Oct
07
2009
“Thrones” in Revelation
Someone requested more information on what Storms thinks about Revelation 20. Here is a section from his work on how to understand “thrones” in Revelation 20 (posted with permission).
“Thrones” in Revelation 20
and the Millennial Debate
Sam Storms
John could hardly have been more explicit concerning the location, and therefore the nature, of the millennial rule of the saints when he said that he saw “thrones” (thronous). Where are these thrones upon which the saints sit, which is also to ask, what is the nature of their millennial rule? Let’s begin with several observations about the use of the word “throne” (thronos) in the book of Revelation.
The word thronos appears 62x in the New Testament, 47 of which are in the book of Revelation. Twice (Rev. 2:13; 13:2) it refers to Satan’s throne (being synonymous with his authority or power) and once to the throne of the beast (Rev. 16:10). On four occasions it refers to God’s throne on the new earth in consequence of its having come down from heaven (Rev. 21:3, 5; 22:1,3). In every other instance (40x) thronos refers to a throne in heaven, either that of God the Father, of Christ, of the 24 elders, etc.
Why, then, does the Premillennialist argue that anastasis (“resurrection”) must mean physical resurrection, although it occurs nowhere in Revelation outside chapter 20, but ignores thronos which never in Revelation refers to anything other than a heavenly throne (and that, in 40 texts!)?
Consider the use of thronos in the rest of the NT. Of the fifteen occurrences of thronos outside Revelation, seven are explicitly heavenly. In Luke 1:52 it refers figuratively to the power and authority of earthly rulers. In Col. 1:16 it refers to angelic (demonic?) beings. In Luke 1:32 the angel Gabriel refers to the “throne” of David on which the coming Messiah will sit in fulfillment of the divine promise, to which Peter makes explicit reference in Acts 2:30. In the verses which follow it is clear that Peter envisioned Christ’s resurrection and exaltation to have resulted in his enthronement at the right hand of the Father in fulfillment of Gabriel’s declaration.
There are four additional usages of thronos (Matt. 19:28 [twice]; 25:31; and Luke 22:30), each of which falls in the same category as Rev. 20:4. In other words, whether the “thrones” in these texts are earthly or heavenly is the very point that stands to be proven. Therefore, one cannot appeal to these passages in support of either view. Otherwise one would be guilty of begging the question.
In summary, when we look at all other relevant occurrences of thronos, whether inside or outside the book of Revelation, they are without exception heavenly. There is nothing to suggest that they pertain to a millennial earth, either in location or character.
9 Comments
Thanks for this!
Although, I don’t really see Dr. Storms’ point here. So what if the throne’s are heavenly? How does this invalidate the premillennial understanding?
Allow me to elaborate.
Scroll over: Revelation 20:1-6
In verse four, we are told that John sees two things: 1) The “thrones on which were seated those who had been given the authority to judge,” and 2) The “souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God.” People who have been beheaded are dead! Christians who die (few would argue that ‘beheaded’ here really just means ‘killed’) enter what is commonly known as “heaven.” So, in all likelihood, this scene is in heaven, regardless of whether those who were “beheaded” are the ones on the thrones or not. Placing the thrones in heaven at this point is perfectly consistent with the passage.
It is also perfectly consistent with the premillennial view.
Note well that it is not until AFTER this description of the thrones that we are told “They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” This is perfectly consistent with those in heaven being raised to physical life again. Even more so when you remember the exact meaning of the Greek term translated “resurrection.”
Really, if the souls of the beheaded are already in heaven, and they reign from heaven, why do they even need to be raised in the first place?
On a different note, after this we are explicitly told that THIS is the FIRST resurrection. This explicit teaching is not inconsistent with the other passages that seem to imply only one resurrection in exactly the same way that the doctrine of unconditional election is not inconsistent with 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:3-4.
I would really like to see anything from Dr. Storms – or JT for that matter – with direct regard to the two resurrections.
God Bless,
-Eric
[...] has presented another of Sam’s arguments, which Sam concludes as follows: In summary, when we look at all other relevant occurrences [...]
I want to affirm what Eric said and add the following.
I would also argue that the first resurrection is a physical one, because the beheaded saints are descibed as ‘they came to life’ in the same way that Jesus ‘came to life’ in Rev 2:8, which refers to his resurrection.
I also don’t see Dr. Storm’s point.
I think what he is trying to show is that the thrones, or the places in which we will be reigning with Christ, are all set in heaven. This would conflict with the pre-mill stance because we are supposed to be reigning on the earth with Christ for 1000 years. So, from the thrones we see where we will reign from and it does not appear to be the earth.
Thanks for the explanation.
Yes, thanks. That sheds a bit more light on it, though I’m still missing how this text supports amillennial theology.
=)
I can’t see how more clear can Storms be: if these thrones are heavenly – and can only be so – and since Rev 20 speaks of martyrs, there’s no way this can occur in a Chiallist framework, of a literal 1000 year of Christ’s rule on earth, where pain, suffering, and death would still be around, despite of what Paul tells us about in 1 Corinthians 15; that is, that Christ will put an end to all this in his second coming.
My postmillennialism – and Doug’s too, I suspect – lines up pretty much with Storms amillennialism. Though juicier. It is coloured by all those hope-filling prophecies about the Church age we read in Isaiah, and also lines up really well with what Jesus said.
Namely, something about the gates of Hell not resisting to the progress of Christ’s mighty Church.
[...] Taylor got the conversation going here and here. Jim Hamilton kept it moving here and here. Now Kevin DeYoung weighs in here and here. [...]