IndianaRob
Well-Known Member
I get it. I used to believe that also but fortunately it’s not true, the truth is much better than that.Revelation Texts shows there are two resurrections. John does not use the exact phrase “second resurrection,” but he makes the contrast very clear by calling the first one blessed and holy, and then showing a later resurrection for the rest of the dead. Let me explain carefully.
In Revelation 20:4–6, John describes the first resurrection. These are the saints who belong to Christ, who are raised and given life to reign with Him for a thousand years. Verse 6 says, “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.” This resurrection is unto life, victory, and blessing.
But then John says in Revelation 20:5, “The rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.” These are those who were not part of the first resurrection. After the thousand years, they are raised, not to reign with Christ, but to stand before the great white throne for judgment (Revelation 20:11–13). This is the second resurrection, though John does not use those exact words. Yet, the very mention of a “first resurrection” in Revelation 20:6 clearly points to a subsequent one. All whose names are not found in the Book of Life are then cast into the lake of fire, which is called the second death (Revelation 20:14–15).
To show you that I’m not making this up or interpreting it, I asked Chatgpt if grammatically both verses are about the first resurrection.
Chatgpt response:
Grammatically speaking, yes — in these two verses, the resurrection being referred to is identified as the first resurrection.
- In Revelation 20:5, the statement "This is the first resurrection." directly follows a contrast with "the rest of the dead," implying that the resurrection just mentioned (in verses 4–5a) is being labeled as the first resurrection.
- In Revelation 20:6, "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection..." clearly refers back to the same event.
To say that one is the first resurrection and the other is the second resurrection, goes completely against what the verse actually says.