The Narrow Path Ministries

I know..I know. The following is not originally from me. But, I thought it addressed some of the problems with the Amill perspective of Revelation 20 quite well. I was reading it tonight and thought it could be something that Amil's/Preterists might find challenging. It's just a snippet from a longer article written by Tim Warner:


The First Resurrection
The usual interpretation of the “first resurrection” by amillennialists is that it refers to salvation made possible by Christ’s crucifixion. This is justified by an appeal to Scriptures that use physical death and resurrection as metaphors for salvation, (Eph. 2:1-3). But, such a view becomes impossible upon further examination. Amillennialists are forced to allegorize the “first resurrection” but take the resurrection of the “rest of the dead” literally. According to Revelation 20:4-5, the “first resurrection” is the means by which the beheaded ones “lived” (εζησαν). This is the aorist active indicative form
of the word “live.” Precisely the same word is found in chapter 2.

Rev 2:8-9 8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, 'These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life (εζησαν):

Clearly, this does not mean Jesus was “dead in sin” and then was “saved.” There is no question that “εζησαν” refers to the resurrection of the body. The NIV correctly renders Revelation 20:4 the same way. “They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” This coming to life is what the next verse calls “the first resurrection.” Furthermore, note the language in verse 5 (highlighted in red).

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.

The words “the rest of the dead” refers to the remainder of those from a larger group, the same group from which those raised in the “first resurrection” have come. The larger group is called “the dead.” Those in the “first resurrection” are a sub-group of “the dead.” And “the rest” is another sub-group of the same larger group, “the dead.” Both sub-groups therefore are linked to the very same term “the dead” in verse 5. The meaning of “the dead” must be the same for both sub-groups. It cannot mean “spiritual death” for the first group and “physical death” for the second. Only one larger group (the dead), from which both sub-groups come, is mentioned. By making the “first resurrection” non-literal, amillennialists must also make their death (from which state they were resurrected) non-literal. That is, their “death” must be their lost condition prior to salvation. To “live again” means to become saved. Yet, how is their former condition described? Is it “dead in sins?” Hardly! Their death is the result of having been beheaded for their witness to Jesus, exactly the opposite of what would be required in the amillennial non-literal “resurrection.” Amillennialists are forcing the term “the dead” to be both literal and a metaphor at the same time! This is simply impossible!

The language requires that the whole group (the dead) must be “dead” in the same way (either spiritually or physically). If it is spiritually, then this passage would be saying that all those not saved during the thousand years will be saved afterwards. Yet, that is theologically impossible, since a large group is cast into the lake of fire. One cannot make the first group “dead” spiritually and the second group “dead” physically, and both still be of the same class of “the dead.” Both groups absolutely are from the same class (the dead) because the latter group cannot be “the rest” (of the dead) unless they belong to the same class of “dead” to which the first group belong. That they are from the same class of “the dead” is inescapable. Therefore, the “death” from which the “first resurrection” frees the first group must be physical death, not “spiritual death.”

The word “resurrection” is held in contrast to the “death” for both groups. The cause of “death” is not stated for the second group. However, the cause of death is absolutely stated for the first group, and it is physical death – beheading. How then can the resurrection of these “dead” be spiritual when their death is physical? It makes no sense.

That the New Testament elsewhere uses raising from the dead as a metaphor for salvation in no way implies that this is a metaphor in Revelation 20. Actually, the New Testament never uses the noun “resurrection” to describe salvation. And this goes doubly strong when the definite article is used, (“the resurrection”), as in Revelation 20. “The resurrection” is a SINGLE EVENT in which many are raised. It is not a million little “resurrections” as individuals come to Christ over a long period of time. The definite article absolutely demands this interpretation. “The resurrection, the first” (η αναστασις η πρωτη), is a single event that occurs at one specific time, before the thousand years.

The statement, “the rest of the dead lived not again,” requires also that “lived” in both groups means the same thing (either literal or a metaphor). It is the timing of their respective “resurrections” that is being contrasted, not the nature of their resurrections. When the words “lived” and “resurrection” are used of two groups within the same context, they cannot mean completely different things without doing violence to the text. The obvious meaning is that the former group “lived” again before the thousand years, and the latter group “lived” again after the thousand years.

How Did the Resurrected Rulers Die?
Revelation 20:4 states plainly the cause of death of those raised in the “first resurrection.” It is not that they were born in sin. They were beheaded for not worshipping the Beast and taking his mark, and for their testimony to Jesus and the Word of God. If their resurrection to reign with Christ means their salvation, why is it after their having been beheaded for their “witness to Jesus,” and resisting the Beast? Did they overcome the Beast, and witness to Jesus and the Word of God before they were saved (resurrected)? How did they “witness to Jesus” before they were believers(resurrected) if their “resurrection” refers to their salvation? Amillennialists are in a real pickle here, by putting their faithful service to Christ before their salvation!

When Does the Beast Reign?
The amillennial view also demands that the “Beast,” his “image,” and his “mark,” were introduced when Jesus came the first time. This is required because those who “reign with Him a thousand years” are the ones who were PREVIOUSLY beheaded for resisting the Beast, his image, and his mark (666). If the thousand years began at the cross, the “first resurrection” beginning then, the mark of the beast must have introduced before the cross, or at least contemporary with it. Amillennialists need to explain the “Beast,” his “mark,” and his “image.”...

The Future Hope for the Readers of Revelation
Verse 6 holds out the hope of reigning with Christ for a thousand years to the readers of Revelation. Below is my translation of this verse.

“Blessed and holy the one holding a share in the resurrection, the first. Over these, the second death has no power. But they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years.”

Those who possess a “share” in the first resurrection are “blessed and holy” because of their future reward, not present reality. Note that being “priests of God and of Christ,” and “reigning with Him a thousand years,” are in the future tense. The use of the future tense here indicates that they were not yet reigning with Christ when John wrote Revelation in AD 96. Reigning with Christ for a thousand years is the future hope of believers, not a present reality. Had John been an amillennialist, and viewed the “first resurrection” as being salvation, and the “reign” of believers as being present, he would not have used the future tense, but the present tense. Placing the reign of the saints in the future, some six decades after the crucifixion, makes the amillennial view untenable.

http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/air/amill_003.pdf


Brian

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.

So if I change and become premil, it would have to be because of a literal view of Revelation 20, with a one sided view of the anastasis (Luke 2:34 uses the term in a way other than physical resurrection). I would also have to say that the only people who are raised bodily in the first resurrection are those who lived during the time of the beast (great tribulation?), did not receive his mark and were beheaded.

This is how Tim Warner translates Revelation 20:6—

“Blessed and holy the one holding a share in the resurrection, the first. Over these, the second death has no power. But they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years.”

I have no problem with this. In fact, it works very well for the amillennial position, in my opinion. While it is true that we believe that our passing from death into life, spiritually, is our share in the first resurrection, yet the first resurrection is Christ's resurrection. His resurrection was from physical death, so nothing Warner said about the need for "the dead" to be physically dead in both instances creates a problem. Christ's resurrection was the first resurrection, the other dead bodies (including ours) will not be resurrected until "after the thousand years" (that is, after the present age). Our condition of being alive from the dead is simply a consequence of Christ's being raised, and it is "our share" in that event. The first and second resurrections are spoken of in exactly this same manner in 1 Corinthians 15:22-24—

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end..."

Notice, Paul makes Christ's resurrection the first one. Then, when Christ comes, the rest of us will be raised. That will be, as Paul tells us, "the end"—not "the beginning" of a millennium. I realize that premillennialists will point out that Paul only speaks of the raising of "those who are Christ's," and not the resurrection of the lost. The reason Paul only mentions the Christians here is that they are his audience, and he is speaking pastorally to them. Paul, of course, believed that the wicked would be raised at the same time as the Christians (Acts 24:15), as did Jesus:

"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)

If Paul believed that there would be separate resurrections for the Christians and for the lost, it is interesting that Paul did not, in 1 Corinthians 15:22-24, while cataloguing the series of resurrections, say "Then comes the thousand-year reign, when those who do not belong to Christ will be raised."

Paul did not know anything about a millennium (Rom.8:19-21)—nor did Peter (2 Peter 3:10-13). For that matter, neither did Jesus, nor any Old or New Testament writer (unless it is described in Revelation 20, which is the point under dispute).

To build a complete doctrine on one passage—and that in the most symbolic book in the Bible—does not seem like the most advisable method of doing theology.

Paul, of course, believed that the wicked would be raised at the same time as the Christians (Acts 24:15), as did Jesus:

"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)

Just a few verses before, Jesus also employed the Greek word "hora" for hour (which does not have the article in both cases, so it is likely meant to be understood in a general and generic sense, not a particular sense):

25 "Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.

Is it not true that the time that the "the dead can hear the voice of the Son of God and live" is the entire gospel age (almost 2000 years now)? If so, why would it be so hard to believe that "hora" in verse 28 could also cover a significant period of time (say, 1000 years)?

Also, does not Jesus distinguish between the two resurrections in verse 28?

2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

Notice the two groups. Both groups come from "those who sleep in the dust of the earth." "Many" from among this state awake to everlasting life while others do not. This strongly implies that "the others" awake to disgrace and everlasting contempt at some other time.

10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

A closer look at the Greek: “την εξαναστασιν την εκ νεκρων“ ("the out-from resurrection, the out-from the dead"). Paul sought to participate in the resurrection which is out from among the dead, implying that many dead will be left behind to be resurrected at another time.

Of the arguments in your last post, the only one that I have ever felt holds any weight is the last one. The others do not strike me as having any relevance to the question, because I understand them entirely differently from the way you are taking them.

The statement of Jesus, in John 5:25, speaks of a concept (the "dead" hearing His words and coming to life), which, He says, would have a future aspect ("the hour is coming") as well as a present aspect ("and now is"). He says more about each of these.

In verse 24, he talks about those who have already heard His word and have "passed from death into life"—meaning, obviously, in a spiritual sense.

Then, in verse 28, he talks about the future aspect, which is why He repeats "the hour is coming" but does not repeat "and now is." There He is clearly talking about physical resurrection, because He talks about "all who are in the graves" (not the more ambiguous "the dead," as in verse 24).

Also, does not Jesus distinguish between the two resurrections in verse 28?

Not as I read it. One might say that "the resurrection of life," and the resurrection of condemnation," are two resurrections as justly as you could say that the "gospel of the circumcision" is a different gospel than "the gospel of the uncircumcision" (Gal.2:7). In fact, Bulingerites (ultra-dispensationalists) do in fact understand there to be two gospels, but that can hardly be thought to be Paul's meaning (since he anathematized any who would teach another gospel, in the same epistle).

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

I don't understand this verse in Daniel 12 to be speaking about the resurrection of the end times at all. Any modern Bible will set Daniel 12:1-3 off from the passages before and after it by printing it in poetic verse. The language is poetic, and any claim of literal interpretation should not be pressed. I see it figuratively, as something that occurred in the first century, as Simeon predicted:

"Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against" (Luke 2:34).

The ones who "awake...to shame and contempt" seem to be those who suffer the fate of Isaiah 66:24. The Hebrew word translated "contempt" and "abhorence" is found only in these two verses, and almost all scholars believe the two passages are about the same sufferers. Yet, Jesus quoted Isaiah 66:24 as describing the fate of those who would be thrown into the Valley of Hinnom—which I understand to be the holocaust of AD70 (Mark 9:43-44).

The timing of the prophecy, in Daniel 12, is at the time of the tribulation (v.1), which Jesus said would occur in His own generation (Matt.24:21, 34). It is also in the time of the king (Rome) who followed after Antiochus Epiphanes (ch.11).

As I said, the argument from Philippians 3:11 is a little stronger, owing to Paul's choice of phraseology. Butif Paul is suggesting that the preferable resurrection to be a part of is that which is "from among the dead," meaning that the believers will be out of their graves before the rest of the dead are, this would only suggest that the righteous emerge first. All believe that the unbelievers follow—but whether they follow moments later, or 1000 years later, cannot be determined from such a statement. We must not ignore that Paul believed there would be a single resurrection event—of the righteous and of the unrighteous (Acts 24:14).

Paul certainly would have agreed with Jesus that a day was coming called "the last day." What did Jesus say would happen on "the last day"? He said two things would happen on that day: 1) He would raise His disciples (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54), and the wicked will be judged—presumably after being raised (John 12:48). The parable of the sheep and the goats also depicts a single resurrection and judgment occurring when the Lord returns (Matt.25:31ff).

Can you point to any passage, outside Revelation 20, that makes any reference to two separate resurrections as clearly as these passages teach one resurrection?

I'll get to your questions Steve.

Revelation 12:9 makes a very interesting point.

So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives (lit. the one deceiving: a present active participle) the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

From John's vantage point, the Devil was deceiving the whole world at the time in which he wrote Revelation. How is this possible under the Amill scenario? Don't Amills say he was bound at the cross? Well, why would he still be deceiving the whole world in AD 96, or even at the earlier date that some suppose Revelation was written? Both are well past 30 AD. The present active participle demands that Satan was actively deceiving the nations when John penned these words.

We believe the devil still is deceiving people the world over—and even deceives Christians at times. John apparently agreed with us on this point.

Steve,

I don't think you can brush that aside so easily.

If, according to John, the Devil, in Revelation 12:9, was presently deceiving the whole world, then when was Satan bound by the angel for a thousand years (Revelation 20:2) so that he should deceive the nations no more? Sometime before this? It wouldn't make sense.

If, by 30 AD, Satan was bound so that he could no longer deceive the nations, why was he so ostensibly active when John penned Revelation. Does being shut up in a bottomless pit allow for such freedom to, as you put it, deceive the world over and even Christians at times?

I understand your problem. However, I take the binding of Satan to be symbolic (just as Jesus did, in Matthew 12:29). His "binding" is seen in his inability to deceive the nations (i.e., the Gentiles) as he had been able to do before Christ's time. Prior to the gospel being sent to all nations, Satan had unrestrained power to deceive them all, since there had been no special revelation sent to them previously. That has clearly changed with the carrying out of the Great Commission. The nations are hearing the gospel, and Satan cannot prevent it, nor keep them in the dark, as before.

There is no suggestion—either in Revelation 20 or in Matthew 12:29—that Satan is completely inactive. He still deceives people.

I don't think that was Jesus' emphasis at all in Matthew 12. The parallel passage in Luke makes it plain that Jesus was talking about casting a demon out of a particular individual.

20 "But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 21 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. 22 "But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils. 23 "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 24 " When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' 25 "And when he comes, he finds it swept and put in order. 26 "Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first."

Jesus was contrasting his power with that of a demon. But, if it is Satan, does this passage then imply that his binding will ultimately be ineffective, and that he will come back more powerful (with many "devils" with him)?