Getting to the heart of the Amil confusion

[Wick Stick]

There are two pivotal resurrections spoken about in the NT. There is our initial spiritual resurrection "in Christ," upon salvation, where we are raised to newness of life. At conversion, the Christian dies to the desires, control and governance of the “old man” or the old nature, and enters into the new man – Christ. He loses all rights to self-rule and yields to the impulses and authority of the Holy Spirit, who’s office it is to conform us to the image of Christ.

What results from this great eternal transaction is our eventual physical resurrection, where we are delivered from this body of death, from corruption to incorruption, and transformed into the glorious likeness of Christ, when Jesus returns at the end.

Revelation 20:6 simply says, “Blessed and holy is he ‘that hath part’ (present active particle) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power.”

This is an ongoing current reality for the believer in salvation. Experiencing eternal life delivers us from eternal punishment.

The Greek word for "first" (as in first resurrection) is protos. It is a contracted superlative meaning foremost (in time, place, order and/or importance). So which is the "first" (or protos) resurrection - Christ's or the resurrection that occurs at the second coming? This is a pretty simply question.

• Which is the foremost resurrection in time?
• Which is the foremost resurrection in place?
• Which is the foremost resurrection in order?
• Which is the foremost resurrection in importance?

Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in time.
Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in place.
Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in order.
Christ's resurrection is the "first" or foremost resurrection in importance.

Many overlook the phrase "hath part." Whatever that refers to will seal this debate. The unfortunate thing for Premils is that it is present tense. So whatever resurrection it is speaking of, believers currently have their "part" in it. Whatever “the first resurrection” is, participation in it qualifies humans’ to escape the horrors of eternal punishment (the second death). In this experience Christians identify with Christ’s victorious resurrection.

It's a pretty good stand-alone post, but I don't see how it's related to what I said.

Why'd this come in response to me? You didn't address the objection that the verses identify the martyrs as being the recipients of the first resurrection.

 

[WPM]

It's a pretty good stand-alone post, but I don't see how it's related to what I said.

Why'd this come in response to me? You didn't address the objection that the verses identify the martyrs as being the recipients of the first resurrection.

Because all believers partake in the first resurrection. Without that they are not saved. Revelation 29 does not anywhere restrict this to martyrs, you do.

 

[PinSeeker]

Here is why Amils believe the first resurrection as is mentioned in Rev. 20:5-6 is past.

Hmm, well, the first resurrection is not only past, it is ongoing. Having previously been previously dead in their trespasses (sin) and thus, by nature, children of wrath, like the rest of mankind, people are still at this point being born again of the Spirit and made alive together with Christ ~ and raised up (resurrected) with Him and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 2:3-6). This is the first resurrection of Revelation 20:4-6, and it is happening over the course of the present millennium.

They have confessed that they believe Jesus alone being raised from the dead IS the first resurrection as is mentioned and defined in Rev. 20:5-6.

Only those who misunderstand amillennialism, actually.

Now let me compare this to a harvest, as does the words of God as well. If I had a garden of 10,000 tomatoes plants and I harvested One tomato first before the others that would be a first fruit.

But is the first fruit the entire harvest? No the first fruit was just the first ripe to be harvested, but One fruit is not the entire harvest.

But that is what Amil is preaching...

Nope. Jesus's resurrection was not even the first physical resurrection. There's this guy named Lazarus... :) Oh, and Jairus's daughter previous to that... Jesus's resurrection shows us that our physical resurrection will be "like His" (Romans 6:5), but it is not the "first resurrection" as referred to by John in the vision given to him as he relates it in Revelation 20.

, that the first fruit is the entire first resurrection, or the entire end time harvest of the dead in Christ as shown in Rev. 20:5-6.

So believing the One first fruit is the entire harvest of fruits they believe the first resurrection/ harvest is past.

Again, Jesus is the "first fruits," meaning that His physical resurrection surely shows us what ours will certainly be, but it is not the "entire harvest of fruits" (not even really sure what that means, to be quite honest) and thus the first resurrection/ harvest is surely not past.

This is the warning…

2 Timothy 2:18
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Right, and well-observed; the first resurrection is still ongoing ~ to each member of God's elect (those appointed to eternal life) at his/her appointed time... when he or she is born again of the Spirit. As Paul says in Romans 11:25-26 regarding God's building of His Israel, "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in... in this way all Israel will be saved." And at the end of Ephesians 2, Paul says, "(we Christians) are no longer strangers and aliens but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord... (i)n Him we are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:19-22).

This "first resurrection" of Revelation 20 is defined (as I said above) in Ephesians 2:4-6 and is individual, and collective, and cumulative through the millennium of Revelation 20, and as such is still ongoing... until the fullness of the Gentile elect is brought in and the hardening of the ethnic Jewish elect is completely removed. Then, the millennium of Revelation 20 will come to a close, and Christ will return and execute the final Judgment (depicted in Matthew 25:31-46 and in Revelation 20:11-15). And after that, the ew Heaven and new Earth.

Grace and peace to you, SOTM.

 

[PinSeeker]

This topic is not about being born again, it is about the first resurrection as is mentioned in Rev. 20:5-6

But the first resurrection happens for each of us individually, Stewardofthemystery, when we are born again of the Spirit and thus raised in Christ. The two concepts (being born again and spiritually resurrected from death in sin) are inseparable. Our "first resurrection" is spiritual, and the "second resurrection" at the end of the age, the millennium ~ which in Revelation 20 we should see as having just occurred immediately prior to the opening of the final Judgment scene in Revelation 20:11 ~ will surely be physical. This "second resurrection" will not be limited to God's elect as the "first resurrection" was; it will be general to all, and all will then stand before Christ for the final Judgment, some on His right and the others on His left (Matthew 25:31-46). As Jesus says in John 5:28-29, "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear His voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

You know, yeah, if you're going to rail against amillennialism, you surely can go right ahead (though I would advise against it), but you should first come to a right understanding of it. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Davidpt]

By the way, the second resurrection is the resurrection of damnation so you might want to rethink that.

That would be a good point except that is not the way he is reasoning it. He already showed how he was reasoning it. He used 1 Corinthians 15:23 to do so then explained why it would be the 2nd resurrection if coming from the perspective of 1 Corinthians 15:23. Whether he is right or wrong, there is at least logic to that, I'll give him that.

What's really going on per all these discussions/debates is this. We are all, whether we are a Premil or an Amil, coming from the POV that we are understanding something correctly, that we are interpreting it correctly. With that in mind, Amils could actually say something similar to Premils when you think about it.

From their POV, they too believing they are interpreting things correctly, they can also say right back to Premils, you have no room to talk, and here is one reason why.

Assuming we are interpreting it correctly rather than you Premils, this means you are placing the bodily resurrection in the past rather than in the future, does it not? Should we falsely apply 2 Timothy 2:18 to you the way you do to us? Because, after all, if we are interpreting the first resurrection correctly in Revelation 20, and that you Premils are insisting that the bodily resurrection of saints is meant, this means you are saying the bodily resurrection happens in the past before Christ returns and not when He returns, does it not?

As you can see, it works both ways, and it's all based on the fact that each position is assuming they are the one interpreting it correctly. It then becomes the million dollar question that never seems to get resolved, who is it that is actually interpreting it correctly? Obviously, Premils believe it is they that are and Amils believe it is they that are.

Except neither position can undeniably prove it to the other position that they are intepreting it correctly, because if they could undeniably prove that, we would all be interpreting it the same way not different ways. Assuming one side is correct, whatever side that might be, this means one side is interpreting it based on truth, the other side is interpreting it based on doctrinal bias masquerading as truth.

All of the above in my opinion, of course.

 

[WPM]

Hmm, well, the first resurrection is not only past, it is ongoing. Having previously been previously dead in their trespasses (sin) and thus, by nature, children of wrath, like the rest of mankind, people are still at this point being born again of the Spirit and made alive together with Christ ~ and raised up (resurrected) with Him and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 2:3-6). This is the first resurrection of Revelation 20:4-6, and it is happening over the course of the present millennium.


Only those who misunderstand amillennialism, actually.


Nope. Jesus's resurrection was not even the first physical resurrection. There's this guy named Lazarus... :) Oh, and Jairus's daughter previous to that... Jesus's resurrection shows us that our physical resurrection will be "like His" (Romans 6:5), but it is not the "first resurrection" as referred to by John in the vision given to him as he relates it in Revelation 20.


Again, Jesus is the "first fruits," meaning that His physical resurrection surely shows us what ours will certainly be, but it is not the "entire harvest of fruits" (not even really sure what that means, to be quite honest) and thus the first resurrection/ harvest is surely not past.


Right, and well-observed; the first resurrection is still ongoing ~ to each member of God's elect (those appointed to eternal life) at his/her appointed time... when he or she is born again of the Spirit. As Paul says in Romans 11:25-26 regarding God's building of His Israel, "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in... in this way all Israel will be saved." And at the end of Ephesians 2, Paul says, "(we Christians) are no longer strangers and aliens but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord... (i)n Him we are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit" (Ephesians 2:19-22).

This "first resurrection" of Revelation 20 is defined (as I said above) in Ephesians 2:4-6 and is individual, and collective, and cumulative through the millennium of Revelation 20, and as such is still ongoing... until the fullness of the Gentile elect is brought in and the hardening of the ethnic Jewish elect is completely removed. Then, the millennium of Revelation 20 will come to a close, and Christ will return and execute the final Judgment (depicted in Matthew 25:31-46 and in Revelation 20:11-15). And after that, the ew Heaven and new Earth.

Grace and peace to you, SOTM.

I agree with most of what you say. But, Lazarus never conquered the grave. He later died. Jesus was the first resurrection.

 

[Wick Stick]

Because all believers partake in the first resurrection. Without that they are not saved. Revelation 29 does not anywhere restrict this to martyrs, you do.

I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

How can that group include all believers? Most of us still have our heads!

 

[Marty fox]

I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

How can that group include all believers? Most of us still have our heads!

Because all believers spiritually come to life when we are saved the above verse is just showing that the ones martyred still come to life even when physically dead.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Hmm, well, the first resurrection is not only past, it is ongoing.

The first resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20:4-6 is the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ. It is not about being born again, these souls were already killed/dead physically.

Revelation 20:4-6

King James Version

​

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 and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

 

[Davidpt]

But the first resurrection happens for each of us individually, Stewardofthemystery, when we are born again of the Spirit and thus raised in Christ. The two concepts (being born again and spiritually resurrected from death in sin) are inseparable. Our "first resurrection" is spiritual, and the "second resurrection" at the end of the age, the millennium ~ which in Revelation 20 we should see as having just occurred immediately prior to the opening of the final Judgment scene in Revelation 20:11 ~ will surely be physical. This "second resurrection" will not be limited to God's elect as the "first resurrection" was; it will be general to all, and all will then stand before Christ for the final Judgment, some on His right and the others on His left (Matthew 25:31-46). As Jesus says in John 5:28-29, "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear His voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

You know, yeah, if you're going to rail against amillennialism, you surely can go right ahead (though I would advise against it), but you should first come to a right understanding of it. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

In Revelation 20 the following is meaning the 2nd resurrection and is obviously meaning the resurrection unto damnation.

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.

He that alleges must prove. If you don't believe me, ask @WPM since he is the one that uses that phrase the most often. Therefore, show per that sentence where it says any of them are blessed and holy. Show per that sentence where it says any of them, the 2nd death has no power. Show per that sentence where it says that those that have part in the first resurrection, they too don't live again until after the thousand years have expired.

By Amils making the first resurrection to mean what they want it to mean, look what that interpretation does with verse 5? It butchers it, it doesn't make sense of it instead. The Amil interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6 is changing what verse 5 says and means by adding to what verse 5 says, not agreeing with it instead. Prove me wrong by pointing out in that verse where that verse says any of the things I asked you about per the previous paragraph.

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

But the first resurrection happens for each of us individually, Stewardofthemystery, when we are born again of the Spirit and thus raised in Christ.

Again, Rev. 20:4-6 is about those who have already been physically killed/dead. It is not about being born again.

Revelation 20:4-6

King James Version
​

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 and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

Assuming we are interpreting it correctly rather than you Premils, this means you are placing the bodily resurrection in the past rather than in the future, does it not?

Here is the thing though. They say they believe the dead in Christ are raised at the second resurrection. BUT then they also say they believe the scriptures that show the dead in Christ being raised at the first resurrection shown in Rev. 20:4-6 they say that is past.

So really they ARE saying the the first resurrection of the dead in Christ is past, even though they then contradict themselves and then say the resurrection of the dead in Christ is yet future at the second resurrection.

Their doctrine is total nonsense and confusion.

The bottom line is they believe the first resurrection is past and This applies to them…
2 Timothy 2:18
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 

[Davidpt]

Here is the thing though. They say they believe the dead in Christ are raised at the second resurrection. BUT then they also say they believe the scriptures that show the dead in Christ being raised at the first resurrection shown in Rev. 20:4-6 they say that is past.

So really they ARE saying the the first resurrection of the dead in Christ is past, even though they then contradict themselves and then say the resurrection of the dead in Christ is yet future at the second resurrection.

Their doctrine is total nonsense and confusion.

The bottom line is they believe the first resurrection is past and This applies to them…
2 Timothy 2:18
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Can you explain in what way this would equal them overthrowing the faith of some?

----------------------------
overthrow

anatrepw
anatrepo
an-at-rep'-o
from ana - ana 303 and the base of troph - trope 5157; to overturn (figuratively):--overthrow, subvert.

---------------------------
sub·vert
/səbˈvərt/
verb
undermine the power and authority of (an established system or institution).
"the case involved an attempt to subvert the rule of law"
synonyms: destabilize, unsettle, overthrow, overturn, bring down, bring about the downfall of, topple, depose, oust, supplant, unseat, dethrone, disestablish, dissolve, disrupt, wreak havoc on, sabotage, ruin, upset, destroy, annihilate, demolish, wreck, undo, undermine, undercut, weaken, impair, damage, corrupt, pervert, warp, deprave, defile, debase, distort, contaminate, poison, embitter, vitiate

definition subvert - Google Search

-------------------------------------

From what I can tell, anatrepo is only used in 2 passages. The passage in question and also Titus 1:11.

 

[PinSeeker]

I agree with most of what you say. But, Lazarus never conquered the grave.

Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

He later died.

He absolutely did, and he will be resurrected again, with all of us at the end of the age.

Jesus was the first resurrection.

No, He wasn't, WPM. Neither literally nor in terms of the "first resurrection" of Revelation 20. In terms of Revelation 20, Jesus was never and will never be in need of this "first resurrection."

Grace and peace to you, WPM.

 

[PinSeeker]

The first resurrection mentioned in Rev. 20:4-6 is the bodily resurrection of the dead in Christ. It is not about being born again, these souls were already killed/dead physically.

Revelation 20:4-6​

​

King James Version​

​

​

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 and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

In Revelation 1, Stewardofthemystery, John is told by Jesus to "(w)rite... the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this." So, John, in his vision, is being shown everything as if it's already happened, but as of now, it has not. Has not completely happened, that is. But the vision is given to him as if it already has.

The verse numbers can mislead a little there; they are not part of inspired Scripture. The "this" at the end of verse 5 refers to the whole thousand years, and over the course of that thousand years, all of us Christians take part in it, each individually at his or her own appointed time, as I said, when, having been born again of the Spirit, they/we are raised/resurrected in Christ from death in sin ~ which is described vividly in Ephesians 2:3-7 (above). This is the first resurrection.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Davidpt]

No, He wasn't, WPM. Neither literally nor in terms of the "first resurrection" of Revelation 20. In terms of Revelation 20, Jesus was never and will never be in need of this "first resurrection."

Even though I'm not an Amil myself I do comprehend your point here. And it would be a valid point assuming the first resurrection is involving being born again, something Jesus never needed to do. But if it in meaning a bodily resurrection in this case, as Premils tend to believe, your argument would then be preposterous that Jesus was never in need of a bodily resurrection at any time. Maybe not now nor in the future, but 2000 years ago He was certainly in need of a bodily resurrection.

 

[PinSeeker]

In Revelation 20 the following is meaning the 2nd resurrection and is obviously meaning the resurrection unto damnation.

Nope. Everyone is in view in the second resurrection in Revelation 20:11-15. Everyone, meaning both the saved and the unsaved. And this resurrection is the one Jesus speaks of in John 5:28-29... "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

...look what that interpretation does with verse 5? It butchers it...

No, it butchers what some think the correct interpretation is. <smile>

The Amil interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6 is changing what verse 5 says and means by adding to what verse 5 says, not agreeing with it instead...

Not at all; read what I said to SOTM above. Quoting myself:

"In Revelation 1, Stewardofthemystery, John is told by Jesus to "(w)rite... the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this." So, John, in his vision, is being shown everything as if it's already happened, but as of now, it has not. Has not completely happened, that is. But the vision is given to him as if it already has."

"The verse numbers can mislead a little there; they are not part of inspired Scripture. The "this" at the end of verse 5 refers to the whole thousand years, and over the course of that thousand years, all of us Christians take part in it, each individually at his or her own appointed time, as I said, when, having been born again of the Spirit, they/we are raised/resurrected in Christ from death in sin ~ which is described vividly in Ephesians 2:3-7. This is the first resurrection."

Prove me wrong by pointing out in that verse where that verse says any of the things I asked you about per the previous paragraph.

Hmmm, well, only the Spirit can do that, David. I'll just say that it's not hard... it shouldn't be, anyway, but sometimes we can "build our own walls," so to speak... to read it from a bit different angle, David. Regarding this passage of Revelation 20 that we're talking about, if one separates the verses and gets antecedents and modifiers just a little bit wrongly, it can have... well, negative effects regarding true understanding.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Davidpt]

these souls were already killed/dead physically.

And what does that obviously prove? It proves they were born again. And not, they physically die, then they become born again after they have died, thus the first resurrection. That's backwards and not even Biblical.

Why can't Amils see that the first resurrection is being applied to them after they have died, not before they have died? Then they argue, well at least some of them anyway, that Christ is the first resurrection meant, but then don't argue that Christ also needed to be resurrected in a not literal way before He was literally resurrected.

 

[PinSeeker]

Even though I'm not an Amil myself I do comprehend your point here. And it would be a valid point assuming the first resurrection is involving being born again, something Jesus never needed to do.

Right. The first resurrection is a direct and immediate result of having been born again of the Spirit.

But if it in meaning a bodily resurrection in this case, as Premils tend to believe, your argument would then be preposterous that Jesus was never in need of a bodily resurrection at any time. Maybe not now nor in the future, but 2000 years ago He was certainly in need of a bodily resurrection.

Agreed. So maybe we should look in depth at the reasons "Premils" tend to (mistakenly) believe the first resurrection is bodily.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Davidpt]

Nope. Everyone is in view in the second resurrection in Revelation 20:11-15. Everyone, meaning both the saved and the unsaved. And this resurrection is the one Jesus speaks of in John 5:28-29... "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."

IOW, you don't believe the rapture and the last trump(1 Cor 15:51-57) precedes the great white throne judgment? According to Revelation 20:11-15, everyone standing there in front of Christ are described as the dead. No one, once what is recorded in 1 Cor 15:51-57 has happened to them would still be considered the dead. That is ludicrous that anyone that has put on bodily immortality is still being described as the dead. Bodily immortality and being in a dead state is a contradiction, not the same thing instead.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Apparently, you would have us believe that they are still the dead even after they experienced this change. Your interpretation is nonsensical unless you can prove the great white throne judgment happens first followed by the last trump then sounding afterwards, thus what is recorded per the passage above.

Look how your interpretation butchers this passage. This passage starts out in this manner---and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed--and that you still have them being dead even after this change, because you somehow have them standing in front of Christ among the dead per Revelation 20:11-15 after they have been changed.