Revelation 20:4—6: The First Resurrection as Spiritual

It is worth mentioning at the outset that Ezekiel 37 – 48 serves as strong conceptual background for the latter chapters of Revelation.  So, the interpreter must bear this fact in mind as he considers the “first resurrection” of 20:4—5. 

In Ezekiel 37 the prophet portrays the vision of the valley of dry bones.   In this passage the image of the dry bones represents exilic Israel as spiritually dead (v. 11f.).  YHWH promises that these bones, however, will live again.  Ezekiel is to prophesy to the bones, saying, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath/spirit (rûach) to enter you, and you shall live” (v. 5).  The prophet is then commanded to beckon the breath to come into the bones (v. 9).  The result was that “the breath came into them, and they lived...an exceedingly great host” (v. 10).  The imagery of resurrection in this passage is clearly figurative, looking forward to the restoration of Israel.  Three very intriguing points flow from this passage into the Johannine concept of resurrection.

First, there is the phrase in verse 10, “and they lived,” which was the first result of the pneumatic life entering.  In the Septuagint, this phrase is rendered καὶ ἔζησαν (kia ezēsan), which is the aorist active indicative of the verb zaō.  This is precisely the same phrase and form that John uses to express what is translated as “and they lived” in Revelation 20:4, describing the “souls” of the “blessed and holy” saints who enjoy the “first resurrection” (vv. 4, 6).  Therefore, in the strongest allusive background for this section of Revelation, there is in Ezekiel 37 a figurative, or better spiritual, resurrection presented in the terms of καὶ ἔζησαν, the very phrase that John uses to describe the event of the first resurrection of 20:4—6.  There is, then, good evidence to recognize John as intending the first resurrection to be understood as spiritual.  This conclusion is corroborated by two other Johannine passages.

Second, then, is John’s further allusive use of Ezekiel in the third chapter of his Gospel.  In his dialogue with Nicodemus, Jesus presents the condition of being “born again/from above” (“born anew,” so RSV) as the precondition to seeing “the kingdom of God” (Jn. 3:3).  This concept is explicated by the twofold effect of being “born of water and the Spirit” (v. 5).  The Old Testament background for the water/Spirit connection is, again, Ezekiel 36 and 37 (see, esp., 36:25—27; 37:1—10).  In this, John is bringing forward the spiritual resurrection motif of Ezekiel as the redemptive-historical grid for understanding regeneration and Christian baptism, or what Paul refers to as “the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit. 3:5).  So, on two counts, John’s apparent use of Ezekiel 36 – 37 serves as the coloring for the image of figurative or spiritual resurrection both in his Gospel and the Revelation. 

A third Johannine passage of great import is John 5:24—29.  In this passage Jesus speaks of the believer passing “from death into life” (v. 24), which is what happens “when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live” (v. 25).  This is the “the hour,” which “is coming, and now is”; that is, the spiritual resurrection of regeneration.  The transmission from death into life is “eternal life” and is that which characterizes those who “shall not come into condemnation” (v. 24).  This parallels John’s conception of the “first resurrection,” and the fact that for those who partake of the first resurrection “over such the second death has no power” (Rev. 20:6).  If, as has been argued, the “first resurrection” is spiritual, regeneration, and the “second death” is condemnation to the lake of fire (20:14—15), then the clear teaching of John 5:24f. provides the paradigmatic parallel for understanding Revelation 20:4—6. 

It may be added that both of these Johannine passages go on to speak of the general physical resurrection of both the just and the unjust, which is at an hour still coming, at the completion of the millennium (Jn. 5:29 // Rev. 20:5).  Therefore, John 5 offers a clear and parallel passage for understanding Revelation 20:4—6 as presenting both a spiritual resurrection, which begins with the dawn of the Christian era and runs continuously throughout, and a general physical resurrection at the close of this age, the millennium.   

Modified Idealism as the best approach to the Apocalypse

I find a dogmatic precommitment to any of the four generalized interpretive approaches to the Apocalypse to be stifling. Not one of the four—“not-literal or allegorical, preterist, historical, or futuristic”—[1]is without its serious problems. Each perspective presents objections to the others, which seem to cancel out their viability. For instance, the historicist or preterist may charge that the futurist reduces the bulk of the book (chs. 4—22) to meaninglessness for the original readers and hearers, since all is future. How, then, it may be asked, can John offer his beatific pronouncement on his first generation readers; further, what practical and liturgical purpose would the book hold for them (see 1:3)?

The futurist may respond in like fashion, though. If the preterist is correct, then another reductionism follows: Revelation is now little more than an historical documentation of some horrid happenings before and during the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 (or the fall of Rome in the fifth century, depending on your tastes and historiography). This rally of objections and answers is nearly as abundant as the number of expositors and commentaries working through Revelation.

Therefore, I subscribe to what some have called “eclecticism”[2] or modified idealism. Such a view would deny any hard-line, static historical referents in the book,[3] save the final coming of the Lord Jesus in judgment, salvation and his consummating the new heavens and new earth at the end of the age. Concerning the literary structure of Revelation, I find the seven-fold progressive parallelism a helpful paradigm. Below are a few of the big-number reasons that I maintain this perspective.

First, any and all eschatological data I encounter in the Scriptures, I view through the lens of a two-age model.[4] Biblically speaking, human history, more specifically, redemptive history is divided into two ages, “this age...and the age to come.” Accordingly, Jesus’ First Advent inaugurated the age to come; the new creation has begun in his resurrection and exaltation. The new creation will be fully realized in the event of his Second Advent. We therefore live in the time of tension between these two ages or worlds. Thus, the time between Jesus’ first and second advents is the fulfillment of the OT’s “latter days.” This will become more relevant below. The modified idealism approach is most consonant with the two-age model of eschatology; and the two-age model has presuppositional priority in my overall approach to interpreting all of Scripture.

Secondly, another controlling presupposition for me is the hermeneutical maxim that Scripture interprets Scripture; and in that, the clear interprets the unclear. In short, this means that I will interpret Revelation in light of the rest of the NT. Revelation is the most symbol-laden book in Scripture and therefore must be considered in terms of the didactic sections of the gospels and epistles. I understand the latter as presenting God’s people/family as one; his plan to redeem these as one (not one for the Jews and one for the church); there will be one second return of Christ, one (physical) resurrection, one judgment, and these events are closely related in time; we are now in the “last days.” The symbolisms of Revelation will therefore be interpreted in light of these Matthew—Jude doctrines, not the other way around.

Finally, I take Rev 1:1 (w/ 1:19) to be the programmatic verse(s) for the interpretation of the book. This verse tells that the revelation of Jesus that John was given by the angel would be “signified.” Signified here is sēmainō, meaning signs, symbols, or tokens. Verse 1 is a clear allusion to Dan 2:28—29, 45. There are striking parallels in theme and phraseology between Rev 1:1, 19 and the Danielic counterpart. Furthermore, Rev 22 contains another allusion to Daniel 2, and so forming a likely inclusio that frames the entire book (see esp. vv 6, 10). Aside from the obvious discontinuities between Dan 2:28 and Rev 1:1, one is of special interest. Nebuchadnezzars’ dream was to symbolically reveal “what was to be in the latter days,” whereas John’s visions were to symbolically reveal “what must soon take place.” John, therefore, understood his and the church’s experience as the inception of the “latter days.” Something similar happens in Peter’s sermon in Acts 2. In v 16 Peter offers a “this is that” (KJV) interpretation of Joel 2, which was a prophecy of what would God would do “in the last days” (v 17). Therefore, John tells us at the start that the book is largely symbolic and is concerned with the fulfillment of the “latter days,” which is the church age.

Therefore, from an eclectic perspective, solid historical references are both recognizable and acceptable without precluding escalated future fulfillments of like kind (e.g., arche- à antitypal fulfillments). The book is also ever-relevant, since it is a strategy book for the church militant living between the two ages, promising the final victory of the Lamb and his Bride over the Beast and his Whore. Stressing the doctrinal priority of the rest of the NT helps to bring clarity to the often opaque mixed metaphors and symbols of Revelation.

[1] To use the titles ascribed by Walvoord, Revelation, 16—22
[2] E.g., Hailey, Beale.
[3] It does, however, recognize analogical historical applications throughout the church age.
[4] There is one sense in which all the “data” in Scripture is eschatological in that each datum is a part of the larger whole of God progressive plan of redemption, which moves ‘eschatologically’ from the fall toward the consummation.

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE DOMINATE VIEWS OF LAST THINGS

I. ESTABLISHING SOME TERMS:

A. Method of Interpretation: the controlling methodological assumptions each position brings to the prophetic material.

B. Its Heritage: is simply seeking to point to the point in history when each perspective began to develop into a systematic framework for interpreting the “last things” in scripture and history.

C. The Millennium: refers to a period of time, mentioned explicitly in Rev 20:1—6.

D. The Kingdom of God: in the broadest sense is God’s reign through Jesus Christ (the NT never defines the kingdom, only describes it. See: Mt. 13, Mk 4, Lk 8).

E. Israel and the Church: this is specifically addressing the relationship (or lack thereof) between the ethnic, historical nation of Israel and the church of the NT era. Mostly concerning OT promises, prophecies, etc.

F. The Rapture: This term comes from the Latin word rapio in the Latin version of the Bible, called the Vulgate. It is referring to the saints being “caught up,” most explicitly mentioned in I Thess 4: 13—18.

G. After the Millennium: This category is obviously relative to how a particular position will define the millennium itself, and will be defined within the context of each respective position.

H. Popular Modern Proponents: The brief list of names at the end of each summary is to expose you to some of the more notable scholars that write for and from each perspective; to provide a place to begin, if you were to become interested in studying further, on your own, the options available.

I. The Tribulation: Mt 24:15—21. Amillennialism views this as already (pre-70 A.D.) and not yet, when it will be fully realized at the end of the age, just prior to Christ’s second coming. Generally speaking, Postmillennialists view this as purely a historical event that occurred in 66—70 A.D., although there will be a mixture of kingdom victory and persecution throughout the church age. Premillennialism is split. Generally, the Historical/Classical view takes a Post-Tribulation position of the Christ’s return (seeing the Rapture and the Second coming as two sides of the same event). The usual rule within Dispensational Premillennialism is that Christ will privately return for his church prior to a 7 year period of “great tribulation,” thus, they are Pre-Tribulation. However, there are those in both Premillennial camps that would maintain that the Rapture will occur mid-way through the Tribulation period; hence this is a Mid-Tribulation view.

I. HISTORICAL/CLASSICAL PREMILLENNIALISM

A. Method of Interpretation: Grammatical—Historical

B. Its Heritage: This position has its roots in the first century, being taught by early church fathers: Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others (1st—4th centuries). Although eclipsed by Amillennialism for a largest part of church history following the 4th century, it has maintained a following and is still popular among many scholars today.

C. The Millennium: After an intense period of persecution and tribulation, Christ will return to institute an earthly 1000 year kingdom (some take this number to be literal; others as an indefinitely long period of time).

D. The Kingdom of God: The kingdom of God is already a spiritual reality in the church since Pentecost, yet will become a visible earthly reality during the millennium after Christ’s return.

E. Israel and the Church: The church is the fulfillment of Israel. Israel, nationally speaking has no major role in last things; the church inherits the promises of Israel.

F. The Rapture: Will be a public event were all believers, living and dead, will be caught up to meet Christ in the air immediately prior to the millennium. These will immediately return with Christ to judge the world and establish the millennial kingdom.

G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium Satan will be released for one final battle in which he will be defeated and judged. There will be a second resurrection; of unbelievers, who are judged. The eternal state follows.

H. Popular Modern Proponents: George Eldon Ladd, Wayne Grudem, Theodore Zahn, Robert Gundry.


II. DISPENSATIONAL PREMILLENNIALISM

A. Method of Interpretation: Strict—literal.

B. Its Heritage: Is a relatively new system, having its inception in the 1830’s, pioneered by J. N. Darby and further developed by C. I. Scofield (e.g., The Scofield Reference Bible). Due to the volatile climate of the Middle East; namely in the Holy Land, and the outstanding popularity of the Left Behind book and movie series this position is hands down the most widely held in America today, especially at the popular level.

C. The Millennium: At the end of the 7 years of great tribulation Christ will return to earth to establish a literal 1000 year, earthly reign from geographic Jerusalem. This period is to fulfill the OT promises to the nation Israel; including an earthly temple, the Levitical priesthood and much of the sacrificial system.

D. The Kingdom of God: Is the literal physical kingdom prophesied in the OT during which God will fulfill his promises to ethnic Israel. Because the religious leaders of Israel rejected their King (Christ) at his first coming, the kingdom was postponed until his second coming, after Israel has undergone a period of intense suffering (i.e., the great tribulation). The believers who come out of the tribulation shall enter and populate the earthly millennial kingdom.

E. Israel and the Church: Israel and the church are two very distinct entities, with two individual redemptive plans. The church age is a parenthetical time in God’s plans for Israel—largely unknown to the OT prophets.

F. The Rapture: Is a “secret” event which proceeds the 7 year period of great tribulation. Here, all believers from Pentecost until the tribulation will be “caught up,” taken to heaven, at which time the marriage of the Lamb will occur. Simultaneously, on earth, the Anti-Christ will rule. In the last three and a half years God will pour his wrath upon the earth in judgment.

G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium Satan will be released for one final battle in which he will be defeated and judged. There will be a second resurrection; of unbelievers, who are judged. The eternal state follows.

H. Popular Modern Proponents: Charles Ryrie, J. Vernon McGee, Lewis Chafer, Norman Geisler, John Walvoord, Hal Lindsey (i.e., The Late Great Planet Earth), Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins (i.e., the “Left Behind” series).

III. AMILLENNIALISM (or Inaugurated Millennialism)

A. Method of Interpretation: Redemptive—Historical

B. Its Heritage: Beginning with St. Augustine (4th—5th century A.D.), this position became the dominant view of most of the church, being slightly modified and taught by the Protestant Reformers. With the rise in biblical theological interpretive methods today, many scholars are finding this position to be the simplest, yet most comprehensive view for accounting for the flow and progressive nature of God realizing his redemptive purposes for his creation.

C. The Millennium: Was inaugurated at the time Christ’s resurrection. The millennium is now, in the sense that Christ is ruling over his growing kingdom through the church while Satan is bound and restrained in a great degree. The kingdom is already a spiritual reality now, but not yet fully realized. It will be visible and physical after Christ’s second coming, in the new creation.
D. The Kingdom of God: A present spiritual reality, being participated in through faith in Christ. The kingdom will be visible, wholly pervasive and fully realized at the consummation.

E. Israel and the Church: The church is the eschatological fulfillment of Israel. The church is the realization of the OT hopes for Israel, redefining the people of God to include Jews and Gentiles without distinction.

F. The Rapture: At the end of the millennium (i.e., church age) believers will be “caught up” with Christ in the air to immediately accompany him in a royal procession, return to earth to judge the wicked and establish the new creation.

G. After the Millennium: At the end of the millennium (church age) Satan will be release from his restrained capacity and allowed to make war with the saints. Christ returns, defeats Satan and the rest of his enemies; ushers in the consummation (New Creation).

H. Popular Modern Proponents: John Murray, William Hendrikson, Anthony Hoekema, Gregory K. Beale, Meredith Kline.

IV. POSTMILLENNIALISM

A. Method of Interpretation: Covenantal—Historical

B. Its Heritage: Building off a theology of history taught by Joachim (12th cent.), some Protestant Reformers began to identify the recovery and expansion of the Gospel in 16th century Europe with the millennium mentioned in Rev 20. More contemporarily, the Industrial Revolution with all its promises of human possibility led to a revival in postmillennial thought. Human progress seemed unstoppable at the dawn of the 20th century; however, two world wars and the bloodiest century of human history has led many to abandon the notion of a “golden age” before Christ’s return.

C. The Millennium: Is understood to be a time in which the majority of the world would be Christian, thus, inaugurating a “golden age” where Christ would virtually rule the entire earth from heaven through Spirit filled preaching of the Gospel, after which Christ will return, the dead would be resurrected, judged and the eternal state ushered in.

D. The Kingdom of God: A spiritual reality experienced on earth through the expansion of the Gospel, and the conversion and Christianization of over half the world.

E. Israel and the Church: The church is the fulfillment of Israel. Israel, nationally speaking has no major role in last things; the church inherits the promises of Israel.

F. The Rapture: The rapture is simultaneous with the Second Coming of Christ; in most cases it is synonymous with the resurrection of believers.

G. After the Millennium: Christ returns; the dead are raised and judged, and the eternal state is ushered in.

H. Popular Modern Proponents: Gary North, Kenneth Gentry Jr., R. C. Sproul, Rousas J. Rushdoony, Greg L. Bahnsen.