Revelation and “the Rest of the Dead”

by Lee Shelton

The following was originally posted on my own blog, The Contemporary Calvinist.

No one has done more to agitate the Christian blogosphere lately than John MacArthur. He opened the 2007 Shepherd’s Conference last month with a scathing little speech on the subject of “sovereign election, Israel, and eschatology,” in which he implied that those who don’t subscribe to premillennialism are somehow denying the doctrine of election.

James Kime of Lion Crest Inn is one blogger who is fired up by what happened at the conference. He sees MacArthur’s speech as a preemptive strike against amillennialism–a theological “shock and awe” campaign, if you will, against the doctrinally challenged.

It is clear that Mr. Kime doesn’t like amillennialists. “Amillennialists should be ashamed of themselves for the reckless manner in which they treat so many biblical texts,” he writes. And he thinks he has found the silver bullet capable of stopping these heretical monsters dead in their tracks.

Take a look at his March 25 post. He addresses Revelation 20:4-5 and its reference to “the rest of the dead.” According to Kime, “This text presents a problem for amillennialists, but they do not seem to grasp why. Each time I engage them on this point, the conversation takes a different turn. Basically, they stop the conversation.”

So, it would seem that Revelation 20:4-5 is the secret weapon in the premillennial arsenal. It is the argument to end all arguments. Let’s take a look at that passage (using the NKJV as quoted on Kime’s blog):

⁴And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. ⁵But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Kime argues:

According to amillennialism, when a person becomes saved he immediately starts reigning with Christ is this kingdom. Further, they assert that the coming to life in verse 4 is a spiritual resurrection.Verse 5 says that another group of people will not live again until after the thousand years. If the second group (the rest of the dead) is supposed to be believers, then you have a group of believers who DO NOT immediately start reigning with Christ. If they are unbelievers, you have them given life at the end of the thousand years, thus teaching universalism.There is nothing within the context to say that the coming to life in verse 4 is spiritual. Further, there is nothing within the context to say that verse 4 is spiritual and verse 5 is a physical resurrection.The fact is, the resurrection in verse 4 is described as happening when Christ returns. To make that into a spiritual resurrection does much harm on the status of believers between their death and physical resurrection.

Kime goes on to state emphatically, “The identity of ‘the rest of the dead’ can only be unbelievers. Believers are already reigning with Christ. There is NO OTHER group.” He is assuming, of course, that this reign takes place when Christ returns physically to earth and establishes his millennial kingdom. He is correct about one thing, however: “the rest of the dead” does refer to unbelievers.

But note his insistence that the resurrection in question can only be a physical one. Is it? If the believing dead have already been raised physically in verse 4, John could have just said that he saw “those who had been beheaded.” He didn’t. He wrote about seeing “the souls of those who had been beheaded.”

Now, one could argue that the word “soul,” as used elsewhere in scripture, means “person” or “life,” but that doesn’t fit the context. Is the author suggesting that he saw “the people of those who had been beheaded” or “the lives of those who had been beheaded”? No. If John’s use of the word “soul” meant “person” or “life,” then it would have made much more sense for John to simply refer to “the souls who had been beheaded,” but that isn’t what the text says. What John is witnessing in his vision in verse 4 can only be in the spiritual realm.

Before moving on, perhaps we should take a look at verse 6: “Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.”

From this we know that unbelievers do not have a part in the first resurrection. After all, verse 6 says that those who take part in it are “blessed and holy.” So, if the first resurrection John is talking about in verses 4 and 5 can only be physical, we must therefore conclude that when John mentions “the rest of the dead” living again at some point after the thousand years, he is referring to a second physical resurrection. However, support for two physical resurrections cannot be found anywhere in scripture. In fact, that view is refuted quite soundly.

One reason we know that the first resurrection is spiritual can be found in 1 Corinthians 15:50. Here, the Apostle Paul writes that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” The physical resurrection comes later. When? Paul tells us in verse 52 that it will be “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.”

In Acts 24:15, we learn “there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.” This is referring to a single, final bodily resurrection.

Jesus himself spoke in terms of one spiritual resurrection and one physical resurrection: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live” (John 5:24-25, emphasis added). This is the first, or spiritual, resurrection. Jesus then goes on to say in verses 28 and 29 that “all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth–those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” This is the physical resurrection.

That is reiterated in Revelation 20:11-13, when all of the dead at once are raised physically to stand before God in judgment. Those whose names are not found in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death. And as we saw in verse 6, the second death has no hold on those who experienced the first (i.e., spiritual) resurrection.

The reigning of the saints with Christ in Revelation 20:4 is the realization of the promise made earlier in 3:21: “To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.” This is in direct contrast to “the rest of the dead” (i.e., the unbelieving dead) in 20:5 who are not allowed to live or reign during the thousand-year period. They are raised–that is, their souls are reunited with their bodies and they “live again”–for the final judgment (20:11-13) before suffering the second death in the lake of fire.

I am neither a scholar nor a theologian. I am nothing more than a sinner saved by grace. But I think I have read and studied enough to see that Revelation 20:4-5 can hardly be considered a refutation of amillennialism. Naturally, men like James Kime think that makes me reckless. However, I would argue that premillennialists are the ones who “should be ashamed of themselves for the reckless manner in which they treat so many biblical texts.” Ripping passages out of context and rendering them inconsistent with the rest of scripture in order to justify our own preconceived notions is never a good thing.

A Good Place to Start

by Lee Shelton

Crown Him with many crowns, the Lamb upon His throne.
Hark! How the heavenly anthem drowns all music but its own.
Awake, my soul, and sing of Him who died for thee,
And hail Him as thy matchless King through all eternity.

We’re all familiar with that hymn. It is one many of us have sung all our lives, and it was undoubtedly featured in thousands of churches across America this past Easter Sunday – which is one of the reasons why I believe that, to an extent, all Christians are amillennial.

Think about it. Even the most ardent dispensationalist won’t deny that Christ is currently reigning. Rather, he will stand up in church and belt out praises to “the Lamb upon His throne” with every bit as much joy and enthusiasm as the amillennialist brother standing next to him.

But the most fundamental aspect of amillennialism is the recognition that Christ is (present tense) reigning. To deny that is to deny scripture. Besides, how can one be a king if one has no kingdom? As his royal title implies, Christ is reigning now.

Let’s take a look at just a few passages that deal with the immediacy of Christ’s kingdom. Perhaps the first thing we should note is that Jesus was worshiped as a king from the moment he was born (Matthew 2:2). From the beginning of his ministry – even before he called his first disciples – he preached the message, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17).

Jesus himself spoke of his reign as a present reality. In Matthew 12:28-29, he said, “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”

Jesus spoke about his death and resurrection to a crowd gathered around him, saying, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power” (Mark 9:1).

Even the thief on the cross recognized Christ’s kingdom as a present reality: “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (Luke 23:42).

The Apostle Paul was confronted by a group of people in Rome, and “he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets” (Acts 28:23).

Paul referred to his Christian brothers as “fellow workers for the kingdom of God” (Colossians 4:11).

We read in Hebrews 12:2 that Christ “is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Now, to be sure, you will find disagreement all across the theological spectrum as to the extent of Christ’s present reign. But I think the realization that he is reigning is a good starting point on the road to understanding amillennialism, or “inaugurated eschatology.”

The Resurrection and Eschatology

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.  For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.  or as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.  But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.  Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.  For he must reign until he has put all of his enemies under his feet.  The last enemy to be destroyed is death.  For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.  But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.  When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.                      1 Corinthians 15:20-28

As we celebrate the death and resurrection of our Lord this week, it is important that we bear in my mind what exactly God was accomplishing through Christ and his redemptive work.  In 2 Corinthians we are told that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.  This was accomplished not only by Christ’s justification of sinners, but also through his exaltation to the right hand of the Father.  You see, Christ’s work as priest cannot be divorced from his status as heir of the world.  When Christ had offered his sacrifice for sins forever, he sat down at the right hand of God, signifying that his sacrifice was complete, that his revelation of God was perfect (Hebrews 1:1-3), and that he is reigning over the earth.

Put simply, when Christ was raised from the dead his reign on the earth began.  The Father has put all things under his feet, and even now, Christ is destroying his enemies.  At the end, the last enemy to be destroyed will be death in a cataclysmic event that will shake both the Heavens and the Earth.

But as for the text we have just read we see some eschatological benefits of Christ’s resurrection.  First, there is the hope of a future resurrection.  All those who sleep in Christ will also be raised in him.  The fact of Christ’s own resurrection guarantees it to be so. 

But secondly, before this bodily resurrection there is another resurrection that takes place.  The resurrection of our spirits, form a dead status must occur.  This is what it means to be Christ’s.  We have already been raised from the dead in his resurrection. 

Third, Christ is enthroned now at the right hand of the Father, waiting as the Father makes his enemies his footstool.  Christ’s reign is a conquering reign.

Finally, Christ’s reign is real.  The Father has already put all things in subjection under his feet.  We don’t have to wait for Christ to be crowned King, because he already is King, a  we are his subjects.  We do not serve a defeated Messiah, but a Risen Saviour who is ruling and reigning today.

Probably the Broadest Definition of Amillennialism Ever

By: Jeremy Weaver

For the inaugural posting I thought a broad definition of Amillennialism was in order. Fortunately, I have a broad area of expertise, but my expertise in any given area is not very deep, so I am over-qualified to write this post.

What does it mean to be an Amillennialist? Very broadly, it means that a person believes that the one thousand years referred to in Revelation 20:1-8 refers to the entire age between the first and second comings of Christ.

If we take this as a definition, two things become apparent. First, Amillennialists do in fact believe in a ‘millennium’. Second, the term ‘Amillennial’, does not represent Amillennialists well.

You see, all Christians are ‘Millennials’ of some sort. We have to be. The Millennium is taught in Scripture. So the prefix on ‘millennial’ should reflect what a particular person believes about the Millennium. When we add the prefix ‘pre’ to ‘Millennial’, we are saying that Christ returns before the Millennium. When we add the prefix ‘post’ to ‘Millennial’ we are saying we believe that Christ returns after the Millennium. So what happens when we add the prefix ‘a’ to ‘Millennial’? When we add the prefix ‘a’ to a word we are negating the word. So to say ‘A’millennial, is to say that we do not believe in a Millennium. However, nothing could be farther from the truth!

Amillennialists are adamant about the reality of the Millennium. In fact, the whole idea of Amillennialism is that the Millennium is a present reality! We are presently living in the Millennial reign of Christ. In light of this, some Amillennials have proposed different terms to represent what we believe the Bible to teach concerning the Millennium more accurately.

Some have proposed the term, ‘Realized Eschatology’, focusing on the fact that the first coming of the Christ was indeed an eschatological fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and that since that time we have been living in the ‘last days’. Others have proposed ‘Present Millennialism’ emphasizing the fact that Christ inaugurated His Millennial Reign by His life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

This emphasis on a present reality of the Millennium is not at the expense of a future fulfillment of the reign of Christ on the earth. We believe firmly in a literal second coming of Christ to bring to fulfillment His reign on the earth.

Once again, this is a very broad definition of Amillennialism. As with other views there is also a broad range of disagreement. Maybe one of the other guys will clarify and build on these points for your edification.

Christ Is The Kingdom!

Luke 17:20-37

Introduction: There are many opinions regarding the Kingdom of God today. On the one hand, some see the Kingdom as a totally future reality, and relegate Christ’s kingship to the ’sweet by and by’. On the other hand, others see the Kingdom as a merely internal enterprise, and work to bring forth a Utopian government where everyone simply co-exists. Our text quotes Jesus as saying, “The Kingdom is within you” (verse 21), is taken out of context and misinterpreted to mean that the Kingdom is in our hearts, which the whole rest of the Bible, nor this text support.

We do not desire to be on either side of this debate, but rather, we desire to see the truth that Jesus teaches in these verses concerning the true nature of the Kingdom. This is not an easy task. The answers that we uncover lead to more questions, but as we shall see, these questions are sufficiently answered in this text.