The many errors and contradictions found in Amillennialism.

Spiritual Israelite said:

...........So, using other scripture as an aid, I have shown that what is described in Revelation 20:6 is a current reality. You might ask how is it that we have had part in the first resurrection? Well, with Jesus's resurrection being the first resurrection, that means those who have part in the first resurrection have part in His resurrection. How do people have part in His resurrection? Like this....

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

We have part in His resurrection in the sense that we rise from the dead spiritually by having our sins forgiven and covered by the blood of Christ which makes us no longer dead in our sins, but instead spiritually alive in Christ and we are then His priests in His kingdom as part of His "royal priesthood".

Click to expand...

While I agree that believers are spiritually raised with Christ and already called a royal priesthood, the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20 is clearly described as a future event involving those who died in Christ and are raised to reign with Him for 1,000 years. It comes after Christ’s second coming, and is contrasted with a second resurrection of the wicked. Christ’s resurrection is indeed the first in time — the “firstfruits” — but Revelation 20 uses “first resurrection” to refer to the first of two final, bodily resurrections, not to His. The context, structure, and language all point to this being a literal resurrection of the faithful at the end of the age.

Spiritual Israelite said:

Yes, of course. And, in my view, literally all believers have part in the first resurrection and, as I said above, I believe it is a requirement to have part in the first resurrection in order for the second death to not have power over you. If it was referring to the mass bodily resurrection that occurs when Christ returns, then those who are alive and remain would be out of luck since they would not be dead and would not have part in that resurrection.

Click to expand...

I agree that every believer must have a part in the “first resurrection” in order to escape the second death — but Scripture shows that this isn’t limited to those who physically die before Christ’s return. In 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul explains that when Jesus returns, both the dead in Christ will be raised and the living will be transformed. These two experiences together make up the “first resurrection.” So those who are alive and remain aren’t “out of luck” — they’re gloriously included, not through death and resurrection, but through transformation into immortality. Whether raised or changed, all who are Christ’s at His coming will reign with Him — and over them, the second death has no power.

Spiritual Israelite said:

3) No, the first resurrection itself is Christ's resurrection, which was obviously a bodily resurrection. Having part in the first resurrection, which in this case means having part in Christ's resurrection, is a spiritual event as I described above. It includes all believers from all time.

Click to expand...

While it’s true that Christ’s resurrection was bodily and that we are spiritually united with Him in new life (Romans 6:4–5; Colossians 2:12–13), the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20 is not Christ’s resurrection, and it's not a purely spiritual event.

“...they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years... This is the first resurrection.” (Rev. 20:4–5)

Click to expand...

This "first resurrection":

• Happens after Christ returns in Revelation 19.
• Is applied to those who were killed for their faith (martyrs).
• Brings people back to life after death (“they lived…”).
• Precedes a second resurrection of the wicked (Rev. 20:12–13).

This is clearly describing a bodily resurrection — not symbolic regeneration or spiritual union. Furthermore, as Paul teaches in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17, the dead in Christ will rise first, and then those who are alive will be caught up (transformed). This means the "first resurrection" includes:


So yes — the “first resurrection” will include both the dead and the living in Christ at His return, and it is not spiritual-only. It’s the fulfillment of the promise in Philippians 3:20–21, where Christ will “transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body.”

Spiritual Israelite said:

4) Obviously, I believe they point to the resurrection of Christ and all believers having part in His resurrection.

Click to expand...

It's important to distinguish between Christ’s resurrection, which is the source of all resurrection life, and the resurrection of His people, which is the effect of His victory:

• Christ’s resurrection is described as the “firstfruits” (1 Cor. 15:20–23),
• But the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20 is not Christ’s resurrection, and it's not simply “having part in His resurrection” spiritually — it’s the actual resurrection of the faithful, when “they lived and reigned with Christ.”

Revelation 20 even distinguishes between two end-time resurrections:

1. The first resurrection → of the righteous (Rev. 20:5–6)
2. The second resurrection → of the rest of the dead (Rev. 20:12–13)

Christ’s resurrection happened well before either of these and is never called “the first resurrection” in Scripture — instead, He’s the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18), the firstfruits, the guarantee of what’s coming. Revelation 20 points not to Christ’s resurrection, but to the resurrection of those who have placed their faith in Him, at the time of His return — when they will be raised to life and reign with Him.

We agree that Revelation is deeply symbolic but there are the literal events that must take place at His return. Best wishes.

Spiritual Israelite said:

Can you tell me which scriptures you are talking about here exactly? Are you talking about the resurrection of the dead who are saved and the resurection of the dead who are lost?

How about we get some help from Jesus to determine the timing of the resurrection of the saved and the resurrection of the lost? Can you tell me how you interpret this passage:

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 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.

It does not seem that Jesus believe in two separate hours/times that the dead would be resurrected 1,000+ years apart. He only spoke of one hour that is coming when all of the dead will be resurreted. So, I'm wondering how you reconcile your understanding of Revelation 20 with this passage.

Click to expand...

You’re absolutely right that John 5:28–29 refers to two groups being resurrected:

1. “Those who have done good” — the resurrection of life
2. “Those who have done evil” — the *resurrection of judgment (damnation)”

Jesus says “the hour is coming” when this will happen — and I agree, both groups will hear His voice and come forth. But here's the key point: The phrase “the hour is coming” is a general summary, not a detailed timeline. Jesus is describing what will happen, not when each resurrection will occur in relation to the other.

In John’s Gospel, the term “hour” is often thematic, not strictly a 60-minute period.

• For example, in John 4:23, Jesus says:

“The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth...”
But that “hour” has spanned 2,000 years — and counting.

• So in John 5:28–29, Jesus is describing a future resurrection event — but not necessarily saying the righteous and wicked are raised simultaneously. He’s simply stating that all will be raised, with different outcomes.

Revelation 20 gives us the timeline that John 5 summarizes:

• First resurrection – of the righteous (Rev. 20:4–6)
  • “They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.”
  • “The rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.”
• Second resurrection – of the rest of the dead (Rev. 20:12–13)
  • This is clearly a different event, after the 1,000 years.

So Revelation expands on what Jesus said in John 5, just like a later chapter in a book might add detail to an earlier summary. There’s no contradiction — only progressive revelation

I mentioned earlier the imagery of two harvests, and Scripture does support this idea. Here are a few examples:

Revelation 14:14–20

• Wheat/Grain Harvest (Rev. 14:14–16) — representing the righteous gathered by Christ
• Grape Harvest (Rev. 14:17–20) — representing the wicked judged in wrath

Matthew 13:30

“Let both [wheat and tares] grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, ‘First gather together the tares... but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

Jesus portrays the harvest as divided, with different treatment for each group — wheat gathered, tares burned.

Daniel 12:2 “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

Again, two groups, two destinies — not necessarily in the same moment.

CTK said:

While I agree that believers are spiritually raised with Christ and already called a royal priesthood, the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20 is clearly described as a future event involving those who died in Christ and are raised to reign with Him for 1,000 years. It comes after Christ’s second coming, and is contrasted with a second resurrection of the wicked. Christ’s resurrection is indeed the first in time — the “firstfruits” — but Revelation 20 uses “first resurrection” to refer to the first of two final, bodily resurrections, not to His. The context, structure, and language all point to this being a literal resurrection of the faithful at the end of the age.

Click to expand...

Charlie, you are again making assumptions without supporting proof from the Word of God. If the first resurrection is a future event of those being bodily resurrected to reign with Christ for 1,000 years, we must conclude that the martyred faithful saints of Christ must be killed during this future one thousand years after being bodily resurrected to life immortal & incorruptible. How can they have LIVED and REIGNED with Christ for one thousand years since they cannot have lived and reigned with Christ for ONE thousand years because they were martyred within these one thousand literal years? Can you NOT see how conflicting this becomes, when trying to force the "first resurrection" to be a physical resurrection of righteous saints after Christ comes the Second time, for them to live and reign with Him for literally one thousand years? How can they reign with Him for one thousand literal years, and also be killed during this same one thousand years?

CTK said:

While I agree that believers are spiritually raised with Christ and already called a royal priesthood, the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20 is clearly described as a future event involving those who died in Christ and are raised to reign with Him for 1,000 years.

Click to expand...

No, it is not clearly described as a future event. Only in your mind. Certainly not mine. The first resurrection itself is not described as a future event. Having part in the first resurrection is something that occurs in an ongoing basis during the figurative thousand years.

CTK said:

It comes after Christ’s second coming, and is contrasted with a second resurrection of the wicked.

Click to expand...

What basis do you have for saying it comes after Christ's second coming other than your assumption that what is described in Revelation 20 follows what is described in Revelation 19 chronologically? I assume you are aware that the book is not all chronological from beginning to end?

CTK said:

Christ’s resurrection is indeed the first in time — the “firstfruits” — but Revelation 20 uses “first resurrection” to refer to the first of two final, bodily resurrections, not to His.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It refers to the dead in Christ having had part in the first resurrecion. It's a fact that all of the dead in Christ have spiritually had part in Christ's resurrection before they died.

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

CTK said:

The context, structure, and language all point to this being a literal resurrection of the faithful at the end of the age.

Click to expand...

Again, I disagree. Also, do you not think you should take the rest of scripture into account when determining the context, structure and language? It doe not appear that you do that ,which I believe is not wise. We need to be careful not to interpret Revelation 20 in such a way that contradicts any other scripture. I don't see where you are making an effort to do that.

CTK said:

I agree that every believer must have a part in the “first resurrection” in order to escape the second death — but Scripture shows that this isn’t limited to those who physically die before Christ’s return.

Click to expand...

How can those who are still alive and remain until His return and who will not die have part in the first resurrection that you agree is necessary to escape the second death if the first resurrection refers to the mass bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ?

CTK said:

In 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul explains that when Jesus returns, both the dead in Christ will be raised and the living will be transformed. These two experiences together make up the “first resurrection.”

Click to expand...

No. You are trying to change scripture to fit your doctrine here by creating a new definition for the word "resurrection" that doesn't exist in any dictionary. A resurrection refers to a resurrection from death to life. In the case of the resurrection of the dead in Christ, they will be bodily resurrected when Jesus returns. Those who are alive and remain will not be resurrected in any way, shape or form at that time. Being changed or transformed is not the same as being resurrected from death to life.

CTK said:

So those who are alive and remain aren’t “out of luck” — they’re gloriously included, not through death and resurrection, but through transformation into immortality. Whether raised or changed, all who are Christ’s at His coming will reign with Him — and over them, the second death has no power.

Click to expand...

You're all over the place here. First, you agree that "every believer must have a part in the “first resurrection” in order to escape the second death" and act as if being transformed is part of the first resurrection and now you differentiate between the terms resurrection and transformation and the word raised or changed. Being changed or transformed is not a case of being resurrected, so it make no sense to say that those who are not resurrected and are only changed are part of the first RESURRECTION. I don't buy this line of reasoning at all.

CTK said:

While it’s true that Christ’s resurrection was bodily and that we are spiritually united with Him in new life (Romans 6:4–5; Colossians 2:12–13), the “first resurrection” in Revelation 20 is not Christ’s resurrection, and it's not a purely spiritual event.

Click to expand...

Except that it is. Where is the scripture to back up what you're saying?

CTK said:

This "first resurrection":

• Happens after Christ returns in Revelation 19.

Click to expand...

This is nothing more than an assumption. But, the book of Revelation is not all chronological. The most obvious example is Revelation 11 and 12. Revelation 12 refers to Christ's birth and ascension and I'm sure you agree that His birth and ascension did not follow the seventh trumpet.

CTK said:

• Is applied to those who were killed for their faith (martyrs).
• Brings people back to life after death (“they lived…”).

Click to expand...

John saw souls of dead martyrs. They live (see Revelation 6:9-11).

CTK said:

• Precedes a second resurrection of the wicked (Rev. 20:12–13).

This is clearly describing a bodily resurrection — not symbolic regeneration or spiritual union.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. And the first resurrection itself, which was Christ's resurrection, was also a bodily resurrection. There's nothing that says having part in the first resurrrection requires being bodily resurrected. We know that we all spiritually have part in Christ's resurrection.

CTK said:

Furthermore, as Paul teaches in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17, the dead in Christ will rise first, and then those who are alive will be caught up (transformed). This means the "first resurrection" includes:

1. The resurrection of the righteous dead, and​

2. The instant glorification of living believers — all in the same end-time event.​

Click to expand...

You are taking that text completely out of context. Nowhere does that text say that those who are alive and remain are resurrected. Why you are trying to make the word "transformed" mean resurrected is beyond me. The change/transformation we will experience is not from death to life (not a resurrection), but rather is a change from having corruptible and mortal bodies to having incorruptible and immortal bodies.

CTK said:

So yes — the “first resurrection” will include both the dead and the living in Christ at His return, and it is not spiritual-only.

Click to expand...

I do not accept your attempt to turn a change/transformation of our bodies into a resurrection. No, those who are alive and remain will NOT be resurrected and therefore cannot be part of the first RESURRECTION. It's not the first transformation, it's the first resurrection.

CTK said:

Christ’s resurrection happened well before either of these and is never called “the first resurrection” in Scripture — instead, He’s the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18), the firstfruits, the guarantee of what’s coming. Revelation 20 points not to Christ’s resurrection, but to the resurrection of those who have placed their faith in Him, at the time of His return — when they will be raised to life and reign with Him.

Click to expand...

So, you apparently have never read this verse:

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.

The phrase "first resurrection" is translated from the Greek words "protos" and "anastasis". The only other verse in scripture to contain those words together is Acts 26:23 and it applies them to Christ's resurrection. So, what you said here is wrong and shows that you apparently have never read the above verse before.

CTK said:

We agree that Revelation is deeply symbolic but there are the literal events that must take place at His return. Best wishes.

Click to expand...

I never said that there are no literal events that must take place at His return. We just don't agree on what all of those literal events will be. I think we agree that He will physically kill all unbelievers at His return, right? And we agree that all believers will be changed to have immortal bodies and will be caught up to Him at that time? So, the difference is, that you think the earth will just remain desolate for a thousand years and I don't agree with that for reasons that I think I have made clear by now. I also don't think it makes any sense that the earth would just be left desolate for a thousand years (why?) and that levaves no explanation for who the rebels are in Revelation 20:7-9 who number "as the sand of the sea" and go up against hte camp of the saints.

rwb said:

The souls according to John ...........When Christ spoke these words, He was alluding to Lazarus who was physically dead, but indicating his death was NOT the end because Lazarus died a man of faith.

Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you're saying. You're absolutely right that Jesus taught eternal life begins now for those who believe in Him, and that physical death cannot touch a believer. In Revelation 20:4, John sees the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness — no doubt about it, they were physically killed for their faith. But then he says:

“They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” (NKJV)

The Greek word for "lived" here (ezēsan) is the same word used in verse 5, when it says “the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.”

That makes it clear:

• The souls of the martyrs were dead — but then they lived again.
• It’s a total resurrection / restoration as Adam was…
• If we say they were “already alive spiritually” before this, then verse 5 doesn’t make sense — because the “rest of the dead” are clearly bodily raised after the 1,000 years. The contrast between those who “lived” before the 1,000 years and those who “did not live again until after” implies a bodily event.

Jesus says:

“He who lives and believes in Me shall never die.” (John 11:26)

But the same Jesus also said:

“I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6:40)

So, we have both truths:

• Eternal life now (spiritually),
• Bodily resurrection later (physically).

Revelation 20 is describing the moment when faithful saints — including the martyrs — are raised to life bodily and begin to reign with Christ. That’s not just the soul’s continued existence, but a vindication and restoration of the whole person. It’s true that John sees people who had been beheaded — but that doesn’t mean they are still beheaded in their resurrected state. Just as Lazarus had died and was raised with a whole body, so too these saints are raised with glorified bodies, like Christ’s. Their beheading identifies how they died — not what condition they are in now.

But Revelation 20 is pointing to the bodily resurrection of those who were faithful to the end, and the beginning of their reign with Christ on the earth for 1,000 years. Jesus is both the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25). That means we never truly die (spiritually), and we will one day be bodily raised — just like Him (1 Corinthians 15:20–23).

rwb said:

There is NO OTHER "first resurrection"! There can be only ONE FIRST! It is only through partaking (spiritually) of the resurrected life of Christ that man may overcome the second death and live forever. There shall be only ONE bodily resurrection for ALL who are dead. And that will not be until an hour coming, when the last trumpet sounds, and time is no longer.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply — I completely agree with you on this central truth:
There is only one person who is the first to rise from the dead, never to die again — and that’s Jesus Christ. He is the first fruits (1 Cor. 15:20), the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18), and the source of eternal life for everyone who believes in Him. No disagreement there at all. But I believe Revelation 20 is using the term “first resurrection” in a different way — not to refer to Christ’s resurrection, but to refer to the resurrection of the righteous at His second coming, before the 1,000-year reign.

Revelation 20:4–6 describes a group of people who had been killed for their faith — and then says:

“They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” (v. 4)
“This is the first resurrection.” (v. 5)

Then it says: “The rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.” (v. 5)

If everyone is raised at the same moment (as you're suggesting), then this passage makes no sense. Revelation 20 is very clearly describing two separate moments:

• One resurrection before the 1,000 years → the “first resurrection”
• One resurrection after the 1,000 years → the “rest of the dead”

So yes — there is a second resurrection, and Scripture uses the word “first” to distinguish the righteous who are raised before the millennium from the rest who are raised after.



You said, “There can be only ONE first.” But the Bible often uses “first” not just in the absolute sense (first in history), but also in the sequence of two things.

In Revelation 20, “first resurrection” simply means: The first of the two end-time resurrections — not the first resurrection in all of history.

Think of it like this:

• Christ's resurrection is the first fruits (1 Cor. 15:20) — the source of resurrection life.
• The first resurrection in Revelation 20 is the resurrection of those who belong to Christ at His coming (1 Cor. 15:23).
• The second resurrection is the resurrection of those who are not in Christ, raised for judgment (Rev. 20:11–15).

This pattern fits perfectly with John 5:28–29 — where Jesus says: “...those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.”

Those are two separate outcomes — and Revelation 20 tells us they happen at two different times.

You mentioned “the last trumpet” and “an hour coming” — and yes, 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 and 1 Corinthians 15:51–52 speak of the resurrection of the righteous when the trumpet sounds. But that trumpet is tied to the return of Christ and the resurrection of His people — not of all humanity. Revelation 20 makes it clear:

• The righteous dead are raised first (v. 4–6)
• The rest of the dead don’t rise until after the 1,000 years (v. 5, 12–13)

So the first resurrection is real, bodily, and only includes the righteous. The second resurrection is real, bodily, and includes the wicked for final judgment.

You're absolutely right to say there's only one first fruits of resurrection — and that’s Jesus Christ. But the first resurrection in Revelation 20 refers not to Him, but to the first of two resurrections at the end of the age — the one that His resurrection makes possible for those who belong to Him. It’s a resurrection of vindication and reward, and it comes before the final resurrection of judgment. The harvest is indeed split — just as Jesus and the prophets said it would be.

rwb said:

How can a thousand years be literal, since John writes of saints who have lived and died during this time, and also writes of others who are blessed and holy who shall also reign with Christ during this same period of time? This is how we can know with blessed assurance that "a" and "the" thousand years are NOT literally ONE thousand years but symbolize an unspecified amount of time that began with the first advent of Christ and will end when the last (seventh) trumpet sounds (Rev 10). A thousand years is all time given this earth from Christ's first coming to the sounding of the voice of the seventh angel.

Revelation 10:5-7 (KJV) And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Click to expand...

You’re absolutely right that our views differ because we’re defining the “first resurrection” and the “1,000 years” differently.

In Revelation 20, John clearly describes:

• A first resurrection — of the faithful who are raised and reign with Christ (v. 4–6),
• A second resurrection — of the rest of the dead, raised to face judgment (v. 11–15),
• And a gap of 1,000 years between the two (v. 5).

If the 1,000 years are symbolic, then what about the resurrections? Are they symbolic too? That would mean:

• No bodily resurrection of the righteous to reign with Christ,
• And possibly no literal final judgment either.

But Scripture — including Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 — is absolutely clear that these are real, bodily events, not metaphors. So unless we want to spiritualize everything (which undermines major Christian doctrines), we need to take these sequential events seriously — and that means the 1,000 years separating them must be real too.





Revelation is filled with symbolic language — but it also gives specific, literal numbers when it wants to. For example:

• 42 months (Rev. 11:2; 13:5),
• 1,260 days (Rev. 11:3; 12:6),
• 3.5 days (Rev. 11:9),
• And here: 1,000 years (Rev. 20:2–7, mentioned six times).

The consistent repetition of "1,000 years" makes it clear that John isn't using a vague symbol — he’s marking a distinct period of time.



You cited Revelation 10:5–7, where the angel says “time shall be no longer” — but that phrase doesn’t mean chronological time will end. A more accurate translation is:

“There will be no more delay.” (Rev. 10:6, ESV/NKJV footnote)

It’s not about the end of time itself — it’s about the completion of God’s mystery and the unfolding of final judgment. This is a separate moment in the timeline of Revelation — it doesn’t cancel out or redefine the 1,000-year period described in chapter 20.



If we define the first resurrection as happening at the cross and the 1,000 years as symbolic of the church age, then yes — we’d have to believe that believers are reigning with Christ right now in fulfillment of Revelation 20. But that doesn’t fit the passage, where those who reign are clearly said to have:

• Died (martyrs),
• Been raised to life, and
• Reigned with Christ after His return and after Satan is bound.

That’s not happening now — it’s still to come.

rwb said:

Read the passage again without a preconceived opinion a thousand years are literally one thousand years. Explain how the martyred saints have already lived and died during this time, but also during the same time others called blessed and holy and overcome the second death shall also reign with Christ for a thousand years???

This is becoming an exercise in futility! Unless you come to understand and believe the first resurrection represents only the bodily resurrection of Christ, you will never be able to understand a/the thousand years are not literally ONE thousand years, but rather symbolic language representing TIME that began with Christ and will end when the seventh trumpet sounds. This understanding of Rev 20 takes away all the inconsistencies and contradictions your literal one thousand years tries to force into the Word of God.

Click to expand...

Revelation 19–20 presents a clear, chronological series of events:

1. Christ returns (Rev. 19:11–16),
2. The beast and false prophet are judged (Rev. 19:19–21),
3. Satan is bound (Rev. 20:1–3),
4. The first resurrection occurs (Rev. 20:4–6),
5. The saints reign for 1,000 years,
6. Satan is released and defeated one last time (Rev. 20:7–10),
7. The rest of the dead are raised and judged (Rev. 20:11–15).

That’s not symbolic language — it’s a structured timeline.

If the 1,000 years were just a metaphor for the church age, then the order collapses:

• Christ would have returned before the church age began?
• The beast and false prophet would have already been judged?
• Satan would already be bound — yet 1 Peter 5:8 and 2 Corinthians 4:4 say he’s active now.

None of that fits. The symbolic view forces contradictions that the literal reading avoids.



You asked: “How can they have already died during the 1,000 years and also reign during the same period? “But Revelation doesn’t say they lived and died during the 1,000 years. Here’s what it actually says:

• “I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded...” (Rev. 20:4) — they died before the millennium.
• “They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” — this is their resurrection to new life and reign.

Their martyrdom is in the past — their resurrection and reign is future. This isn’t a contradiction — it’s a cause-and-effect: They died for Christ, they are raised at His return, they reign with Him for 1,000 years.



You also mentioned that the passage refers to others who are blessed and holy and who reign — and you're right. Revelation 20:6 says: “Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection...”

That includes all the righteous dead, not just martyrs — Paul speaks of the same moment in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17:

“The dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up... to meet the Lord...”

So yes — many people will have part in the first resurrection. Some died long ago, some may still be alive when Christ returns. All of them will reign with Him during the 1,000 years.



You connected the seventh trumpet (Rev. 10:7) with the 1,000 years — but these are distinct moments:

• The seventh trumpet signals the beginning of God’s final judgments and Christ’s kingdom (Rev. 11:15),
• The 1,000-year reign follows Christ’s visible return and the binding of Satan.

Even if Revelation uses symbolic language elsewhere, the sixfold repetition of “1,000 years” in chapter 20 is deliberate and emphatic. If it were purely symbolic, once would have sufficed.



I agree with you completely: the first resurrection is the only hope for escaping the second death. But I believe that first resurrection is not Christ’s own resurrection, but rather the bodily resurrection of those who belong to Him, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:23:

“Christ the first fruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.”

That’s when the “blessed and holy” will rise — not just spiritually, but bodily — and reign with Christ for a literal 1,000 years.

CTK said:

You’re absolutely right that John 5:28–29 refers to two groups being resurrected:

1. “Those who have done good” — the resurrection of life
2. “Those who have done evil” — the *resurrection of judgment (damnation)”

Jesus says “the hour is coming” when this will happen — and I agree, both groups will hear His voice and come forth. But here's the key point: The phrase “the hour is coming” is a general summary, not a detailed timeline. Jesus is describing what will happen, not when each resurrection will occur in relation to the other.

In John’s Gospel, the term “hour” is often thematic, not strictly a 60-minute period.

• For example, in John 4:23, Jesus says:

“The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth...”
But that “hour” has spanned 2,000 years — and counting.

Click to expand...

Jesus did not say the hour is coming, and now is, that all of the dead will be resurrected, so this isn't a valid comparison. Since you see the resurrection of the saved and the resurrection of the lost as two completely separate events, it would have made much more sense for Jesus to say the hours (plural) are coming when all of the dead would be resurrected instead of saying the hour is coming. Saying that the hour is coming when that will happen strongly implies one resurrection event, not two.

CTK said:

• So in John 5:28–29, Jesus is describing a future resurrection event — but not necessarily saying the righteous and wicked are raised simultaneously. He’s simply stating that all will be raised, with different outcomes.

Click to expand...

You acknowledge that He is describing one future resurrection event, which is my point. That's why He said the hour is coming and not the hours are coming. But, in your view, you have two completely separate resurrection events separated by 1,000+ years. So, I stand by my belief that you are contradicting what Jesus taught.

CTK said:

I mentioned earlier the imagery of two harvests, and Scripture does support this idea. Here are a few examples:

Revelation 14:14–20

• Wheat/Grain Harvest (Rev. 14:14–16) — representing the righteous gathered by Christ
• Grape Harvest (Rev. 14:17–20) — representing the wicked judged in wrath

Click to expand...

Where is there any indication at all in that text that the wheat/grain harvest occurs 1,000+ years before the grape harvest? I don't see that at all. It instead has them happeing at generally the same time.

CTK said:

Matthew 13:30

“Let both [wheat and tares] grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, ‘First gather together the tares... but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

Jesus portrays the harvest as divided, with different treatment for each group — wheat gathered, tares burned.

Click to expand...

Where does Jesus indicate that the tares are burned 1,000+ years after the wheat are gathered? Nowhere. It says they grow together until the harvest, which is the end of the age (Matt 13:39). At that point when the end of the age arrives, which is when Jesus will return, the tares are cast into the fire and the wheat, which represent the righteous "shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matt 13:43). Nowhere does Jesus give any indication whatsoever that there is a long time period between the righteous inheriting the kingdom of their Father and the wicked being cast into the fire. Read Matthew 25:31-46 and you will see the same thing there. The saved inherit the kingdom at the same time that the lost are cast into the lake of fire.

CTK said:

Daniel 12:2 “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

Again, two groups, two destinies — not necessarily in the same moment.

Click to expand...

Where does that even hint at the idea that they would be resurrected at completely different times? Nowhere. I'm not debating that the saved and lost will be separated. But, the text is clear that they are gathered at the same time. That can be seen in the parable of the wheat and tares that you referenced, the parable of the fishing net in Matthew 13:47-50 and in Matthew 25:31-46. But, why would they be gathered at the same time only to have the wicked not being judged until 1,000+ years later?

rwb said:

Charlie, you are again making assumptions without supporting proof from the Word of God. If the first resurrection is a future event of those being bodily resurrected to reign with Christ for 1,000 years, we must conclude that the martyred faithful saints of Christ must be killed during this future one thousand years after being bodily resurrected to life immortal & incorruptible. How can they have LIVED and REIGNED with Christ for one thousand years since they cannot have lived and reigned with Christ for ONE thousand years because they were martyred within these one thousand literal years? Can you NOT see how conflicting this becomes, when trying to force the "first resurrection" to be a physical resurrection of righteous saints after Christ comes the Second time, for them to live and reign with Him for literally one thousand years? How can they reign with Him for one thousand literal years, and also be killed during this same one thousand years?

Click to expand...

Revelation 20:4 says:

“I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God...”

• This group was already martyred — their death is in the past tense: “had been beheaded.”
• Then John says: “They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.”

This is a resurrection event happening at the beginning of the 1,000 years — not during it.

So there’s no contradiction between their martyrdom and their reign. Here's the sequence:

1. They lived on earth before the 1,000 years,
2. They were martyred,
3. At the beginning of the 1,000 years, they are resurrected,
4. They then reign with Christ for the full 1,000 years.

Nowhere does it say they are killed during the 1,000 years.



This is key. The text says:

“They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” (v. 4)

The word “lived” (Greek: ezēsan) is used to describe a return to life — a resurrection. It is the same exact word used in verse 5:

“The rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.”

This shows the first resurrection is bodily, just like the second. One group lives (bodily) before the 1,000 years, the other after. That is what Revelation clearly teaches.



Paul describes the same order in 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17:

“The dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up... to meet the Lord in the air.”

This happens at Christ’s second coming — not during the church age or some symbolic millennium. It’s a real, bodily resurrection of the righteous, before judgment of the wicked.



There’s no contradiction if we let the text speak plainly:

• The saints were martyred before the 1,000 years,
• They are raised to life at the start of that period,
• And they reign with Christ for 1,000 years — not symbolically, but literally, as resurrected, glorified believers.

The symbolic interpretation requires forcing the text to say things it never says — such as believers reigning now for a literal 1,000 years (which no one actually sees happening), or the saints being killed after their resurrection (which is impossible for glorified bodies).

Spiritual Israelite said:

No, it is not clearly described as a future event. Only in your mind. Certainly not mine. The first resurrection itself is not described as a future event. Having part in the first resurrection is something that occurs in an ongoing basis during the figurative thousand years.


What basis do you have for saying it comes after Christ's second coming other than your assumption that what is described in Revelation 20 follows what is described in Revelation 19 chronologically? I assume you are aware that the book is not all chronological from beginning to end?


I disagree. It refers to the dead in Christ having had part in the first resurrecion. It's a fact that all of the dead in Christ have spiritually had part in Christ's resurrection before they died.

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;


Again, I disagree. Also, do you not think you should take the rest of scripture into account when determining the context, structure and language? It doe not appear that you do that ,which I believe is not wise. We need to be careful not to interpret Revelation 20 in such a way that contradicts any other scripture. I don't see where you are making an effort to do that.


How can those who are still alive and remain until His return and who will not die have part in the first resurrection that you agree is necessary to escape the second death if the first resurrection refers to the mass bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ?


No. You are trying to change scripture to fit your doctrine here by creating a new definition for the word "resurrection" that doesn't exist in any dictionary. A resurrection refers to a resurrection from death to life. In the case of the resurrection of the dead in Christ, they will be bodily resurrected when Jesus returns. Those who are alive and remain will not be resurrected in any way, shape or form at that time. Being changed or transformed is not the same as being resurrected from death to life.


You're all over the place here. First, you agree that "every believer must have a part in the “first resurrection” in order to escape the second death" and act as if being transformed is part of the first resurrection and now you differentiate between the terms resurrection and transformation and the word raised or changed. Being changed or transformed is not a case of being resurrected, so it make no sense to say that those who are not resurrected and are only changed are part of the first RESURRECTION. I don't buy this line of reasoning at all.



Except that it is. Where is the scripture to back up what you're saying?


This is nothing more than an assumption. But, the book of Revelation is not all chronological. The most obvious example is Revelation 11 and 12. Revelation 12 refers to Christ's birth and ascension and I'm sure you agree that His birth and ascension did not follow the seventh trumpet.


John saw souls of dead martyrs. They live (see Revelation 6:9-11).


Yes, it is. And the first resurrection itself, which was Christ's resurrection, was also a bodily resurrection. There's nothing that says having part in the first resurrrection requires being bodily resurrected. We know that we all spiritually have part in Christ's resurrection.


You are taking that text completely out of context. Nowhere does that text say that those who are alive and remain are resurrected. Why you are trying to make the word "transformed" mean resurrected is beyond me. The change/transformation we will experience is not from death to life (not a resurrection), but rather is a change from having corruptible and mortal bodies to having incorruptible and immortal bodies.


I do not accept your attempt to turn a change/transformation of our bodies into a resurrection. No, those who are alive and remain will NOT be resurrected and therefore cannot be part of the first RESURRECTION. It's not the first transformation, it's the first resurrection.


So, you apparently have never read this verse:

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.

The phrase "first resurrection" is translated from the Greek words "protos" and "anastasis". The only other verse in scripture to contain those words together is Acts 26:23 and it applies them to Christ's resurrection. So, what you said here is wrong and shows that you apparently have never read the above verse before.


I never said that there are no literal events that must take place at His return. We just don't agree on what all of those literal events will be. I think we agree that He will physically kill all unbelievers at His return, right? And we agree that all believers will be changed to have immortal bodies and will be caught up to Him at that time? So, the difference is, that you think the earth will just remain desolate for a thousand years and I don't agree with that for reasons that I think I have made clear by now. I also don't think it makes any sense that the earth would just be left desolate for a thousand years (why?) and that levaves no explanation for who the rebels are in Revelation 20:7-9 who number "as the sand of the sea" and go up against hte camp of the saints.

Click to expand...

Ok and thanks for your response. I believe I have exhausted all of my support for my interpretations. I don't think I have anything left to give or offer. Best wishes always.

Spiritual Israelite said:

Jesus did not say the hour is coming, and now is, that all of the dead will be resurrected, so this isn't a valid comparison. Since you see the resurrection of the saved and the resurrection of the lost as two completely separate events, it would have made much more sense for Jesus to say the hours (plural) are coming when all of the dead would be resurrected instead of saying the hour is coming. Saying that the hour is coming when that will happen strongly implies one resurrection event, not two.


You acknowledge that He is describing one future resurrection event, which is my point. That's why He said the hour is coming and not the hours are coming. But, in your view, you have two completely separate resurrection events separated by 1,000+ years. So, I stand by my belief that you are contradicting what Jesus taught.


Where is there any indication at all in that text that the wheat/grain harvest occurs 1,000+ years before the grape harvest? I don't see that at all. It instead has them happeing at generally the same time.


Where does Jesus indicate that the tares are burned 1,000+ years after the ehatr are gathered? Nowhere. It says they grow together until the harvest, which is the end of the age (Matt 13:39). At that point when the end of the age arrives, which is when Jesus will return, the tares are cast into the fire and the wheat, which represent the righteous "shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matt 13:43). Nowhere does Jesus give any indication whatsoever that there is a long time period between the righteous inheriting the kingdom of their Father and the wicked being cast into the fire. Read Matthew 25:31-46 and you will see the same thing there. The saved inherit the kingdom at the same time that the lost are cast into the lake of fire.


Where does that even hint at the idea that they would be resurrected at completely different times? Nowhere. I'm not debating that the saved and lost will be separated. But, the text is clear that they are gathered at the same time. That can be seen in the parable of the wheat and tares that you referenced, the parable of the fishing net in Matthew 13:47-50 and in Matthew 25:31-46. But, why would they be gathered at the same time only to have the wicked not being judged until 1,000+ years later?

Click to expand...

Once again, everything has been given regarding my interpretations on chapter 20... it has addressed all comments. But it has been a little exhausting and I need to move on to completing my commentary on Revelation..... almost done.

CTK said:

I agree with much of what you're saying. You're absolutely right that Jesus taught eternal life begins now for those who believe in Him, and that physical death cannot touch a believer. In Revelation 20:4, John sees the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness — no doubt about it, they were physically killed for their faith. But then he says:

“They lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” (NKJV)

The Greek word for "lived" here (ezēsan) is the same word used in verse 5, when it says “the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.”

Click to expand...

What is your source for this? What I see in Strong's Lexicon is that the Greek word for lived as "zao" and it is not the same word used in verse 5, which is "anazao". The word "zao" means to live and to be alive and is not a word used to describe someone being resurrected like the word "anazao" is.

CTK said:

Ok and thanks for your response. I believe I have exhausted all of my support for my interpretations. I don't think I have anything left to give or offer. Best wishes always.

Click to expand...

That's fine. I don't have anything to add, either. It'd be nice to know your thoughts about what I said, but that's up to you. Thanks for the discussion.

Spiritual Israelite said:

What is your source for this? What I see in Strong's Lexicon is that the Greek word for lived as "zao" and it is not the same word used in verse 5, which is "anazao". The word "zao" means to live and to be alive and is not a word used to describe someone being resurrected like the word "anazao" is.

Click to expand...

20:4
they came to life
ἔζησαν (ezēsan)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 2198: To live, be alive. A primary verb; to live.



20:5
come back to life
ἔζησαν (ezēsan)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 2198: To live, be alive. A primary verb; to live.

CTK said:

In Revelation 20, John clearly describes:

• A first resurrection — of the faithful who are raised and reign with Christ (v. 4–6),
• A second resurrection — of the rest of the dead, raised to face judgment (v. 11–15),
• And a gap of 1,000 years between the two (v. 5).

Click to expand...

John does NOT write of "A" first resurrection of the faithful who are raised and reign with Christ. Nowhere in the passage does John ever mention A first resurrection. He tells us only that there are martyrs for the faith who were beheaded he defines as "souls" who lived and reigned with Christ A thousand years. They were physically alive on this earth before they were martyred. The time in which they lived and reigned with Christ while alive on this earth is a thousand years.

According to John the rest of the dead, or those who also lived and died while on the earth in the same time (a thousand years) as the martyred saints, but they lived and died in unbelief. Which is why they are not numbered among the dead in Christ as living souls, but they are nonetheless physically dead. They could not be numbered with the living souls who died in faith because they never lived and reigned with Christ before they physically died.

John NEVER writes of "a second resurrection of the rest of the dead". John NEVER speaks of the DEAD as being resurrected to life. He writes only that the dead shall not live again until the thousand years have finished. John NEVER tells us the dead shall be RESURRECTED, but only that they shall be revived to life again to stand before God for judgment and be cast into the lake of fire that is the second death.

You ASSUME a gap of a literal one thousand years between the saints whose physical death does not the from having lived and reigned with Christ, and the dead who shall live or rather be revived to life at the GWTJ, but you cannot prove there are two physical resurrections separated by one thousand literal years.

The faithful saints lived and reigned with God "a" (not one) thousand years, but the rest of the dead will not live again until the thousand (not one thousand) years have ended. If the first resurrection speaks of a physical resurrection of faithful saints when Christ comes again, why doesn't John write the rest of the dead will not be resurrected to life again until the thousand years have ended? Because the first resurrection is NOT of a general resurrection of faithful saints to live and reign with Christ for one thousand years! The first resurrection is, as John shows us, the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and all who died in Him already possess everlasting life by partaking of Christ's resurrection life before they died. That's why John writes of them being disembodied souls in heaven after death, the spiritual body of Christ.

CTK said:

If the 1,000 years are symbolic, then what about the resurrections? Are they symbolic too?

Click to expand...

Because resurrection life is mor than simply being raised to life again to die the second death. The first resurrection is not A bodily resurrection of saints, it is THE resurrection of Christ that man must partake of to not only be raised to physical life but raised to physical IMMORTAL & INCORRUPTIBLE life with Christ forever.

When we understand the first resurrection is the physical, immortal life of Christ man must possess to overcome the second death, we know the first resurrection is literally the physical resurrection of Christ. No man, except Christ has been, or shall be bodily resurrected from the dead to NEVER die again. After time, symbolized a/the thousand years has ended, then every human dead body shall be bodily resurrected to resurrection life, or damnation.

The thousand years symbolizes TIME given the church to proclaim the gospel unto all the earth, that the spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven shall be complete.

CTK said:

You cited Revelation 10:5–7, where the angel says “time shall be no longer” — but that phrase doesn’t mean chronological time will end. A more accurate translation is:

“There will be no more delay.” (Rev. 10:6, ESV/NKJV footnote)

Click to expand...

Makes no difference! No more time, no more delay, both prove the sounding of the seventh trumpet marks the end for this earth whereby man might be saved when they hear the gospel of Christ and believe.

CTK said:

If we define the first resurrection as happening at the cross and the 1,000 years as symbolic of the church age, then yes — we’d have to believe that believers are reigning with Christ right now in fulfillment of Revelation 20. But that doesn’t fit the passage, where those who reign are clearly said to have:

• Died (martyrs),
• Been raised to life, and
• Reigned with Christ after His return and after Satan is bound.

That’s not happening now — it’s still to come.

Click to expand...

Where does John write the saints MUST be raised to life? John writes only that he saw souls of disembodied saints who lived and died with Christ during this symbolic time period of a/the thousand years. John makes no mention of them being resurrected, he writes only that physical death could not prevent them from being living souls after death, because the life they inherited in Christ before they died is eternal/everlasting life.

CTK said:

Revelation 19–20 presents a clear, chronological series of events:

1. Christ returns (Rev. 19:11–16),
2. The beast and false prophet are judged (Rev. 19:19–21),
3. Satan is bound (Rev. 20:1–3),
4. The first resurrection occurs (Rev. 20:4–6),
5. The saints reign for 1,000 years,
6. Satan is released and defeated one last time (Rev. 20:7–10),
7. The rest of the dead are raised and judged (Rev. 20:11–15).

That’s not symbolic language — it’s a structured timeline.

If the 1,000 years were just a metaphor for the church age, then the order collapses:

• Christ would have returned before the church age began?
• The beast and false prophet would have already been judged?
• Satan would already be bound — yet 1 Peter 5:8 and 2 Corinthians 4:4 say he’s active now.

None of that fits. The symbolic view forces contradictions that the literal reading avoids.

Click to expand...

Again, you fail to prove what you allege. Your opinions are of no value unless you can prove what you assume. How do you know or can you prove that Rev 19:11-16 is depicting the Second coming of Christ?

rwb said:

John does NOT write of "A" first resurrection of the faithful who are raised and reign with Christ. Nowhere in the passage does John ever mention A first resurrection. He tells us only that there are martyrs for the faith who were beheaded he defines as "souls" who lived and reigned with Christ A thousand years. They were physically alive on this earth before they were martyred. The time in which they lived and reigned with Christ while alive on this earth is a thousand years.

According to John the rest of the dead, or those who also lived and died while on the earth in the same time (a thousand years) as the martyred saints, but they lived and died in unbelief. Which is why they are not numbered among the dead in Christ as living souls, but they are nonetheless physically dead. They could not be numbered with the living souls who died in faith because they never lived and reigned with Christ before they physically died.

John NEVER writes of "a second resurrection of the rest of the dead". John NEVER speaks of the DEAD as being resurrected to life. He writes only that the dead shall not live again until the thousand years have finished. John NEVER tells us the dead shall be RESURRECTED, but only that they shall be revived to life again to stand before God for judgment and be cast into the lake of fire that is the second death.

You ASSUME a gap of a literal one thousand years between the saints whose physical death does not the from having lived and reigned with Christ, and the dead who shall live or rather be revived to life at the GWTJ, but you cannot prove there are two physical resurrections separated by one thousand literal years.

The faithful saints lived and reigned with God "a" (not one) thousand years, but the rest of the dead will not live again until the thousand (not one thousand) years have ended. If the first resurrection speaks of a physical resurrection of faithful saints when Christ comes again, why doesn't John write the rest of the dead will not be resurrected to life again until the thousand years have ended? Because the first resurrection is NOT of a general resurrection of faithful saints to live and reign with Christ for one thousand years! The first resurrection is, as John shows us, the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and all who died in Him already possess everlasting life by partaking of Christ's resurrection life before they died. That's why John writes of them being disembodied souls in heaven after death, the spiritual body of Christ.


Because resurrection life is mor than simply being raised to life again to die the second death. The first resurrection is not A bodily resurrection of saints, it is THE resurrection of Christ that man must partake of to not only be raised to physical life but raised to physical IMMORTAL & INCORRUPTIBLE life with Christ forever.

When we understand the first resurrection is the physical, immortal life of Christ man must possess to overcome the second death, we know the first resurrection is literally the physical resurrection of Christ. No man, except Christ has been, or shall be bodily resurrected from the dead to NEVER die again. After time, symbolized a/the thousand years has ended, then every human dead body shall be bodily resurrected to resurrection life, or damnation.

The thousand years symbolizes TIME given the church to proclaim the gospel unto all the earth, that the spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven shall be complete.



Makes no difference! No more time, no more delay, both prove the sounding of the seventh trumpet marks the end for this earth whereby man might be saved when they hear the gospel of Christ and believe.



Where does John write the saints MUST be raised to life? John writes only that he saw souls of disembodied saints who lived and died with Christ during this symbolic time period of a/the thousand years. John makes no mention of them being resurrected, he writes only that physical death could not prevent them from being living souls after death, because the life they inherited in Christ before they died is eternal/everlasting life.



Again, you fail to prove what you allege. Your opinions are of no value unless you can prove what you assume. How do you know or can you prove that Rev 19:11-16 is depicting the Second coming of Christ?

Click to expand...

Thank you very much for all of your comments and responses to this issue. I am sure I have addressed all the issues that have been presented to me with Scripture, reasoning and timing concerns. I believe the best think to do at this time is to appreciation the time and effort everyone has put forth to study chapter 20 and agree we have different interpretations .... and that is okay, since they are not going to affect our salvation with Jesus ... We all place Him above all others and He has given us so much to consider and learn about Him..... Best wishes always!

CTK said:

20:4
they came to life
ἔζησαν (ezēsan)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 2198: To live, be alive. A primary verb; to live.

Click to expand...

Something is not making sense here. My source is Strong's as well. Click the link where it says "Strong's Greek 2198" there. You'll see that it says zaō. And you show that it means to live or be alive and not to be resurrected.

So, where are you getting ἔζησαν (ezēsan) from exactly and what does that word mean?

CTK said:

20:5
come back to life
ἔζησαν (ezēsan)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Plural
Strong's Greek 2198: To live, be alive. A primary verb; to live.

Click to expand...

Again, something is not making sense here. You show Strong's Greek 2198 there which is the word "zao" but on blueletterbible.org it shows Strong's G326 instead, which is the word anazaō, in verse 5, not zaō (G2198).

Look here: G326 - anazao - used in Revelation 20:5

Spiritual Israelite said:

Something is not making sense here. My source is Strong's as well. Click the link where it says "Strong's Greek 2198" there. You'll see that it says zaō. And you show that it means to live or be alive and not to be resurrected.

So, where are you getting ἔζησαν (ezēsan) from exactly and what does that word mean?


Again, something is not making sense here. You show Strong's Greek 2198 there which is the word "zao" but on blueletterbible.org it shows Strong's G326 instead, which is the word anazaō, in verse 5, not zaō (G2198).

Look here: G326 - anazao - used in Revelation 20:5

Click to expand...

The word ezesan is only found in 2 verses in the NT- 20:4 and 20:5 and it only applies to the physical first resurrection.

It is related to zao but not used in these 2 verses— 1st resurrection!

ewq1938 said:

Something I have on ZAO:

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

This is a resurrection from the dead because to be alive after having died is a resurrection.


Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive (zao) for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.


Christ used the same exact word (zao) regarding the result of his own physical resurrection. Did Christ not live again physically and in immortality after being dead?


Mat 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live (zao) .

Here is the same word. Anytime someone who is dead is said to "live" (zao) it's the result of a physical resurrection.





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


These people are the first of the human dead to go from death to living just as Christ did and this new living is immortality just as Christ rose in an immortal body. The first resurrection of Revelation 20 is like Christ's own resurrection. There can be no doubt or argument that verse 4 is saying the beheaded saints resurrected and the fact that the rest of the dead did not come to life with the beheaded further proves this as well.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but I do not find the Greek word “ZAO” in these two verses but “EZESAN.”

Pick this up again tomorrow.

Davy said:

And that is exactly why... those on Amill have SO MANY THEORIES of how many that "thousand years" of Revelation 20 represents! Doing that kind of thing shows all the earmarks of a FALSE DOCTRINE FROM MEN.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring the double standards in your reasoning. You have to. Your hermeneutics are messed up.