It is contended by
premillennialists that the ordinal “first” is used with the word “resurrection”
to convey the idea that the “first resurrection” is the first in a series of
resurrections of the same kind. It is alleged that a “consistently literal”
hermeneutics does not allow any other interpretation of the phrase “first
resurrection.”
But even the
pretribulational, premillennial schema does not fit into this understanding
using a strictly literal hermeneutics. If, indeed, the first resurrection is
the first in a series of bodily resurrections, the “first resurrection”
according to historical chronology must be the pretribulation rapture. If
dispensational hermeneutics is correct, what will be the final destiny of
saints saved during the tribulation, or during the earthly millennium? According
to the dispensational schema, the tribulation and millennial saints will be
resurrected after the pretribulation rapture. These are chronologically the
second, third, or even fourth resurrection! If we were to understand Revelation
20:6 literally, we would have to conclude that the second death will in fact
have power over those saints who do not resurrect at the first
resurrection, that is, during the pretribulation rapture.
We mentioned above
that the usage of the ordinal first with “resurrection” does not occur
elsewhere in the New or Old Testament. There are good exegetical reasons to
believe that John had in mind two different kinds of resurrection in 20:4-6,
especially when we consider his employment of the ordinal “first.” This is due
to his use of contrast between the “first resurrection” and the “second death
(20:6).” This contrast and the use of “first” (Prōtos) are dealt with in detail by Meredith Kline.
It is Kline’s
contention that the first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection, which is
contrasted with the bodily resurrection in verse 5. Kline writes:
“One of the critical points in the exegesis of Revelation 20 is the
interpretation of prōtos in the phrase, “the first resurrection” (v. 5).
Premillennarians understand it in the purely sequential sense of first in a
series of items of the same kind. They interpret both “the first resurrection”
and the resurrection event described in verses 12 and 13 of this chapter as
bodily resurrections. The contextual usage of Prōtos, however, does not support such an
exegesis; it rather points compellingly to an interpretation of “the first
resurrection” found in (so-called) amillennial exegesis.”[1]
The usage of the
word “first,” according to Kline, suggests a difference in kind rather than a sequential order. He begins his exegesis by
turning to the usage of the word “first” in Revelation 21. Revelation 21:1ff provides
us with a good starting point of how the Apostle John uses the ordinal “first.”
In this passage of Scripture, the word “first” is obviously contrasted with the
word “new.” The old or the “first heaven and the first earth (21:1)” is being
superseded by the “second” or the “new heaven and a new earth (21:1).” All “the
former things (21:4)” are passed away, and God creates “all things new (21:5).”
Kline explains,
“In this passage to be “first” means to belong to the order of the
present world which is passing away. Prōtos does not merely mark the present world as the first in a series of
worlds and certainly not as the first in a series of worlds all of the same
kind. On the contrary, it characterizes this world as different in kind from
the “new” world. It signifies that the present world stands in contrast to the
new world order of the consummation which will abide forever.”[2]
Thus, in
Revelation 21, “first” (Prōtos)
heaven or the first earth does not mean the first in a series of the same kind.
The “old” fallen world and creation is contrasted with the “second” or the new,
redeemed heaven and earth. The “first” order of things is passed away, and the
“second” order is ushered in. Redeemed creation is contrasted with the
corrupted, fallen world. They are clearly not of the same kind.
The same contrast
is seen in Revelation 20:4-6. The “second death (20:6)” is not physical death
in the same sense as the bodily death we encounter on earth. The “first death,”
which is implied by the term “second death,” is what we commonly call death in
a secular, non-spiritual sense. The “second death,” however, is eternal
destruction in the lake of fire (20:14-15). Again, the two deaths are not of
the same kind.
In Revelation
21:1ff, the term “second” is used as an alternative to “new,” while the “old”
or “former things (21:4)” are referred to as “first.” The contrast is obvious:
the “second” or “new” serves as an antithesis to the “first” or “old.”
Likewise, the second death in 20:6 is distinguished from the first death, which
belongs to the order of first things. It is also the first death that leads to
the first resurrection for the saints, but the second death leads to eternal
destruction for unbelievers. “Whatever accounts for the preference for “first”
over “old” in describing the present world, the use of “first” naturally led to
the use of “second” alongside “new” for the future world, particularly for the
future reality of eternal death for which the term “new” with its positive
redemptive overtones would be inappropriate.”[3]
Evidently, the terms “first” and “second” do not refer to sequence but
contrast.
The weakness in
premillennial exegesis becomes apparent when we consider the contrast between
“first” and “second.” Kline elaborates:
“In this antithetical pairing of first death (an expression virtually
contained in verse 4) and “second death” (v. 8), Revelation 21 confronts us
with the same idiom that we find in Revelation 20 in “the first resurrection”
(vss. 5, 6) and the second resurrection (an expression implicit in this chapter).
The arbitrariness of the customary premillennial insistence that “the first
resurrection” must be a bodily rising from the grave if the second resurrection
is such is exposed by the inconsistent recognition by premillennial exegesis
that, although the first death is the loss of physical life, “the second death”
is death of a different kind, death in a metaphorical rather than literal,
physical sense.”[4]
Although
premillennialists insist that the two resurrections (20:4, 5) are bodily
resurrections, they are forced to concede that the two deaths are not the same
kind of death. The “first death” is bodily, physical death, while the “second
death” is a metaphorical description of eternal torment.
Kline then
proceeds to examine similar usages of the ordinal “first” in the New Testament,
and how it serves to distinguish between the old and the new. Kline proposes
that “in the Book of Hebrews the terms “first” and “new” are used to
distinguish the Mosaic and the Messianic administrations of God’s redemptive
covenant (cf. 8:7, 8, 13; 9:1, 15, 18; 10:9).”[5]
In Hebrews 10:9,
the new covenant is also called the “second.” Within the context of Hebrews,
the Mosaic economy of God’s redemptive covenant is contrasted with the Messianic
administration of the same covenant of grace via the terms “first” and
“second.” This usage of “first” in the Book of Hebrews, which refers to the old
covenant, does not constitute a sequential chronology, but rather serves as a
contrast to the second or new covenant. In the context of Hebrews, Kline
explains that “although the term “second” appears along with “new,” it is “new”
that predominates as the counterpart to “first.” Accordingly, the significance
of “first” in this context is not so much priority in a series but opposition
to the idea of “new.” Prōtos thus functions here as an equivalent for “old,”
our traditional designation for the Mosaic covenant.”[6]
In both Revelation
21 and Hebrews, the term “first” denotes the order of things which passes away.
“In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which
decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away (Heb. 8:13).” Kline points out
that “in Hebrews as in Revelation 21 prōtos is used for the provisional and transient stage in contrast to that
which is consummative, final, and enduring.”[7]
Paul’s usage of
the word “first” in 1 Corinthians 15:45-50 on the theme of resurrection
provides another example of such a contrast. The “first man Adam (1 Cor.
15:45)” is contrasted with “the last Adam.” “The “first man Adam” (v. 45; cf.
vv. 46f) is not first in the sense of heading an indefinite series of Adams but first in the antithetically qualitative sense
of being counterpart to the “last Adam” (v. 45).”[8]
The last Adam,
likewise, is not the last in a series of similar “Adams .”
The first Adam is earthly, the second Adam is Christ from heaven (1 Cor.
15:47). Adam stands at the head of the human race, while Christ is the head of
all the redeemed. In Adam we die, but in Christ we live. Thus, the first Adam
does not mean the first in a series of Adams .
The ordinal “first (prōtos),” in the
context of 1 Corinthians 15, is used to provide a contrast between two
different kinds of Adams : the first Adam and
the last Adam, who is Christ. “By eliminating the thought of any intermediate
Adams between the “first” and “last” Adams, the term “second” here, as in the
Hebrews and Revelation 21 passages, underscores the binary (as over against
indefinitely seriatim) framework within which prōtos is functioning and derives its specific meaning.”[9]
From our study of
the word “first” in Revelation 21, the Book of Hebrews, and 1 Corinthians 15,
it becomes apparent that prōtos
does not convey an idea of priority or preeminence, but rather provides a
contrast and antithesis. The antithetical function of prōtos highlights the difference in kinds, rather than
having any sequential connotations. Kline writes, “Like Revelation 21, Hebrews
uses “first” for an historical stage that passes away. Like Revelation 21, Paul
uses “first” and its opposite in 1 Cor 15 for a two-fold structure
comprehensive of cosmic history. In none of these passages does prōtos function as a mere ordinal in a simple
process of counting objects identical in kind. In fact, precisely the reverse
is true in all three passages; in each case it is a matter of different kinds,
indeed, of polar opposites.”[10]
With this meaning
of prōtos in mind, and considering the overarching
thematic continuity between Revelation 20 and 21, it is essential that exegetes
interpret the ordinal first in 20:4-6 according to its usage in chapter 21. We
must also consider the contrast between the “first resurrection” and the
“second death” found in verses 5b and 6a: “This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the
second death hath no power.” Kline further suggests that “the usage of prōtos in the first-(second) resurrection pattern
must be the same as the usage of prōtos in
the intertwined (first)-second death pattern.”[11]
In light of the
aforementioned exegetical considerations, Kline elucidates:
“‘The first resurrection” is not, therefore, the earliest in a series
of resurrections of the same kind, not the first of two (or more) bodily
resurrections. The antithetical usage of prōtos in this context requires a conclusion diametrically
opposite to the customary premillennial assumption. If the second resurrection
is a bodily resurrection, the first resurrection must be a non-bodily
resurrection.”[12]
Kline continues, “What
then is meant by “the first resurrection”? The answer must certainly be sought
in terms of the striking paradoxical schema of which the expression is an
integral part. In this arrangement two binary patterns are combined into a
complex double pattern with antithesis between the parts within each pair
(i.e., the first-new contrast) and also between the two pairs themselves, the one
having to do with death and the other with resurrection.”[13]
Thus, two binary
patterns are presented by John in his vision (20:4-6): the first-(second)
resurrection pattern and the (first)-second death pattern. This double pattern
provides an antithesis within itself, illustrating the fact that the just shall
receive the first resurrection, and that the unjust shall ultimately be
condemned to the second death. Within each binary pattern, the spiritual and
physical realities are contrasted further. The (first)-second death pattern
provides contrast between physical death and eternal, spiritual death. In like
manner, we expect the first-(second) resurrection pattern to present a similar
contrast.
Kline’s exegesis
leads to an inevitable conclusion - the first resurrection refers not to a
bodily resurrection, but a spiritual one. He writes:
“The proper decipherment of “the first resurrection” in the
interlocking schema of first-(second) resurrection and (first)-second death is
now obvious enough. Just as the resurrection of the unjust is paradoxically
identified as “the second death” so the death of the Christian is paradoxically
identified as “the first resurrection.” John sees the Christian dead (v. 4).
The real meaning of their passage from earthly life is to be found in the state
to which it leads them. And John sees the Christian dead living and reigning
with Christ (vv. 4, 6); unveiled before the seer is the royal-priestly life on
the heavenly side of the Christian’s earthly death. Hence the use of the paradoxical
metaphor of “the first resurrection” (vv. 5f) for the death of the faithful
believer. What for others is the first death is for the Christian a veritable
resurrection!”[14]
In summary, the
“first resurrection” of Revelation 20:4-6 is a spiritual resurrection. When
believers die physically, they are translated to heaven in their intermediate
state. There, they will reign with Christ for a thousand years, which is
symbolic for a complete, yet indeterminate period of time. “The believing dead
shall worship God and Christ as priests and shall reign with Christ as kings”
during the entire millennium.[15]
There in heaven, the believing dead shall await the Second Advent of Christ,
the physical resurrection of their bodies (i.e. the second resurrection), and the
final judgment of the living and the dead.
Conclusion
The transition
from physical death to blessedness and life with Christ in heaven is termed the
“first resurrection.” “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 (20:6).”
Therefore, those
who experience the first resurrection shall not suffer the second death. They
shall be raised in the second (bodily) resurrection unto glory and eternal
life. However, unbelievers who die (first death) shall be condemned to the
second death. They shall be resurrected at the end of the age unto eternal
damnation and torment in the lake of fire.
Referring to the
first and second resurrection of the saints as two stages of blessedness, Ernst
Hengstenberg comments:
“The Apocalypse invariably points to a double stage of blessedness -
the one awaiting believers immediately after their departure out of this life;
the other, what they are to receive when they enter the new Jerusalem. . . . There can be no doubt, that by the first
resurrection we are here primarily to understand that first stage of
blessedness. In so understanding it, we abide in unison with the Apocalypse
and the whole of the other books of the New Testament. On the other hand, if we
understand by the first resurrection a resurrection in the literal sense - if,
accordingly, we suppose that the first resurrection has respect to one part of men, the second to another -
we then arrive at a doctrine which in no other part of Scripture finds a ground
of support, which, on the contrary, is everywhere explicitly opposed. Now, the
only thing which can raise any doubt regarding the most natural and obvious
view, is that the resurrection is
here spoken of. This expression appears only to suit the heavenly state of
blessedness. But when John denotes the two stages by the same name in order to
make them known as the component parts of the same salvation, and only
distinguishes them, the one as the first, the other as the second resurrection,
there must of necessity in the one case attach to the term a certain want of
literality. This want is all but expressly indicated by the phrase “first resurrection.” Two resurrections, in
the proper sense, are not conceivable - if we would not abandon the ground of
Scripture, which nowhere knows of anything but a general resurrection.”[16]
The amillennial
understanding of the “first resurrection” negates any apparent contradiction
with the rest of New Testament eschatology. Consistent with the teaching of a
general resurrection and a final judgment associated with the Parousia of Christ, such an
understanding of Revelation 20:4-6 supports the eschatological schema laid out
in antecedent Scripture. It takes into account the Reformed principle of the
analogy of faith, the genre of John’s apocalypse, and the evidence for
recapitulation in Revelation 20. Finally, the amillennial understanding
provides great comfort for those who have lost their loved ones in the Lord. For
their reign with Christ begins with the “first resurrection,” for “blessed are
the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth (Rev. 14:13).”[17]
References:
[1] Meredith Kline, “The First Resurrection,” Westminster
[2] Ibid., 366-367.
[3] Ibid., 367.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 368.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., 369.
[11] Ibid., 370.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., 371.
[15] Hoekema, The
Bible and the Future, 237.
[16] Hengstenberg, The Revelation of St. John
[17] For further study, see Meredith Kline, “The
First Resurrection: A Reaffirmation,” Westminster
Theological Journal 39, no. 1 (1976): 110-119; Phillip Edgcumbe Hughes, “The First Resurrection: Another
Interpretation,” Westminster
Theological Journal 39, no. 2 (1977): 316-319; Norman Shepherd, “The Resurrections of Revelation 20,” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no.
1 (1974): 35-45; James Hughes, “Revelation 20:1-6 and the Question of the
Millennium,” Westminster
Theological Journal 35, no. 3 (1973): 282-303; Paul A. Rainbow, “Millennium as Metaphor in John’s Apocalypse,”
Westminster Theological Journal 58,
no. 2 (1996): 210-221.
No comments:
Post a Comment