70-1070AD J.S. Russell's Position on the Millennium, the Neglected Third Way of Preterism

It should be noted that in Russell’s system there will be a future end to evil at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20:7-10). In my mind this is an improvement over full preterist paradigm which sees evil as existing into eternity (in men’s hearts). Also Russell’s position does not necessitate the hypothesis of two millenniums. There is much more to be said. I will be saying it in my forthcoming book, The Antichrist and the Second Coming. (800 pages double spaced, see contents below).

The Antichrist and the Second Coming

A Preterist Examination
Duncan McKenzie, Ph. D.
Contents

A question that relates to the sequence of the millennium in Revelation is that of the temporal relationship of the judgment committed to those who come alive for the millennium in Revelation 20:4 (And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them…”) and the judgment in Revelation 20:11-15 (Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it…and the dead were judged, vv 11-12). I refer to these two visions of thrones and judgment in Revelation 20:4 and 20:11-15 as the throne scene judgments of Revelation 20. At first glance the sequence appears clear; the setting up of thrones and judgment in Revelation 20:4 happens at the beginning of the millennium and the setting up of the great white throne and judgment in Revelation 20:11-15 happens at the end of the millennium. There is another theory on the sequence of Revelation 20:4 and 11-15, however, that is rarely discussed in the literature on Revelation; ⁱ it was proposed by James Stuart Russell. Russell’s position is that what is being shown in Revelation 20 is not two separate throne scenes and judgments (one in Rev. 20:4 and one in 20:11-15) separated by the millennium, but one throne scene and judgment (composed of Revelation 20:4 and 11-15) with a digression of what will happen at the end of the millennium (Revelation 20:7-10) in between. Russell’s position is that John begins describing a throne scene judgment at the beginning of the millennium in Revelation 20:4. At 20:7-10 John digresses about what would happen at the end of the millennium, and then at 20:11 he takes up again the subject of the throne scene judgment he started in 20:4. Russell thus saw the description of the throne scene and judgment that is begun in Revelation 20:4 as being continued in Revelation 20:11. The two sections (Rev. 20:4 and 11-15) are thus describing one throne scene judgment (which happens at the beginning of the millennium) not two throne scene judgments (one at the beginning of the millennium and one at its end). Russell wrote the following on this.

If Russell’s position is correct (which I believe it is) then the one throne scene and judgment described in Revelation 20:4 and 20:11-15 is as follows.

Rev. 20:4 And I saw thrones and they sat on them and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witnesses to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years

(Parenthesis of 7-10 of what happens at the end of the millennium)

Rev. 20:11-15 Then I saw a great throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Matthew 19:28 Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Initially I rejected Russell idea (that Revelation 20:4 and 11-15 were describing one judgment that happened at the beginning of the millennium) as being interesting but unlikely. What finally convinced me that Russell was right, was comparing what is clearly one throne scene and judgment at the beginning of the saints possessing the kingdom in Daniel 7:9-10 (which is when thrones are put in place) with Revelation 20:4 and 11-12. In Daniel 7 there is only one throne scene judgment shown; it is at the beginning of the saints possessing the kingdom, the beginning of the millennium, and it contains the elements of both Revelation 20:4 and 11 (as Russell’s position would predict). This is consistent with the proposition that Rev. 20:4 and 11 are showing one throne scene judgment that happens at the beginning of the millennium. Consider the following comparison of these scriptures. I am using the New Revised Standard Version here and have added the letters A-E for points of comparison. I have also added to Daniel 7 the corresponding verses in Revelation 20 in parentheses.

Notice that it is only by combining the elements of both Revelation 20:4 and 11-12 that one gets all five of the elements of the one throne scene of Daniel 7:9-10.

Daniel 7:9-10 Revelation 20:4, 11-12

Daniel 7:9-10 lends strong support for Russell’s idea that Revelation 20:4 and 20:11-12 is one throne scene and judgment (at the beginning of the millennium) not two judgments (separated by the millennium).ⁱⁱⁱ Note that the NRSV makes element C look different in Daniel and Revelation; the NRSV makes it sound like the ones before the throne are attending the One on the throne. If you look at the NKJV and NASB, however, they give the impression that there are two groups before the throne, those attending God and those there for judgment (“thousands upon thousands were attending Him, and myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; the court sat, and the books were opened.” Dan. 7:10 NASB). If the NASB and NKJV give the correct sense (which I believe they do) then the myriads before the throne in Daniel 7:10 correspond to the dead before the throne in Revelation 20:12, both groups are facing the judgment. If none of those before the throne in Daniel 7:10 are facing judgment, then who is? It would be very strange indeed to show a judgment with no one to be judged.

After examining Daniel 7:9-11, I came to the conclusion that Russell was right; the throne scene and judgment begun in Revelation 20:4 is then continued in Revelation 20:11. Revelation 20 is showing what Paul said would happen at the Second Coming (1 Cor. 6:2); the saints in verse 4 are partnering with God as He judges the world in verses 11-15. Notice how Daniel first saw thrones and then he saw the Ancient of Days take His throne, Dan. 7:9 (“As I watched, thrones were set in place {A} and an Ancient One took his throne” {B}). This is exactly what one gets when one connects Revelation 20:4 with 20:11 (4. “And I saw thrones and they sat on them {A}…11. Then I saw a great throne and Him who sat on it” {B}).

Again, what led me to accept Russell's solution that Rev. 20:4 and 20:11-15 are really describing one throne scene (with the parenthetical statement of what ultimately happens to Satan at the end of the millennium in vv. 7-10) is that it is only in by combining both Rev. 20:4 and 11-12 that you get all five of elements that are found in the one throne scene (which happens at the beginning of the kingdom reign) in Dan. 7:9-11. Daniel’s vision of this throne scene shows the elements of Revelation 20:4 (thrones set up with those sitting on them given the authority to judge) as happening at the same time that elements of Revelation 20:11-12 happen (God takes His throne, myriads are before the throne and the books are opened). This judgment was to happen at the beginning of the saints possessing the kingdom, the AD 70 beginning of the millennium. The millennium began right afterthe defeat of Antichrist (the little horn/individual beast, Dan. 7:9-11, 21-22; Rev. 19:20-20:4); this was the time of the AD 70 Second Coming not AD 30.

Revelation 20:4 and 11-12 are talking about one throne scene and judgment explains the judgment that is committed to those on the thrones in verse 4, the meaning of which is unintelligible if verses 4 and 11-15 aren’t connected. Aune, commenting on this problem, said the following on Revelation 20:4-6, “nothing remotely connected with [krima] ‘judgment’ is found in the narrative; i.e., the right to judge given to those enthroned is apparently not exercised within this pericope.” ^iv brackets mine Aune further wrote that Rev. 20:4 “looks like the beginning of a judgment scene that is fragmentary, for the judgment itself does not occur (i.e., [krima], ‘judgment’ has no real function in this textual unit)”^v brackets mine. This last point is very important; it is strong evidence against the possibility that John was deliberating splitting of the judgment in Daniel 7:9-10 into two separate judgments (not that I have ever seen anyone make this argument). If John were deliberately splitting the throne judgment of Daniel 7 into two judgments, one would think he would have done a more coherent job. That is, the judgment that the saints on thrones in Revelation 20:4 participate in does not make sense if it is not connected to the throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-12. It thus see no indication that John was separating the judgment of Daniel 7 into two judgments (separated by the millennium) in Revelation 20. In Daniel 7:9 thrones are put in place (cf. Rev. 20:4) at the same time that the Ancient of Days is seated (cf. Rev. 20:11).

Some try to escape this problem of the judgment that never happens in Revelation 20:4 by saying that judgment committed to those on the thrones means that they rule, not that they are involved in a judgment. Mounce noted, however, that although the OT term for “to judge” (Heb. mishphat) has connotations of both judging and ruling, the Greek word for “to judge” (krima) does not carry such a range of meaning (he cites Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker “as showing no such meaning for [krima]”)^vi Again, my position is that the judgment of Revelation 20:4 is not fragmentary; the judgment John begins to describe at the beginning of the millennium in Revelation 20:4 is continued in 20:11. Thus Revelation (like Daniel) is showing one judgment at the beginning of the saints possessing the kingdom (the millennium, Dan. 7:26-27), not two judgments (one at the beginning of the millennium and one at the end).

Rev. 20:7-10 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

As I mentioned earlier, I originally rejected Russell’s position on the millennium. Allow me to share some of my earlier ideas on the millennium, as I think they are initially attractive but ultimately lead in the wrong direction. My earlier position (which I now think is mistaken) was that Rev. 20:4 was the 70AD beginning of the millennium and that Rev. 20:11-15 was the resurrection and judgment at the end of the millennium (which I saw as the end of time). I thus was in agreement with Russell that the millennium began at AD 70 but was extending Russell’s view on future things (relative to us) from Revelation 20:10 to 20:15. That is, Russell’s position is that only Revelation 20:7-10 speaks of future things whereas my former position saw Revelation 20:5-15 as dealing with future things (i.e. I saw Rev. 20:10-15 being a future judgment at the end of the millennium). In my former position I saw Revelation 21 as returning to AD 70, as the topic of the New Jerusalem/bride started in Revelation 19:7 is continued (Rev. 21:2, 9-10). My position seemed fine at first but on closer inspection I discovered logistical problems that could not be remedied.

In Rev. 21:1 (which my old position had said was AD 70) there is no more sea. If the sea (symbolic of Satan’s domain) ceased to exist in AD 70 how could it be around to give up the dead in it at (what my old position had said was) the end of time in Rev. 20:13? Also in Rev. 20:11 heaven and earth/Land flee and there is no place found for them. If this was the end of time, how is it that there is a new heaven and earth/Land in Rev. 21:1 (which my old position said was AD 70)? The necessity of a new heaven and Land in Revelation 21:1 (which I was saying was AD 70) was because the old heaven and Land had fled in Rev. 20:11 (which I was saying was the end of time). To say Revelation 21:1 is AD 70 while Revelation 20:11 is the end of time did not make sense. If Revelation 21:1 is referring to an AD 70 new heaven and new Land then the old heaven and old Land fleeing in Revelation 20:11 must also be referring to AD 70. Similarly, If Revelation 20:11 is the end of time then Revelation 21:1 should be the end of time. The new heaven and new Land in Rev. 21:1 is a direct result of the fleeing of the old heaven and old Land in Rev. 20:11. If Rev. 21:1 is AD 70 then Rev. 20:11 should also be AD 70. Since one is the direct result of the other, one can not separate the two time periods.^viii The logical inconsistencies of my previous position presented an insurmountable challenge. Since I knew that the full preterist solution that the millennium was the period from AD 30 to AD 70 was wrong, I went back and reexamined, and ultimately accepted, Russell's position.

While I believe that Russell’s proposition that Revelation 20:4 and 20:11-15 form one judgment at the AD 70 beginning of the millennium is correct, it does bring up a difficulty. Revelation 20:5a says, “But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.” This would seem to be at odds with the position which I am advocating which sees one resurrection of the righteous and wicked happening at the beginning of the “thousand years,” not a resurrection of the righteous at the beginning of the “thousand years,” (Rev. 20:4, 6) and then another resurrection, of the wicked (or wicked and righteous) at the end. As I investigated this difficulty, I discovered that there is some question as to whether the part of verse 5 (5a) that speaks of the rest of the dead coming alive after the thousand years was in the original text of Revelation. Notice how the NRSV highlights how Revelation 20:5a interrupts the flow of John’s thought from verse 4 to 5b. In an attempt to smooth this interruption out, the NRSV (as well as the NIV) puts 5a in parentheses (I have added a and b to v. 5).

As it stands, Revelation 20:5 does not make sense, 5a. reads “But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.” 5b. reads “This is the first resurrection.” This makes it sound like the rest of the dead coming to life after the thousand years constitutes the first resurrection. Aune said the following about how verse 5a interrupts this passage, “Since the clause interrupts the thought of the passage, it may have been an annotation added at a final stage of composition.”^ix Beale said the following on the awkwardness of Revelation 20:5a. The rest of the dead did not come to life… “is omitted by several good mss. [see footnote] because it was abrupt and seemed out of place or, more likely because a copyist’s eye skipped from ‘years’ at the end of v. 4 to the following ‘years’ [in verse 5].”^x

In the Greek of Rev 20:5 the first sentence ends with “the thousand years,” just as does the last sentence of the preceding verse. Thus, if it is assumed both sentences were in the original, it would have been an easy mistake for the copyist’s eye to skip from the first “the thousand years” to the second, thus accidentally omitting a sentence. Indeed, Tischendorf, Alford, and others automatically regard it as an accidental omission (technically referred to as a “homoioteleuton”). However, if the sentence in question were originally a comment, with the same terminal words, the automatic judgment has no way to detect it as spurious. In the case of Rev 20:5, the sentence, “The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years were finished” (Greek: ...until were finished the thousand years) has sufficient theological import that it is unlikely it would disappear quietly from about 37% of the manuscripts (from a progressively higher percentage in centuries before the fourteenth). While the Millennarian sentiment of Papias (early 2nd century) and others might welcome accidental omission, the anti-Millennarian spirit from Constantine onwards would severely punish it. The sentence itself interrupts the context, perhaps implying that the first resurrection is the absence of a resurrection! The earlier Aecumenius text (in manuscript 2053, preserving a text of ca. A.D. 600) omits the sentence both times, but it is added in the commentary; it suggests the sentence itself may have originated similarly.

Subsequent additions of the Words “But” and “again” seem like an effort to smooth out a foreign sentence. The absence of the disputed sentence in two of the three best manuscripts does not permit the question to be automatically dismissed, particularly because its absence from the Aramaic (Syriac), and from the popular family 82, implies that it is not a local accidental omission. Nevertheless, the manuscript evidence is not so strong as to remove all doubt; so it is here listed under Probable Corrections. ^xi

I believe that Revelation 5a may well have been a gloss, an early marginal comment by a scribe that got incorporated into the text of Revelation. R.H. Charles wrote the following along these lines.

The Syriac Philoxenian version of the New Testament (from the sixth century) reads the way that Charles suggests as being correct. It omits Revelation 20:5a (“the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended” NRSV) and connects the 2 lines that Charles felt are incorrectly separated. It gives an idea of how I believe Revelation 20:4-6 should read.

Only one resurrection, a first, is explicitly mentioned in Revelation 20 (although such a designation could infer a second). Personally I believe that two resurrections are inferred here but that they are not separated in time. That is, they are two aspects of one resurrection event. Again, this is consistent with the rest of Scripture which shows only one resurrection of the physically dead that includes the righteous and the wicked. Jesus talked about two resurrections of the physical dead, but they were part of the same resurrection event. The first resurrection was to life, the second was to condemnation, “Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves 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 condemnation.” (John 5:28-29; cf. Dan. 12:1-2; 7). These two resurrections that Jesus referred to were to happen at the same time; they were not to be separated by a period of time (such as the millennium).

ii J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia, New Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 523-524. Originally published in London by T. Fisher Unwin, 1887.

iv David Aune, Revelation 17-22, Word Bible Commentary vol. 52c, gen. eds. Bruce Metzger, David Hubbard and Glen Barker, NT ed. Ralph Martin (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 1079.

vi In spite of this, Mounce suggests that “rule” may be the meaning here. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament, gen. eds. Ned Stonehouse, F.F. Bruce and Gordon Fee (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998), 364. Mounces citation for the meaning of krima is found in W. Bauer, W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (2^nd ed., Chicago, 1979), 450-51.

viii Some partial preterists maintain that Revelation 20:11 is the end of time and yet Revelation 21:1 is AD 70. One can disconnect these two verses in terms of their timing. The new heaven and new Land in Rev. 21:1 is a direct result of the fleeing of the old heaven and old Land in Rev. 20:11. If Rev. 21:1 is AD 70 then Rev. 20:11 should also be AD 70. If Revelation 20:11 is the end of time then Revelation 21:1 should be the end of time. The new heaven and earth of Rev. 21 happen right after the fleeing of the old heaven and earth in Rev. 20.

x G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, eds. I. Howard Marshall and Donald Hagner, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1015. The manuscripts that Beale cites are the following: Sinaiticus, 2030, 2053, 2062, 2377; also the better mss of the Majority text of the Apocalypse, the Syriac, Vic, Bea. Note: ‘Vic’ stands for Victorinus Petavionensis, which means that Victor, a Bishop in Austrian around 300 (very early) quotes the passage and omits 20:5a. ‘Bea’ stands for the Commentary on the Apocalypse written by Beatus of Liebana (Spain) in the late 8^th century which quotes this passage, again without 20:5a. These are very interesting-showing Western Europe’s acceptance of this version of the text. This reading, then, occurred in Syria, Egypt, and Austria. I am indebted to Stephen Douglas for helping me better understand the manuscript evidence.

xii R.H. Charles, The British Academy Lectures on the Apocalypse, (London: Oxford University Press, 1922), 44-45.

xiv The resurrection continues as people have continued to believe since AD 70. It continues in the spiritual sensed when one is born again. It continues in its ultimate sense when the believer dies and puts on his or her resurrection body (cf. Rev. 14:8-13).

xvi Alan F. Johnson, Revelation in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Revised Edition: vol. 13 Hebrews-Revelation, Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland gen. eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 767. While Johnson and I agree that the souls coming to life n Rev. 20:4 is a reference to dead people being resurrected (as opposed to merely a spiritual coming to life) Johnson would not agree with me that the Second Coming and resurrection happened (or more correctly, started) at AD 70