First Resurrection Debate Regarding Revelation 20

Bobby Boland's First Affirmation

The following is a debate between myself and a brother, Bobby Boland, on an Apostolic discussion board. Bobby Boland begins the debate with the following proposal. My response is in the page following this one, which you can access but clicking the bottom arrow button. The affirmations by Bobby Boland and rebuttals by myself, Mike Blume, are posted on this website alternately.

Proposition : The Bible teaches that the First Resurrection spoken of in Revelation ch. 20 is to be a literal, bodily resurrection of regenerated persons, which is to precede the period known as "the thousand years", which period shall culminate in the general resurrection of all mankind and the final judgement.

affirm - Bobby Boland
deny - Mike Blume

Definitions : The Bible - the 66 books known as the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.
Teaches - sets forth as something to be believed by the church
Literal - actual, not a metaphor or allegory, but in reality
Bodily - possessing the qualities of form, substance, reality, as the resurrected body of Jesus for example
Resurrection - the raising of the dead from death to life and including the change from mortal to immortal. The resurrection is no mere resuscitation of the body, but includes the idea of change so that the body thus raised is no longer subject to corruption or decay etc.
Regenerated - haveing believed the gospel (having repented, been baptised for the remission of sins in Jesus name, and having received the regenerating and sanctifying gift of the Holy Ghost, with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues)
Thousand years - by the thousand years, it is not necessary to assume an exact 1000 solar or calendar years. Although it may in fact be 1000 years, it may be more or less. But one thing is certain, the idea is expressed that it is a period of time, not a mere instant or moment, but a long period of time.

There are those who say that the Revelation is symbolical, and therefore the thousand years are symbolical, the first resurrection is symbolical, etc. However, this is not true. The Revelation contains symbols, perhaps more than most other tbooks of the Bible. That much is certainly true. However, not every word or phrase ro statement in the Revelation is symbolic, requiring a metaphorical or allegorical interpretation.

We must therefore keep in mind the principle stated previously, that when a symbol or vision is given an explanation in Scripture, that explanation is the proper and correct explanation, and we need look no further and invent our own speculative interpretations. When Scripture says "this vision or this symbol means thus and so", then thus and so is its meaning.

Rev 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

Scripture tells us that the vision of the many waters that John saw "are peoples" etc. We can believe the Scripture, and say that the many waters are interpreted to mean many peoples etc. There is no warrant whatsoever for suggesting that the peoples, etc are themselves symbolical of something else. The Scripture interprets this vision that John had of many waters, and we can believe the Scripture's own interpretation.

Now for the disputed text.

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 and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.

Rev 20:6 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.

Here John "sees" in his visions thrones, and "they" (obviously some people) sitting on them, and judgement being given to them. The word "and" follows, and then the phrase "the souls of them" etc. This can and obviously should be translated "even", that is he sees these people, and says "even the souls of them that were beheaded" etc. But even if we take this word to mean "and" and not "even", still he continues to "see" these souls who had not taken the mark nor worshipped the beast's image, etc. He says "and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years".

This constitutes the vision. We know this is his vision for he says "I saw". But then he says "This is the first resurrection". This is an explicit statement that the things he is seeing are to be understood as a vision of the first resurrection. There is absolutely no sound reason for saying that the phrase "this is the first resurrection" is to be taken symbolically, meaning something else. Rather we are to understand the phrase "this is the first resurrection" as an explanation or interpretation of the preceding vision of the "thrones, souls, etc". Therefore there is to be a first resurrection, it is a reality. The symbol is not "the first resurrection", as though that represents something else, but rather the "symbol" is the things John saw, and "this is the first resurrection" is the Divinely inspired interpretation of that vision.

Rev 19 depicts in symbolic form the advent of the Lord. We can easily see that the horses and the sword proceedeing out of his mouth etc are symbolical. But would anyone claim that the advent of th eLord is a symbol? I hope not. There will be a literal return of the Lord, and rev 19 describes this in visionary form. The wicked armies of the beast and its allies are said to be destroyed, we can believe that. It also says afterward that the beast is cast into the lake of fire. The "lake" of fire is a symbol of God's Judgement, referred to elsewhere as "gehenna". But that there is a real fiery judgement no one will deny. Also, the beast and false prophet being thrown into this lake is a vision depicting the destruction and punishment of the beast and false prophet. Their punishment itself is not symbolic of something else.

Then Rev 20 commences with the vision of seeing dead saints on thrones, living again and ruling with Christ a thousand years. And it is explicitly said "this is the first resurrection". Therefore, although the resurrected saints may not actually sit on real literal thrones for a real literal thousand years, as though that is allthey are doing for this period, nevertheless it is true they shall RULE and they shall LIVE, and this is the first resurrection.

The first resurrection is contrasted with the second death. The second death is a literal punishment, a literal event. The first resurrection is also a literal event. The vision of seeing people thrown into a lake burning with sulfur and fire, is a vision, a symbol, which is further explained as "this is the second death". So we know there is a real, second death, depicted in visionary form as people being cast into a lake or pool burning with sulfur and fire. The pool and the people being "cast" into the lake is visionary, symbolical, but the truth this vision represents is literal - those who are not saved will endure the second death, the fire of gehenna, the everlasting punishment of the wicked.

So too, the first resurrection is a literal event, depicted in symbolic form. This is the point that must be understood - Rev 20 does not depict an event in symbolic form as the first resurrection, but depicts the first resurrection in symbolical form, just as it does not depict an event in symbolical form as the second death, but depicts the second death in symbolical form. In other words, the phrase "this si the second death" is no symbol, and so likewise the phrase "this is the first resurrection" is no symbol either. When John says "this is the second death", we can accept that as the inspired interpretation of the scene he saw. And so likewise, when he says "this is the first resurrection", we can accept that as the divinely inspired interpretation of the events he saw.

Another point I'd like to make is that there is a contrast between a first resurrection and a second death. The second death is punishment given to those who had been resurrected, all agree with that. So why is it so hard to agree that there is a first resurrection? If there is a first resurrection, there must be a second resurrection, just as if there is a second death, there must be a first death. The first death is just as real as the second death, and therefore the first resurrection is just as real as the second.

There is nothing in this or any other text that requires the first resurrection itself to be a metaphor for something else. The text itself indicates very strongly that there is a literal first resurrection of the righteous dead upon Christ's return to destroy earthly governments.

I submit this as my first affirmative, and I wait with anticipation at a rebuttal by brother Blume. I encourage you, brother, to take up the poiints I have made, and show how they are not true, do not follow, or are somehow are inconsistent or that they do not make the case I believe they make, and I will try my best to respond to your points.

But I think you will have to prove that the literal method of interpretation is flawed, that when Scripture tells us that a vision just described is to be understood as thus and so, that thus and so is also a metaphor of something else, and that the passage in Rev 20 CANNOT depict a bodily resurrection of the righteous upon the return of Christ (which was described in ch 19).