Re: Premill Basis in Rev 20 Questioned

From: Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church (
Date: Mon Mar 17 1997 - 13:20:34 EST

On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, mbruffey wrote:

> Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church wrote:
> >
> > The text, however, does not mention two resurrections.
> > Part of the problem comes from an assumption made from verse 5. It is
> > erroneously assumed that at the end of the 1000 years the rest of the dead
> > come to life and reign with Christ. But, the text does not say this, and
> > AXPI does not require it. AXPI (often translated "until") does not imply
> > that at the end of the 1000 years the dead do come alive. Compare usages
> > in Rom. 5:13, 1 Cor 4:11, Rev 2:26, and 7:17 where AXPI certainly does not
> > imply that after the designated period of time the negation or opposite
> > situation goes into effect. For example, in Rom 5:13 it says, until the
> > law sin was in the world. Does this mean that after the law sin was not
> > in the world?
> >
> > The meaning seems only that throughout the 1000 year time period the rest
> > of the dead did not live (the constative aorist here is natural and
> > preferred over the ingressive 'came to life,' especially if the ingressive
> > suggests they came to life after the 1000 years).
> What you have constructed here seems to imply that the rest of the dead
> are never raised. Are they ever judged?


I am not rejecting the future general resurrection, that hour when all who
are in the tombs shall come forth, those who have done good unto the
resurrection of life, and those who have done evil unto the resurrection
of judgment (Jn 5:28-29).

What I am rejecting is the misconception in Rev. 20:4-5, spoken of by
Alford and subsequent premils, whereby two resurrections are posited and
it is argued, on the basis of consistent hermeneutics, that the first must
be literal because the second one is. Most translations do seem to
suggest this parallel, that is, that the rest of the dead come to life in
the same way as the first group did, but do so at the end of the 1000
years. I have only argued that the use of AXPI does not support this
translation and interpretation. All it says is that throughout the
duration of the 1000 years the rest of the dead lived not, or did not come
alive. It says nothing about after the 1000 years. It does not say they
did, nor that they did not.

But, it is erroneous to infer that they do and that it refers to a
physical resurrection and therefore the first resurrection is also

It may be that the first resurrection is spiritual and all v. 5 is saying
is that the rest of the dead lived not (constative aorist) or did not come
alive (ingressive) throughout the duration of that 1000 years. Of course,
if the first resurrection is spiritual, then the rest of the dead don't
come spiritually after the 1000 years either. But, this does not say
there is no physical and general resurrection.

Paul Dixon

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:10 EDT