Charles Ellicott Commentary Revelation 20

THE BINDING OF SATAN

And I saw an angel come down . . .—Rather, And I saw an angel descending from heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a great chain on (not merely in his hand, but hanging from it, as it would be when carried on his hand) his hand. It is needless to settle who is represented by this angel. It is enough that in the vision he shows by the key and the chain he carries that power resides in Him, who has the keys of death and of Hades (Revelation 1:18), to bind, as He has death-wounded, the one who had the power of death. The bottomless pit is the abyss, as we have seen elsewhere (Revelation 9:1; Revelation 11:7; and Revelation 17:8. Compare Luke 8:31); it is figuratively the abode of the devil and his associate angels (Matthew 25:41).

And he laid hold on the dragon . . .—Or, And he laid hold of the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years. The four words are thus used to describe the archenemy; they are the same as those used for the same purpose in Revelation 12:9.

Over the world he has exercised his power everywhere as prince of this world, and he has been found fierce as the dragon, subtle as the serpent, the slanderer of God and His people, and the adversary of all righteousness. He is bound as Christ declared (Matthew 12:29).

A thousand years was the duration that Rabbis had fixed for Messiah’s kingdom. The period is not to be understood literally (see next verse).

And cast him into the bottomless pit...—Rather, and cast him into the abyss (same word as in Revelation 20:1), and locked and sealed (the door or mouth) above him, that he may not deceive the nations any more until the thousand years shall have been finished; after these things he must be loosed for a little time.

The sealing reminds us of the sealing employed when the wicked one had power through human agency to imprison God’s messengers. (Compare Daniel 6:17, and Matthew 27:66.) Of the exact moment when this binding and imprisoning took place, it is not necessary to inquire too closely. What in the vision is described as the work of a moment may, in fact and fulfillment, be a very gradual work; or rather, the full manifestation of its accomplishment may only gradually be made clear.

Therefore, to fix it to any incident (for example, as Hengstenberg is disposed to do regarding the coronation of Charlemagne), is to fall into the “vicious realism” against which he rightly protests. The same applies to the duration of the imprisonment; it is not to be understood literally any more than the other numbers in the book; it symbolizes a lengthened period. This period is followed by the devil being loosed again for a short time. (See Note on Revelation 20:7.)

THE MILLENNIAL REIGN.

And I saw thrones, and they sat... There is a prominence given to the thrones, because the thought of the reign of the saints is uppermost in the mind of the seer. The thrones are seen, and those who sat on them.

It has been asked, “By whom are the thrones occupied?” The answer is supplied in the latter part of the verse. Those who are in the latter part said to reign with Christ are clearly those who sit upon the thrones which first caught the prophet’s eye; these are all the real servants of God. They appear before the seer in two great classes:

1. The martyrs who have been faithful to death; for he speaks first of seeing the souls of those who have been beheaded (strictly, “slain with the axe,” but clearly the special class of beheaded martyrs is to be taken as representing all), because of the testimony of Jesus, and because of the word of God. The number of the martyrs is now complete ; these form the first class mentioned.

2. Those who have been faithful in life occupy these thrones. The prophet sees these, even whosoever did not worship (during life) the wild beast, nor yet his image, and did not receive the mark on their forehead and upon their hand. The triumph and sovereignty, whatever they are, are shared by all the faithful. These things are stated as constituting their privileges. They lived, while the rest of the dead did not live; they reigned, and judgment was given them. This last has been felt to be a difficulty. What sort of judgment is intended?

The passage in Daniel (Daniel 7:22) is clearly suggestive of the present one. The phrase (judgment was given) is not to be understood there as meaning that right was done them (see Note in Speaker’s Commentary on Daniel), nor must it be so understood here.

Judicial powers are given to the saints as to those who occupy thrones; “the chief power in governing” (Gebhardt) is given them (Compare to Matthew 19:28 and 1 Corinthians 6:2–3). They reign, they judge, they live; the true and full powers of life are seen to be theirs.

And is this not always the case? Who, next to Him who knows the secrets of our hearts, exercises judicial powers over men? Do not those whose lives, as we read them, rebuke our own? Truly, those who lived for God and refused the mark of earthliness reign and judge us in our worldliness and weakness. This is their sovereign honor here, besides the glad reign in the unseen world.

But the rest of the dead lived not again...—Rather, The rest of the dead lived not (we must omit the word 'again') until the thousand years be finished. This is the first resurrection. In those words, we find one of the keys to the controversy respecting the millennium. What is this resurrection? Is it the resurrection at which the saints will assume their glorified bodies, and their perfect consummation and bliss?

It has been argued that the word must be understood literally as a bodily resurrection. It is further said that the contrasting words, 'the rest of the dead lived not,' necessitate this literal interpretation. But there is no reason for restricting the word Resurrection to a literal meaning. The sacred writers frequently use the idea figuratively. They speak of a resurrection that is spiritual; the dead in sin are summoned to rise from the dead so that Christ might give them light (Ephesians 5:14); indeed, the figure often underlies the language and arguments of New Testament writers (John 5:24–25; Romans 6:5; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Colossians 2:12).

But do the words, 'the rest of the dead lived not,' force upon us so sharp a contrast that we must understand the first resurrection literally? Undoubtedly the words are in contrast. If the words 'lived not' necessarily mean that the rest of the dead did not enjoy physical life on earth, then the living with Christ of the saints and the first resurrection must be understood as giving physical life on earth to the saints. But are we bound to thus understand literally the 'lived' of Revelation 20:4 and the 'lived not' of Revelation 20:5?

There are two or three considerations that will be enough to show that they need not be understood thus.

1. The word 'to live' is used about sixteen times in the Apocalypse. On nine of these it is applied to the eternal life of God the Father or God the Son; it is twice used in the passage before us (Revelation 20:4–5). Of the remaining five occasions where the word is used, it is four times employed in what can scarcely be other than a figurative sense (Revelation 3:1; Revelation 7:17; Revelation 13:14; Revelation 19:20—some might doubt the figurative use in this last passage), but only once is it employed in a sense that can fairly be defended as literal (Revelation 16:3).
2. There will be faithless people during the millennium—the nations to be deceived (Revelation 20:8). Are we then to picture saints with glorified resurrection bodies living on the earth, which at the same time is tenanted by men and women still in the natural body?
3. There is a resurrection, which surely is the second resurrection, described in Revelation 20:12-13: this last is a general resurrection of the dead, small and great. There seems no adequate reason to affirm that this first resurrection, then, must be physical. Our notions of life and death are so circumscribed by the geography of earth that we seldom give to the word 'life' in our thoughts its true richness and fullness of meaning. We fail to remember that the faithful ones who live, because Christ lives, have the promise of the life that now is, as well as that which is to come; we forget that God is not God of the dead, but of the living.