# The Two Resurrections *First and second are categories — to life, to judgment.* A common challenge to historic premillennialism: if Rev. 20:5 calls this “the first resurrection,” doesn’t that mean no one (not even Christ) was raised before it? Your taught reading resolves this by recognizing the labels are *categorical*, not *chronological* — a pattern Scripture establishes from Genesis onward in its consistent use of “firstborn” to mean preeminence granted by God, not biological priority. Revelation 20:4-6 ## The First Resurrection *The resurrection to life* Who shares in it: - Christ — the firstborn from the dead, the firstfruits - The 10 documented resurrections in Scripture - Believers who died before the tribulation - The church gathered at Christ’s parousia - Tribulation martyrs raised before the millennium - All who believe — through every age Revelation 20:5, 11-15 ## The Second Resurrection *The resurrection to judgment* Who is raised: - “The rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5) - Those who rejected Christ - Those who stood on their own works - All who refused the gospel through every age - Raised after the millennium for the Great White Throne - Then face the second death (Rev. 20:14) > “An hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out — those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” — [John 5:28-29](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jhn/5/28/) · Christ’s own teaching Jesus himself names **two kinds of resurrection** — one to **life**, one to **judgment**. Both bodily (“tombs” don’t hold spirits). The distinction is **qualitative**, not chronological. Rev. 20’s “first” and “second” describe the *kind* of resurrection a person shares in, not the order they’re raised in time. ## Christ as Firstborn from the Dead The positive case — Scripture’s own language demands a categorical reading Beyond the negative argument (chronological reading produces absurdity), Scripture *positively* asserts that Christ is first in resurrection — the firstborn, the firstfruits, the preeminent one. This is not Christ being part of a separate event; this is Christ *pioneering the category* that all believers later share. - **[Colossians 1:18](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/col/1/18/)** — “He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.” - **[Romans 8:29](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/rom/8/29/)** — “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.” - **[Revelation 1:5](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/rev/1/5/)** — “Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.” - **[1 Corinthians 15:20-23](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/1co/15/20/)** — “Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep... Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.” Scripture **explicitly names Christ as first in resurrection** — preeminent, the firstborn, the firstfruits. If “first resurrection” in Rev. 20:5 meant chronologically first and Christ were excluded, Paul’s whole argument for Christ’s preeminence collapses. The firstfruits language (1 Cor. 15) settles it: Christ’s resurrection and ours are the same *kind* — he is the first of the harvest, we are the rest of that same harvest gathered at his coming. ## A Deeper Pattern “Firstborn” was never primarily biological In Hebrew thought, “firstborn” is fundamentally a category of *standing, blessing, and inheritance* — not a fact of biology. Scripture repeatedly displaces biological firstborns to teach this: the position belongs to whom God grants it, not to who arrived first. The same pattern that worked through the patriarchs is now at work in resurrection. - **Isaac over Ishmael · [Gen. 21:12](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/gen/21/12/)** — “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” Ishmael was biologically first; Isaac received the covenant. - **Jacob over Esau · [Gen. 25:23](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/gen/25/23/)** — “The older shall serve the younger.” God said this before they were born — the firstborn position was never about biology. - **Joseph over Reuben · [1 Chron. 5:1](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/1ch/5/1/)** — “Reuben the firstborn of Israel... his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph.” The biological firstborn was displaced by his own action. - **Ephraim over Manasseh · [Gen. 48:13-20](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/gen/48/13/)** — Jacob deliberately crossed his hands to bless Ephraim — the younger — with the firstborn’s blessing. He knew what he was doing and refused to be corrected. - **Israel itself · [Exodus 4:22](https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/exo/4/22/)** — “Israel is my firstborn son.” Said of a nation that came centuries after Egypt, Mesopotamia, and others. Firstborn here is positional from God’s perspective, not chronological. **Paul applies the same pattern to Gentile inclusion:** just as Isaac received what should have gone to Ishmael, believing Gentiles now share what was offered to ethnic Israel (Rom. 11:17 — “you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in”). The categorical firstborn principle operates throughout salvation history. So when Paul calls Christ *the firstborn from the dead*, he is deploying a category his Jewish readers understood: **firstborn means preeminence granted by God**, not first in chronological sequence. Rev. 20’s “first resurrection” follows the same biblical logic — it names the *preeminent* resurrection, the one that grants standing and inheritance, not the one that simply happens first in time. Why this matters — the amil objection collapses The standard amillennial argument: *“If Rev. 20:5 is the first resurrection, no Christian has been raised yet — so the rapture must follow it, not precede it.”* But this reading produces an absurdity: by its own logic, **even Christ wouldn’t be raised yet** (since his resurrection precedes Rev. 20). The chronological reading breaks under its own weight. The categorical reading — first = to life, second = to judgment — preserves both historic premillennialism’s literal 1,000 years AND Scripture’s wider witness that resurrection has happened many times and will happen at multiple moments. --- Shadows & Substance is an original, fourteen-part biblical framework for the last days by Aaron Smith (Marriage After God) that reads the shadows of the Old Testament toward their substance in Christ (Colossians 2:17) — written to be held in hope, not alarm. Source: Aaron Smith · Marriage After God · Smith Family Resources, Inc. Canonical: https://shadowsandsubstance.org/two-resurrections/