First Resurrection Debate Regarding Revelation 20


Blume's Second Rebuttal

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


Brother Bobby Boland,

Thank-you for your gracious attitude, Bro. Boland, as well, in your propositions to me. I appreciate this discussion very much.

In Clarification of the first point made to you, brother Boland, when I mentioned that you contradicted yourself concerning the 1000 years issue, I should have said you contradict your method of determining what is physical and what is not, from what I understand of your method so far. But this second proposition from you has clarified that. You state the vision is entirely symbolic, but the "This is" statement is not.

You claim my take on a resurrection at the great white throne is without foundation, or at least I did not prove it to be true. I did state, if you read my first rebuttal again, that the rest of the dead will live again after the thousand years. This is when the great white throne occurs. That refers to resurrection.

Revelation 20:5a KJV But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished...

That is resurrection at the end of the thousand years.

And I did not simply affirm a bodily resurrection at the white throne judgment in the manner you did with the first resurrection without proof. I did supply proof. Let me repeat it and clarify it. I said that my methodology requires me to look elsewhere in the Bible to determine the nature of this restoration of life for the "rest of the dead", or this "resurrection". And I said that we know from 1 Cor 15 that Christ resurrected, and that others will at the end when He comes. Based upon that, we know there is a physical resurrection. in our future. The question is whether or not that one is the "first resurrection" or the resurrection in which the "rest of the dead" live again after the thousand years.

Since we know Christ resurrected as the firstfruits, we know by that term's implication there is another one to follow. At least one more. And we find no other resurrection mentioned in 1 Cor 15 except Christ's and the one at the end. Resurrection is noted in Romans 6 as well. But it is a spiritual one, albeit actual and literal. And while we know we were not physically resurrected when Christ was, Romans 6 informs us we were spiritually resurrected when Christ was upon our individual salvation. Therefore, looking back to Revelation 20, we find two resurrections. the first one which occurred in the context involving the ones beheaded for not receiving the mark, and the one at the end of the thousand years when the "rest of the dead" live again. So if the rest of the Bible, 1 Cor 15, speaks of only Christ's resurrection and one more at the end when He comes, and yet Revelation 20 mentions a "first resurrection" involving people beheaded, followed by one more after the thousand years, we must reconcile this thought of the first resurrection in rev 20 with the first one mentioned in 1 Cor 15. Only two are mentioned in each case. And I conclude that Romans 6 supplies the answer making the first resurrection a spiritual one.

You claim I assume the resurrection can be non-somatic. (I am learning new words! Thanks!). However, it is not an assumption. I base it as a fact based upon Romans 6.

At any rate I am not being unfair in assuming a resurrection at the white throne, because, as I said, Rev 20:5 tells us there is one.

I did not say that it is unwarranted to say that bodies are involved in the first resurrection simply because bodies are not mentioned, as you claim. I said neither your assertion of bodies nor my assertion of no bodies are not proven either way. I then stated we must look to the rest of the Bible for indication to clarify the position.

Here are my exact words (note the highlighted section):

"We read of the first resurrection. We are not told explicitly whether it is bodily or not. We do read references to SOULS, and not bodies, though. And you claimed our basic understanding of SOUL is a determining factor here, although you did not intend to enter into the basic understanding of that as you claimed you would. Therefore, I again stand upon 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and state that spirit, soul and body comprises each human being, making them tripartite. And although this reference of SOUL could refer to the entire being, as you have indicated in other scriptures it can, we cannot stand on either of our understandings of the SOUL. We must reference other scriptures dealing with the topic of resurrection."

You claimed that I did not show how souls do not refer to the entire person in this chapter. I did show it! I proceeded to say that the first resurrection is contrasted with the second death. And since the second death is spiritual, the first resurrection must be spiritual.

You asked if I made a point about Rev 19 when I referenced 2 Samuel 22. Yes I did. And I do believe the coming in Rev 19 is not visible. I thought my words were clear enough for you to get my point. Sorry if they were not. I am saying that the bible states the Lord coming on wings of the wind, riding cherubims, very similarly to the poetic picture we read about in Rev 19 where the Lord rides a white horse with banners across his thigh, etc, and indicated that such pictures are shown to be invisible comings, based upon 2 Samuel 22. In short, the text of the Lord "coming" does not necessarily mean it must be visible. Is there a visible coming of the Lord in our future? Yes indeed! But Rev 19 is not it.

Again, my methodology kicks into play here. We cannot conclude anything from Revelation 19 about the coming of the Lord. It merely reflects what the rest of the bible explicitly teaches.

But you are correct in stating I need to prove why Rev 19 is not the physical coming we all look forward to.

Basing Revelation on the rest of what is explicitly taught in the Bible, causes me to assess all the references to the coming of the Lord. And I personally believe many references regard 70 AD, due to the context of the references. Matthew 24, for example, in light of the words in Matthew 21:40. And Matthew 16:28 along with Matthew 10:23. These all refer to the lifetimes of the people involved. And all of that in light of the judgement Jerusalem would experience, as related to us in the latter half of Matthew 23, knowing it is wrath meted forth due to the cursings mentioned in Deuteronomy's last few chapters, and knowing revelation's judgments parallel all these cursings, lets me know that a return of the Lord in Revelation amidst those wrathful elements is the one referred to in these references in the New Testament I just listed.

Not all references to His coming regard the visible one to come. And yet there is a visible one to come. And so I also put that into consideration as I base information provided in Revelation upon this understanding, and realize the only place the visible coming fits is just before the great white throne, since a resurrection occurs then. We know a resurrection occurs at His coming. 1 Cor 15:23.

You question my assertion that Revelation 20 does not follow chapter 19 chronologically. I say this because we know there are chapters in Revelation that do not chronologically follow the preceding ones. And I agree it must be proven that this example does not as well. Therefore I base these thoughts upon the idea that, once again, Revelation only can reflect what the Bible explicitly teaches. In other words, I cannot find something unique in Revelation and claim it as doctrine, that is not found in the rest of the Bible, because nothing in Revelation is explicit teaching. And since the argument I supplied above indicated why I believe Revelation 19's coming of the Lord is not visible, it also shows how Rev 19 cannot be chronologically preceding Revelation 20. In short, same argument..

You then claimed I missed the thought you proposed that the vision is symbolic, but the reference to resurrection is not. Thank-you for repeating your note. So, then, you believe the entire vision is symbolic. That means you believe the vision of the city is entirely symbolic as well. I need to know this because it affects my overall outlook on your position, obviously.

You claimed "If the second death is spiritual, it does not follow that the first resurrection must of necessity be spiritual." I disagree. The contrast is not between the first and second resurrection, but the first resurrection and second death. To answer this more perfectly, let me refer to the next point you present. You said Jesus refutes this whole argument by Christ speaking the words of Matthew 10:8 regarding body and soul being cast into hell. Very good reference! However, first of all, it does distinguish body and soul in that verse, and you claim this is speaking directly about our issue in Revelation 20. Could it be that the SOUL distinguished from the body in that verse, dealing with the same issue of rev 20, might have bearing on the idea of SOUL distinguished in Revelation's first resurrection?

But to your point. There is a resurrection of the body before the great white throne. And you agree Christ's words refer to the second death. However, did the body die in the second death or not? I suggest not. The first death is obviously preceding the second death. And these bodies that are cast into the lake of fire, as you correctly have revealed (!!), did not die in the second death. In fact, I claim they remain animate! The bodies "died" in the first death that occurred giving demand for a resurrection to raise them to the white throne judgment, that they might live again. It is only appointed unto man once to die. And the physical death is implied in that statement. So if the people died in the preceding death, then it is not a death of the body in the second death, although the body is destroyed. But it must be is a spiritual death. You need to address the idea of the body dying. yes, there is a physical element involved in the second death, but the physical element is not described as dying in this second death, for it already died once beforehand. And since the people in the first resurrection do not taste of the second death, my assertion of this interpretation is confirmed, as the rest of the Bible states that the souls who are saved will not suffer the lake of fire. And the white throne judgment context reads that the ones whose names are not in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire. John 5:24-25 mentions a resurrection of salvation, not including any sinners. AND it reflects perfectly the same thought presented in revelation concerning the first resurrection.

John 5:24 KJV Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

These folks shall not comer into condemnation. Those in the first resurrection of Rev 20 shall not taste of the second death. I propose that the resurrection noted in John 5 is spiritual and is salvation, and the condemnation noted there is the second death noted in Revelation 20. As I said, the same words describing this resurrection in John 5:24-25 mirrors words describing salvation.

John 3:16 KJV For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:36 KJV He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

I can go on and on.

In order to prove the first resurrection is physical, you proceed to quote the following.

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

You agree we cannot determine that there is a time delay between the two, nor can we determine there is NOT a time delay between the two. But you state there are two resurrections mentioned here.

First of all, you failed to note a resurrection in John 5:24-25.

John 5:24-26 KJV Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (25) Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. (26) For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

This immediately is stated before the resurrection issue in verses 28 and 29. So I state that if there are two resurrections in verses 28-29, then this makes three resurrections altogether, since verses 24-26 is a resurrection as well. So without taking this into consideration, I believe you do harm to your own understanding.

Revelation's information can only reflect what is stated in the teaching of the bible. John 5 is one example of explicit teaching. And so Revelation 20 must fit with this picture as well as other teachings noted in scripture. Since you admitted we cannot determine if the two resurrections in verses 28-29 occur at the same time or not, I claim they do. I do so on the basis of the information given about the preceding resurrection in verses 24-25. And, also, when comparing that, I look to 1 Corinthians 15 as you do. Your only void in this issue is the John 5:24-25. I agree the second instance of reference to resurrection in verses 28-29 is physical. The reference to "from the graves" makes that clear, as you agree.

You then claim 1 Cor 15 makes no reference to the resurrection of the damned, and I agree. However, that does not mean there is no simultaneous resurrection of the damned when the one of 1 Cor 15, at the time of the end, occurs. Notice, there is a resurrection when Christ comes.

1 Corinthians 15:23 KJV But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Nobody but the ones at His resurrection are said to have resurrected physically in this verse.

But the following verse indicates the resurrections you noted in John 5:28-29 are actually considered ONE resurrection.

Acts 24:15 KJV And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Both the just and unjust are considered to take part in one resurrection. It is simply "a resurrection of the dead". Both just and unjust folks are "dead" in this sense. So it is one resurrection. And I claim it is one physical resurrection, because we know the unjust do not experience a spiritual resurrection of life, if there is a spiritual resurrection. And so if the resurrection when Christ comes involves our physical bodies being resurrected, then that must be the time the unjust are also resurrected. Hence, the resurrection in John 5:28-29 is a single resurrection.

The people who did good are the just, and the people who did evil are the unjust, and are both in one resurrection "of the dead". You did not show how the resurrection in John 24-26 is not a spiritual one. I hope you address this point. It will have great bearing on our discussion.

And so, the first resurrection involving only the saved people is the spiritual one as per John 5:24-26. Then follows John 5:28-29, comprised of both life and damnation, for the just and unjust noted in Acts 24:15. And that is one resurrection of the dead. Though the resurrection of life and resurrection of damnation appears as two resurrections, Acts 24:15 notes them to be both comprised of the resurrection of the dead. Only physically do we understand the saints to be dead, while they are spiritually alive. Even if a saint was physically dead, the saint is still spiritually alive in the sense of having salvation.

John 11:26 KJV And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

And since revelation 20's resurrection when the rest of the dead live again occurs at the time of the great white throne, it fits perfectly. I propose that my understanding of this picture is more correct seeing I deal with John 5:24-26, and Acts 24:15, which you do not address and incorporate into your picture, which disproves your thoughts.

1 Corinthians 15 states the end occurs when Christ returns and resurrects the saints. And although the wicked are not mentioned in this context, they are mentioned in Acts 24:15 which includes both resurrections of the just and unjust in one single resurrection of the dead. So the first resurrection is spiritual and the second is physical, based upon the very implication of Acts 24:15. He says there is not another resurrection of dead saints before this. We read Acts state nothing about a possible additional resurrection outside the single one both for saints and sinners.

You quote 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 to support your claim. However, nothing violates my rebuttal to you in those verses. I claim those verses describe the resurrection of the just as in Acts 24:15, when Acts 24:15 adds the resurrection of the unjust also occurs. But then you refer to 2 Thess 1:6-10. I propose this is not the resurrection whatsoever. Nothing is said about resurrection. And, on the contrary, we only read about the Thessalonians suffering in their day from persecution, and Christ's coming in wrath against the persecutors which would be impossible if this coming is in our future. I proclaim this coming to be the wrath noted in 70 AD. How would the coming of the Lord in our future recompense tribulation to those who troubled the Thessalonians? We know everyone shall suffer hellfire, however, when Jesus comes in our future, there will be judgment upon people as well as hell to follow. And it would be irrelevant for the Lord to tell the Thessalonians that the fiery wrath poured out in the earth upon people, as well as hell to follow, will fall upon people in our day or our future, while discussing their ancient persecutors who would get punishment by only hellfire, if you are correct.

You claim 2 Thess 1 describes Revelation 19. And I agree! But I am saying both 2 Thess 1 and Rev 19 concern the wrath of God in 70 AD. I claim you confuse the coming of the Lord in Rev 19 as that in our future, when that in our future is actually noted in 1 Cor 15 and Revelation 20's resurrection at the great white throne.

Does the Lord come when the rest of the dead live again? I must ask this of you before you proceed, because it has bearing on a thought that you might have two second comings.

You then state, "I would like brother Blume to address that point. How is it that we have a statement of a thousand years, and yet it is not to represent any time at all? Obviously, it must represent something."

The thousand years is noted in many other places, indicating simply a very long time.

Psa 50:10
(10) For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

Deu 7:9
(9) Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

1Ch 16:15
(15) Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;

This is simply a familiar term used often in biblical poetic language of a very large number. Ray Strange notably stated that thousand simply indicates an incomprehensible number. He said, "Your mind cannot conceive of a thousand years no more than it can a jillion but only as an abstract concept." I agree.

You finally stated, "There is no verse anywhere that says 'all the dead are resurrected at His coming.'" I think Acts 24:15 is the verse you think did not exist.