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.   

John 3:16 and the "So" of God's Love

One would think that after nearly 2000 years we’d have John 3:16 figured out. This beloved and most memorized summary of the Gospel has shaped Western culture for millennia. Recent paraphrastic versions of this verse, however, seem to be shaping the Gospel to fit the culture.

The bone I’m picking here has to do with the little term “so,” which translates the Greek, houtō.

Solid modern translations follow the King James Version’s ambiguous rendering—“For God so loved the world.” Undoubtedly, this is partly to retain the ring and resonance of how millions of saints have read it, heard it, and ingested it for centuries; and this is great. I also appreciate the ambiguity of the “so.” Ambiguity leads to one of two things. On the down side, it allows room for the reader (or worse, preacher) to impose their misunderstandings into the text. Nevertheless, the up side is that ambiguity often drives the reader to do some study of their own, to dig and try to spiral into the mind and heart of the author, which is where the meaning resides.

So, what does this “so” mean? And how could it make that much difference?

The immensely popular paraphrase, the New Living Translation has sought to expunge any ambiguity for the reader by making clear that the “so” is qualitative or quantitative in its connotation. It reads,

“For God loved the world so much that...”

This emphasis on the magnitude, depth and breadth of God’s love for a world of wayward rebels is as theologically faithful as his love is wide. For instance, John, writing in his first Epistle, makes this point when he says,

“See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called the Children of God; and so we are” (3:1).

But the question remains, Is this what John was meaning in 3:16?

If the New Living Translation’s emphasis on the “so” isn’t enough to convince, then consider the Amplified Bible’s indulgent treatment of the verse.

“For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that...”

Okay, come on, the “dearly prized” is a bit over the top, don’t you think?. But this does reveal a shift in emphasis on the part of the translator. It seems to place the stress of the verb, “loved,” on its object, “the world.” This gives the sense that the world as such is inherently lovable, an object worthy of God’s love. Whether or not someone thinks this observation is fair, there’s little question that 99% of Western readers hear Jn 3:16 this way.

However, the term “world” (Gk. kosmos) never carries these connotations in John’s writings. John uses “world” in one of two ways. It’s either “the world,” and that the world is so big; e.g., the “world” doesn’t have the capacity to shelve the books that could be written on the words and deeds of Jesus, the Son (Jn 21:25). Alternately, it more often means “the world,” and that the world is so bad and thus antithetical to God’s love (1 Jn 2:15—17); it’s in a constant state of cosmic treason against its Creator. Nowhere does John give us the sense that the world is something that is so “dearly prized” by God.

So, back to “so.”

In the 20-plus times that John uses the term, houtō always carries the instrumental sense, e.g., “in this way or manner..” Likewise, the reader could supplant “so” with its synonym, “thus.” “God loved the world ‘thus’...” In this sense, with “so” John is communicating the “how” of God’s love for the world; it emphasizes what it was that God did to make the “Way” (Jn 14:6) for his love for us and our reciprocation of responsive love to him. The English Standard Version offers this alternate reading in a text note.

“Or For this is how God loved the world"

The Holman Christian Standard Bible is not so cautious. It translated the verse this way:

“For God loved the world in this way: He gave his One and Only Son...”

Therefore, whether one thinks that Jn 3:16f are the words of Jesus or they’re John’s concluding summary of Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus, the “so” of v. 16 is telling us the Way of God’s plan to rescue from death a wicked world in rebellion against its Maker, the “How” of his plan and purpose.

For those who have always assumed the qualitative sense of “so,” as “so much,” the above observations and subsequent interpretation could come as a shock. If so, first consider Nicodemus’ experience, if indeed this is what the words meant. Yahweh’s supreme demonstration of love wouldn’t be cloistered to a people within the walls of the temple nor even the boundaries of Palestine, as Nicodemus assumed; the crowning act in redemption has the entire cosmos in its scope, Jew and Gentile. In Jesus, the Son, him being incarnate, being “lifted up” unto death and subsequently raised from the dead, every tribe and tongue and people and nation—all those born of God, born again—will enter the Kingdom. This is the mirthful new wine of the New Covenant and the provisional categories of the Old Covenant (infinitely less Second Temple Judaism) is an old wineskin. God loved the world in this way: the Son!

Does this interpretation somehow diminish the emphasis on the quality or quantity of God’s love in this passage? On the contrary! If John means “the world” in the sense that it’s so bad, as I’ve briefly argued, and he meant “so” in the sense of “thus, how, or in this way,” then this interpretation would help to make clear that God does not love the world, individually or collectively, because he finds it so lovely. But, rather, in spite of the world's unloveliness, he gave and delivered up to death his only Son. “In this way,” then, God in Christ was faithful to his command to us: “But I tell you, love your enemies...” And love has no greater one than this, does it?

This interpretation of verse 16 is clearly how the divines of the synod of Dordt understood it. Consider the clear reference to the instrumental sense of verse 16 in the Canons of Dordt, First Head of Doctrine, Article II.

Article 2: The Manifestation of God’s Love

But this is how God showed his love: he sent his only begotten Son into the world, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

What Does John 6:44 Really Mean?

The verse begins, “No man…” (Gk. οὐδείς).  This is what is called a universal negative, which means that every member of the class is excluded.  What, then, is negated with reference to all humanity?  Well, it is “can” (δύναμαι).  This term denotes ability.  Consider the BDAG definition, the standard of Greek lexicons: “to possess the capability (whether because of personal or external factors) for experiencing or doing something.”  So, what do we have thus far?  You could say it many ways.  But simply put it means that no person has the ability or capability to experience or do something, namely what follows in the verse—“come.”

Therefore, as it is, John 6:44—so far—means that no person (universally) has the capability to come to Jesus.  This seems to lead to a dire circumstance.  Thankfully, there is an exception.

That exception is “except” or “unless” (ἐὰν μή).  This conjunctive particle prepares the way for a condition.  Hence, no person has the capability of coming to Christ, unless...something.  That something is, if and only if the “Father who sent me draws him.”  So, the Father’s drawing is the only condition that excepts humanity’s universal inability to come to Christ. 

The term “draw” (ἕλκω) cannot be reduced, as is often done by Arminians, to mean “woo” or charm or some such thing.  It connotes an external force of power with the passivity of the object.  For example, “Simon Peter went up, and drew (ἕλκω) the net to land full of great fishes” (Jn. 21:11). “Do not rich men oppress you, and draw (ἕλκω) you before the judgment seats?” (Jas. 2:6).  “They caught Paul and Silas, and drew (ἕλκω) them into the marketplace unto the rulers” (Acts 16:19).  “And all the city was moved…and they took Paul, and drew (ἕλκω) him out of the temple” (21:30).  You see, then, it is not by the power of the object of ἕλκω that is intended but its subject, according to biblical usage. 

Therefore, John 6:44 means that no person has the capability of coming to Christ, except or unless the condition of the Father’s drawing occurs.  Who, though, does the Father draw?  According to Jesus in John 6:37, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”  “All” indicates another universal.  In this case, it is a universal affirmative rather than negative, as in v. 44.  All of those given by the Father to the Son will come.  Therefore, to state it negatively, none of those who do not come were given of or drawn by the Father to the Son.  Therefore, all and only those given to the Son by the Father (i.e., the elect) will come to Christ, which God makes possible by doing that which is humanly impossible, giving them the ability to come, thus drawing them.  That is what John 6:44 means, which is exactly what many claim, “No, it does not.” 

Some respond by invoking John 6:45, “It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall be all taught of God.' Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”  In so doing, they want the word “all” to ring in the ear.  This is a citation of Isaiah 53:14, however, which was originally and exclusively spoken to Israel, the elect, which confounds their case.  Moreover, it is begging the question.  What is the antecedent for “they” in v. 45?  It is the “given” ones of v. 37, the “drawn” ones of v. 44.  Therefore, it is fallacious in the highest degree to appeal to v. 45 to tell us who those are in v. 44, since v. 44, according to the most basic principles of grammar and hermeneutics, tells us who those in v. 45 are—the elect.  

LIMITED ATONEMENT FROM JOHN 10

(A) Jesus laid his life down for the sheep (vv 11, 15, 18).
   (A. 1) If, Jesus' death was intended to atone only for those who believe;[i]
   (A. 2) and, being a sheep is a necessary precondition for belief (v 26),[ii]
   (A. 3) then, Jesus' death was intended to atone only for sheep.
(B) Certain ones, however, are not sheep (v 26).
(C) Therefore, Jesus' death was not intended to atone for non-sheep.

(D) The intent of the atonement was, therefore, limited.

---

[i] E.g., Jn 6:37—40 plainly states that all whom the Father gives the Son will come (ἤξει, the future, active indicative of ἥκω) to the Son; of those who come, the Son will never, never cast out (note double negative in the Greek); Jesus came to do only the will of the Father, which was to raise up on the last day all those given him, losing nothing.  The Father’s will, finally, is that every believing-one on Jesus should have eternal life (see also Jn 3:16 below).  Therefore, it is God’s will that only believers gain eternal life.  For these, and these only, did Jesus’ death atone. 

The same is demonstrable from Jn 3:16.

JOHN 3:14b—16 (trans. mine)

14b.   οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, 15a.   ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται,            b.   ἀλλ᾿ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 16a.   οὕτω γὰρ ἡγάπησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον,         b.   ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν,         c.    ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται,             d.    ἀλλ᾿ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

14b.   In this manner, [also], the Son of Man [must be lifted up, supplied from 14a], 15a.    in order that [or, for the purpose of] every believing-one into Him may not perish,         b.    but may have life eternal. 16a.   [This is so] because, in this manner did God love the cosmos,     b.   that He gave His only Son [to be lifted up on the cross],     c.    in order that [or, for the purpose of] every believing-one into Him may not perish,         d.    but have life eternal.

Granting the hina (Gk. ἵνα) clauses of v 15a and 16c, it is clear that the divine intention of the Father’s giving of the Son unto his cross-work was hina, that is, for the purpose of, or having the result of, eternal life for every believing-one in Christ.  The divine intention of Jesus’ cross-work and death was for those who would believe, regardless of how one may think that one comes to believe (see also 1 Jn 4:10). 

Romans 3:21—26, the heart of Paul’s gospel, which bears out similar evidence.  God’s saving righteousness, through the setting forth of Jesus was “for all who believe” (v 22).  “Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (vv 24c—25a ESV).  God put forward the propitiatory, wrath-satisfying, life-giving blood of Jesus “to be received by faith.”  This way, God might be both just and the justifier of the “one who has faith in Jesus” (v 26b).  The divine intention behind putting Jesus forth as Propitiator was only for those who believe, who have faith in Jesus.  Gal 2:16—21 also bear the same witness. 

[ii] Careful attention to the Greek is paramount for a correct understanding of the force of this premise (actually, it is prima facie clear in the English, but the Greek nuances only strengthen the plain English reading). John 10:26 reads, ἀλλ᾿ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε· / οὐ γὰρ ἐστὲ ἐκ τῶν προβάτων τῶν ἐμῶν, / καθώς εἶπον ὑμῖν.  The γὰρ signals the grounds clause, which is “because (gar) you are not my sheep.”  The common conception of the principle that Jesus here expresses is that, certain people are not Jesus’ sheep, because they do not believe; or, similarly, one becomes a sheep of Jesus’ fold by believing.  Of course this latter expression is true, as far as it goes.  However, what is explicit in this verse is that one comes to believe by being a sheep; or, similarly, as Jesus puts it, certain people do not believe, because he or she is not one of his sheep.  Therefore, being a sheep is a necessary precondition for belief (see similarly, Jn 8:47).

Also to be noted, with reference to premise (B) above, is the hyperbatonic positioning of the οὐ in the second clause.  In this, Jesus emphatically stresses the fact that some of those to whom he is speaking are NOT (οὐ) his sheep.