Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?

This post and be viewed & downloaded in PDF, EPUB, Microsoft Word or Open Office Document format HERE (click)

Agnosmillennialist signing on.

"Agnosmillennialism" =

(i) I don't know whether or not Revelation 20's thousand years is a literal thousand years that follows the return of Christ.
(ii) I don't know whether or not Revelation 20's thousand years is a literal thousand years that precedes the return of Christ.
(iii) I don't know whether or not Revelation 20's thousand years is symbolic for the entire Age that precedes the return of Christ.

This post was very, very hard work, because I had to compile a complete and comprehensive list of each and every New Testament passage and verse that talks about the resurrection. As you will see when I provide the list below, it's very long.


Noun: ἀνάστασις anástasis (“The Resurrection”)
A standing up again, i.e. (literally) a resurrection from death (individual, genitive case or by implication, (its author)), or (figuratively) a (moral) recovery (of spiritual truth):--raised to life again, resurrection, rise from the dead, that should rise, rising again.

Noun: ἔγερσις égersis:
a resurgence (from death):--resurrection.

Verb: ἐγείρω egeírō: *
To waken (transitively or intransitively), i.e. rouse (literally, from sleep, from sitting or lying, from disease, from death; or figuratively, from obscurity, inactivity, ruins, nonexistence):--awake, lift (up), raise (again, up), rear up, (a-)rise (again, up), stand, take up.

Verb: ἀνίστημι anístēmi: *
To stand up (literal or figurative, transitive or intransitive):--arise, lift up, raise up (again), rise (again), stand up(-right).

* The verbs are sometimes employed for normal use, for example as in "Rise up! Let's go!", but the nouns are always talking about the resurrection from the dead.

συνεγείρω (synegeírō): Risen with Christ
The Greek word egeírō (ἐγείρω) is one of the the verbs found in the New Testament, very often used in reference to the bodily rising again from death. When syn appears prefixed to egeírō (synegeírō), it shows that the resurrection of the individual believer in Christ is something which occurs with Christ's resurrection. It's the same prefix we get with words like synthesis and synchronize.


John 6:39, 40 & 44 ἀνίστημι anístēmi:
"And this is the will of Him who sent me, that every one who is beholding the Son, and is believing in him, may have life age-during; and I will [ἀνίστημι anístēmi] raise him up in the last day."

John 11:23-25 ἀνίστημι anístēmi, ἀνάστασις anástasis:
“Jesus said to her, Your brother shall [anístēmi] rise again. Martha said to Him, I know that he shall [ἀνίστημι anístēmi] in the [ἀνάστασις anástasis] resurrection at the last day.
Jesus said to her, I am the [ἀνάστασις anástasis] Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live.”
Paul’s teaching on the resurrection:


The following words related to the resurrection appear in the passage to follow:-

ἀνάστασις anástasis
ἐγείρω egeírō
ἀπαρχή aparchḗ (first-fruits)
κοιμάω koimáō (sleep in death)
ζωοποιέω zōopoiéō (vitalize, re-vitalize,give life, quicken)
ἔπειτα épeita (afterward)
παρουσία parousía (appearance of Christ at his return)
σῶμα sōma (the body)

"..and that He was buried, and that He rose again [ἐγείρω egeírō] the third day according to the Scriptures;..

"But if Christ is proclaimed, that He was [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no [ἀνάστασις anástasis] resurrection of the dead?

But if there is no [ἀνάστασις anástasis] resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised.

And if Christ has not been [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised, then our proclamation is worthless, and your faith is also worthless.

And we are also found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified of God that He [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised Christ; whom He did not [ἐγείρω egeírō] raise if the dead are not [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised.

For if the dead are not [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised, then Christ is not [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised.

And if Christ is not [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised, your faith is foolish; you are yet in your sins.

Then also those that [κοιμάω koimáō] fell asleep in Christ were lost. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

But now Christ has [ἐγείρω egeírō] risen from the dead, and has become the [ἀπαρχή aparchḗ] firstfruit of those who [κοιμάω koimáō] slept.

For since death is through man, the [ἀνάστασις anástasis] resurrection of the dead also is through a Man.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be [ζωοποιέω zōopoiéō] made alive.

But each in his own order: Christ the [ἀπαρχή aparchḗ ] first-fruit, and [ἔπειτα épeita] afterward they who are Christ's at His [παρουσία parousía] coming.

If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead [ἐγείρω egeírō] rise not? let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die.

But someone will say, How are the dead raised up, and with what [σῶμα sōma] body do they come?

Foolish one! What you sow is not [ζωοποιέω zōopoiéō] made alive unless it dies.

So also the [ἀνάστασις anástasis] resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it is [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised in power; it is sown a natural [σῶμα sōma] body, it is raised a spiritual [σῶμα sōma] body. There is a natural [σῶμα sōma] body, and there is a spiritual [σῶμα sōma] body. And so it is written, "The first man, Adam, was made a living soul," the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and when this mortal shall put on immortality, then will take place the word that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?"

And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed; in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be [ἐγείρω egeírō] raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed."

BELOW FOLLOWS ALL THE OTHER VERSES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT TALK ABOUT THE RESURRECTION

* Each verse is quoted in the table which appears under the text in the document for which the link is provided at the top and bottom of this post.


Matthew 22:23; Matthew 22:30; Matthew 22:31; Mark 12:18; Mark 12:23; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:27; Luke 20:33; Luke 20:35-36; Matthew 22:28; Matthew 27:52-53; Matthew 10:8; Matthew 11:5; Luke 7:22; Luke 7:14; Matthew 17:9; Matthew 20:19; Matthew 9:25; Luke 8:54; Matthew 14:2; Matthew 16:21; Luke 9:22; Matthew 17:23; Matthew 26:32; Mark 14:28; Matthew 27:52-53; Matthew 27:63-64; Matthew 28:6-7; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:6; Luke 24:34; Mark 16:14; Mark 6:14, Mark 6:16; Luke 9:7; Luke 14:13-14; Luke 20:37; John 2:19-21; John 5:21; John 12:1, John 12:9; John 12:17; John 5:28-29; John 21:14; Acts 1:22; Acts 2:24; Acts 2:31-32; Acts 3:15; Acts 3:26; Acts 4:1-2; Acts 4:10; Acts 4:33; Acts 5:30; Acts 10:40; Acts 13:30; Acts 13:33-37; Acts 17:18, Acts 17:31-32; Acts 23:6-8; Acts 24:15; Acts 24:21; Acts 26:8; Romans 1:4; Romans 4:23-25; Romans 6:4-5; Romans 6:9; Romans 7:4; Romans 8:11; Romans 8:34; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 1:9; 2 Corinthians 4:14; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:20; Ephesians 2:5-6; Ephesians 5:14; Philippians 3:10-11; Colossians 2:12-13; Colossians 3:1 (Compare with Romans 6:5); 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16; 2 Timothy 2:8; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; Hebrews 6:1-2; Hebrews 11:35; 1 Peter 1:3-5; 1 Peter 1:21; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 Peter 3:21; Revelation 20:4-6.


The list above is comprehensive. Without exception each and every passage and verse in the New Testament which talks about the resurrection (rising again), is talking about the resurrection of the body (σῶμα sōma) from the dead, in the day that the body is raised a spiritual body.


John 2
19 Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise [ἐγείρω egeírō] it up.
20 Then the Jews said, This temple was forty-six years building, and will you rear it up [ἐγείρω egeírō] in three days?
21 But He spoke of the temple of His body [σῶμα sōma].

The above, followed by the verses below, is the key if you want to know whose resurrection doctrine to believe.

Colossians 3
1 If then you were raised with [συνεγείρω synegeírō] Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God.
2 Be mindful of things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For you died, and your life has been hidden with Christ in God.
4 When Christ our Life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.

1 Corinthians 15
20 But now Christ has risen [ἐγείρω egeírō] from the dead [νεκρός nekrós], and has become the firstfruit of those who slept.
21 For since death is through man, the resurrection [ἀνάστασις anástasis] of the dead also is through a Man.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming;

1 Thessalonians 4
15 For we say this to you by the Word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord shall not go before those who are asleep.
16 For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead [νεκρός nekrós] in Christ shall rise [ἀνίστημι anístēmi] first [πρῶτον prōton].
17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall ever be with the Lord.
18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Spiritual regeneration (through spiritual birth from above by the Spirit), is the prerequisite for the resurrection of the body:

Just as new birth (γεννάω gennáō) from above relates to Spirit (πνεῦμα pneûma), every single passage and verse in the New Testament that talks about the Resurrection relates to the dead body [σῶμα sōma]:

"That which is gennáō (born) of the flesh is flesh; and that which is gennáō (born) of pneûma (the Spirit) is pneûma.” (John 3:6).

John 6:63 "It is the Spirit that makes alive [ζωοποιέω zōopoiéō] the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit and are life."

1 Peter 1:3 says, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has begotten us again to a living hope (Greek: záō elpís) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."

A. The word translated into "begotten us again" in the above verse is anagennáō. It's a combination of the words gennáō (beget) and aná (again):

B. Living hope (záō elpís): The word záō means to live, and the word elpís means to anticipate:

Just as Adam became a living soul when God breathed life into Him, so those who are born of the Spirit from above are now spiritually alive, and live in the hope (anticipation) of their bodily resurrection from the dead, which comes by Christ's resurrection from the dead.

This is confirmed again by Paul in Titus 3:5: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit".

The word "regeneration" in the above verse is a translation of the Greek word palingenesía [StrongsGreek G03824]. It's a combination of the words pálin (anew) and génesis (i.e generation).

Thayer's dictionary:
new birth, reproduction, renewal, recreation, regeneration.

The word is also found in Matthew 19:28:

“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Those who have been born of the Spirit from above are in Christ, who died in the flesh and was raised again from the dead, therefore those who are baptized by the Spirit of God into Christ (through new birth) have therefore also died with Christ and are raised with Christ (because they are now in Christ, and He in them):

"If you then be risen with [συνεγείρω synegeírō] Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is seated on the right hand of God." (Colossians 3:1).

"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection:" (Romans 6:5).

It's totally obvious that Jesus' resurrection is the first resurrection:

First (Greek) πρῶτον prōton:-

Acts 26:23
"That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first (πρῶτον prōton) that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

Revelation 20:6
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first (πρῶτον prōton) resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."


1. Adam's death, which came to all mankind.
2. Christ's Resurrection. He IS the Resurrection and the life. Those who are raised are raised with (synegeírō) Christ.
3. The second death.



Just as it's 100% clear in the New Testament that spiritual regeneration is through the spiritual birth (γεννάω gennáō) from above by the Spirit and is the prerequisite for the resurrection of the body with (synegeírō) Christ’s resurrection, so it's also 100% clear that every single passage and verse in the New Testament that talks about the Resurrection is talking about the resurrection of the body [σῶμα sōma] from the dead.

Therefore the term " spiritual 'resurrection' " does not apply to any passages or verses in the New Testament which talk about the resurrection.

.. unless Revelation 20:4-6 is the only exception in the entire New Testament.

If (IF) the resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 is literal, then it either took place in the days following the death of Nero on June 9th, A.D 68, or it's still coming.

Or Revelation 20:4-6 is the only exception in the entire New Testament.

Agnosmillennialist signing off.

This post and be viewed & downloaded in PDF, EPUB, Microsoft Word or Open Office Document format HERE (click)

grafted branch said:

A couple of things here, 2 Timothy 2:16-18 Hymenaeus and Philetus were in error over their teaching that the resurrection had already happened. We know they couldn’t have been in error if they were teaching that Christ was already resurrected. If they were teaching about a future bodily resurrection then it would have been obvious they were incorrect unless they were referring to the bodily resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 and calling it the final resurrection. I’m sure there are others here that are going to argue the teaching that was in error was about spiritual resurrection (meaning it was past and not an ongoing process)

That would only apply to those who think Nero was the beast. I tend to think the beast was prior to the cross and the 2nd beast (Revelation 13:11) is Satan transformed into an angel of light. The resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 could be the one in Revelation 20:4-6.

I only think this is a possibility and that there are other interpretations that are also possible, so I’m not going to debate or try to convince anyone, just putting it out there.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess that mixed into my faith in Christ there has always been in my (own) mind the belief that Christ has not returned yet, that He is coming again.

Passages like this I've always believed are in the future:

1 Thessalonians 3
11 And may God Himself and our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way to you.
12 And may the Lord make you to increase and abound in love toward one another and toward all, even as we do toward you,
13 in order to establish your hearts blameless in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming [παρουσία parousía] of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints.

1 Corinthians 15
20 But now Christ has risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruit of those who slept.
21 For since death is through man, the resurrection of the dead also is through a Man.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all will be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruit, and afterward they who are Christ's at His coming [παρουσία parousía];
24 then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power.

2 Thessalonians 2
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the breath of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming [παρουσία parousía].

And because that's my platform, I've always taken the statements made in the New Testament regarding the resurrection of those who are Christ's when He returns (for example in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23) as being a reference to all who are "next in line" to share with those who had already been resurrected after Christ died (Matthew 27:51-53).

The reason for my OP though is only to do with the fact that unless Revelation 20:4-6 is the only exception in the entire New Testament, there are no verses in the New Testament that speak about the resurrection that are not talking about the resurrection of the body.

The New Testament does indeed make a distinction between on one hand spiritual regeneration which is by the Spirit, and takes place as a result of new birth from above by the Spirit, and, on the other hand, the resurrection.

Many of those who believe that Christ's return is still a future event believe (and therefore assert) that the resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 is referring to a " spiritual 'resurrection' " and to the spiritual regeneration, which we all know, is necessary for anyone to become one of Christ's.

But I realize that anyone who isn't sure that Christ's return still lies in the future, is not going to have the same issues with whether or not Revelation's thousand years is:

(A) Literal and precedes the return of Christ; or
(B) Literal and takes place following the return of Christ; or
(C) Symbolic of the Age in-between the first advent of Christ and His parousia.

I used to be Pre-millennialist but since then I've moved into the territory of "I really don't know the answer to the above three" (really don't know), so if someone who believes Christ's return is still future comments regarding my OP, then at least I may be able to get a view from an angle I never saw before.

I realize that Preterists will most likely see all or most of the things I'm talking about in my OP either as having been fulfilled already, or as being fulfilled in a present-tense, ongoing basis. But that's not the platform from which I launched the OP, and the main issue in the OP is the fact that each and every New Testament reference to the rising again/resurrection, is unambiguously talking about the resurrection of the body, in the day it is raised or will be raised (or was raised, for those who are Preterists) a spiritual body.

That's what my OP aims to get comment on - the fact that each and every New Testament reference to the rising again/resurrection, is unambiguously talking about the resurrection of the body, in the day it is raised or will be raised (or was raised, for those who are Preterists) a spiritual body.

grafted branch said:

A couple of things here, 2 Timothy 2:16-18 Hymenaeus and Philetus were in error over their teaching that the resurrection had already happened.

We know they couldn’t have been in error if they were teaching that Christ was already resurrected. If they were teaching about a future bodily resurrection then it would have been obvious they were incorrect unless they were referring to the bodily resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 and calling it the final resurrection. I’m sure there are others here that are going to argue the teaching that was in error was about spiritual resurrection (meaning it was past and not an ongoing process)

Click to expand...

Good point. I always assumed that those who were in error believed that the references to the resurrection were to a literal bodily resurrection at the time of the end of the Age (the church Age) and the return of Christ, and they were teaching that it had already taken place.

grafted branch said:

That would only apply to those who think Nero was the beast.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I realized that. Interesting that there are even more views than I knew there were :

grafted branch said:

I tend to think the beast was prior to the cross and the 2nd beast (Revelation 13:11) is Satan transformed into an angel of light. The resurrection in Matthew 27:52-53 could be the one in Revelation 20:4-6.

Click to expand...

grafted branch said:

I only think this is a possibility and that there are other interpretations that are also possible, so I’m not going to debate or try to convince anyone, just putting it out there.

Click to expand...

Well I appreciated your input. Thanks My first reply to your post was for anyone who might still be interested, so that my motive for the OP is clear.

DavidPT said:

Assuming it is literal, which it obviously is, why would that even be an option?

Click to expand...

Because..

.. because you like sitting doing a lot of reading while I explain myself

And aside from the above, because I've come to realize that though in His Revelation the Lord tells us a lot, He also tells us only a little, only what God wills for us to know, and that fact leaves a lot of unanswered questions in my mind, such as,

.."those who were beheaded.. witness to Jesus .. did not receive his (the beast's) mark..."

1. Where are all the other saints who were not around anymore at the same time the above things were taking place, but who Paul said would be resurrected when Christ returns?

2. What does "reigning with Christ" mean when used in Revelation 20? Bearing in mind that those who overcome are said to reign forever and ever in Revelation 22:5, can we legitimately assume that the word "reign" in Revelation 20 means "rule over the nations"? (Because it would have to be an assumption).

3. Then there's also the fact that all this can only be taking place in the NHNE (which I think we both agree on). But because of this:

(a) It would make no sense if only some were reigning .. over whom? and others not.
(b) Where are the other New Testament statements explicitly stating (or at least strongly implying) that there are going to be mortals going into the NHNE? Because in the total absence of any, we cannot assume that the word reign in Revelation 20 means reigning over others.

( c) The reason why I say this, is because delivering us from the dominion of sin and our overcoming sin is one of the reasons Christ shed His blood for us, and the Lord's closing statement to each one of the seven churches contains the words, "to him who overcomes.."

So can we assume that the word "reigning" in Revelation 20 means they will be calling the shots over other humans?

DavidPT said:

That doesn't seem reasonable if that were the case. Revelation 20 only mentions 2 resurrections, not 3 or more instead. If the first resurrection is not meaning the bodily resurrection of the saints, which resurrection in Revelation 20 then is?

Click to expand...

It can only be the resurrection of all the saints if it takes place at the time of the return of Christ (i.e IF it takes place at the time of the return of Christ).

Remember that you're talking to someone who was a Premillennialist, who has his mind open to the idea of a literal thousand years but in the NHNE, so therefore also bearing in mind that the realization that there are problems with that idea also, keeps me well within the agnosmillennialist camp I established all for myself recently.

Here's another one of those problems I have identified (or i.o.w has popped into my mind):

Bearing in mind that though all who belong to Christ will be resurrected at the time of His parousia, why is it that only some - one particular group - of saints are mentioned in Revelation 20? Revelation 20 speaks only on one particular group of saints, and no one else.

DavidPT said:

Does it seem reasonable that John would think a spiritual resurrection of saints is far more important than a bodily resurrection of saints, therefore he only bothers to mention the former and makes zero mention of the latter?

Click to expand...

No it doesn't seem reasonable, especially bearing in mind the fact that there are so many references to the resurrection of the dead at the return of Christ in the New Testament that the theme can only have always been an integral part of the gospel in the minds of all the apostles, including, and especially, John (because by the time he wrote he had needed to say goodbye in his heart to all his fellow apostles - he was the only one left alive. The others were all dead, waiting for the resurrection. You lose more than one person close to you and your mind thinks more and more about the day we will all be resurrected and together again and living forever in the blessed "city" prepared for us).

But that doesn't make the problems I brought up seem reasonable either.

DavidPT said:

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

What I have underlined is key in determining what is meant by the first resurrection. When John received the Revelation visions he indicated this same beast ' is not' at the time, and that in the the future it would ascend out of the pit. In order for there to be these martyrs I have underlined above to be recorded in this verse, this means that the beast has to have ascended out of the pit in order to have caused them to be martyred for the reasons they are.

This indicates these I have underlined are literally physically dead and need to be literally physically alive once again. Any spiritual resurrection would have preceded their deaths. When they reign with Christ a thousand years it is meaning after they have died, not before they died. No one needs to be spiritually resurrected upon death. No one needs to reign in heaven in a disembodied state over the affairs of the earth when no one while in that state has any contact with anyone still alive on earth to begin with. Things like this, the first resurrection meaning a spiritual resurrection, leads to total nonsense that is not supported by one single Scripture in the entire Bible.

And besides, what if one is of the Not Once Saved Always Saved camp? One is to believe that anyone who has part in the first resurrection, that they can lose part in it, where that alone contradicts what Revelation 20:6 states---on such the second death hath no power? If in the end some of these in verse 6 get cast into the LOF, that means the 2nd death obviously has power over them after all, the opposite of what the text states. I guess it's ok to contradict Scriptures as long as that is the only way one can get their view to supposedly fit with the texts involved. If the first resurrection is bodily, one's salvation is already fully determined before they are even raised, therefore impossible to lose part in the first resurrection after having taking part in it. Amil while assuming NOSAS rather than OSAS contradicts that. Yet, NOSAS is Biblical, therefore even Amil while assuming OSAS rather than NOSAS is a contradiction as well.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I've always been aware of the exact argument you express above, and agreed with what you say above, before you even said it. Also, I don't believe that Revelation 20:4-6's mention of the resurrection "is an exception to the rule" regarding what the verses talking about the resurrection are all talking about. Why would it be?

But there are also problems with the Premillennialist position (I've mentioned some in this post but there are one or two more that my (own) human intellect has identified that has placed me firmly in the agnosmillennialist camp, which I regard as a very safe place to be. I found out that my camp gives me wings so that I get an eagle's eye view of the Premil and Amil soldiers battling it out and getting some things right but never acknowledging the problems with their defenses.

I was hoping you would comment. So I'm glad you have. I'm hoping that maybe you will be able to give me adequate answers for the problems that I did bring up earlier (above), which I numbered (answers that will satisfy my human intellect's questions). (Please also understand that my realization that I can only understand Revelation 20 as clearly as my dim eyes permit me to see it has placed me firmly in my agnosmillennialist camp).

Spiritual Jew said:

I don't understand your conclusion. You said yourself that the first resurrection was Christ's resurrection which was obviously a bodily resurrection. I agree. But then you said in your conclusion that "If (IF) the resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 is literal, then it either took place in the days following the death of Nero on June 9th, A.D 68, or it's still coming.".

Christ's resurrection, the first resurrection, obviously took place before the death of Nero and is not still coming. Christ's resurrection in and of itself is the first resurrection. I think that is what you may be missing here.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's true and though I don't personally believe in the Preterist belief that it took place during or just after the time of Nero, I missed what you said above anyway (even though I have never been a Preterist with regard to the return of Christ and the resurrection). Totally valid point to bear in mind when discussing this with Preterists. I hope I remember it.

Spiritual Jew said:

One does not have to be resurrected in order to have part in the first resurrection if the first resurrection is understood to be Christ's resurrection. When we are spiritually regenerated (born again) we then spiritually have part in Christ's resurrection which passages like Ephesians 2:1-6, Romans 6:8-11 and Colossians 2:11-14 indicate.

So, I believe the souls John saw in Revelation 20:4 are those who spiritually had part in Christ's resurrection, which is the first resurrection.

Click to expand...

mmmmm ...
I'm going to have to chew on that.. while I'm wide awake.. so over the course of a few days.

I'm actually enjoying my new agnosmillenialist camp. It's put me into the right place. "I don't know" = "the door is open now, whereas before it was completely shut".

My problem: My human intellect does not permit me the liberty though to assume that the words "receive his mark or the number of his name" (which appear only in Revelation 13:1-18 and Revelation 20:4) belong in a point in time before the beast and false prophet described in Revelation 13 have even risen out of the sea and out of the earth.

Please understand that I'm the patient here: Diagnosis: agnosmillennialism. Symptoms: Confusion: Finding problems with all theories regarding the millennium. Sees Spiritual Jew, @DavidPT and others as his shrinks who don't agree with one another's cures.

But no one may charge me for your psychiatrist services... (just thought I should add that).

.. And then there is a second problem that my human intellect is causing my sense of liberty to adopt an Amillennilaist position to be blocked. The same is happening with the Premillennilaist position, but let's leave it with the above one for now.

For this reason I'm really glad yourself and DavidPT are also here.

Spiritual Jew said:

It seems that part of what you're saying is that the first resurrection cannot refer to a spiritual resurrection of a believer because the word resurrection always is used to describe a bodily resurrection and not a spiritual resurrection. I agree with that. But, that does not mean that having part in the first resurrection (Christ's resurrection) can not be a spiritual experience. Again, someone does not need to be resurrected in order to have part in Christ's resurrection, which is the first resurrection, because when someone is spiritually regenerated, they spiritually have part in Christ's resurrection.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand your point, so I can think about that a while, and also wait for you to answer the first objection which my human intellect is causing my understanding to be blocked. In this thread DavidPT has already been getting some of my human intellect's objections to PreMillennialism.

Thanks to @Spiritual Jew I've been able to change the words at the bottom of my OP (well, I'm not changing the wording in the OP, so that everyone can see what's been changed, but I have changed the wording at the bottom of my post in the document I linked to):

New Testament concepts regarding death and resurrection:

1. Adam's death, which came to all mankind.
2. Christ's Resurrection. He IS the Resurrection and the life. Those who are raised are raised with (synegeírō) Christ.
3. The second death.

Just as it's 100% clear in the New Testament that spiritual regeneration is through the spiritual birth (γεννάω gennáō) from above by the Spirit and is the prerequisite for the resurrection of the body with (synegeírō) Christ’s resurrection, so it's also 100% clear that without exception every passage and verse in the New Testament that talks about the Resurrection is unambiguously talking about the resurrection of the body [σῶμα sōma] from the dead.

The term " spiritual 'resurrection' " does not seem to apply in the New Testament. So if Revelation 20:4-6 is not referring to a " spiritual 'resurrection' " but to the resurrection of the body (that all other New Testament verses talking about the resurrection are unambiguously referring to), then unless this resurrection took place after the death of Nero on June 9th, A.D 68 (or at some other point in history), it's still coming.

Or is it? Christ is the first resurrection, and He IS the resurrection:

"And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor his image, nor had received his mark on their foreheads, nor in their hands.

And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first [ἀνάστασις anástasis] resurrection.

Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first [ἀνάστασις anástasis] resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years."

However, worshiping the beast and his image and receiving his mark on the forehead or in the hand is only written about in two passages in the Revelation, and in the entire New Testament: Revelation 13:12-18 and Revelation 20:4.

So for now, the question remains unanswered in this post: "Whose Resurrection Doctrine should we believe?"

Spiritual Jew said:

I don't understand your conclusion. You said yourself that the first resurrection was Christ's resurrection which was obviously a bodily resurrection. I agree. But then you said in your conclusion that "If (IF) the resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 is literal, then it either took place in the days following the death of Nero on June 9th, A.D 68, or it's still coming.".

Christ's resurrection, the first resurrection, obviously took place before the death of Nero and is not still coming. Christ's resurrection in and of itself is the first resurrection. I think that is what you may be missing here.

Click to expand...

And I almost missed it again. Too busy thinking about how valid the point is when speaking to Preterists about it. But thanks, I've changed the wording because of what you said here now (see post #18).