mentioned, where certain psychai ezesan at the first, and the rest of the nekroi ezesan only at the end of a
specified period after that first, - if in such a passage the first
resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual
rising with Christ, while the second means literal
rising from the grave; - then there is an end of all significance in language,
and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything.”[4]
Premillennialists
understand the second resurrection as a resurrection of the wicked, which is
followed chronologically by the Great White Throne judgment. They reason that,
if the second resurrection is a physical resurrection, then what John describes
as the first resurrection must also be a bodily resurrection.
In contrast to the
premillennial understanding of ezesan
(ἔζησαν), amillennialists do not interpret the first resurrection to mean a
physical resurrection. The general teaching of the New Testament elucidates a
final, general resurrection (Rev. 20:11-15) of both the just and the unjust.
This theological understanding, coupled with the analogy of faith, undergird
the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6.
Furthermore, we
recall that the scene (20:4-6) is set in heaven. The first resurrection,
considering the evidence for recapitulation in Revelation 20, occurs prior to
the Second Coming of Christ. Taken collectively, all these factors point to the
conclusion that a physical resurrection in Revelation 20:4 is very unlikely.
But only an exposition of Revelation 20:4-6 will confirm our suspicion.
Amillennialists
have, in general, understood the phrase “and they lived and reigned with Christ”
to mean either the believer’s spiritual resurrection during conversion, or the
believer’s death and subsequent reign with Christ in the intermediate state. The
later position is taken by William Hendricksen,[5]
Gregory Beale,[6]
Anthony Hoekema,[7]
Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg,[8]
and Meredith Kline.[9] In
both cases, the first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection, and occurs
prior to the Second Advent of Christ.
The First Resurrection
and Hermeneutics
There are serious
hermeneutical differences between dispensational and Reformed exegetes. With
regard to eschatology, the primary dissimilarity lies in how these scholars
interpret Revelation 20:1-6. Reformed expositors tend to apply the analogy of
faith, that is, they study Revelation 20 in the light of the teachings of the
entire New Testament. The premillennialist, however, finds a two-phase physical
resurrection in 20:4-6, and applies this understanding retrogradely into antecedent
Scripture. But the entire New Testament is unanimous on the doctrine of the
general resurrection. Instead of interpreting the highly symbolical passage of
20:4-6 using clear New Testament passages, the premillennialists insist on
imposing a literal reading of 20:4-6 onto plain, New Testament eschatological
teachings. George Murray laments:
“The anomaly confronting us here is that one can read the whole Bible
without discovering an inkling of this doctrine [the doctrine of two
resurrections separated by one thousand years] until he arrives at its third
from the last chapter. If, on coming to that chapter, he shall give a literal
interpretation to one sentence of a highly symbolical passage, he will then
find it necessary to retrace his steps and interpret all the eschatological
teachings of the Bible in a manner agreeable to this one sentence. The
recognized rule of exegesis is to interpret an obscure passage of Scripture in
the light of a clear statement. In this case, clear statements are being interpreted
to agree with the literal interpretation of one sentence from a context replete
with symbolism, the true meaning of which is highly debatable.”[10]
We have previously
discussed the genre of Revelation, as well as the hermeneutical considerations
of interpreting such symbolical passages. In the proper interpretation of
John’s Apocalypse, we must consider four levels of communication in 20:1-6. “The
linguistic level consists of the text of 20:1–6. The visionary level consists
of John’s actual visions of a descending angel, a dragon, a pit, the seizing of
the dragon, the sealing of the pit, the thrones, and so on. The referential
level consists of the historical referents of the dragon, the pit, the thousand
years, and the first resurrection. The symbolic level consists of the symbolic
significances of the various figures and events depicted.”[11]
Premillennialists,
in general, agree that the plain reading of 20:4-6 would support a two-phase
resurrection sequence. They contend that a literal rendering of the text will
inevitably limit the meaning of the “first resurrection” to a bodily
resurrection. Thus, the premillennial exegete finds two physical resurrections
in 20:4-6, one in verse 4b, and one in verse 5a. But such a literal approach to
this highly symbolical passage does not do justice to the full meaning of the
text.
In the previous
chapters, it was reiterated that when we consider apocalyptic passages such as
the vision of John in 20:1-6, we must not disregard the visionary and
symbolical meaning of the text. Poythress correctly perceives that “many
premillennialists . . . neglect the possibility of the presence of a visionary
and a symbolic level. Instead they move almost immediately from the linguistic
level to the referential level. The language of “living” and “first
resurrection” is understood in a literal sense. Anastasis (“resurrection”)
elsewhere in the NT is always used of bodily resurrection. And, it is claimed,
the context of Revelation 20 does not point away from this normal
understanding. Hence “resurrection” must here mean bodily resurrection. Hence
the first resurrection refers to the bodily resurrection of believers at the
second coming.”[12]
Poythress explains
that in the communication of the vision to John, the apostle had to see the resurrection of actual bodies.
This is an essential element in order for the information to be conveyed to
John in visionary format. But the imagery
of bodies rising does not in itself determine the referential and the symbolic
meaning. What the apostle sees at the visionary stage does not immediately
determine the meaning of the vision at the referential or symbolic levels.
Poythress argues,
“What took place on the visionary level? John saw saints come to life
and reign (v. 4). In the context of a vision, one could hardly imagine that
John’s experience was anything other than seeing a bodily resurrection and its
results. John had to see bodies in order for any information concerning people
to be conveyed in a visionary format. The visionary level thus includes bodily
resurrection and its results. On the symbolic level the text pictures new life
and vindication. And what takes place on the referential level? The referent is
some kind of new life, but the exact form remains to be determined. The mere
fact that the visionary level involves concrete physical representation does
not by itself determine the nature of the referential level.”[13]
Therefore, what is
perceived at the visionary level must not be extrapolated immediately to the
referential and symbolic levels. If the visions of John’s Apocalypse were to be
understood literally, specifically the vision of 20:4-6, then that would be a
gross misunderstanding of the genre and worse, to misinterpret the meaning of
those texts. Poythress recognizes that the crux of the entire controversy is
hermeneutical in nature. The disparity between premillennial, particularly
dispensational, hermeneutics and Reformed hermeneutics ultimately constitutes
the exegetical differences with regard to the text in question.[14]
With regard to
Revelation 20:4-6, Poythress summarizes the weaknesses inherent in
premillennial hermeneutics:
“Many premillennialists have thus skirted some key issues when
appealing to the supposed literalness of the first resurrection. They have
neglected the visionary and symbolic levels of the discourse. In fact
premillennial interpreters have often applied a similar literalistic
interpretive strategy to the rest of Revelation and to much of OT prophecy as
well. In such a strategy, the visionary level and symbolic level are virtually
collapsed into the referential level. Throughout Revelation the visions are
then understood to be direct transcriptions of future history. Partly for this
reason most premillennialists are futurist in their interpretation of Revelation.”[15]
The Meaning of the Resurrection
It is often
adduced by Premillennialists that, since ezesan
(ἔζησαν) in verse 5a refers to a physical resurrection – and few expositors
would ever dispute this point – then ezesan
in verse 4b must also mean a physical resurrection.[16]
But there are several considerations which are apparently neglected when one
attempts to understand this verb too literally.
Gregory Beale
writes,
“In contrast to this literal approach, it is important to recognize
that ἀνάστασις (“resurrection”) is found in Revelation only in
20:5-6. Moreover, the ordinal “first” (πρῶτος) with “resurrection” occurs nowhere else in the OT or the NT. This is
a hint that lexical study of words expressing the ideas of “first” and “second”
needs to be conducted in order to comprehend the full meaning of “resurrection”
in the present context.”[17]
Therefore, it is
paramount that the contextual usage of “first” (Prōtos) must be explored in our
interpretation of the phrase “first resurrection.”
Beale argues that
“ζάω (“live”) has a more fluid of range of meaning in the
Apocalypse and elsewhere (for the sense of physical resurrection outside
Revelation cf. Matt. 9:18; Rom. 14:9; 2 Cor. 13:4). In the Apocalypse it
sometimes refers to physical resurrection (1:18; 2:8) or more generally to some
form of physical existence (l6:3; 19:20), but more often it has a figurative
connotation of spiritual existence, especially with respect to God’s attribute
of timeless existence (six occurrences). In 3:1 the verb refers to spiritual
life (and the uses in 7:17 and 13:14 are probably also figurative).”[18]
The Apostle John could very well have intended to convey a spiritual resurrection
as opposed to a physical one expounded by premillennialists.
However, according
to Beale, the “most striking is the observation that elsewhere in the NT ἀνάστασις and ζάω (or the
cognate noun ζωή,
“life”) and synonyms are used interchangeably of both spiritual and physical
resurrection within the same immediate
contexts.”[19]
Beale provides Romans 6:4-13 and John 5:24-29 as instances whereby the words
“life” and “resurrection” are used together within the same context to convey spiritual and physical realities. “These
observations do not demonstrate that the same words are used in Rev. 20:4 and 6
of both spiritual and physical resurrection, but only that they can have that
dual meaning elsewhere in the same
context.”[20]
The
premillennialist’s insistence that the same word cannot possess different
meanings within the same context is consequently weakened.
References
[1] Ladd, A
Commentary on the Revelation of John, 265.
[2] Stanley
[3] Ladd, A
Commentary on the Revelation of John, 266.
[4] Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (Boston: Lee and Shepard. 1872), IV, 732,
quoted in Ladd, A Commentary on the
Revelation of John, 267.
[5] See Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors, 192.
[6] See Beale, The Book of Revelation, 1002-1007.
[7] See Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 232-238.
[8] See Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, The Revelation of St. John: Expounded for
Those Who Search the Scriptures (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark,
1852; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005), 281-282.
[9] See Meredith Kline, “The First Resurrection,” Westminster
[10] George L. Murray, Millennial Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1948), 153-154.
[11] Vern
Sheridan Poythress, “Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6,” Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 36, no. 1 (1993): 45-46.
[12] Ibid., 46.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Reformed hermeneutics refers to the
“historical-grammatical-literary-theological” method of interpretation.
[15] Poythress,
“Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6,” 48.
[16] See Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation: New International Commentary on the New
Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998),
366. Mounce writes, “The strong presumption is that the verb in v. 4 should be
taken in the same sense as it is in v. 5. In the second case the statement,
“The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were
ended,” certainly refers to a bodily resurrection at the close of the
millennial period. If “they came to life” in v. 4 means a spiritual
resurrection to new life in Christ, then we are faced with the problem of
discovering within the context some persuasive reason to interpret the same
verb differently within one concise unit. No such reason can be found.”
[17] Beale, The
Book of Revelation, 1004.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid., 1005.
No comments:
Post a Comment