Who are "the rest of the dead?"

[Guest]

I'm really having trouble understanding Rev 20:5-6.

John writes, "But the rest of the dead..." This language suggests to me that he has already discussed some of the dead, and is now referring to the remainder of this same class. In verse 4 there is a reference to those martyred - and so they might be considered the first set of dead. Yet, they aren't dead - they are living and reigning with Christ.

If "the rest of the dead" refers to the wicked dead, then how can it be said that they are taking part in the "first resurrection," which is described as blessed and holy (vs 6)? Or, does the latter part of vs 5 not refer to this same group of dead?

If "the rest of the dead" refers to the living saints, then why does it say that they do not live until the end of the one thousand years?

I've listened to Steve's lectures on this topic so many times that I now hear him in my sleep - making no rest for the brain- dead.

So ... who are these that John writes about?

peace,

dane

[Guest]

I am still wading through all of the responses that I've received from this wild bunch of eschatological-minded people But, I've been doing a lot of thinking and re-thinking on the passages in question, and I think that I've now come up with my own theory ...

In Rev 20:5 John talks about "the rest of the dead.." My question was: who are these dead?

In verse 4 John describes seeing "the souls of those ...beheaded." So, verse 5 cannot be describing these same martyrs. It would seem to stand to reason, therefore, that in vs 5 he must be referring to those believers who were not martyred, or, the class of the unrighteous dead.

If it is the latter group - the unrighteous - then the problem begins with the remaining section of vs 5, which reads "this is the first resurrection." Obviously it would be difficult to describe the unrighteous as "blessed and holy" - as John does in vs 6.

The remaining option would be that John is referring to the un-martyred believer. That, however, has its own problems. First, the verse would then suggest that the un-righteous believer does not "live" or "live again" until the end of the millennium. Those who believe in soul-sleep might agree. However, this would mean that there is a special class of righteous dead. Those who have died as martyrs get to live and reign with Christ, along with the living believer. Those who might have lived very faithful lives - perhaps even tortured for their faith - yet did not die from those injuries - do not get to live and reign with Christ. That does not make any good scriptural sense to me.

So, I'm back to option # 1: that "the rest of the dead" refer to the unrighteous dead. If I separate the first part of vs 5 from the last part of vs 5, I find that it does not cause any theological conflict to believe that this is the case. Therefore, perhaps what is happening is that John is speaking parenthetically when he writes about "the rest of the dead."

It might be seen this way: John's discussion is about the righteous dead in vs 4. He then breaks momentarily to address the future of the unrighteous dead in the beginning of vs 5 - only to return to the state of the righteous dead in the latter part of vs 5.

Understanding it this way seems to jive with what Jesus said about the unrighteous dead being brought back for judgment (see John 5:25).

Since some of the prophets seem to write parenthetically from time to time (see Dan. 6:8-12), I believe it is possible to consider this theory.

Anyway ... that's what I have come up with for now. Seems to make sense to me, but I'm open to alternative views ...

peace,

dane

[_Paidion]

Also I saw the beings of those who had been hatcheted because of their witness to Jesus and the word of God, and who did not worship the beast or its image and had not received its stamp on their foreheads or their hands. They lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Rev 20:4

From the point of view of John's vision, those who had not received the mark of the beast were dead, but they came to life. This is group 1 of persons who were among the dead. The "rest of the dead" refers to those who died but did not belong to that group.

Group 2: The rest of the dead did not live until the thousand years were ended. Rev 20:5a

These are the ones who did receive the mark of the beast.

The first resurrection itself! Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Over these the second death has no authority, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him a thousand years. Rev 20:5b,6

You may question my translation of 5b. The words are "autā hā anastasis hā prōtā"

"autā" is in the predicate position and is probably an adjectival intensive. I am not sure why the translators use the word "this" --- the word is not used in that way. A second use of the word is as a personal pronoun, obviously not the case. A third use is as an identical adjecive. But that is normally used in the attributive position.

I think that if the second resurrection is a physical resurrection, so is the first. I see the first as occuring when Jesus returns. Then he and the resurrected saints rule on earth a thousand years. After that the rest of the dead are resurrected.

John wrote that if anyone's name was not found in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire. That statement seems to imply that some of those in the second resurrection would have their names in the book of life.

[Guest]

I see the first resurrection as a "spiritual one"- either referring to believers when they first come to Christ or perhaps when they die and in their spirit enter the presence of Christ- according to this view it would be something that began happening in the 1st Century with the martyrs but continues to this day. Since I see the period we are in now as the Millenium, then that means that those of us who have been "brought to life" in Christ (either living or dead) are reigning with Him now in the kingdom.

The second resurrection at the end of Rev. 20 would then be the final, physical resurrection of everyone- those made righteous and the wicked.

[_Paidion]

It would seem strange in any context to use "first" and "second" with a referent which differed in meaning.

Suppose a man spoke of his "first wife" and of his "second wife". Then you found out that his "first wife" was simply a woman with whom he had a spiritual relationship, and but with his "second wife", he had a physical relationship. Wouldn't it be odd to use the word "wife" for both cases?

I think it is equally odd to use the word "resurrection" in "first resurrection" and "second resurrection" in quite different ways, one a "spiritual coming to life" and the other a "physical coming to life".

[Guest]

Respectfully (of course ) I disagree.

One could just as easily argue that it's precisely because they are different that John distinguishes them as first and second. Just as physical death and spiritual death are different (first and second death), spiritual and physical resurrection can be different as well.

I seem to recall preterist authors who have more to say on this. I'll see if I can dig up some more. Also, I think N.T. Wright does a good job discussing different definitions of resurrection in the Jewish worldview of the 1st Century.

[Guest]

OK,

I see that Steve describes a similar view in Revelation: 4 Views (on page 486 and 470), describing from the amillenial perspective that Scripture elsewhere only teaches one physical resurrection, and that Scripture frequently employs resurrection-type language to describe the spiritual 'rising to life' that we have when we meet Christ.

NT Wright has this to say (Resurrection of the Son of God, pages 472-475):

"What is the first resurrection?... It seems likely that we are faced here with a radical innovation: a use of the word resurrection to mean a coming-to-life in a sense other than, and prior to, that of the final bodily raising."

He goes on to point out some of the same parallels in Scripture where we are spoken of as already sharing in Christ's resurrection in our spirit that Steve does.

[Guest]

It would seem strange in any context to use "first" and "second" with a referent which differed in meaning.

Suppose a man spoke of his "first wife" and of his "second wife". Then you found out that his "first wife" was simply a woman with whom he had a spiritual relationship, and but with his "second wife", he had a physical relationship. Wouldn't it be odd to use the word "wife" for both cases?

I think it is equally odd to use the word "resurrection" in "first resurrection" and "second resurrection" in quite different ways, one a "spiritual coming to life" and the other a "physical coming to life".

Isn't it also strange to say that our "first death" (although not explicitly mentioned in the text is implied by the phrase second death) is one of non-existence, meaning you don't live on at all, your just dead (unconscious until the resurrection). Don't you hold a view like this? Yet, at the resurrection of all people there will be a judgment where those who's names are not in the book of life go to their "second death". Now Paidion, why would their second death be different from their first one? Why would their second death be a long duration of conscious correction and instead of being like their "first" death?

[_Paidion]

Now Paidion, why would their second death be different from their first one? Why would their second death be a long duration of conscious correction and instead of being like their "first" death?

Yes, I saw the point, Sean, when I read Anochria's post.

If there were not other scriptures which indicate a Gehennaic correction which lasts for many ages, this argument would lead me to annihationism.

By the way, what is the meaning of your name, Anochria? It looked like a Greek word, but I couldn't find it in the New Testament. I did find "anochā", the meaning of which is "forbearance".

[Guest]

Actually, it was a name I came up with for the world in a fantasy novel I wrote when I was a teenager (kinda like Narnia or Middle-Earth).

You suggest a very interesting connection to me regarding "forebearance". That's very cool. It rings true to the story.