<<What I am rejecting is the misconception in Rev. 20:4-5, spoken of by
Alford and subsequent premils, whereby two resurrections are posited and
it is argued, on the basis of consistent hermeneutics, that the first must
be literal because the second one is. Most translations do seem to
suggest this parallel, that is, that the rest of the dead come to life in
the same way as the first group did, but do so at the end of the 1000
years. I have only argued that the use of AXPI does not support this
translation and interpretation. All it says is that throughout the
duration of the 1000 years the rest of the dead lived not, or did not come
alive. It says nothing about after the 1000 years. It does not say they
did, nor that they did not.
But, it is erroneous to infer that they do and that it refers to a
physical resurrection and therefore the first resurrection is also
physical.
It may be that the first resurrection is spiritual and all v. 5 is saying
is that the rest of the dead lived not (constative aorist) or did not come
alive (ingressive) throughout the duration of that 1000 years. Of course,
if the first resurrection is spiritual, then the rest of the dead don't
come spiritually after the 1000 years either. But, this does not say
there is no physical and general resurrection.
>>
It seems that John is deliberately contrasting the first resurrection and the
second death. The first resurrection refers to those who come to life and
reign with Christ (but not necessarily restricted to them). The second death
refers to those who are judged at the Great White Throne which is after the
1000 years are completed. No matter how you take EZHSAN in 20:5, the
implication is that they come to life after the 100 years. It seems that the
first resurrection is a resurrection to life and the second death is the
resurrection to judgment (John 5:28-29). Part of this depends on whom you see
as the "rest of the dead." In premillennial interpretations, the "rest of the
dead" are the wicked dead.
Charles Powell
DTS