Listen or read the following transcript as D. A. Carson speaks on the topic of the End Times from Revelation
Let’s begin with prayer.
Our Father, as we think through something of the glories of heaven, grant that with our whole hearts we may join the church in every generation crying out, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” Forbid that we should be amongst those who do not long for the return of Christ, who do not love the day of his appearing, as Scripture says. “Lo, he comes with clouds descending, once for favored sinners slain.” Grant that that might be our eager anticipation and expectation, not only tonight, but tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, until Jesus comes. For Jesus’ sake, amen.
Now tonight I really do want to spend most of the time on chapters 21 and 22 because we’re going to be spending all eternity there; we might as well become familiar with it now. On the other hand, I promised I would say something about chapter 20 first, so I will. I’m not going to be able to do any more now on chapter 19; there just isn’t time. I’ve had to drop a few bits and pieces along the line and this is one of those bits.
But I do want to say something about chapter 20. I can’t go through the detailed exposition if I’m going to get to chapters 21 and 22, which in my judgment is more important anyway. There is more ink spilled on this chapter than on any other chapter, probably than any other five chapters put together.
But strictly speaking, it’s not as important as the last two chapters. On any interpretation, it only lasts 1,000 years, and in the light of eternity, that’s not all that long. The glorious hope of the church is not a millennium, however you understand millennium. The glorious hope of the church is the climactic return that issues finally into the new heaven and the new earth. So it is really quite important to get that in perspective right away.
“And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil, or Satan, and bound him for 1,000 years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.”
Now there are really only so many ways you can, on the face of it, interpret this first part. There are some who argue that the 1,000 years is not symbolic of time at all; it is merely some kind of symbol for the victory of Christ in defeating the Devil. You find that interpretation, for example, in G.C. Berkouwer and writers of that heritage. So that fits in with one of the amillennial interpretations.
It’s very neat; the problem is that in the genre of apocalyptic literature, although it is true that numbers are regularly symbolic and that time is regularly schematized, I don’t know of any place in apocalyptic literature (and I think I’ve read it all, at least all the Jewish stuff) where time represents something that is not time.
It’s one thing to say that the 1,000 years might not represent literally 1,000; it might represent an extended period of time, because numbers are symbolic. It’s another thing to say that the 1,000 years does not represent time at all, whether long or short, 1,000 or otherwise, but simply represents the victory of Christ.
In other words, it is common in the genre to find numbers used symbolically, and it is common to find history schematized so it’s in neat structures. I don’t know any place where a block of time is used as a symbol for something non-time. So in my view, that interpretation is ruled out on genre grounds.
The second interpretation of this 1,000 years that we might consider is also one form of the amillennial camp; there are several different types. This is the view that says the 1,000 years are an extended period of time, a symbolic period of time, and in fact represent the entire period from the first coming of Christ to the second coming of Christ. That is the most common amillennial interpretation; it’s represented, for example, in Hendrickson’s generally very interesting commentary.
Everything depends, on that case. Everything, absolutely everything, depends on what you do with the Devil during that time, because the whole thrust of verses 1 to 3 is how the Devil is constrained. What is characteristic of the millennium at this juncture? Before you get to verses 4 and following, what is characteristic at this juncture (in verses 1 through 3) is the Devil is bound, he’s thrown into the Abyss. Then when he’s in the Abyss, the thing is stopped up so he can’t get out, with the express purpose that he shall not deceive the nations.
It’s very strong language. Now when you find people arguing about this one, whether or not the Devil was stopped up or not, what tends to happen is you get people quoting the verses, on the one hand, that seem to suggest the Devil is a defeated foe this side of the cross. Those who don’t like the interpretation, they go around quoting all the verses in the New Testament that picture the Devil as an enemy that still has to be opposed.
On the one hand: “I saw Satan fall from heaven” (Luke 10). “Resist the Devil and he will flee from you.” After all, we’re armed with the weapons of Christ and so on. On the other hand: “The Devil goes about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” “Sometimes he appears as an angel of light deceiving, if possible, the very elect.” “Make sure you have all your weapons on because he’s a nasty piece of work” (Ephesians 6).
So which side of the scale do you tip on? Well, methodologically, it’s not wise to begin by citing a whole lot of verses from elsewhere in the New Testament. It’s not that the New Testament verses can’t be reconciled with this; that’s not the point. The point is you can look at the Devil as a foe who was defeated, in principle, in exactly the same way you could look at Hitler as the foe who was defeated, in principle, after D-Day. The thing was over. But on the other hand, you can look at it from the point of view of the slogging foot soldier; it jolly well wasn’t over.
You can look at it from different perspectives; it’s not as if you can’t reconcile the two. The problem is you must ask the first question, namely: How does John look at it? What is John emphasizing? John emphasizes in this book, it seems to me, that until the end, Satan is in the position of chapter 12; that is, he’s been cast out of heaven, but on the earth he’s a nasty piece of work. He’s full of rage; he’s full of enmity against the woman and her offspring, and that is us!
That is so much a part of the book of Revelation; the Beast is behind so much in the book of Revelation. If he’s not behind it directly, then he’s using the second beast, full of deceit. He’s got the whore riding on his back. I mean, he’s there everywhere. The Devil is using the Beast, who’s using the second beast, and the whore, the great prostitute, is riding the first beast. The Devil’s active all the time, and if one of the beasts dies, he comes back to life again.
That is just so much a part of the entire schema of the book of Revelation that it was one of the turning points in my own changing reflection. I told you I came from an amillennial stock; it was one of the turning points that moved me away from that heritage. At the end of it, I don’t think it makes sense in the book of Revelation; I don’t think it does.
If then, you are dealing with the thousand years (which may or may not be literally 1,000 years, but an extended period of time, at least it’s time), then you’re dealing with some period of time where there are blessings, somewhere, with the Devil stopped up more than he’s ever been, but not finally. In other words, there is a place in this schema for a bust-up at the end. He is released. That’s the whole difference. There is a place for a bust-up at the end, after a period of time when he’s not there.
Now if you ask, before we press on in the text, “What on earth is this for? What does this add to anything? Why bother? All the main points have improved already, haven’t they?” The short answer is that I don’t know, but as usual, there is a longer answer than a mere cut-and-dried “I don’t know.” Because there is nothing right here in the text that says, “And the purpose of this millennial splendor is the following 14 points,” or something like that, that would answer the question directly.
So one has to answer cautiously, from what is described about the millennium and also from analogies in Scripture where there are similar sorts of things. If you ask on analogical grounds what purpose this serves, I perceive at least two themes that also occur in this book.
1. For all that God is mentioned throughout this book, from time to time, as a God of wrath, he’s still presented as having a longer fuse than the saints.
Remember in chapter 6, the saints are crying out, “How long, O Lord, how long?” God says, “Not yet, there are more people to get martyred.” In other words, this may be part of a piece with Romans 2 as well. God, in his great forbearance, is still providing opportunities for people to turn, to turn and not die. It wouldn’t surprise me.
2. At the same time, it may turn out to be part of a vindication of God.
That is to say, supposing some were to argue, “If we just had a just rule, if we just had a fair government, we’d be all right. We could withstand the Devil and all his cohorts. If things were structured properly, we’d be okay.”
It may be that God will see to it for a while that things are structured properly. Then when the Devil is let free again, we blow it all apart again (we, meaning the people alive and operating at the time). In which case, it becomes part of the vindication of God, the justification of God, which shows beyond the tiniest scrap of doubt that there is nothing, finally, that we can do to redeem ourselves. Even if things are organized for us, at the first whiff of temptation we lose it all again.
What is required, finally, is nothing other than a new heaven and a new earth: God taking decisive action at the consummation in a way that’s irreversible, or else we’ll blow it again. That says a great deal for God; it doesn’t say a great deal for us. I would be prepared to argue that that’s a pretty constant theme in Scripture.
Verse 4 through 6:
“I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands.
They came to life and reigned with Christ 1,000 years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for 1,000 years.”
Now what are we to make of this? Assuming that we’re still dealing with the same 1,000 years (which seems reasonable), we now have, in these verses, the positive description of what takes place on the inverse to the negative description in verse 1 to 3. In verses 1 to 3, what primarily takes place here is the tying up of Satan.
In verses 4 and following, what primarily takes place is the reigning, ruling, and blessing of these people, whoever they are. So now you have a whole nest of exegetical questions that have to be answered, all of which have books written on them, such as, “What does it mean, in verse 5, ‘did not come to life’ or, in the second part of verse 4, ‘they lived and reigned with Christ’ or ‘they came to life and reigned with Christ’? What does that verb mean?”
Now people have argued about that one until the cows come home, but I would be prepared to argue in the strongest terms that the normal way of taking the peculiar verb there really does mean, “they came to life from the dead.” That is, that it is a resurrection verb. It doesn’t simply mean they came to spiritual life, or they became Christians, or something like that, although many have argued that in favor of some kind of amillennial position.
I think it is not the obvious use of the verb. I think it means they came to life back from the dead. Moreover, if this first resurrection is rightly called a resurrection (because it belongs in kind to the second resurrection, which all sides agree really is resurrection), then it is hard to take this first resurrection in purely symbolic terms if the second one is not being taken that way.
“I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus.” You may ask, “Are those who rule and reign in the millennium constituted solely by the martyrs?” Now there are some who take that stance. You can make sense of it that way; I don’t see anything in the passage that you can use to rule that one out exclusively. In which case, part of the millennium is a kind of extra blessing for those who have served Christ by this particular means? They’ve been martyred, so they have an extra blessing?
However, on balance I don’t think that’s probably right. I would like to think so; it would solve some problems for me that I haven’t brought up, but I don’t think it’s right. We’ve seen elsewhere how, occasionally, John will start talking about the martyrs and then pretty soon he’s taking about all those who don’t have the mark of the Beast on them, or something like that. The martyrs thus become a kind of elite symbolism for all of the elect, the coterie of the blessed.
Do you see how else he describes it? “I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded.” Yes, well does that mean not all the martyrs, but only those who are beheaded? You start getting literal, pushing it that far, then you’re not even talking about all the martyrs. How about the ones that have been burned? How about the ones that have been run through? How about the ones that have been starved? How about the ones that have been drowned? (They used to drown all kinds of Baptists.) No, no, only the ones who are beheaded get this blessing.… Well, that’s not likely.
If “the beheaded” thus becomes a symbolic way of referring to all those, in fact, who haven’t born the mark of the Beast, then that’s what’s said next: “They had not worshiped the Beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands.” And who is that describing in the book of Revelation?
In the book of Revelation, that’s everybody who is faithful to Christ, as opposed to those who have the mark of the Beast (who are only faithful to the Devil and not to Christ). There is this bifurcation that runs right through the whole book. So I think it makes far more sense to understand “the beheaded” and those who don’t have the mark of the Beast, as simply a way of referring to the martyr crowd; that is, to believers, those who don’t have the mark of the Beast.
In which case, it’s believers, then, who enter into the first resurrection. If then, the 1,000 years (whether it’s literally 1,000 years or an extended period of time) does represent time, then there is some delay between the resurrection of the just and the resurrection of the unjust, otherwise the parenthetical words at the beginning of verse 5 do not make sense: “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended.” This is the first resurrection.
“Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them …” The second death, then, is hell, which is made very clear a little farther on: “This is the second death.” Then it’s another way of saying that all of the blessed who enter into the first resurrection finally escape the second death, which is hell itself.
Now if you ask, at this point, “Do they reign on the earth?” The text doesn’t say. It doesn’t say. Is this a reign from Jerusalem? The text doesn’t say. Is there a mixture of the resurrected crowd and the unresurrected crowd? Strictly speaking, the text doesn’t say. What it does say is they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for 1,000 years.
“Ah,” but somebody says, “if they’re all reigning, they have to reign over somebody. So presumably, that means they’re reigning over the bad guys, doesn’t it?” Well, it may. But it’s more complex than that. Do you remember the parable of the talents that Jesus tells? In the parable of the talents, at the end of the day, some reign over one city, some over two cities, and some over five cities. It doesn’t say, “And some are just ordinary citizens in the city.”
Everybody ends up reigning somewhere, because it is a symbol-laden way of saying that in the new heaven and the new earth there are rewards. They live and reign with Christ. What kind of structure this will look like.… Who knows what universes the Almighty has? I don’t know; I don’t pretend to know.
