The rest of the dead did not come to life.....

[Douglas]

(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)

It was interesting to learn that this section of Rev 20:5 is NOT in 2 of the 3 "best" manuscripts. (Sinaiticus and 2053 don’t have it, Alexandrinus does)

Jame Parkinson says this about it.

" 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."

R.H. Charles wrote the following regarding this.

"As another illustration of the critical value of the form of the text I will give the vision of the kingdom of Christ and the glorified martyrs in 20:4-6. This vision would consist of seven stanzas of two lines each, but for the prosaic addition in the fifth stanza 20:5a: ‘the rest of the dead lived not till the thousand years were fulfilled.’ If this were original we should expect it to be introduced by a conjunction and that an adversative one: ‘And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years, but the rest of the dead lived not.’ But no such conjunction is given. Hence the words appear to be a marginal gloss incorporated in the text. Moreover, it intervenes between two lines which should not be separated; for the second line (‘This is the first resurrection’) defines what the first line means. Thus the first stanza should be read: 20: 4i And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years; 5b This is the first resurrection.’

I wonder if this was commentary added later, or was it in the orig. manuscript written by John? Depending on your belief of "end time" events, it may not make a difference, but for some, it may.

I tend to believe it was commentary added later, mainly because of the omission from 2 of the 3 best manuscripts. What do you think?

Douglas

[steve]

You may be correct, and this consideration may well have a positive bearing on the amillennial interpretation.

[RickC]

I've read both quotes (Parkinson and Charles), and quite frankly, can't make sense of them.

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.

I looked at 4 versions (NASB, NKJV, KJV, and YLT).
All but YLT has 20:5 as one sentence.
YLT has 20:5 and 20:6 as one sentence.

Rev 20:4 does not end with "the thousand years."
It ends with "released for a short time" (NASB).

If anyone has time to explain what these guys are getting at I'd appreciate it.
If possible, please type out what they think the verses should say (what the original was).

From what I can gather, whatever Parkinson was getting at, he seems to have said, "But we can't know for sure." While Charles appears to have had a stronger conviction (whatever he was saying?).
=====================

Something of an aside -
The very early Syriac text (Sinaiticus) of the last part of Matthew 1:16 reads -
“...Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, fathered Jesus who is called the Christ.”
I consulted with some textual critic experts on this in a study about the virgin conception. They, and another textual expert, Bruce Metzger (deceased), attributed this reading to a scribal error. I can't recall if Sinaiticus is the earliest text we have (and didn't ask). I do recall that the consensus is that it was copied from a Greek text. Lastly, though Sinaiticus is quite early; I was advised that a belief should not be based on one text. (This is off-topic, no need to reply to it).

Thanks! - - but can anyone help me out here?

[Michelle]

What an interesting way to illustrate how easy it is for eyes to slip.

I've read both quotes (Parkinson and Charles), and quite frankly, can't make sense of them.

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.

I looked at 4 versions (NASB, NKJV, KJV, and YLT).
All but YLT has 20:5 as one sentence.
YLT has 20:5 and 20:6 as one sentence.

I used Blue Letter Bible and opened all their available versions for Revelation 20:5. What I see is that all but YLT have verse 5 as two sentences, and even YLT has it connected with a semi-colon, so two sentences isn't completely out of the question.

That first sentence (or clause in YLT) does end with "thousand years" — or at least the phrase is within one word of the end.

Young's has verses 4 and 5 as one long sentence that ends with a period at the end of verse 5. Verse 6 is another rather long sentence by itself.

Rev 20:4 does not end with "the thousand years."
It ends with "released for a short time" (NASB).

Rev. 20:4 ends with "thousand years", although Young's punctuates it with a semi-colon. (I even checked it out in greek — are you impressed?)

Rev. 20:3 ends with (NASB) "...released for a short time."

If anyone has time to explain what these guys are getting at I'd appreciate it.

I think they're saying that there is some pretty good evidence that the sentence is not original, but not enough to take a dogmatic stance on it.

If possible, please type out what they think the verses should say (what the original was).

Sorry, I'm horrible at predicting what other people think, especially when they've admitted that there is uncertainty.

From what I can gather, whatever Parkinson was getting at, he seems to have said, "But we can't know for sure." While Charles appears to have had a stronger conviction (whatever he was saying?).

Mmhmm, I agree.

=====================

Something of an aside -
The very early Syriac text (Sinaiticus) of the last part of Matthew 1:16 reads -
“...Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the virgin, fathered Jesus who is called the Christ.”
I consulted with some textual critic experts on this in a study about the virgin conception. They, and another textual expert, Bruce Metzger (deceased), attributed this reading to a scribal error. I can't recall if Sinaiticus is the earliest text we have (and didn't ask). I do recall that the consensus is that it was copied from a Greek text. Lastly, though Sinaiticus is quite early; I was advised that a belief should not be based on one text. (This is off-topic, no need to reply to it).

Thanks! - - but can anyone help me out here?

[TK]

Can someone tell me in a very brief manner what this post is about? The significance?

TK

[RickC]

I've read both quotes (Parkinson and Charles), and quite frankly, can't make sense of them.

First - Parkisnon wrote: 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.

Re: this I added:
Rev 20:4 does not end with "the thousand years."
It ends with "released for a short time" (NASB).
=========================

To which you replied:
What an interesting way to illustrate how easy it is for eyes to slip.

Good catch. Thanks!

Rev 20:4 (NKJV)
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 witness 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.

You are correct!

My mistake was due to going back and forth between what Parkinson and Charles have (phrase by phrase) to various translations. Biblegateway has paragraphs and I inadvertently mistook the end of verse 3 for the end of verse 4.

Rev. 20:4 ends with "thousand years", although Young's punctuates it with a semi-colon. (I even checked it out in greek — are you impressed?)

Yes! (wtg)

Can someone tell me in a very brief manner what this post is about? The significance?

Do you "get" what either Parkinson or Charles were saying? (It doesn't look you do either). I've tried to "get it" again but am not having much luck. With Parkinson, especially.

If someone can break it down, please?

(So we don't have to run back & forth to do that, I'll post all verses referenced in NKJV) -
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 witness 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.
5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

Note: how NKJV does not have verse 5a in parentheses. Several other versions also do not. I'm thinking that they may have 'chosen not to' after determining it was -
a) in the original
b) that is, an authorial commentary (explanation)
c) NKJV is Textus Receptus based (thus, verse 5a is included)

Lastly, I'm currently 'your average amillennialist' and have been reconsidering Rev 20:4-6 in a 'different light' lately. But if I were to go into that now - it would totally add to any confusion!

Thanks, esp. Michelle!
HELP!

[TK]

Rick wrote:

Do you "get" what either Parkinson or Charles were saying? (It doesn't look you do either). I've tried to "get it" again but am not having much luck. With Parkinson, especially.

I don't understand the significance of Douglas's original post- in other words I am not real clear what the controversy is about. Per Steve's response it seems to be about whether the millennium is a literal 1000 years or not as he mentions that the quotes by parkinson and charles seem to support amillenialism.

TK

[Douglas]

I am of the opinion that when we die, judgment occurs immediately. The verse in question would contradict that if judgment was to be postponed until the end of the millennium, assuming you believe as I do that we are currently in the Millennium (or at least close to the end of the Millennium).

Reading the "The Awakening" , the biography of Johann C. Blumhardt. did impact what I think regarding when judgment would occur after death.

http://www.plough.com/ebooks/pdfs/Awakening.pdf

Douglas

[TK]

Thanks for the clarification. I recently read "The Awakening" as well. I too was very intrigued about its implications regarding "life after death." It seemed to support the idea that ghosts might actually exist.

TK

[RickC]

Greetings -

The text and immediately surrounding text (NKJV, parentheses added in v. 5a).
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 witness 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.
5 (But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished). This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

I googled a 'quote' from Parkinson and found a couple sites that had both quotes Douglas posted and more information (like from Greg Beale). After going through them I was able to determine that Parkinson felt that v. 5a was a possible marginal gloss but that we can't say for sure. Charles, on the other hand, seemed to believe v. 5a shouldn't be there. Just for discussion, here are the verses with v. 5a omitted (NKJV) -

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 witness 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.
5 This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

I am of the opinion that when we die, judgment occurs immediately. The verse in question would contradict that if judgment was to be postponed until the end of the millennium, assuming you believe as I do that we are currently in the Millennium (or at least close to the end of the Millennium).

Reading the "The Awakening" , the biography of Johann C. Blumhardt. did impact what I think regarding when judgment would occur after death.

I'm not sure what bearing or implications "The Awakening" may have on the meaning of Rev 20:5a (and I'm not really asking).

I can see and do understand how full-preterists and, perhaps, others might see the omission of v. 5a as supporting an immediate post-death judgment. This viewpoint would be compatible with (or similar to) amillennialism, to the extent that amillennialists see the reign of the saints as being that of 'deceased souls reigning from heaven'. But this would be the only compatibility (or similarity) in terms of 'classical amillennialists' (as they believe in one final judgment at the end of the millennium).

I've considered myself a 'classical amillennialist' though I didn't arrive at becoming amillennial due to being Reformed in theology. Like Steve Gregg, I just thought it's what the Bible says (comparing scripture to scripture).

Now, I'm reconsidering the whole chapter (Rev 20), and am wondering if I should start a new thread. But I'm still studying findings and haven't gotten them all together yet. I'd like to go ahead and post some of what I've been thinking now (and, thus, may go somewhat off-topic).

Rev 20 (from YLT, which seems to best translate things literally, bold mine) -
1And I saw a messenger coming down out of the heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a great chain over his hand,
2and he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, who is Devil and Adversary, and did bind him a thousand years,
3and he cast him to the abyss, and did shut him up, and put a seal upon him, that he may not lead astray the nations any more, till the thousand years may be finished; and after these it behoveth him to be loosed a little time.
4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them, and the souls of those who have been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God, and who did not bow before the beast, nor his image, and did not receive the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand, and they did live and reign with Christ the thousand years;
5and the rest of the dead did not live again till the thousand years may be finished; this [is] the first rising again {resurrection}.
6Happy and holy [is] he who is having part in the first rising again {resurrection}; over these the second death hath not authority, but they shall be priests of God and of the Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

What I'm seeing differently than before -
Those from among the NATIONS (who are no longer deceived) are SITTING on the THRONES.
(This seems to be what the text says, "and they sat on them", v. 4 referring back to v. 3).
THEY have been given authority to JUDGE (by the testimony of Jesus & Word of God).
THEY, whether they had LIVED and become martyrs, or simply LIVED all their lives for God.
THUS, "the millennium" is the co-reign of the saints with Christ "on earth as it is in heaven."
Christ reigning from heaven, saints coming to possess the kingdom on earth.
THE FIRST RESURRECTION is the ever-present living hope of the [reigning] saints:
That they will be raised to eternal life, even if they die, they shall live again.

Some Relevant Texts (NKJV) -
Matt 11:25
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.
Daniel 7:18
18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.’
Daniel 7:22
22 until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.
Matthew 19:28
28 So Jesus said to them, “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.

Does anyone 'resonate' with what I'm saying here?
Should I start a new thread?

Last comments -
My new interpretation(s) are possibly "idealist" and/or postmillennial.
I'm seeing the co-reign of the saints as being on earth, whether they become martyrs or not.
Amill has 'deceased souls' reigning from heaven (seems like an oxymoron to me).
But I'm mostly convinced of conditional immortality/soul sleep...(so, there's that).....

Thanks!