Comments on: “Thrones” in Revelation

By: Making Sense of the Millennium – The Gospel Coalition Blog

Making Sense of the Millennium – The Gospel Coalition Blog — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:22:20 +0000

[...] Taylor got the conversation going here and here. Jim Hamilton kept it moving here and here. Now Kevin DeYoung weighs in here and here. [...]

By: Nuno Fonseca

Nuno Fonseca — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:29:06 +0000

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.

By: Eric T

Eric T — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:09:39 +0000

Yes, thanks. That sheds a bit more light on it, though I’m still missing how this text supports amillennial theology.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:08:03 +0000

Thanks for the explanation.

By: fakejimmy

fakejimmy — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:39:07 +0000

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.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:18:45 +0000

I also don’t see Dr. Storm’s point.

By: Derek Smith

Derek Smith — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:49:28 +0000

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.

By: A Brief Response to Sam’s “Thrones” Argument « For His Renown

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:01:52 +0000

[...] has presented another of Sam’s arguments, which Sam concludes as follows: In summary, when we look at all other relevant occurrences [...]

By: Eric T

Eric T — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:20:44 +0000

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