A-Mil Only The rest of the dead did not live until the 1000 years came to an end?

[Andrewn]

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

Amillennialists believe the 1st resurrection is spiritual, associated w/ belief in Christ and baptism.

This implies that the "rest of the dead" will have a spiritual resurrection at the end of the Millennium.

If this is the case, it implies some sort of Universalism.

If this is not the case, and the 2nd resurrection is physical, then the 1st resurrection must also be physical.

How do Amillennialists approach this conundrum?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

Amillennialists believe the 1st resurrection is spiritual, associated w/ belief in Christ and baptism.

This implies that the "rest of the dead" will have a spiritual resurrection at the end of the Millennium.

If this is the case, it implies some sort of Universalism.

If this is not the case, and the 2nd resurrection is physical, then the 1st resurrection must also be physical.

How do Amillennialists approach this conundrum?

Seeing that Revelation is highly symbolic and apocalyptic, it is also a book of hope, reassurance and comfort. Written specifically to the Seven Churches for such a purpose, it is simply confirming that the dead in Christ are now with Him and that the living , who will join Him one day, are also part of that group. None of them will suffer the " second death". I'm probably being too simplistic but it makes sense to me. Blessings.

 

[HTacianas]

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

Amillennialists believe the 1st resurrection is spiritual, associated w/ belief in Christ and baptism.

This implies that the "rest of the dead" will have a spiritual resurrection at the end of the Millennium.

If this is the case, it implies some sort of Universalism.

If this is not the case, and the 2nd resurrection is physical, then the 1st resurrection must also be physical.

How do Amillennialists approach this conundrum?

The "rest of the dead" rise to face judgement. It does not say specifically where they rise from.

 

[Andrewn]

Written specifically to the Seven Churches for such a purpose, it is simply confirming that the dead in Christ are now with Him and that the living , who will join Him one day, are also part of that group. None of them will suffer the " second death".

Yes, this is the typical Amil understanding and I like the way you expressed it.

The "rest of the dead" rise to face judgement. It does not say specifically where they rise from.

The "rest of the dead" rise physically to face judgement is the usual Amil view. But it doesn't make sense to interpret v. 4 as a spiritual resurrection and v. 5 as a physical resurrection!

 

[HTacianas]

Yes, this is the typical Amil understanding and I like the way you expressed it.


The "rest of the dead" rise physically to face judgement is the usual Amil view. But it doesn't make sense to interpret v. 4 as a spiritual resurrection and v. 5 as a physical resurrection!

You'll find differing views on it. Some say the first resurrection is baptism, but some say the first resurrection is resurrection after death. Note that those "beheaded for the witness of Jesus...lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years", Rev 20:4. That is where the Christian understanding of sainthood comes from.

 

[Andrewn]

You'll find differing views on it. Some say the first resurrection is baptism, but some say the first resurrection is resurrection after death.

These two views overlap. Perhaps it is a progression.

As the Lord said:

Joh 17:24 Father, I want those You have given Me to be with Me where I am, that they may see the glory You gave Me because You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

And the Apostle Paul wrote:

Eph 2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

And St Julian of Norwich wrote:

"Where the blessed soul of Christ is, there is the essence of all the souls that shall be saved by Christ."

 

[Trivalee]

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

Amillennialists believe the 1st resurrection is spiritual, associated w/ belief in Christ and baptism.

This implies that the "rest of the dead" will have a spiritual resurrection at the end of the Millennium.

If this is the case, it implies some sort of Universalism.

If this is not the case, and the 2nd resurrection is physical, then the 1st resurrection must also be physical.

How do Amillennialists approach this conundrum?

Amillennialist doctrine is not based on scriptural FACTS but on hermeneutic conjectures. For example, they claim that Satan has been detained in the pit since the resurrection. But if you ask them to reconcile that position with 1 Peter 5:8 and explain how Satan is still able to prowl and deceive, they start babbling!

1 Peter 5:8 Stay alert! Watch out for your great enemy, the devil. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour.

Secondly, they also claim we are now in the millennial kingdom; yet it's been over 2000 years since the resurrection. Two thousand years is more than a millennium, but that doesn't seem to faze them as they continue to promote their indefensible views of the eschaton. Over the years, I've dedicated my time to engage many Amillennialists in meaningful discussion to highlight the problems with their position, sadly it was like hitting a brick wall.

 

[Andrewn]

Amillennialist doctrine is not based on scriptural FACTS but on hermeneutic conjectures. For example, they claim that Satan has been detained in the pit since the resurrection. But if you ask them to reconcile that position with 1 Peter 5:8 and explain how Satan is still able to prowl and deceive, they start babbling!

Amillennialists have given beautiful comments on Rev 20:4. But they have not addressed Rev 20:5, which is the question of this thread.

Let's see how they answer your accusation.

 

[Reborn-Adopted]

The rest of the dead ...meaning, they can't be Born Again during It. The Resurrection of Rev 20 is The Resurrection of The Church ...the sea of a false church is about to end and will Resurrect to be the Actual Body of CHRIST. satan get's loosed and starts another false church.

 

[TribulationSigns]

The First Resurrection​

​

Another point that some detractors of the Amillennialist position condemn is that we say that the scripture teaches that "The First Resurrection" is the new birth. But again, either that is true, or our God is not telling the truth when He says it! One or the other, take your pick. God's Word teaches us that Christ is the first born from the dead and that in all things he might have preeminence. That's the first resurrection from the dead. So the question is, "Is Christ the first born from the dead or not?" Because if that's not true, then the resurrection wherein God says "we were raised up in His death," is frankly all a monumental deception. If it is true, then as Christ is the first raised from the dead, and we who were raised up with Him have part in the first resurrection. And if it's not true, then when Jesus told Martha (who thought that Lazarus would be first raised up in the last day) that, "HE was the Resurrection," it was all a lie, and all those raised in Him are not really raised up in His First Resurrection. We must then ask ourselves, "are believers raised up with Christ in a Pretend Resurrection, or was it with Christ as the first born from the dead?" Were we ever dead and raised up before Christ raised us up? The answer is no. So then this must of necessity be the "first" resurrection, just as we are told Christ is the first raised from the dead. If we really believe that Christ was the "first" from the dead, then the answers are obvious. We were raised up with Christ in his "First Resurrection." Again, maybe not according to some theologians, but according to the Holy Scriptures we were. And interpretations do belong to God.

Colossians 2:13

• "And you being Dead in your sins, and the un-circumcision of your flesh, hath he made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespass."​

Ephesians 2:5-6

• "Even when we were Dead in sins, hath He made us Alive together with Christ (by Grace ye are saved).​
• And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"​

And so according to "scripture alone," it would seem that many are really missing the whole point about both the first resurrection from the dead, and our being raised up to reign with Him in heaven. For if it's not the first (in God's defining of the first), then we have chaos, confusion, and a contradiction in the scriptures which sticks out like a sore thumb.

Colossians 1:18

• "And He is the Head of the Body, the Church; who is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead that in all things He might have Preeminence."​

Colossians 2:12

• "Buried with Him in Baptism, wherein also ye were Risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the Dead."​

Scripture teaches us of two principle resurrections of the dead. It speaks of the resurrection in Christ (John 11:25, Ephesians 2:5) which is called the first. But it also speaks of another resurrection at the last day (John 11:24, 1st Corinthians 15:52). Only one can be the first resurrection of the saints. And I want to say that again for emphasis. ONLY ONE can be the first Resurrection. And that is what many theologians cannot seem to comprehend. You cannot have two separate events, both called the first resurrection in scripture. That is confusion and God is not the author of confusion. In Revelation 20:5, the First Resurrection refers to what has occurred that made those souls who have died able to live and reign with Christ, while the souls of those who were unsaved (the rest of the dead) could not go to live and reign with Christ. The rest of the dead (unsaved who died) "they lived not again" until the second resurrection when they must be raised from death to stand for judgment before the throne of God. What the chapter is doing is contrasting the souls of the saved, which though they are dead, yet still live and reign with Christ in heaven, with the souls of the "rest of the dead" (the unsaved) who didn't have life again until the second Resurrection. The ones who reign with Christ after death are those who have had a part in the first resurrection. The expression, the First Resurrection clearly refers to the souls of the saints that are raised first, in distinction from the raising of these wicked (rest of the dead) that occurs after the millennium. This is at the second resurrection. It is totally consistent with the Amillennial view.

There are those who attempt to split hairs, who say that Christ's "resurrection" is not the exact same phrase as "first resurrection." And so they conclude Christ's resurrection is not the same as a first resurrection. But besides from this logic being self-serving, since Christ clearly says He's the Firstborn from the dead that He might have preeminence, it's also inaccurate. If (as righteous Joseph says), "God shall give an answer of peace, and interpretations belong to Him," then God (Sola Scriptura) must define the First Resurrection, not man. And Graciously, He does. But again, "if we will receive it!" And again, He does it unambiguously.

Acts 26:23

• "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."​

Christ is the "First Resurrection" from the dead according To God. From the context it should be clear to anyone with no preconceived ideas that Christ is the first resurrection, the first that should rise from the dead. And note, it's according to God's Word, not according to Amillennialists, or Augustine, or Origen. So who would dare to declare that these things are untrue? The sad truth is that many will dare to declare it, but unambiguously this is the raising of Christ from death to life. And God defines Him as the first. And so, as saith the scriptures, "Let God be True, and every man a liar (Romans 3:4)". Once again, Amillennialism triumphs biblically and is found to be nothing more than what is defined by the Word of God. The first resurrection was instituted at Christ's preeminent resurrection. His ascension to the throne was the start of the Millennial Kingdom reign, and all those who have part in that resurrection are they who reign with Him in the Kingdom. And upon these, the second death hath no part. And that is what Revelation 20 is declaring.

Revelation 20:6

• "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first 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."​

Blessed are those who have part in the first resurrection (born again in Christ), because they are now made Kings and Priests unto God, the Children of the Kingdom, and they never lie, they live and reign with Him, and the second death cannot harm these.

And this is only a natural progression of scripture because when we study prophecy we find that most of the prophecies concerning Israel and the millennial kingdom reign are now being fulfilled through the Church. The New Covenant is with spiritual Israel, and is being extended by the body of Christ. Not national Israel. Peace has been brought, we have no fear of our enemies, the government is upon Christ's shoulders, He rules and we serve, we live and reign with Him in his kingdom, we are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to God's Promises. All those prophecies are fulfilled. But again, this is (incredibly) railed upon by many theologians as both unbiblical and as unrighteous spiritualizing. But, in all honesty, there cannot be much question about the truth of it. The New Testament or Covenant (same word) is with Israel (according to scripture) and so unless the scriptures are wrong, or the Church isn't a part of this New Covenant in Christ's blood, then once again, Premillennialists are barking up a tree with a Lion in it. The Gentiles are as branches grafted "into" the Covenant tree Israel. This is clearly signified in Romans chapter 11. The Olive tree symbolizes Covenant Israel, and there are Gentiles that are grafted into this Covenant Israel on the New Testament side of the cross. So, what's to debate? We who were once Gentiles, are as branches taken from our wild Gentile tree, and grafted into the tree representing Covenant Israel, and are after spoken of as the New Covenant/Testament Congregation. This body is the new Covenant children of God. To deny this I believe is to deny the very scriptures that proclaim it. So again, what Bible are these detractors not reading concerning God's people being one body, New Covenant Israel? Moreover:

Ephesians 2:11-12

• "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh who are called un circumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made with hands,​
• That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenants of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.​
• but Now ye who were sometimes far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ."​

In times past, before we were in Christ, we were "Gentiles", the uncircumcision, aliens, or foreigners from the commonwealth of Israel. That's what we were before, but are not anymore. By being in Christ, we are reconciled together with God and the Jews, one commonwealth or [politeia] citizenship in Israel. We are now all one people in Christ Jesus. All of these scriptures become null and void in the humanist Judaic views, but they are totally consistent with what is called Amillennialism. By a believer having been raised up in the "First Resurrection" with Christ, he is by that new birth, brought into the Israel of God. Jew and Gentile reconciled into one body. There is One Body, which is Christ, NOT two. There is ONE Israel of God, NOT two. There is ONE Olive Tree of God, NOT two. There is ONE everlasting Covenant with the Israel of God, NOT two. And Jesus Christ strengthened or confirmed that Covenant in His blood at the cross (for all), and He is not going to do it again in the future. The redemption of New Covenant Israel has already been accomplished. Their king has already come, and He reigns and continues to reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. This is the Millennial reign of Christ present in our day. And when Christ returns, it will be to usher in the second resurrection. It will be the time of the raising of the dead, and the judgment. But because we had a part in the first resurrection, we have no part in that judgment. There is no second death for those who have part in the first resurrection (born again in Christ).

Selah

 

[TribulationSigns]

The One Thousand Years​

Some theologians look at the number 1000 in Revelation chapter 20, and insist that it must be a literal length of time. In fact, some go so far as to say that it's precluded it can be understood any other way but literal. But the book of Revelation is replete with symbolism and figurative language, and so why would anyone even begin to think that this "must" be understood literally? Considering the context, they would have to be predisposed to thinking this way. It is self-evident that they are showing their bias by even making such an untenable statement. Are dragons, seven-headed beasts, candlesticks that are olive trees, locusts like scorpions, vials with prayers in them, blood coming out of a winepress, the seas turning to blood, precluded from being understood any other way but literally? Who are they kidding saying, "the thousand years must be taken literally?" By the Spirit of God we understand that what is to be understood as literal, and what is understood spiritually, is defined by the scripture itself, and not by consensus, opinion, or church tradition. And certainly not because a popular theologian or author says it must be.

When we have studied this issue carefully, and taken all things into consideration, we are brought to the inescapable conclusion that the number one thousand in Revelation chapter 20 signifies the "fullness" of time that the dragon is bound. It is no more literal than the key and chain that holds the dragon in the bottomless pit is.

Briefly, numbers are often used in scripture to signify spiritual truths. One thousand signifies the fullness of whatever is in view. This spiritual significance includes the number 10, and multiples of it such as 100, 1,000. The numbers 10, 100 and 1,000 are "full numbers" which are even in our day used figuratively to illustrate the fullness of whatever is in view. As someone today might say, "I've told you ten times already," or "I'll love you a thousand years, or a million years." Likewise, the number ten and its multiples are used to illustrate the fullness of whatever is spoken of in scripture, whether it be time, virgins, plagues, Blood, etc. For example, the days of the tribulation of the Church of Smyrna are 10 signifying the fullness of time. Again, in the parable of the 10 virgins, we see the number 10 signifies the fullness of the Church. Again, the beast that appears with 10 horns, which signifies the fullness of time that it will reign in power (horns=Power) near the end of the world. Other notable pertinent applications were the ten plagues upon Egypt, signifying the fullness of God's wrath upon it; the ten commandments, which signified the fullness of God's will and law concerning His people; or the ten talents, ten thousand saints, etc. The number 10 signifies that a full measure of something is in view. Selah!

And so considering all these things, along with the apocalyptic (uncovering) of the symbolic character of the book of Revelation, there is no question but that Christians are justified in considering a spiritual or allegorical view. In order to insist that the one thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 must be understood literally, one would first have to show that a figurative understanding is Biblically unjustified. And that cannot be done. The number 1000 is 10 multiplied by 100, and represents the fullness of this long period of time. It is the fullness of time that Satan is confined, the fullness of time (millennial) the Church reigns as the kingdom of Christ in heaven and on earth, and the fullness of time in which the rest of the dead who didn't have part in the "first resurrection" will not live again before they are raised in the second resurrection unto their judgment.

 

[TribulationSigns]

The Rest of the Dead​

Revelation 20:5

• "But the rest of the dead, lived not again until the 1000 years were finished. This is the First Resurrection".

Some Premillennial Theologians use this verse as support for the idea that there are at least two physical resurrections with a literal earthly millennial reign in between. However, scripture clearly teaches "one" future resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

Exhibit A:

John 5:28-29

• "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
  
  
• And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."

This is the second Resurrection (not the first in Christ) and this is what is described in Revelation 20:12. The First resurrection is in Christ - all of those who have experienced born again. This verse of Revelation is conclusive proof that this is speaking about the souls of those martyred who were saved, and who died physically as it's contrasted against the souls of "the rest of the dead" (the unsaved, who died physically). As believers in Christ those martyred, in their souls go immediately to live and reign with Christ after they die. They are living and reigning with Christ ever since He went to the cross to make that possible. We live and reign with Christ in heaven in our souls, even though our bodies decayed, yet we live. That's exactly what the verse is talking about. Believers who die, yet their souls living and reigning with Christ, while unbelievers (the rest of the dead) who die, don't live again until the second resurrection.

Ecclesiastes 12:7

• "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it".

2nd Corinthians 5:8

• "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord".

When believers leave this body to dust, our spirits go to be with the Lord. But the rest of the dead, they lived not until after this present millennial reign is finished. These unsaved weren't raised up from death to new life in the first Resurrection in Christ, therefore they cannot go to live and reign with Christ after death. That is the contrast here. In other words, they had no part in the First Resurrection with Christ! And so when they physically died, they don't live until raised on "The last day" to stand for judgment. That will be the Second Resurrection. Again, spoken of as, "after the thousand years" (indicating once again that it is not to be taken as literally a thousand, because the individuals of the rest of the dead die at all different times). Let's take a look at what it says here, and what is meant by it.

1st Resurrection:

Every single believer who has been raised up in Christ to new life, hath part in this 1st resurrection. Remember the scriptures talk of Christ as the "FIRST BORN FROM THE DEAD." If that's not the 1st Resurrection from the dead, the new birth in Christ, then nothing is. He is the Resurrection as He told Martha, and all those raised WITH HIM hath part in that first Resurrection. They are the Church of the firstborn. On these, the second death hath no power. Of course not, for they never die again! He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

2nd Resurrection:

The second coming, at the last trumpet, at the last day, when we that are alive will be raised up to meet Jesus in the air, and Judgment day when the rest of the dead (unsaved who have died) are all are raised up to stand for Judgment.

1st Death:

The death in Adam which all of mankind has suffered and which if they are not resurrected in Christ from that death, they shall suffer the judgement in the second resurrection.

2nd Death:

The Judgment that is meted out By GOD upon the unrighteous. HELL! There shall be weeping and grinding of teeth! This is the death that the wages of sin brings forth. It's punishment. The 1st Resurrection (Those raised in Christ) have no need to worry about this, as the power of the Cross of Christ (1st Resurrection) has taken away the sting of death.

We see these thousand years are different for each group, and cannot logically or rationally be the same thousand years if that means literally a thousand. Simply put, verse five tells us that the rest of the dead, those who weren't Saved by having a part in Christ's Resurrection (The First) remained dead, and they didn't live again until after the thousand years. That's not speculation, that's what the scriptures clearly say. And after the fullness of God's purpose, which is a different length of time for each of the dead, then they will be raised to stand for Judgment. Those who make the claim that the first Resurrection is not in Christ are contradicting God's Word. God tells us point blank that Christ is the First Resurrection. And he who hath an ear, let him hear and receive it.

Acts 26:23

• "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the First Resurrection from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles".

So then, who are we going to believe, God or man? His interpretation, or our own? These are the same exact Greek words used in Revelation chapter twenty (First Resurrection). So there should be no debate but that Christ's raising from the dead is the 'First Resurrection,' according to God's Word. This is not an interpretation, or my spin on it, it's a direct unadulterated "Quote." That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the 'First Resurrection' from the dead. And we, raised up in him have part in that First Resurrection. We are the Church of the Firstborn from the dead.

Colossians 1:18

• "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence".
  

Hebrews 12:23

• "To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect"

These are the souls of believers, the First Resurrection, upon which the second death has no power, they live, while the unsaved dead do not. It all fits when the thousand years is not forced to mean something God never intended it to mean. It will never fit when it's forced to mean literally a thousand years. The ones raised up in Christ lived and reigned with him through the thousand years as the Church is being built, but the "rest" of the dead (Unsaved dead) didn't live again until after the thousand years, when Christ returns to rapture his Church and raise these dead to stand for Judgment.

Remember what the "souls" of those under the altar cried in Revelation 6:10, and Remember God's reply to them? His reply was that they should rest for a season, for there were more people to be martyred. You see, these are the "souls" reigning a thousand years in heaven, not "men" reigning on earth with Christ in an earthly city of Jerusalem as some Theologians surmise. Christians who have died (physically) and gone to heaven, yet living and Reigning with Christ in their souls' existence! God will not Judge till the fullness of His martyrs has come in. He will not loose the judgment of Satan till His set time. Not until His Church is come to the full. This is the marvelous truth of God's Word. And the sad contradiction to those who try and make these souls of 1000 years speak of a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on this sin cursed earth with men.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Rev 20:5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

Amillennialists believe the 1st resurrection is spiritual, associated w/ belief in Christ and baptism.

The first resurrection is those who take part in Christ's resurrection. For example, being born again.

This implies that the "rest of the dead" will have a spiritual resurrection at the end of the Millennium.

The rest of the dead are those who did NOT take part in Christ's resurrection. They never experienced being born again or being saved. They are lost. They are unsaved. When their physical body dies, their soul will remain in the grave not knowing anything, feeling anything, hearing anything, not knowing the time, nothing, UNTIL they hear the voice on the last day when Christ returns. It is sort of like what you may have experienced on the operation table when they put you to sleep, you will not feel anything, not hear anything, yet when you wake up again, you will feel like the long hours of surgery as only few minutes. This is what every unsaved dead feel. It will feel almost immediately to stand before Son of Man after the moment of their physical death regardless of when they died in the past.

They ALL will be resurrected to stand for judgment. This is the second resurrection prior to the second death.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Amillennialist doctrine is not based on scriptural FACTS but on hermeneutic conjectures. For example, they claim that Satan has been detained in the pit since the resurrection. But if you ask them to reconcile that position with 1 Peter 5:8 and explain how Satan is still able to prowl and deceive, they start babbling!

1 Peter 5:8 Stay alert! Watch out for your great enemy, the devil. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour.

Trivalee, you make the fundamental error of equating Satan's binding with a lack of earthly wars, earthly famine and earthly disease. This is an unbiblical presupposition. Satan was not bound so that the world would have no famine or disease. THe poverty, famine, war, evil, and disease will have with us always. What you are talking about is a pure humanistic outlook, not Christianity. Satan was bound so that those who were chosen of God could be spoiled (seized by conquest) from his prison house (Isaiah 61:1-2.; Luke 4:18) and rule that Satan held over them. Christ didn't bind Satan to save the world but to save "His People," not all people of the world. He saves His election.

Matthew 1:21

• "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

John 17:9

• "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

This is the God of the Bible, not a god of man's own imagination. He came to save "His people" and that is why He bound Satan in the first place! It was not so that sin would cease from all the nations of the world, but so that sin could cease in the elect of all nations. Scripture underscores the fact that Satan's house was plundered (his goods taken by conquest) by the work of Christ at the cross, which confirmed and instituted Christ's Kingdom, establishing His reign over these elect that He set free. Through God's Spirit, we have to not only read but hear what we are reading.

Matthew 12:28-29

• "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
• Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he First bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house."

If indeed Christ had cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then obviously it was the power of God manifest in Him, and that unambiguously demonstrated that He was the prophesied Messiah, the Son of David who was to come and establish the Kingdom of Israel. The same Son of whom the multitude spoke. It was indeed for this reason that the Pharisees said Christ had a Devil, because they didn't want to believe that He indeed was the Christ. Consider wisely and in context.

Matthew 12:22-24

• "Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
• And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
• But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils."

Indeed Christ had cast out devils by the Spirit of God and that meant that the Messiah, the Son of David of prophecy, had indeed come. And that His Kingdom had also indeed come unto them. It is in this "context" that Jesus speaks about how He must first bind Satan. Answer the fundamental questions concerning what Christ was explaining.

#1. Who is the Strong man?
#2. What is his house?
#3. Who is it that comes to bind him?
#4. What are the possessions in the strong man's house that he wants to Spoil (take by conquest)?
#5. What "MUST" be done first, before that spoiling can happen?

The only possible answers:

1. Satan is the strong man in this parable.
2. His house is his kingdom.
3. Christ is the Messenger of the Covenant who came to bind him and spoil his kingdom.
4. The Elect are his possessions or goods, which Christ came to seize.
5. Christ said that couldn't happen unless FIRST Satan was bound.

That means without Satan being bound, there is no Salvation to the nations through the church! The binding of Satan is intimately related to his inability to deceive the nations and to hold all people in spiritual bondage. The binding is not related to his ability to go about as a roaring Lion or to be Prince of this world. He was bound not to stop the earthly wars by man, but to stop the spiritual war against God in the elect of the nations.

Isaiah 40:1-3

• "Comfort ye, comfort ye My People, saith your God.
• Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.
• The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

Comfort to "His People," that they have no more war (with God), and that they are ruled by the Prince of Peace. It's not that all people in the world are, but only "His People" are. Likewise, Satan was bound to save "God's People," not to save all and every person in the world. Guess what, the hell will be very heavily populated, so that idea is biblically untenable.

Matthew 1:21

• "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save His People from their sins."

He's not going to save all people from their sins, only His people that were scattered among the nations.

Secondly, they also claim we are now in the millennial kingdom; yet it's been over 2000 years since the resurrection. Two thousand years is more than a millennium, but that doesn't seem to faze them as they continue to promote their indefensible views of the eschaton. Over the years, I've dedicated my time to engage many Amillennialists in meaningful discussion to highlight the problems with their position, sadly it was like hitting a brick wall.

The numbers ten and its multiples (100, 1000) often illustrate the Fullness of whatever is in view. A perfect Biblical example is the Beast of Revelation chapter 12 and chapter 17, with its 7 heads and 10 horns. The number seven illustrates the totality or total length of time of Satan's authority (heads) and rule (crowns), while the ten horns illustrate His rule only near the end of the world. For example, as said in Revelation 17, the ten horns had no kingdom as yet (when the revelation was written), but are prophesied to reign for one hour with the Beast. The ten horns signified the fullness of time (10) that these kings would have power (horns) to reign with the beast. It's called a short season, but it is the fullness of time within the time context of the rule of this Beast! That number ten signifies that fullness of time.
Likewise, the multiples of ten, as ten times ten (100) or ten times one hundred (1000) illustrate the completeness or fulness of whatever is in view, without it necessarily being the totality of it. As an example, look at the parable of the silver money.

Luke 15:8

• "Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?"

Here in the parable of the ten silver pieces, a woman loses one of the ten. She searches for it until she finds it. This is numerical symbolism that shows the believer's search for lost souls representing those who are to be Saved. When we have found what was lost, the batch will be a full or complete treasure. The number ten signified the fullness of believers there. We are the silver which is found by the lighted candle. This is just like the parable of the one hundred (multiple of 10) sheep,

Luke 15:3-5

• "And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
  
  
• What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
  
  
• And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing".

The same principle applies. If we lose one of them, we search till we find it. The fullness of them must be found. The number one hundred there signified the fullness of believers which are shepherded over. Likewise in the multiple of 10x100, it signifies the fulness of whatever is in view. Isaiah chapter seven speaks about the First coming of the Lord (verse 14) and says,

Isaiah 7:23

• "And it shall come to pass in THAT DAY, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns. With arrows and with bows shall men come hither; because All he land shall become briers and thorns."

Are we to suppose this is a literal number? Were there literally one thousand vines and one thousand silverlings (not 1001 or 999)? When we look at the verse carefully we see that God is using numerical symbology to signify that where there was the fullness of vines, there will be briers and thorns. The number one thousand is not to alert us to the exact literal number of vines, or the exact literal number of one thousand silverlings (pieces of silver money), rather it is to illustrate where the fullness of vines once were, and where the fullness of treasure was, it is changed to briers and thorns. Not literally every place where one thousand pieces of silver were of one thousand vines were. The word thousand is merely being used to signify a very long time, but not literally a thousand.

Deuteronomy 7:9

• "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;"

1st Chronicles 16:15

• "Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations,"

Psalms 105:8

• "He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations."

This is a thousand used figuratively to illustrate the fullness of time, not literally a thousand generations. His Word is commanded to all generations, not just literally one thousand. But God is using the number thousand here to show spiritual consistency in representing the fullness. Likewise in Revelation chapter 20, where it speaks of the one thousand year millennial reign of Christ. It is the perfect example of this numerical symbology. It signifies the fullness of time of the reign of Christ, the binding of satan, and the rest of the dead live not again, before the second Resurrection. Not the totality of time from the beginning, and not literally one thousand years, but the fullness of time between events spoken of there.

 

[Andrewn]

The ones who reign with Christ after death are those who have had a part in the first resurrection. The expression, the First Resurrection clearly refers to the souls of the saints that are raised first, in distinction from the raising of these wicked (rest of the dead) that occurs after the millennium. This is at the second resurrection. It is totally consistent with the Amillennial view.

As believers in Christ those martyred, in their souls go immediately to live and reign with Christ after they die. They are living and reigning with Christ ever since He went to the cross to make that possible. We live and reign with Christ in heaven in our souls, even though our bodies decayed, yet we live. That's exactly what the verse is talking about. Believers who die, yet their souls living and reigning with Christ, while unbelievers (the rest of the dead) who die, don't live again until the second resurrection.

When believers leave this body to dust, our spirits go to be with the Lord. But the rest of the dead, they lived not until after this present millennial reign is finished. These unsaved weren't raised up from death to new life in the first Resurrection in Christ, therefore they cannot go to live and reign with Christ after death. That is the contrast here. In other words, they had no part in the First Resurrection with Christ! And so when they physically died, they don't live until raised on "The last day" to stand for judgment. That will be the Second Resurrection.

The rest of the dead are those who did NOT take part in Christ's resurrection. They never experienced being born again or being saved. They are lost. They are unsaved. When their physical body dies, their soul will remain in the grave not knowing anything, feeling anything, hearing anything, not knowing the time, nothing, UNTIL they hear the voice on the last day when Christ returns.

Notwithstanding your belief in soul sleep as far as the unsaved are concerned, which is not a typically orthodox belief, the rest of your interpretation generally is Amillennial, namely that the 1st resurrection is spiritual and the 2nd is physical.

This ignores the parallelism between Rev 20:4 and 5 and brings us back to the question in the OP. If the 1st resurrection is spiritual, as we agree, then the 2nd resurrection is also spiritual for salvation rather than physical for condemnation, as you propose.

Your very long essays did not address the question.

 

[Trivalee]

Trivalee, you make the fundamental error of equating Satan's binding with a lack of earthly wars, earthly famine and earthly disease. This is an unbiblical presupposition. Satan was not bound so that the world would have no famine or disease. THe poverty, famine, war, evil, and disease will have with us always. What you are talking about is a pure humanistic outlook, not Christianity. Satan was bound so that those who were chosen of God could be spoiled (seized by conquest) from his prison house (Isaiah 61:1-2.; Luke 4:18) and rule that Satan held over them. Christ didn't bind Satan to save the world but to save "His People," not all people of the world. He saves His election.

Matthew 1:21

• "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

John 17:9

• "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

This is the God of the Bible, not a god of man's own imagination. He came to save "His people" and that is why He bound Satan in the first place! It was not so that sin would cease from all the nations of the world, but so that sin could cease in the elect of all nations. Scripture underscores the fact that Satan's house was plundered (his goods taken by conquest) by the work of Christ at the cross, which confirmed and instituted Christ's Kingdom, establishing His reign over these elect that He set free. Through God's Spirit, we have to not only read but hear what we are reading.

Matthew 12:28-29

• "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
• Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he First bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house."

If indeed Christ had cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then obviously it was the power of God manifest in Him, and that unambiguously demonstrated that He was the prophesied Messiah, the Son of David who was to come and establish the Kingdom of Israel. The same Son of whom the multitude spoke. It was indeed for this reason that the Pharisees said Christ had a Devil, because they didn't want to believe that He indeed was the Christ. Consider wisely and in context.

Matthew 12:22-24

• "Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
• And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
• But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils."

Indeed Christ had cast out devils by the Spirit of God and that meant that the Messiah, the Son of David of prophecy, had indeed come. And that His Kingdom had also indeed come unto them. It is in this "context" that Jesus speaks about how He must first bind Satan. Answer the fundamental questions concerning what Christ was explaining.

#1. Who is the Strong man?
#2. What is his house?
#3. Who is it that comes to bind him?
#4. What are the possessions in the strong man's house that he wants to Spoil (take by conquest)?
#5. What "MUST" be done first, before that spoiling can happen?

The only possible answers:

1. Satan is the strong man in this parable.
2. His house is his kingdom.
3. Christ is the Messenger of the Covenant who came to bind him and spoil his kingdom.
4. The Elect are his possessions or goods, which Christ came to seize.
5. Christ said that couldn't happen unless FIRST Satan was bound.

That means without Satan being bound, there is no Salvation to the nations through the church! The binding of Satan is intimately related to his inability to deceive the nations and to hold all people in spiritual bondage. The binding is not related to his ability to go about as a roaring Lion or to be Prince of this world. He was bound not to stop the earthly wars by man, but to stop the spiritual war against God in the elect of the nations.

Isaiah 40:1-3

• "Comfort ye, comfort ye My People, saith your God.
• Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.
• The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."

Comfort to "His People," that they have no more war (with God), and that they are ruled by the Prince of Peace. It's not that all people in the world are, but only "His People" are. Likewise, Satan was bound to save "God's People," not to save all and every person in the world. Guess what, the hell will be very heavily populated, so that idea is biblically untenable.

Matthew 1:21

• "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save His People from their sins."

He's not going to save all people from their sins, only His people that were scattered among the nations.



The numbers ten and its multiples (100, 1000) often illustrate the Fullness of whatever is in view. A perfect Biblical example is the Beast of Revelation chapter 12 and chapter 17, with its 7 heads and 10 horns. The number seven illustrates the totality or total length of time of Satan's authority (heads) and rule (crowns), while the ten horns illustrate His rule only near the end of the world. For example, as said in Revelation 17, the ten horns had no kingdom as yet (when the revelation was written), but are prophesied to reign for one hour with the Beast. The ten horns signified the fullness of time (10) that these kings would have power (horns) to reign with the beast. It's called a short season, but it is the fullness of time within the time context of the rule of this Beast! That number ten signifies that fullness of time.
Likewise, the multiples of ten, as ten times ten (100) or ten times one hundred (1000) illustrate the completeness or fulness of whatever is in view, without it necessarily being the totality of it. As an example, look at the parable of the silver money.

Luke 15:8

• "Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?"

Here in the parable of the ten silver pieces, a woman loses one of the ten. She searches for it until she finds it. This is numerical symbolism that shows the believer's search for lost souls representing those who are to be Saved. When we have found what was lost, the batch will be a full or complete treasure. The number ten signified the fullness of believers there. We are the silver which is found by the lighted candle. This is just like the parable of the one hundred (multiple of 10) sheep,

Luke 15:3-5

• "And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
  
  
• What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
  
  
• And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing".

The same principle applies. If we lose one of them, we search till we find it. The fullness of them must be found. The number one hundred there signified the fullness of believers which are shepherded over. Likewise in the multiple of 10x100, it signifies the fulness of whatever is in view. Isaiah chapter seven speaks about the First coming of the Lord (verse 14) and says,

Isaiah 7:23

• "And it shall come to pass in THAT DAY, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns. With arrows and with bows shall men come hither; because All he land shall become briers and thorns."

Are we to suppose this is a literal number? Were there literally one thousand vines and one thousand silverlings (not 1001 or 999)? When we look at the verse carefully we see that God is using numerical symbology to signify that where there was the fullness of vines, there will be briers and thorns. The number one thousand is not to alert us to the exact literal number of vines, or the exact literal number of one thousand silverlings (pieces of silver money), rather it is to illustrate where the fullness of vines once were, and where the fullness of treasure was, it is changed to briers and thorns. Not literally every place where one thousand pieces of silver were of one thousand vines were. The word thousand is merely being used to signify a very long time, but not literally a thousand.

Deuteronomy 7:9

• "Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;"

1st Chronicles 16:15

• "Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations,"

Psalms 105:8

• "He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations."

This is a thousand used figuratively to illustrate the fullness of time, not literally a thousand generations. His Word is commanded to all generations, not just literally one thousand. But God is using the number thousand here to show spiritual consistency in representing the fullness. Likewise in Revelation chapter 20, where it speaks of the one thousand year millennial reign of Christ. It is the perfect example of this numerical symbology. It signifies the fullness of time of the reign of Christ, the binding of satan, and the rest of the dead live not again, before the second Resurrection. Not the totality of time from the beginning, and not literally one thousand years, but the fullness of time between events spoken of there.

Brother (TribulationSigns) thank you for your remarks. But in my view, it is superfluous to quote too many scriptures when one or two should suffice to drive your point home. That said, you fell into the error commonly made by believers who share your errant view of the concept of Satan being bound. The problem is that on the surface, you say/write extensively but sadly with very poor spiritual content because your argument is widely off the mark.

You deflect the issues by ascribing points I never made in my exegesis! For example, you started out by accusing me of "making the fundamental error of equating Satan's binding with a lack of earthly wars, earthly famine and earthly disease. This is an unbiblical presupposition. Satan was not bound so that the world would have no famine or disease." Would you kindly read my first post #7 again, and point out where I made these assumptions?

As I pointed out in post #7, why I've given up trying to reason with Amillennialists, you typically proved my point by conveniently ignoring my citation in 1 Peter 5:8 as Biblical proof that Satan is not yet bound. Instead of addressing this passage to show it doesn't mean what it says, naturally, like those of your ilk, you went off on a tangent with a bunch of scriptures that don't prove that Satan is presently bound.

I won't write 500 to 1000 words in rebuttal just for the sake of it - I am confident this little is more than sufficient to show your views on this subject as untenable.

 

[Trivalee]

Amillennialists have given beautiful comments on Rev 20:4. But they have not addressed Rev 20:5, which is the question of this thread.

Let's see how they answer your accusation.

Don't hold your breath; as usual, they will deflect on that passage and go on to preach sermons that don't relate to the issue.

 

[TribulationSigns]

As I pointed out in post #7, why I've given up trying to reason with Amillennialists, you typically proved my point by conveniently ignoring my citation in 1 Peter 5:8 as Biblical proof that Satan is not yet bound. Instead of addressing this passage to show it doesn't mean what it says, naturally, like those of your ilk, you went off on a tangent with a bunch of scriptures that don't prove that Satan is presently bound.

1Pe 5:8
(8) Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

How many different ways do you want us to answer it? How the spirit Satan can be bound and in a pit (Revelation 20), and yet still go about as a roaring lion in the world is a matter of "for whom he was bound," and to what degree. I use "the analogy" of a lion that is bound or chained to a stake in an open field. A blind person that walks through that field and strays into the area limited by the chain, is going to be devoured by the lion. Because the lion is free to roam to the length of the chain throughout the circumference of the area in all directions. By the same token, those who can see are going to avoid walking through the circumference or circle where the chained lion can devour them. That's the analogy of Satan being bound with a chain that Revelation chapter 20 puts forth. God has given "the elect" power so that Satan cannot harm them. Get it?? He is "bound" from doing so, while he is still free to devour the spiritually blind. For example, the closer we walk with God, the farther away from the devil's sphere we will be. The more we submit ourselves to God, the farther away the devil will be. For God is the one who has restrained Satan from us, Selah!! And sorry, it is NOT a literal/physical chain or abyss, it is spiritual restraint. By the grace of His cross, we are secure (sealed) that he cannot harm us. Indeed, he flees from us because the children of God have power over serpents by the grace of God.

James 4:6-8

• "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
• Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
• Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded."

Satan flees from the elect because the elect is sealed "that" the spirit Satan has no more power to bind them. His power is itself "bound" as if he were chained up and cast into an abyss of nothingness for their sake. It's all about Satan's binding "for the elect," of the world, and not for the world. That part you did not seem to understand.

John 17:9

• "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

Listen, Christ came to save "His people," not (Matthew 1:21) all people in the world. That's the point Premillennialists (and Postmillennialists) are missing in thinking Christ will come to evangelize or Christianize the whole world. On the contrary, Christ Christianizes "His people" from out of the world, and from every nation in the world. You need to realize that Satan was bound from devouring the elect of the world, and yet free to devour the wicked and unfaithful of the world. Indeed, the very point your theology misses is that Satan "was bound for the sake of the elect." Unfortunately, Premillennialists usually have the idea that he was (or will be) bound for the sake of the whole world. Which is not the case. Sorry!

 

[TribulationSigns]

Notwithstanding your belief in soul sleep as far as the unsaved are concerned, which is not a typically orthodox belief,

I do not care about "orthodox" beliefs. I only go with what Scripture says, not church traditions.

the rest of your interpretation generally is Amillennial, namely that the 1st resurrection is spiritual and the 2nd is physical.

I do not teach 2nd resurrection as physical. Again...

No, it is the souls of the dead that do not live again until they are resurrected to stand for judgment. Once again, you (and others) are not reading the scriptures carefully, nor accepting at face value what they say. Rather than superficially scanning the scriptures, how about a sound biblical study of them? Then perhaps you might just "see" exactly what John saw. Not Bodies, he saw SOULS! And not just souls, as in a synonym for people, but specifically we read he saw the souls of the dead. Two types of souls John saw, with two diverse destinations. e.g.:

Revelation 20:4-5

• "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.
• But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."

He's talking about the DEAD, not the living. John saw two separate sets of souls of the dead. Get it? Some souls "of the dead" he saw lived and reigned with Christ. They are the souls of the believers. But John very clearly says the rest of the dead (the souls of those unsaved who died) lived not again until the second resurrection. Which of course would be logical/biblical, because to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord for the saved only. The souls of the unsaved who die, do not live again until they are raised up to stand for judgment. This is a SPIRITUAL resurrection! Judgment day is not when people die, judgment day is at "THE LAST DAY." A lot of people ignore the basic biblical fact that No unsaved person is judged until the last day! Nor can they live or reign in heaven. They live not again until the second resurrection when they are raised for judgment. But those who live and reign, are the first resurrection in Christ.

In other words, only those dead who have part in the first resurrection, live and reign with Christ. The rest of the souls of the dead, don't live again until they stand for judgment.

This ignores the parallelism between Rev 20:4 and 5 and brings us back to the question in the OP. If the 1st resurrection is spiritual, as we agree, then the 2nd resurrection is also spiritual for salvation rather than physical for condemnation, as you propose.

Oh? So you believe that the 2nd Resurrection is spiritual for salvation? For the rest of the dead who did not take part in the first resurrection? You do not make any sense.

Your very long essays did not address the question.

Not my problem. My post is here as a public record for anyone to read. You just dislike what you are reading and complained instead that its long-winded and doesn't answer your questions. Really? (chuckle).

 

[Andrewn]

I do not care about "orthodox" beliefs. I only go with what Scripture says, not church traditions.

OK. Let's then explore your understanding.

I do not teach 2nd resurrection as physical. Again... No, it is the souls of the dead that do not live again until they are resurrected to stand for judgment. . . . Not Bodies, he saw SOULS! And not just souls, as in a synonym for people, but specifically we read he saw the souls of the dead.

But John very clearly says the rest of the dead (the souls of those unsaved who died) lived not again until the second resurrection. Which of course would be logical/biblical, because to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord for the saved only. The souls of the unsaved who die, do not live again until they are raised up to stand for judgment. This is a SPIRITUAL resurrection!

The Apostle Paul wrote:

1Co 15:42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a soulish body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a soulish body, there is also a spiritual body.

The underlined word is my rendering of the Greek "psychikos." Paul also wrote:

2Co 5:1 For we know that, if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this tent we groan, longing to be further clothed with our heavenly dwelling, 3 for surely when we have been clothed in it we will not be found naked.

Comparing these two passages, is it your view that those who are saved receive spiritual bodies immediately after death (will not be found naked) and those who are unsaved receive spiritual bodies at the judgment? Is this what you mean by saying, "I do not teach 2nd resurrection as physical"?

Judgment day is not when people die, judgment day is at "THE LAST DAY." A lot of people ignore the basic biblical fact that No unsaved person is judged until the last day! Nor can they live or reign in heaven. They live not again until the second resurrection when they are raised for judgment.

You say that "No unsaved person is judged" but by staying unconscious until judgment day (in your view) he is actually being judged.
What is the point of the unsaved being resurrected for judgment?
Do you believe in the resurrection of the body?
Do you believe in ECT or annihilation?