First, I think it is most likely that TAS YUCAS is referring to the whole
person, just as TA SWMATA in Rom 12:1 refers to the whole person. This is a
common idiom in both the NT and the OT. Second, TWN PEPELEKISMENWN is a
perfect passive participle suggesting a completed past action, but past in
relation to what. Certainly not to the the action of the aorist verbs that
follow in the description of TAS YUCAS since those descriptions are the
conditions or reasons for their beheading. Therefore, it is a completed past
action with relation to EZHSAN and EBASILEUSAN. Now since there is a transfer
in state, i.e., from death to life between TWN PEPELEKISMENWN and EZHSAN then
EZHSAN should be ingressive. EBASILEUSAN can be constative while EZHSAN is
ingressive because EBASILEUSAN does not involve a change of state.
Third, these souls/people are said to reign with Christ for 1000 years.
Whether we take this literally or symbollically or in the pre-, post-,
amillennial sense, the point is that these people reign for the entire
period, from beginning to end. This is at least the sense and its
significance cannot be overlooked. If the 1000 year period refers to the
period between the first and second advent then only the first generation
Christians are reigning, since only they will reign the entire period. All
other generations begin sometime after the beginning. This is most
problematic for the specific referent, since they live and are beheaded at
the final outbreak of evil right before Christ's return. They in no sense
reign for "1000 years." This seems to strongly argue that the 1000 year
period occurs after the beheading (and resurrection of these saints). This
passage may also be implying (although I won't push this) that the reason
that this group is pointed out as reigning and not other groups of believers
is that this group is somehow distinct from the church andd OT believers and
had not yet received a specific promise of reigning with Christ until this
point.
Fourth, with reference to ANASTASIS, only one reference in the NT, Luke 2:34,
does not have a physical resurrection in view. Thus, the first resurrection
at least must refer to physical life, but in the spiritual body sense. Thus,
it is both physical and spiritual. It also be that first and second are not
used in a sequential sense (first, second, third, etc.) but in an ultimate
sense, i.e., first and primary, that which is the best and desirable; and
second and last, that which is ultimately undesirable but final. It does not
necessarily refer to two or more resurrections or deaths, but the ultimate
destinies of two polar opposits. This is certainly the sense of the second
death in 20:14. The second death is the lake of fire; the first resurrection
is reigning with Christ. These are the polar opposites in destinies. It may
be another way of referring to the resurrection of the just and the unjust.
If the this reign of Christ is premillennial it makes good sense because the
hOI LOPOI only involve the unjust at this point in time. All other believers
are either resurrected or survived the final outbreak of evil before Christ's
return
Lastly, I think the ACRI phrase in 20:5 is meaningless if it does not imply
that the hOI LOPOI come to life after the completion of the 1000 and
20:11-15 suggests this very thing.
Charles Powell
DTS