Agreed
Timtofly said this…
Revelation 20:5 says this is the first resurrection. If we say the phrase “the first resurrection” is only being used to tell us that a physical resurrection occurred then “the first” = “physical”. This would then imply that there can be multiple “first” resurrection’s through out time.
Good question, there are numerous theories about who or what the beast is. As you have stated before the mark of the beast is only mentioned in two places (at least clearly).
I personally try to eliminate things and ideas that are impossible first then think about how probable the remaining is.
If we can know that the first resurrection has already occurred in circa AD 30 then we can go from there. If the first resurrection is an on going process (Amil) or future (Premil) then it becomes more difficult to pin down exactly what’s going on.
I would say those resurrected in Matthew 27 being people who lived at the time of the beast and had not received the mark goes in the “it’s possible” file and until I understand more I wouldn’t move it into the “more than likely” file.
Amil do not claim any ongoing resurrection. They claim the second birth is a resurrection. The second birth is an ongoing phenomenon. Death is an ongoing phenomenon. Not tasting death is an ongoing phenomenon for those in Christ. If all of this is ongoing, why not the resurrection?
Amil claim only one resurrection of all time. Amil claim only Christ experienced the "first" resurrection. Even Revelation 20:4 is not about actual humans. It is only symbolic of Christ's "first resurrection" period, because it has the word "first" in it. Amil are not even going to say there is a second resurrection. There is only one resurrection period, no need to first and second a single resurrection. They claim the two times Jesus repeats Himself in John 5, is that the first time is spiritual and the second time it is physical.
Folks there are 2 births, 2 deaths, and 1 resurrection. The first birth is physical, the first death is physical, the first resurrection is physical. The second birth is spiritual into God's family. The second death is not dropping out of God's family because one looses their salvation. The second death happens to those who never had the second birth. One does not have to be spiritually born from above to enter the Lake of Fire. One enters the Lake of Fire because they were never spiritually born from above. So a second resurrection is literally nothing. No second resurrection can happen, unless it is getting out of the Lake of Fire. So saying there is a first, second, or third resurrection is not using the word the same as "firstfruits" or "first" in the Bible. There are no second fruits. No second borns, and no second resurrections as biblical terms.
Do you not accept at the Cross all came out of the part of the grave, sheol, called Abraham's bosom? The firstfruits of the Cross included the whole OT church. The disciples may have been the living chosen elect as firstfruits. But the whole church is in Christ, both OT and NT. David called that death, "sleep". It was still tasting death. They still had to wait for that Last Day bodily resurrection. The soul could not take a body, and enter Paradise, until the physical Atonement of the Cross, and Christ led that assembly in full body procession into Paradise and the temple of God, that heavenly city. So yes there was a first resurrection at the Cross, and that first resurrection incorporated several aspects the OT redeemed were looking forward to. It was literally the only resurrection of the church, as in bodies coming out of their graves. It was the primary and singular resurrection, that many claim will not happen until the Second Coming/GWT. Post mil and amil have them as the same event. Then they claim that final event not as the first resurrection, but the only resurrection. Amil claim the first resurrection was not about us, but only Christ. So amil do not see Revelation 20:4 as the first in time with a second one later. They change the word first to mean "Christ's". Of course they do not deny a bodily resurrection, they just refuse to see the difference between the first resurrection and the second birth. They symbolically mean the same thing to Amil.
Obviously they have to totally ignore those resurrected were just beheaded in the prior 42 months. That is not relative. They hold human opinion called recapitulation, and Revelation 20 automatically starts the narrative back to 30AD, even though no other recap in Revelation goes back to 30AD.
So no, "first" does not have to mean "physical". It just makes sense that John is separating the physical resurrection from the spiritual aspect of the second death. John is not even implying 2 resurrections. Just that no one could live again, until judged at the GWT. Those in this physical resurrection (Revelation 20:4) did stand before thrones and were judged. They do not need to be judged again, so need not fear another death nor another judgment. There are several reasons this resurrection is physical other than the word first. The context calls for a physical resurrection, and calling it a first resurrection fits the context. For those that see the first glance as just a first resurrection followed by a second, 1000 years later, the first view, especially in this book of Revelation, is not always the one we are supposed to see. People complain the book is too symbolic. How is adding literal words and details into the text helping the issue? By that, I mean adding a second resurrection. Then beyond adding that either literally or symbolically, they then claim that is the only resurrection of humans to ever occur in human history. Amil then fo away with the word first altogether, and claim it means Christ.
So they do not even use the meaning of the word first to indicate a non existing "second" which is not even an implied resurrection, but now, to them, is the only resurrection to ever exist, because first means Christ. A circle of inconsistency.