I. It is well known that this passage is the principal one which is relied on by those who advocate the doctrine of the literal reign of Christ on the earth for a thousand years, or who hold what are called the doctrines of the “second advent.” The points which are maintained by those who advocate these views are substantially, (a) that at that period Christ will descend from heaven to reign personally upon the earth; (b) that he will have a central place of power and authority, probably Jerusalem; (c) that the righteous dead will then be raised, in such bodies as are to be immortal; (d) that they will be his attendants, and will participate with him in the government of the world; (e) that this will continue during the period of a thousand years; (f) that the world will be subdued and converted during this period, not by moral means, but by “a new dispensation”—by the power of the Son of God; and (g) that at the close of this period all the remaining dead will be raised, the judgment will take place, and the affairs of the earth will be consummated.
The opinion here adverted to was held substantially by Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, and others among the Christian Fathers, and, it need not be said, is held by many modern expositors of the Bible, and by large numbers of Christian ministers of high standing, and other Christians. See the Literalist, passim. The opinion of the Christian Fathers, with which the modern “literalists,” as they are called, substantially coincide, is thus stated by Mr. Elliott: “This resurrection is to be literally that of departed saints and martyrs, then at length resuscitated in the body from death and the grave; its time to synchronize with, or follow instantly after, the destruction of the beast Antichrist, on Christ’s personal second advent; the binding of Satan to be an absolute restriction of the power of hell from tempting, deceiving, or injuring mankind, throughout a literal period of a thousand years, thence calculated; the government of the earth, during its continuance to be administered by Christ and the risen saints—the latter being now ἰσάγγελοι—in nature like angels; and under it, all false religion having been put down, the Jews and saved remnant of the Gentiles been converted to Christ, the earth renovated by the fire of Antichrist’s destruction, and Jerusalem made the universal capital, there will be a realization on earth of the blessedness depicted in the Old Testament prophecies, as well as perhaps of that too which is associated with the New Jerusalem in the visions of the Apocalypse—until at length this millennium having ended, and Satan gone forth to deceive the nations, the final consummation will follow; the new-raised enemies of the saints, Gog and Magog, be destroyed by fire from heaven: and then the general resurrection and judgment take place, the devil and his servants be cast into the lake of fire, and the millennial reign of the saints extend itself into one of eternal duration” (Elliott on the Apocalypse, iv. 177, 178).
Mr. Elliott’s own opinion, representing, it is supposed, that of the great body of the “literalists,” is thus expressed:“It would seem, therefore, that in this state of things and of feeling in professing Christendom and thus the regeneration of all things, and the world’s redemption from the curse, having their accomplishment, according to the promise, at the manifestation of the sons of God,” iv. 224–231.[621]
To this account of the prevailing opinion of the “literalists” in interpreting the passage before us, there should be added that of Professor Stuart, who, in general, is as far as possible from sympathizing with this class of writers. He says, in his explanation of the expression “they lived,” in ver. 4, “There would seem to remain, therefore, only one meaning which can be consistently given to ἔζησαν [they lived]; viz., that they (the martyrs who renounced the beast) are now restored to life, viz., such life as implies the vivification of the body. Not to a union of the soul with a gross material body indeed, but with such an one as the saints in general will have at the final resurrection—a spiritual body, 1 Co. xv. 44. In no other way can this resurrection be ranked as correlate with the second resurrection named in the sequel,” vol. ii. p. 360. So again, Excursus vi. (vol. ii. p. 476), he says, “I do not see how we can, on the ground of exegesis, fairly avoid the conclusion that John has taught in the passage before us, that there will be a resurrection of the martyr-saints, at the commencement of the period after Satan shall have been shut up in the dungeon of the great abyss.” This opinion he defends at length, pp. 476–490. Professor Stuart, indeed, maintains that the martyrs thus raised up will be taken to heaven and reign with Christ there, and opposes the whole doctrine of the literal reign on the earth, vol. ii. p. 480. The risen saints and martyrs are to be “enthroned with Christ; that is, they are to be where he dwells, and where he will continue to dwell, until he shall make his descent at the final judgment day.”
II. In regard to these views, as expressive of the meaning of the passage under consideration, I would make the following remarks:—
(1) There is strong presumptive evidence against this interpretation, and especially against the main point in the doctrine, that there will be a literal resurrection of the bodies of the saints at the beginning of that millennial period, to live and reign with Christ on earth, from the following circumstances:—(a) It is admitted, on all hands, that this doctrine, if contained in the Scriptures at all, is found in this one passage only. It is not pretended that there is, in any other place, a direct affirmation that this will literally occur, nor would the advocates for that opinion undertaketo show that it is fairly implied in any other part of the Bible. But it is strange, not to say improbable, that the doctrine of the literal resurrection of the righteous, a thousand years before the wicked, should be announced in one passage only. If it were so announced in plain and unambiguous language, I admit that the believer in the divine origin of the Scriptures would be bound to receive it; but this is so contrary to the usual method of the Scriptures on all great and important doctrines, that this circumstance should lead us at least to doubt whether the passage is correctly interpreted. The resurrection of the dead is a subject on which the Saviour often dwelt in his instructions; it is a subject which the apostles discussed very frequently and at great length in their preaching, and in their writings; it is presented by them in a great variety of forms, for the consolation of Christians in time of trouble, and with reference to the condition of the world at the winding up of human affairs; and it is strange that, in respect to so important a doctrine as this, if it be true, there is not elsewhere, in the New Testament, a hint, an intimation, an allusion, that would lead us to suppose that the righteous are to be raised in this manner. (b) If this is a true doctrine, it would be reasonable to expect that a clear and unambiguous statement of it would be made. Certainly, if there is but one statement on the subject, that might be expected to be a perfectly clear one, it would be a statement about which there could be no diversity of opinion, concerning which those who embraced it might be expected to hold the same views. But it cannot be pretended that this is so in regard to this passage. It occurs in the book which, of all the books in the Bible, is most distinguished for figures and symbols; it cannot be maintained that it is directly and clearly affirmed; and it is not so taught that there is any uniformity of view among those who profess to hold it. In nothing has there been greater diversity among men than in the opinions of those who profess to hold the “literal” views respecting the personal reign of Christ on the earth. But this fact assuredly affords presumptive evidence that the doctrine of the literal resurrection of the saints a thousand years before the rest of the dead, is not intended to be taught. (c) It is presumptive proof against this, that nothing is said of the employment of those who are raised up; of the reason why they are raised; of the new circumstances of their being; and of their condition when the thousand years shall have ended. In so important a matter as this, we can hardly suppose that the whole subject would be left to a single hint in a symbolical representation, depending on the doubtful meaning of a single word, and with nothing to enable us to determine, with absolute certainty, that this must be the meaning. (d) If it be meant that this is a description of the resurrection of the righteous as such—embracing all the righteous—then it is wholly unlike all the other descriptions of the resurrection of the righteous that we have in the Bible. Here the account is confined to “those that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,” and to “those who had not worshipped the beast.” If the righteous, as such, are here referred to, why are these particular classes specified? Why are not the usual general terms employed? Why is the account of the resurrection confined to these? Elsewhere in the Scriptures, the account of the resurrection is given in the most general terms (comp. Mat. xxv. 41; Jn. iv. 54; v. 28, 29; Ro. ii. 7; 1 Co. xv. 23; Phi. iii. 20, 21; 2 Th. i. 10; He. ix. 28; 1 Jn. ii. 28, 29; iii. 2); and if this had been the designed reference here, it is inconceivable why the statement should be limited to the martyrs, and to those who have evinced great fidelity in the midst of temptations and allurements to apostasy. These circumstances furnish strong presumptive proofs, at least, against the doctrine that there is to be a literal resurrection of all the saints at the beginning of the millennial period. Comp. Christ’s Second Coming, by Rev. David Brown, p. 219, seq.
(2) In reference to many of the views necessarily implied in the doctrine of the “second advent,” and avowed by those who hold that doctrine, it cannot be pretended that they receive any countenance or support from this passage. In the language of Professor Stuart (Com. vol. ii. p. 479), there is “not a word of Christ’s descent to the earth at the beginning of the millennium. Nothing of the literal assembling of the Jews in Palestine; nothing of the Messiah’s temporal reign on earth; nothing of the overflowing abundanceof worldly peace and plenty.” Indeed, in all this passage, there is not the remotest hint of the grandeur and magnificence of the reign of Christ as a literal king upon the earth; nothing of his having a splendid capital at Jerusalem, or anywhere else; nothing of a new dispensation of a miraculous kind; nothing of the renovation of the earth to fit it for the abode of the risen saints. All this is the mere work of fancy, and no man can pretend that it is to be found in this passage.
(3) Nor is there anything here of a literal resurrection of the bodies of the dead, as Professor Stuart himself supposes. It is not a little remarkable that a scholar so accurate as Professor Stuart is, and one, too, who has so little sympathy with the doctrines connected with a literal reign of Christ on the earth, should have lent the sanction of his name to perhaps the most objectionable of all the dogmas connected with that view—the opinion that the bodies of the saints will be raised up at the beginning of the millennial period. Of this there is not one word, one intimation, one hint, in the passage before us. John says expressly, and as if to guard the point from all possible danger of this construction, that he “saw the SOULS of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus;” he saw them “living” and “reigning” with Christ—raised to the exalted honour during that period, as if they had been raised from the dead; but he nowhere mentions or intimates that they were raised up from their graves; that they were clothed with bodies; that they had their residence now literally on the earth; or that they were, in any way, otherwise than disembodied spirits. There is not even one word of their having “a spiritual body.”
(4) There are positive arguments, which are perfectly decisive, against the interpretation which supposes that the bodies of the saints will be raised up at the beginning of the millennial period, to reign with Christ on the earth for a thousand years. Among these are the following:—
(a) If the “first resurrection” means rising from the grave in immortal and glorified bodies, we do not need the assurance (ver. 6), that “on such the second death hath no power;” that is, that they would not perish for ever. That would be a matter of course, and there was no necessity for such a statement. But if it be supposed that the main idea is that the principles of the martyrs and of the most eminent saints would be revived and would live, as if the dead were raised up, and would be manifested by those who were in mortal bodies—men living on the earth—then there would be a propriety in saying that all such were exempt from the danger of the second death. Once, indeed, they would die; but the second death could not reach them. Comp. Re. ii. 10, 11.