Revelation 20:1-10 - Exposition – part 2
Revelation 20:4-6
“4 And I saw
thrones; and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them; and the souls
of those beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus, and on account of the
word of God; and those who had not done homage to the beast nor to his image,
and had not received the mark on their forehead and hand; and they lived and reigned with the Christ a thousand years: 5 the
rest of the dead did not live till the thousand years had been completed. This is the first
resurrection. 6 Blessed
and holy he who has part in the first resurrection:
over these the second death has no power; but they shall be priests of God and
of the Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”
John
saw the souls of those who are beheaded for Christ (Read Exposition - part 1). What were they doing in
heaven? They lived and reigned with Christ. This is what John calls the first
resurrection. They are called priests because they are in the presence of God.
The
following are some of the questions asked by pre-millennialists:
1. Does
the Bible anywhere else call the living experience of saints in heaven as
“resurrection” "<anastasis>"?
2. "the rest of the dead did not live till the thousand years had been
completed.” Doesn’t it mean that they will live
after a thousand years?
3. If
the second resurrection refers to the bodily
resurrection, does not the first resurrection indicate the resurrection of the
body? How can one resurrection be of spiritual
nature while the other be of bodily nature?
Question 1:
Does the Bible anywhere else call the living experience of saints in heaven as
“resurrection” "<anastasis>"?
Response:
The noun “anastasis” translated “resurrection” appears 42 times in
the New Testament, thirty-nine of which refer to bodily resurrection (for an
exception, see Luke 2:34).
Luke 2:34: “And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother, Lo,
this [child] is set for the fall and rising up of many in Israel, and for a sign spoken against…”
The other two occurrences are in Revelation 20:5 and 6, their meaning yet to be determined.
Scripture uses the imagery of physical
resurrection to describe spiritual life (Eph 2:1-6; Col 2:12-13). Imagery of
physical resurrection is also used to describe the spiritual restoration of a
nation (Ezekiel 37).
Why, then, should we object to the use of the terminology and imagery of physical resurrection to describe the spiritual life of the deceased souls in heaven? John knew that ‘anastasis’ might well evoke the notion of bodily resurrection in the minds of his readers. That is why, I believe, he explicitly identifies those of whom he predicates this resurrection as the “souls of those beheaded”. They lived and reigned with Christ.
All Christians who died are in heaven now.
They are in a blessed state. They have been transferred from glory to glory
when they have died.
Philippians
1:23: “ But I am
pressed by both, having the desire for departure and being with Christ, [for]
[it is] very much better….”
When a Christian dies, their soul will be raised from earth
to heaven. John used the adjective "first" so that his readers would
not confuse it with bodily resurrection.
Importance of the adjective “first”
Nowhere else in Scripture is this noun “resurrection” (anastasis) qualified as being the “first” (protos). So, what is the importance of “first”? Does it always mean “first” in the series of identical events?
In Revelation 21 the Apostle John
contrasts what is “first” with what is “new”.
Revelation
21:1: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the
first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea exists no more.”
First Earth = Old Earth
Second Earth = New Earth
We can see that the word “first” is used for what is superceded or replaced by the new. “Protos”(first) 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.
In Revelation 21 “second” is another term for “new”. Thus, the death that is identified with the lake of fire and is the eternal counterpart to the death that belongs to the order of “first things” (v 4) is called “second death”. Thus second as well as new serves as the qualitative opposite of first. Whatever is first or old pertains to the present world, to the world that is temporary, incomplete. Conversely, whatever is second or new pertains to the future world, to the world that is permanent, complete, and is associated with the eternal consummation of all things.
The term first is therefore not an ordinal
in a process of counting objects that are identical in kind. To be first is to
be associated with this present, temporary, transient world.
|
First |
Second |
|
Relates
to pre-consummative order |
Relates
to consummate order |
|
Temporary |
Eternal |
This idea is
present in other passages as well. For example, the Mosaic covenant, being temporary
and pre-consummative, is described as the “first” or “old” covenant, in
contrast with the Messianic covenant which is the “new” or “second” one (Heb
8:7,8,13; 9:1,15,18; 10:9). The reality described by the term “first” is one
that passes away.
Hebrews
8:7: “For if that first covenant had
been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.”
First Covenant = Old Covenant
Second Covenant = New Covenant
The “first” covenant and the “second” covenant are not same in nature. The first covenant is temporary. The second is eternal.
Question 2:
"the rest of the dead did not live till the thousand years had been
completed.”
Doesn’t it mean that they will live after a thousand years?
Response:
The
phrase "the rest of the dead did not live till the thousand years had been completed " does not
necessarily mean that they lived after the millennium. Only the context can
make it certain.
Let
us look in to some example.
Revelation 17:17: “….for God has given to their hearts to do his mind,
and to act with one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast until the words of God shall be fulfilled.”
This
only means that the ten kings gave their kingdom to the beast until the words
of God is fulfilled. It does not imply that after the Words of God are
fulfilled the ten kings take their kingdom back from the beast. The ten kings
are in fact destroyed with the beast.
1 Corinthians 15:25: “For he must reign until he
has put all his enemies under his feet.”
This
means that the reign of Christ will continue until the defeat of the last
enemy. This does not imply that Christ’s reign will end after the defeat of all
enemies. The reign of Christ is an eternal reign.
In Revelation, the word “until” simply states that for the entire thousand years the wicked never share in this living and reigning with Christ. It is not necessary to say that the “rest of the dead” will live after the thousand years. In fact, the “rest of the dead” (unbelievers) will never come to life in this sense at all.
At the end of the millennium John saw Satan was released (who was bound "until" the thousand years were ended). Therefore the context proved that "until" (in the case of binding Satan) implies a change in condition after that particular period.
That is not the case of "until" with respect to the "living" of the "rest of the dead". After the thousand years are ended, John does not see the living of the "rest of the dead". Rather, John is speaking about another "short time" (Revelation 20:3) before the final judgment.
Question 3: If the second resurrection refers to the bodily resurrection, does not the first resurrection indicate the resurrection of the body? How can one resurrection be of spiritual nature while the other be of bodily nature?
Response:
Some Premillennialists will argue that if a word is used more than once in a passage, then giving
two meanings to the same word is hermeneutically misguided. They then conclude that the first
resurrection should be physical in nature since the second one is definitely
physical.
But, that principle is not always true. I do not believe it applies in this
particular passage. Other texts in which it does not apply include John
11:25-26; Matthew 8:22; John 6:49-50; Romans 9:6 and John 5:25-29.
John 11:25-26: “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection
and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone
who lives and
believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?””
Matthew 8:22: “And Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.”
John 6:49-50: “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This
is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.”
Romans
9:6: “But it is not as though the word
of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel….”
John 5:25-29: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that an hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that have heard shall live. For even as the Father has life in himself, so he has given to the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment [also], because he is Son of man. Wonder not at this, for an hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall go forth; those that have practised good, to resurrection of life, and those that have done evil, to resurrection of judgment.”
We can understand it from
the context of Revelation 20 itself. The explicit reference to the first
resurrection and the second death strongly implies a second resurrection and a
first death. Therefore, we have four events three of which are easily
identified.
1.
First
death:- a reference to physical, bodily death
2.
Second
death: - a non-physical death which consists of eternal punishment.
3.
Second
resurrection:- the physical, bodily resurrection (20:11-15)
It is reasonable, then, that
the first resurrection will sustain to the second resurrection the same
relationship which the first death sustains to the second death.
|
First Death |
Second Death |
|
Physical
death |
Spiritual
and non-physical |
|
Relates
to the present world |
Relates
to the next age |
|
Pre-consummative
character |
Consummative,
permanent and eternal character |
|
Experienced
by both believers and unbelievers |
Experienced
by unbelievers and unbelievers only |
|
First Resurrection |
Second Resurrection |
|
Spiritual |
Physical |
|
Relates
to this temporary age |
Relates
to the next world |
|
Pre-consummative
character |
Consummative,
permanent and eternal character |
|
Experienced
by believers only |
Experienced
by unbelievers and believers |
So, even though “second
resurrection” is physical, it need not be that “first resurrection” is also
physical.
The “second resurrection” is
physical and pertains to the consummate and eternal order and the first
resurrection is spiritual and non-physical and pertains to the
pre-consummative, temporary, and transient order of things. The glory of the
“first” resurrection will be replaced by a more glorious state when the
believers are resurrected bodily at the last day.
Therefore,
to understand first resurrection as physical resurrection is wrong in the
context of Revelation 20. The first
resurrection is the living of the souls of believers in heaven.
We can
understand how meaningful this vision is for the first-century believers. It
was a time when the Roman Empire persecuted Christians. The Romans thought they
had killed these Christians. They thought they had put an end to any power or
influence they might have. They have treated Christians as unworthy of presence
in human society. But their most horrible persecutions had only accomplished
exalting them to a truer life, a glorious reign with Christ. They are priest in
a special sense since they are in the presence of God. Their deaths transferred
them in to a more glorious state. To depart from the body and to be with Christ
is indeed much better.
But what about the enemies who killed the believers? They may live comfortably on this earth. But when they are resurrected on the last day, they are doomed to the second death
·
The believer will die physically, but will
enter from glory to glory.
·
The unbeliever will rise physically, but they
will experience eternal death.
To a believer, death is a resurrection (in one
sense). For the unbeliever, their resurrection will lead them to eternal death.
This is the message of Revelation 20:4-6.
(The writings are not original to the author of this blog. It is taken from other sources and has been edited, sometimes paraphrased)
I understand where you’re going with the contrastive pairs between 1st / 2nd resurrection & 1st / 2nd death. But I wonder if your definition of the second death overlooks the reality that wicked human beings who experience the lake of fire have been raised from the dead. This suggests that the 2nd death is a physical experience for them.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, wouldn’t the experience of the 2nd death for the wicked be an embodied experience or a soul & body experience? This means the contrast is more accurately a disembodied experience (1st resurrection) vs an embodied one (2nd death).
Is the second death physical death? Absolutely not. It is true that the physical body experiences second death. But it is not physical death.
DeleteBy physical death, i mean the separation of human soul from human body.
Thank you.
as promised here is my response from Facebook, in 2 parts due to size limit...
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your laying out that there are 42 uses of ἀνάστασις [anastasis – resurrection] in the New Testament and that 39 [93%] refer to bodily resurrection, of the remaining 3, 2 are in the text we are debating [Rev 20:5 and 20:6] leaving the 1 verse in Luke 2:34 as the only exception you can point to in the New Testament. I think just starting from these facts should be enough to seriously raise doubts about reading anything other than bodily resurrection into any passage that uses anastatis. Knowing the history of the words use in the New Testament it is honestly very odd that the word would have been used in Revelation 20 if physical resurrection wasn't the intended meaning [or at least provide the reader of Revelation some explicit rational to think otherwise – to my mind I still see nothing in the biblical text to cause me to question reading it the same as the other 39 times].
That being said, we still do have that one passage that raises a shred of doubt, so that will be my first order of business. Is there something special in Luke 2:34 that could shed some light on Revelation 20.
So here is Luke 2:34-35
--- Continue in next comment (reached character limit)---
--- continue from previous comment---
ReplyDeleteSo here is Luke 2:34-35
And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall [πτῶσις - ptosis] and rise [ἀνάστασις - anastasis] of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed— and a sword will pierce even your own soul—to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.”
So first we work our way toward looking at the word for fall [ptosis]. The reason for this is important is that in the context anastasis seems to be a really extreme word to use in this context [based on the translation]. The translation on the surface doesn't honestly lend itself to thinking about eternal consequences, for if this is talking about eternal consequences then Luke 2:34 could indeed be talking about bodily resurrection.
The word most translated 'rise' in the NASB is ἀνίστημι [anistemi], a verb that also carries a strong meaning of bodily resurrection [Luke 24:7,46; John 6:39-40,44,54; 11:23-24; Act 2:24] but also has several other clear non-resurrection connotations [Mt 9:9, 22:24, 26:62; Mk 1:35]. If the meaning of Luke 2:34-35 was just what is presented to us in the surface, anistemi would have been the perfect word for it. [as a side note, if Revelation 20 had used anistemi nobody today could possibly argue from the text that Revelation 20:4 and 5 MUST mean bodily resurrection. The structure of the sentences would have had to change to replace a noun-anastatis with a verb-anistemi, but honestly if that was the intended meaning of the passages, a little grammar is surly not a obstacle to God.]
So now that the use of anastasis in Luke 2:34 seems even more out of place, we look at ptosis because it is presented as the contrast to anastasis. This word is extremely rare in the New Testament [use a total of 2 times in the New Testament. Luke 2:34 and Matthew 7:27]. The most common word translated 'fall' in the NASB is πίπτω [pipto], again if the surface reading of Luke 2:34 isn't about eternal consequences, then pipto would have been quite clear [again with a little rework because pipto is a verb and ptosis is a noun].
So we look at Matthew 7:24-27 (Jesus' words)
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall [πίπτω - pipto], for it had been founded on the rock. “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. “The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell [πίπτω - pipto]—and great was its fall [πτῶσις-ptosis].”
--- continue to next comment---
--- continue from previous comment---
ReplyDeleteNote the last word is the same as in Luke 2:34. This passage really does seem to indicate an eternal perspective, contrasting one who puts Christ's word into practice and one who does not. The word ptosis is used to indicate the ultimate conclusion of the life of someone who has rejected Jesus' words.
This may still not be enough to establish a pattern to see ptosis as meaning some eternal consequence, so we look to the LXX to see what context the Jews used this word to express.
Ex 30:12
“When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them.
The word translated plague [נֶ֫גֶף] in NASB is translated with ptosis in the LXX
Judg 20:39
Then the men of Israel turned in the battle, and Benjamin began to strike and kill about thirty men of Israel, for they said, “Surely they are defeated before us, as in the first battle.”
The words translated are defeated [נגף two times] in NASB is translated with ptosis in LXX
Ps 106:29
Thus they provoked Him to anger with their deeds, And the plague broke out among them.
The word translated the plague [מַגֵּפָה] in NASB is translated with ptosis in LXX
There are several others that I have not looked at, but here are there references if you want to have a look at Nah 3:3; Zech 14:12,15, 18; Is 17:1, 51:17,22, Jer 6:15, 29:22; Ezek 26:15,18, 27:27,31:13,16,32:10. I have not included any Apocryphal books to make looking up the context easier.
The point being that, from all of this I am confident to state the Luke 2:34 could very well be talking about the eternal destiny [or at least literal life and death] of people and thus in context could very well be using anastasis as bodily resurrection. Meaning that there is no exception in the New Testament [outside of Revelation 20 - our passage being debated] to anastasis meaning bodily resurrection and so I find it very unlikely that Revelation 20 stands as the only exception in the New Testament.
I still realize there are several other points in the "Revelation 20:1-10 - Exposition – part 2" blog. I will turn to the addressing of the adjective "first" in a later post.
As promised here is my second response to the “Revelation 20:1-10 - Exposition – part 2”, specifically the topic of 'ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη' [the first resurrection – lit the resurrection the first]. Sorry for the delay but there is a lot to pull together and confirm before posting; along with analyzing some material related to 2017-09-23 and Rev 12 [If you don't know what this is, don't worry about it].
ReplyDeleteSo when I first [initially, earlier] read the section of Ashish's post about the 'first resurrection' my first [foremost, prominent, chief, best] question about the blog was about the correct terminology for the 'other resurrection' [not wanting to bias the discussion right away] had been picked to convey John's contrast between these resurrections [if John intended to present a contrast]. Ashish if you were to revamp your blog [assuming you don't immediately adopt my final conclusion] I would suggest spelling out how John uses πρῶτος [protos - first] at least throughout Revelation (if not throughout all of John's writings).
For our discussion here is a quick listing of what is in Revelation [don't think I missed any]...
1. first and ἔσχατος [last] (3 examples – 1 after Rev 20)
“the first and the ἔσχατος [last]” (Rev 1:17, 2:8)
“your deeds of ἔσχατος [late] are greater than at first” (Rev 2:19)
2. first and implied/unnamed lesser/inferior (1 example)
“you have left your first love” (Rev 2:4) – contrast not named, but obvious contrast with what they are presently loving and their earlier love was better.
3. first and implied/unnamed sequence (1 example)
“first voice which I had heard” (Rev 4:1) – drawing back directly to Rev 1:10, there have been other voices since
4. first and δεύτερος [second] (4 examples – 1 after Rev 20)
“The first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf ... I heard the second living creature say come.” (Rev 4:7, 6:3)
“the first sounded” [a trumpet] … “the second angel sounded” (Rev 8:7-8)
“the first angel went and poured out his bowl” … “the second angel” (Rev 16:2-3)
5. first and ἄλλος [another] (1 example) – guess my 'other resurrection' isn't quite so unbiased
“I saw another beast” … “exercised all the authority of the first beast” (Rev 13:12)
The above are all prior to our Rev 20:5-6 passages
Continue our list after the first resurrection passages in Rev 20
1. first and ἔσχατος [last] – continue from first list
“the first and the ἔσχατος [last]” (Rev 22:13)
4. first and δεύτερος [second]
“the first foundation stone was jasper; the second, sapphire...” (Rev 21:19)
6. first and καινός [new] (1 example)
“then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away … no longer be any mourning, or crying, pain; the first things have passed away” (Rev 21:1-4)
Here is a list of other δεύτερος [second] uses if not referenced above [point 4] for reference later
1. second death [θάνατος – thanatos] – there is no obvious first in Revelation
“He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death” (Rev 2:11)
“first resurrection; over these the second death has no power” (Rev 20:6)
“Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire” (Rev 20:14)
“their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Rev 21:8)
2. εἷς [heis – one or first] and second
“the Lamb broke one of the seven seals … When He broke the second seal” (Rev 6:1,3)
“the first woe is past … the second woe is past” (Rev 9:12,11:14)
3. ἄλλος [another] and second
“I saw another angel flying in midheaven, having an eternal gospel … and another angel, a second one, followed” (Rev 14:6-8)
4. implied/missing first and second
“loud voice of a great multitude in heaven saying … and a second time they said” (Rev 19:1, 3)
---continue 2a---
---continue from 2a---
ReplyDeleteSo there are at least 6 ways that John uses πρῶτος [protos – first] in Revelation, 5 of which proceed the first resurrection passages. If one were to try and establish the kind of relationship between the first resurrection and some unspecified resurrection, each of these should be considered [pro/con] rather than just narrowing in on one that happens to fit one's theology. This was the process I was going to go through initially (I was going to start with the πρῶτος [protos – first] and δεύτερος [deuteros - second] construction); but before I started working the words of Revelation 22:18-19 suddenly sprang to my mind. Reviewing the Rev 22 passage does present some sobering words to keep in mind when studying Revelation and teaching about what it says.
“I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.” (Rev 22:18-19)
So you may ask “how does Rev 22:18-19 apply to the study about the first Resurrection?”. Well you can check, but John doesn't actually provide an account for a separate resurrection after the first resurrection in Revelation 20:5-6. The only possible passage that even suggests a separate resurrection is “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.” (Rev 20:5a) [which has some problems – to be discussed below]; Just because John references the Rev 20:5-6 resurrection as the first resurrection doesn't actually require another resurrection [there are other linguistic explanations – which I will go into later]. The account John gives after Rev 20:6 doesn't actually ever present a different resurrection or anyone coming to life...
“And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Rev 20:12-15)
---continue 2b---
"This is the FIRST RESURRECTION" assumes that there is a "SECOND RESURRECTION". Even though, FIRST DEATH is not mentioned, it is implied in the text and context. What we saw are dead Christians. So, in context, the first death is the physical death.
Delete---continue from 2b---
ReplyDeleteNotice at no time does John describe a resurrection in Rev 20:12-15. John is clear, these are 'the dead' [νεκρός - nekros] who are being judged. John does not say that they were brought back to life and judged, nothing about the condemned being brought to life and cast into the lake of fire, no statement about the acquitted being resurrected and entering into eternity (and there is nothing to the end of Revelation that gives any account for another resurrection). This is why I am concerned about Rev 22:18-19, because if we assume and teach that Revelation contains another resurrection that is different from the first resurrection; we need more assurances than the ambiguous implications of a “first resurrection” or of a negative statement about “The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed” (Rev 20:5a). Especially since the first part of Rev 20:5 doesn't exist in several of our oldest sources [yes I will give the evidence below – give a plug to keep you reading]. While I would vigorously defend that the scriptures do clearly teach a “resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29, KJV), “a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked” (Act 24:15), and that “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Dan 12:2, KJV); I am just not ready to defend that Revelation teaches that there is some second, last, another, or new resurrection after the “first resurrection” (as is often postulated by those jumping to conclusions) solely based on what is presented in Rev 20:5-6, I would need more corroboration and I think any reasonable student of the scriptures should as well (who for instance would ever want to be guilty of the charge of teaching something as scripture that isn't actually in the scriptures).
I have contemplated on just jumping to my solution to provide a consistent way to understand Revelation, Danial, the Gospels, and Acts [along with some other passages] before going into issues with Rev 20:5, but I figure before you build up, you should first examine and possibly strengthen or restore what you are building on top of.
So I will start with a non-textual response to Rev 20:5a...
Before we dive into Ashiash's blog, a quick note on λοιπός [rest] in Rev 20:5a may be in order. Typically post-millennial and amillennial positions try to argue that the first-resurrection is non-physical and that those in the first-resurrection are physically resurrected with the rest after the millennium is done. Here are a few examples of how λοιπός is used in scripture.
“And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. “Later the λοιπός [other] virgins also came, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open up for us.’ “But he answered, ‘Truly I say to you, I do not know you.’ (Mt 25:10-12)
And He said, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the λοιπός [rest] it is in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. (Lk 8:10)
The λοιπός [rest] of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, so as not to worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk; (Rev 9:20)
In each of the above examples, λοιπός distinguishes between two groups. These uses of λοιπός would NOT reflect a statement in any way related to those in the first-resurrection but specifically about those who miss out on the first-resurrection. Rev 20:5a would be about and against those who miss out on the first-resurrection and not about some group that is spiritually brought to life in the first-resurrection and later physically resurrected.
---continue 2c---
In Revelation 20:4-6, the word “until” simply means that for the entire thousand years the wicked never share in this living and reigning with Christ. It is not necessary to say that the “rest of the dead” will live after the thousand years. In fact, the “rest of the dead” (unbelievers) will never come to life in this sense at all.
DeleteAt the end of the millennium John saw Satan was released (who was bound "until" the thousand years were ended). Therefore the context proved that "until" (in the case of binding Satan) implies a change in condition after that particular period.
That is not the case of "until" with respect to the "living" of the "rest of the dead". After the thousand years are ended, John does not see the living of the "rest of the dead". Rather, John is speaking about another "short time" (Revelation 20:3) before the final judgment.
---continue from 2c---
ReplyDeleteSo onto addressing Ashiash' blog...
Ashiash's blog provides two interesting responses to Rev 20:5a, the first is about how to understand ἄχρι [achri – until]. I agree with the final conclusion that Ashiash gives 'It is not necessary to say that the “rest of the dead” will live after the thousand years. In fact, the “rest of the dead” (unbelievers) will never come to life in this sense at all.'; but there is an with how this conclusion is reached and a major historical problem with this passage has been overlooked.
Issues with Method:
The two examples “For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled.” (Rev 17:17) and “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” (1 Cor 15:25) were not the best examples to demonstrate this point. As pointed out “The ten kings are in fact destroyed with the beast.” and in 1 Cor 15:25, the verse immediately before reads “then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.” (1 Cor 15:24). The context of both verses make it impossible to return to the previous state it is like saying “you will live, until you die”. In general ἄχρι [achri – until] simply states that something is true for the given period up to when a condition is achieved. The context provides an indication on what may happen after the condition is achieved.
“For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark” (Mt 24:38) – so clearly people were continuing to eat, drink, and marry until Noah, then everyone other than Noah's family died [so those outside the ark didn't continue to eat, drink, or give in marriage]; but we know that people [Noah's descendants] would eat, drink, and marry after the flood.
“And behold, you shall be silent and unable to speak until the day when these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time” (Luke 1:20) Here is the story of Zacharias [John the baptists father] who was struck silent until Gabriel's words came true [Condition A], and what does Zacharias do immediately after Condition A, “he began to speak in praise of God”(Lk 1:64) Just imagine Zacharias if he thought until meant he would never speak again.
The word ἄχρι [achri – until] is used 49 times in the New Testament. In each case the context is sufficient to indicate what to expect after the condition of the statement is fulfilled. In Rev 20:5, the dead are still dead and there is nothing in the text that would argue against the 'rest of the dead' coming to life after the 1000 years. In fact ἄχρι [achri – until] is used in Rev 20:3 in relation to Satan being imprisoned and unable to deceive the nations, the parallels between these verses strongly suggests that the correct reading is that the 'rest of the dead' would return to life; also if John had wanted to state that the rest of the dead did not-ever return to life [this passage would of course be John's comment on what he is seeing – if the passage is original] he knew how to do that easily [demonstrated later]. If Ashiash wishes to disagree, please show in Revelation 20 where the passage establishes that the dead were not to ever return to life after the 1000 years.
---continue 2d---
After the thousand years are ended, John does not see the living of the "rest of the dead". Rather, John is speaking about another "short time" (Revelation 20:3) before the final judgment.
Delete---continue from 2d---
ReplyDeleteOverlooked major historical problem with the passage (non-textual issues)
This passage hasn't historically been about concern for the unbelievers who miss the first resurrection, but about believers. Revelation 20:4 is a notoriously hard passage to cleanly interpret from the Greek, the actual Normative Noun [subject] of the first sentence is hard to clearly identify because of the structure (i.e. looks like judgment is the subject or the actual subject is missing). The clearest understanding we have of this passage is that there are 2 groups that are included in the first resurrection. These groups are those who are executed [murdered-martyred] for their testimony of Jesus and for the Word of God; and those who in life had not worshiped the beast, his image, or receive his mark. So after the Edict of Milan in 313 AD people generally stopped dying for their testimony of Jesus or for the Word of God. There was nobody who knew what the beast was nor could worship or receive his mark. So now the majority of Christians understood that they would not take part in the first resurrection and would be among the 'rest of the dead', facing judgment and possibly the second death depending on how good they were and if their name was in the 'book of life' (Rev 20:15). The criteria for dying for the Word of God [depending on how you understood the testimony of Jesus Christ] could cover some of the old testament saints like John the Baptist, Zechariah [son of Berechiah](Mt 23:35), and Abel; but what about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Job, Samuel, David, and Daniel who all died peacefully of old age. Even John in tradition is said to have died of old age. So all of these would miss the first resurrection, be included in the 'rest of the dead', and possibly end-up in the lake of fire. If believers were among the 'rest of the dead' then ultimately that would leave Revelation establishing a dual-cast system among believers, those in the first resurrection and those not in the first resurrection. Those in the first resurrection are exempt from the judgment described in Rev 20:11-15, are priests of God and of Christ; and will reign with Jesus for 1000 years. The judgment alone should raise questions if all believers are “justified by His [Jesus'] blood” (Rom 5:9), what are these believers doing standing trial. The 'rest of the dead' believers being excluded from being priests or reigning; when just in Rev 5:9-10 we are told Jesus “purchased for God with [His] blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation … [and] made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth” (Re 5:9–10) Every believer is one only through the blood of Jesus.
Hopefully the above is enough to reach the conclusion that only unbelievers in the 'the rest of the dead'. If this conclusion is correct, then we honestly gain nothing from Rev 20:5a except confusion and anxiety due to bad theology around the passage. While these arguments do not yet provide a full rational for doubting the originality of the Rev 20:5a passage, they should be sufficient to start distancing this passage from any association with a resurrection of believers distinct from the first resurrection.
Ashiash's blog's second response to Rev 20:5a is to counter something the blog referred to as the Alford Dictum by Henry Alford. While I can confirm that George Eldon Ladd does reference a quote by Henry Alford that can be found in the 'Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 4 volume ed., Vol. IV' [specifically in his notes on Rev 20:5], Ladd never referred to it as a Dictum but simply as “the oft-quoted words of Henry Alford (Ladd, G. E. (1972). A Commentary on the Revelation of John (p. 267), the quote is specifically about Rev 20:4-5 and is as follows:
---continue 2e---
---continue from 2e---
ReplyDelete“If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain ψυχαὶ ἔζησαν at the first, and the rest of the νεκρῶν ἔζησαν only at the end of a specified period after that first,—if in such a passage the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising with Christ, while the second means literal rising from the grave;—then there is an end of all significance in language, and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything.”(Alford, H. (1872). The Greek Testament (Vol. IV). Boston: Lee and Shepard.) Volume 4 (online)
The two Greek terms in the quote are are ψυχαὶ ἔζησαν [soul came to life] and νεκρῶν ἔζησαν [dead came to life]. Please note, Alford is referring to ἔζησαν [ezesan – came to life] and not ἀνάστασις [anastasis – resurrection]. The argument is simply that first instances of ἔζησαν [ezesan – came to life] and the second instance of the verb in the identical form [Greek is an inflected language so the verb carries a lot about its intended usage] are in fact referring to identical types of action.
Now the only site I have found that actually refers to this quote as Alford's Law [not Dictum] is Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford's_Law] and none of its sited quotes reference it as Alford's Law, Dictum, or Rule. Without any corroboration or formal definition of this Law, Dictum, or Rule it is impossible to evaluate the responses given in Ashiash's blog.
So Ashaish please either provide references to some formal definition of this Alford's Dictum [similar maybe to the Grandville Sharp Rule – I see you have a link to Alpha and Omega Ministries, so here is a down to earth description of this Rule “https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/granville-sharps-rule”, many other sites also give a good description]. If a formal definition is not available then maybe a reworking of your response may be in order. I have provided Alford's quote above and I will provide what I believe Alford is getting at [below] based on a recent Dividing Line program I just happen to have been listening to if you wish to interact with that. Either way, the response given in the blog as it stands is a quintessential example of a straw-man argument and honestly detracts from the other arguments presented in the blog. Alternatively you could always incorporate the textual challenge I will be making to the whole Rev 20:5a passage and generate a response from there.
So in James White's Dividing Line 2020-09-01: Issues About the Viral Panic, then John 6...the Rest of the Story. At the 58 minute mark, James starts an in-depth exegesis of John 6:35-65. The discussion is well worth a listen (You Tube: https://youtu.be/o7fU9S9381g; Sermon Audio: https://mp3.sermonaudio.com/download/91202233195664/91202233195664.mp3)
---continue 2f---
It is not necessary to say that the “rest of the dead” will live after the thousand years. In fact, the “rest of the dead” (unbelievers) will never come to life in this sense at all. After the thousand years are ended, John does not see the living of the "rest of the dead". Rather, John is speaking about another "short time" (Revelation 20:3) before the final judgment. So, Alford's dictum does not hold here.
DeleteI will quote some part of Alford's statement: "If, in a passage where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain ψυχαὶ ἔζησαν at the first, and the rest of the νεκρῶν ἔζησαν only at the end of a specified period after that first,....."
But, two resurrection are not mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6.
---continue from 2f---
ReplyDeleteWithout trying to rehash what James goes through in his program [I would never do it justice], but his discussion illustrates the importance of what Henry Alford is asserting in his quote. Consider the following passages from John 6:35-65. James white identifies four actions that transition throughout the text; eating, drinking, believing, and coming. These words appear in different forms [again Greek is an inflected language] and even different words in the case of eat. The action word in Rev 20:4-5 referenced by Alford doesn't change form or context, and are only 12 Greek words apart [including articles]; while the four action words are further separated by words, context, and in some cases entire narratives than the Rev 20:4-5 passage. So if Henry Alford's “oft-quoted words” are dismissed as unreasonable or illogical, then how can one consistently maintaining that Jesus and John [as the human author of John and Revelation] could expect their audiences to understand and maintain the relationship between the different instances of the four actions [eating, drinking, believing, and coming] throughout the John 6:35-65 discourse? What follows is an examination of just the comes [ἔρχομαι – erchomai] and eats [ἐσθίω - esthio and τρώγω – trogo] action words.
Come [τρώγω – erchomai] transitions between different verb moods and tenses; Range throughout the whole discourse [well first 9 verses and last].
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes [ἐρχόμενος] to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (6:35)
“All that the Father gives Me will come [ἐρχόμενον] to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. (6:37)
“No one can come [ἐλθεῖν] to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. (6:44)
“It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes [ἔρχεται] to Me. (6:45)
And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come [ἐλθεῖν] to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” (6:65)
eats [ἐσθίω - esthio and τρώγω – trogo] transitions between two different words, verb moods and tenses; Range across 9 verses. What is unique about the progress of these verbs is that they are used in two different senses [physically eating and spiritual eating/believing] and mirrors what the opponents of the Henry Alford's quote want Rev 20:4-5 to say, but the sense of the verb is made clear by the author [Jesus and John] in multiple ways [using context, mood, and tense]. Again, if the author of John knew how to distinguish these two senses of eats, then if Rev 20:5a is original, the fact that no similar distinction that has ever been presented by opponents only demonstrates that no real distinction exists.
So first ate [ἐσθίω – esthio] in the aorist indicative, placing this as an actual event likely in the past. This is one way of how the text clearly distinguishes this as the actual physical eating of the physical manna in the wilderness. Imagine if we couldn't actually relate these two senses, what bizarre things we could make Jesus say [but I digress]. Please note, I have excluded John 6:52 which does contain ate [φαγεῖν;] because these were not Jesus' words [but they serve to convey the Jewish confusion developing].
“Your fathers ate [ἔφαγον] the manna in the wilderness, and they died. (6:49)
“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate [ἔφαγον] and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” (6:58)
---continue 2g---
---continue from 2g---
ReplyDeleteThe above examples are the only times that Jesus uses ate in the ἔφαγον form, every other time Jesus uses ate [ἐσθίω - esthio and τρώγω – trogo] between John 6:35-65 regardless of what form, they all refer to the spiritual eating/believing in Jesus [regardless of what your specific tradition may want to tell you – transubstantiation or cannibalism as the Jews that left him seemed to have thought, again I digress].
“This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat [φάγῃ] of it and not die. (6:50)
“I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats [φάγῃ] of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” (6:51)
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat [φάγητε] the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. (6:53)
“He who eats [τρώγων] My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. (6:54)
“He who eats [τρώγων] My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. (6:56)
“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats [τρώγων] Me, he also will live because of Me. (6:57)
“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats [τρώγων] this bread will live forever.” (6:58)
So in summary, if the verb ἔζησαν in Rev 20:5 in fact represents two very different things, spiritual coming to life and physically coming to life, then Christians have a serious problem. Without some clear principle that distinguishes between Rev 20:4-5 and John 6:35-65, there is no reason that the verbs in John 6:35-65 [and other passages for that matter] are any more stable in their sense than Rev 20:4-5. So before we start insisting on interpreting Rev 20:4-5 in a particular way, if we are going be consistent [or at least give the pretense of being], we had better know to keep that same method of interpretation from undermining every other doctrine we hold dear. Ultimately we cannot have one method of exegesis for John 6 and another for Rev 20.
So lastly onto the textual issues with Rev 20:5a. Before I start, the point isn't to try and dismiss the passage [to be honest the evidence while strong and persuasive; it is not definitive]. So why mention it in the first place? The idea that Revelation teaches something called a second, last, other, new resurrection is based mostly on the terminology of 'first resurrection' and the implications of Rev 20:5a. Revelation can and does still teach the idea of an eternal damnation or punishment as a kind of resurrection without ever referring to it as a 'second, last, other, new' resurrection. So while Rev 20:5a may be original, there is not sufficient proof to honestly warrant found a whole theology of a 'second resurrection' in Revelation on it [especially in light of Rev 22:18-19].
So according to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 28th Edition (NA28) this is Rev 20:5
⸋ ⸆ οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη.⸌ αὕτη ἡ ἀνάστασις ἡ πρώτη.
According to the NA28 Apparatus these are the major manuscripts related to this passage.
⸋ ℵ 2030. 2053. 2062. 2377 𝔐ᴷ syᵖʰ; Vic Bea
⸆ και 046. 051. 1006. 1841. 1854. 2050 𝔐ᴬ ar vgᵐˢˢ sy bo ἅ 2329
¦ txt A 1611 lat
The first line marks the manuscripts that do not include the passages between the ⸋ ⸌ symbols [i.e. the manuscripts missing 'The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.']. The second line indicates how many manuscripts match what is presented in the NA28 but start the verse with either και [kai - and] or ἅ [ho – which]. The last line indicates manuscripts that match exactly what is in the NA28.
---continue 2h---
---continue from 2h---
ReplyDeleteThe following are links to free Apparatus and resources for reading an Apparatus
https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=VarApp|reference=Rev.20.5&options=GNHVU
http://www.glasspath.com/members/waltzmn/NestleDefs.html
https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=VarApp
Before we can look at individual manuscripts listed in the Apparatus, let us look at the groups of manuscripts (translations and commentaries). Note, the reading a group favours gets the letter
Note: for ease of tracking the texts that are specifically listed as excluding Rev 20:5a are in bold...
𝔐ᴷ and 𝔐ᴬ – Byzantine Majority text. This is a huge collection of Greek texts that primarily exist from the 9ᵗʰ century onward, there are some noted exceptions that have been included in this collection (around 6 manuscripts). This collection of manuscripts is sub-divided into two groups, those with the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea (𝔐ᴬ) and those without (𝔐ᴷ). Andreas wrote his commentary in 611 AD and 𝔐ᴬ comprises around 1/3 of the texts leaving 𝔐ᴷ comprising the larger group of surviving Revelation manuscripts.
lat and vgᵐˢˢ – this indicates that this reading has support from both the Latin Vulgate and part of the Old Latin tradition. Again this is a group of texts that spans a long range of dates. The Vulgate translation was written mostly by Jerome in the late 4ᵗʰ century. The vgᵐˢˢ indicates that these are individual manuscripts that include Rev 20:5a but deviate from the rest of the Vulgate by adding και [kai – and].
syᵖʰ and sy – Syriac translations. The second symbol should really read syʰ as there are only two translations of Revelation into Syriac. The earlier Philoxenian (syᵖʰ) translation in 508 AD and a subsequent Harclensis (syʰ) translation around the 7ᵗʰ century. Prior to these translations, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, and Revelation had not been fully recognized as scripture and thus not translated. If any doubt that sy should read syʰ just review the NA28 Apparatus for verses 4 and 6.
bo – the Bohairic [part of the Coptic translations] translation of Revelation. The Bohairic translation of the New Testament started in the 3ʳᵈ century [most surviving manuscripts are from the 9ᵗʰ century - but there are very few surviving copies of Revelation].
Vic - Victorinus of Pettau's commentary on Apocalypse written around 260 AD.
Bea - Beatus of Liébana's commentary on the Apocalypse writen in the 8ᵗʰ century.
Here is a listing of the manuscripts listed in the order by century. Please first note, while there are to date 7 Papyrus for Revelation, none of them cover this passage.
ℵ - Sinaiticus [Greek] - 4ᵗʰ century [oldest Bible containing Rev 20:5]
A – Alexandrinus [Greek] - 5ᵗʰ century
1841 – [Greek] 9ᵗʰ century
ar - Book of Armagh [Latin] - 9ᵗʰ century Irish manuscript
046, 051, 1611, 2329 – [Greek] 10ᵗʰ century
1006, 1854 – [Greek] 11ᵗʰ century
2030, 2050 - [Greek] 12ᵗʰ century
2053, 2062 - [Greek] 13ᵗʰ century
2377 - [Greek] 14ᵗʰ century
So early records [up till 8ᵗʰ century] favour the shorter version of Rev 20:5 [This is the first resurrection]. Later manuscripts are still divided on if Rev 20:5a belongs in Revelation; so why don't any bibles note this textual variant? Likely most scholars are convinced the passage was dropped due to homoeoteleuton [like ending].
So in short homoeoteleuton happens when a scribe reads the original, looks away to write out what they was just read, and accidentally their eye returns to later in the manuscript because it has the same ending as the copied passage.
Imagine copying the following [even now knowing to watch for this error]
THEYCAMETOLIFEANDREIGNEDWITHCHRISTFORATHOUSANDYEARSTHERESTOFTHEDEADDIDNOTCOMETOLIFEUNTILWERECOMPLETEDTHETHOUSANDYEARSTHISISTHEFIRSTRESURRECTION
---continue 2i---
---continue from 2i---
ReplyDeleteYes, no spaces, no punctuation, all caps; All New Testament scriptures went through a time when they looked very similar to this [now there may be multiple columns of texts on a given page to help with copying and reading]. You can scan for the words 'thousand years' and it doesn't take much to understand how a passage can be lost. If you have a good eye, you will notice the words 'were completed' is moved before the second instance of the 'thousand years', this is because that would have been the actual order of the words in Greek [making the example more representative].
Due to the nature of this kind of error, anyone who has copied a few manuscripts in their life would have been aware of this problem [let alone any professional scribes]. There were also editors/correctors that would review these manuscripts [we can see the handy-work of a corrector in Sinaiticus as close as verses 1 and 8]. The scale of the impact of this kind of error is unlikely to be due to just one instance of this error, such an error in theory would have had to happen multiple times in many critical manuscripts to honestly have the scope we see across so many manuscripts and languages. Wouldn't it be nice to have an undeniable example of homoeoteleuton in Revelation to compare to, even possibly one as old as our oldest manuscript?
It just so happens that our oldest Sinaiticus is actually missing part of Revelation 18:22.
And the sound of harpists and musicians and flute-players and trumpeters will not be heard in you any longer; and no craftsman of any craft will be found in you any longer; and the sound of a mill will not be heard in you any longer;
Here is the text in Greek:
22 °καὶ φωνὴ κιθαρῳδῶν καὶ μουσικῶν καὶ αὐλητῶν καὶ ⸀σαλπιστῶν
οὐ μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι,*
καὶ πᾶς τεχνίτης ⸂πάσης τέχνης⸃
οὐ μὴ εὑρεθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι,
⸋καὶ φωνὴ μύλου
οὐ μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι⸌,*
23 καὶ φῶς λύχνου
οὐ μὴ φάνῃ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι,
καὶ φωνὴ νυμφίου καὶ ⸆ νύμφης*
οὐ μὴ ἀκουσθῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι·
And the Apparatus for verse 22
22 ° ℵ 2329
⸀ σαλπιγγων ℵ 1611. 1854. 2329 syh (co)
⸂ και πασης τεχνης 2053
¦ − ℵ A
⸋ ℵ syph bo
The last 3 lines are what interests us, the text πασης τεχνης [of any craft – bold and underlined above] is missing from only the two oldest Greek texts containing Rev 20:5 [Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus], even with the oldest Greek texts not having it, this missing text has no impact on any other text. The last line in the Apparatus marks the whole line ”and the sound of a mill will not be heard in you any longer” [in bold] is missing only from Sinaiticus, the earlier Syriac translations, and the Bohairic translations. The Rev 18:22 example of homoeoteleuton is far more likely to be duplicated thoughout the centuries [look at the number of times ἐν σοὶ ἔτι is repeated], but there is hardly any example of homoeoteleuton for this passage. All things being equal, Rev 18:22 and 20:5 seem hardly to be the same problem [if purely judged by impact], so either the passage in Rev 20:5 was dropped much closer to the autograph than Rev 18:22 or homoeoteleuton isn't the problem with this passage.
So if the text was not dropped, then what happened? Most likely Rev 20:5a is a 'gloss'. A gloss is text [added later to help explain the text or in some cases because someone didn't think the original needed improving – see Rev 2:22 where some manuscripts increased Jezebel's punishments] that originally appeared as a notes in the margin of the text, that accidentally migrates into text of the scriptures. The scribe reading the text with the gloss simply mistakes the gloss for a correction [which is typically marked in a similar way as a gloss – there was no universal standard that all scribes followed]; but the question is, can a little change somewhere around the 4ᵗʰ century really impact so many manuscripts?
---continue 2j---
---continue from 2j---
ReplyDeleteConsider John 5:3-4 where the following was added sometime in the around the 4ᵗʰ century “waiting for the moving of the waters; for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.” The whole verse is removed from the NA28 because there is no manuscript prior to the 5ᵗʰ century [earliest record is in Alexandrinus].
The NA28 Apparatus reads as follows:
⸆1 [4] αγγελος γαρ (δε L; + κυριου A K L Δ ƒ13 it vgcl ; + του θεου 1241) κατα καιρον κατεβαινεν (ελουετο A K Ψ 579. 1241 r1 vgmss) εν τη κολυμβηθρα και εταρασσε (εταρασσετο C3 078 c r1 vgcl) το υδωρ· ο ουν πρωτος εμβας μετα την ταραχην του υδατος υγιης εγινετο ω (οιω A L) δηποτε (δʼ αν K; + ουν A) κατειχετο νοσηματι A C3 K L Γ Δ Θ Ψ 078vid ƒ1.13 565. 579. 700. 892. 1241. 1424 𝔪 (it) vgcl syp.h bopt; (Tert)
¦ txt 𝔓66.75 א B C* D T Ws 33 f l q vgst syc co
Please note, the last line lists all witnesses that do NOT have verse 4, the rest [λοιπός – couldn't resist] all contain the verse. Alexandrinus; major portions of the Vulgate, Syriac, and Bohairic translations; and the Majority Text [enough to have no mention any discentors] – all include this verse. Many of the same manuscript families that were effected by Rev 20:5a are also affected by John 5:4, this in spite of the fact that John had been recognized as scripture throughout history, by far was propigated far more extensively, and more manuscripts have survived. So it should be clear now that Rev 20:5a is much more like a gloss than a homoeoteleuton, a single undiscovered papyrus could change the landscape of Rev 20:5a.
So Rev 20:5a is a gloss, why was it added? As discussed earlier, after the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, the question of what happens to those not killed for their faith or resisting the beast would have been a natural concern for anyone taking Revelation 20 seriously. It is only reasonable to think that some pastor may have added this note; just look at how post-millennials and amillennials have used it ever-since to illustrate its effectiveness [despite the issues presented already if seriously challenged].
Having outlined the textual history of why Rev 20:5a's place in scripture should be questioned [at least for basing another resurrection beyond the first-resurrection], there is also the mater of if there is evidence in the text itself that should make us question it's originality.
Consider how the oldest copy of this text [Sinaiticus] would read [pay special attention to the bolded text].
Then I saw thrones, and THEY sat on them, and judgment was given to THEM.
And I saw the souls of THOSE who had been beheaded because of THEIR testimony of Jesus
and because of the word of God, and THOSE who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on THEIR forehead and on THEIR hand; and THEY came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is THE ONE who has a part in the first resurrection; over THESE the second death has no power, but THEY will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. (Rev 20:4-6)
The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. (Rev 20:5a)
Should anyone honestly think that in the middle of Rev 20:4-6, where John constantly makes reference to they, them, those, their, the one, and these; John suddenly break his description of those who are in the first-resurrection to make a comment about a group that is excluded from the first-resurrection? Surely John could have have contained himself for 2 sentences to finish writing about those “Blessed and Holy ones of God” before talking about those who would miss-out on the first-resurrection [clearly what λοιπός – rest is meant to convey].
---continue 2k---
okay so blogspot cut my bold, at least I have highlighted some parts with CAPS but not as easy to follow test bold
Delete---continue 2k---
ReplyDeleteSo in summary, as stated in the earlier post, ἀνάστασις [anastasis – resurrection] was never used in the rest of the New Testament to refer to anything other than physical resurrection, it is highly questionable that John would deviate from the rest of scripture to use it in a different way here [and would thus have directly lead to the mass confusion that has resulted – I would rather lay that on the Gnostics and Augustine instead of John]. Revelation 20:5-6 is the only place where John describes a resurrection in Revelation, there is no solid foundation for injecting a separate resurrection in Revelation from the first-resurrection. Injecting a separate resurrection without a solid apologetic is dangerous considering Rev 22:18-19. One argument for a separate resurrection is Rev 20:5a which may not even be advocating a resurrection and says nothing about those in the first-resurrection. The fact that Rev 20:5a may not even be original to Revelation further erodes at any foundation for trying to support a resurrection separate from the first-resurrection.
I am going to start working on what the first-resurrection actually means, but since this response has been promised for over 2 weeks I think it is better to post this portion and present the positive argument for why John refers to the Rev 20:4-6 as the first-resurrection if he never presents another resurrection in Revelation later.
---done---
Sorry for the length, but there is no short way to actually discuss these 3 verses without leaving something out
I think James White summarized something I have been trying to say in regard to Rev 20:5a. In a debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Jeff Riddle on Mark 16:9-20 [Part of a larger debate about KJV Onlyism]. The statement James makes is that "one of the first things I was taught as a very young man is that you never build a dogma or doctrine upon a disputed text of scripture" (https://youtu.be/xmYw9sNVRCM?t=1359)
ReplyDeleteI do not need to prove that Rev 20:5a wasn't in the original scriptures, I just need to demonstrate that there is reasonable grounds to question if the text is original. If one is to be consistent, then honestly I do not see that one can use Rev 20:5a to try and prove that Revelation teaches another bodily resurrection from what is presented in Rev 20:4-6.
"This is the FIRST RESURRECTION" assumes that there is a "SECOND RESURRECTION". Even though, FIRST DEATH is not mentioned, it is implied in the text and context. What we saw are dead Christians. So, in context, the first death is the physical death.
DeleteAshish,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"1 Corinthians 15:25: “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.”
This means that the reign of Christ will continue until the defeat of the last enemy. This does not imply that Christ’s reign will end after the defeat of all enemies. The reign of Christ is an eternal reign.
==============================
My response:
That is not true and runs counter with the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor. 15:24-28
24. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
25. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
26. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
27. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
28. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
As a matter of fact his mediatorial reign ends (because it is temporal in nature) when he finally destroyed all of his enemies with death as the final enemy in the general resurrection of all the dead. He then leaves heaven and his throne at the right hand of God for his second coming to judge the living and the dead and to dissolve the first heaven and first earth to make way for the new heaven and new earth (NHNE). In that new creation he establishes his everlasting/eternal kingdom where he reigns with his Father and the Holy Spirit in line with what Paul reveals that Christ himself becomes subjected to God so that God (Trinity) will be all in all.
The word, "UNTIL" denotes an expiration date. Take the case of Psalms 110:1 which is a companion of 1 Cor. 15:25
1. The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
If your understanding of "until" is used in this verse then it means Christ will remain on his divine throne ("David's Throne") at the right hand of God in heaven and he will never leave heaven for his second coming even though death, the final enemy, has already been defeated/abolished.