The Pauline and New Testament Use of Protos: The First Resurrection
“The First Resurrection”
In the opening sentence of the article, Kline declared, “One of the critical points in the exegesis of Rev. 20 is the interpretation of prōtos in the phrase, “the first resurrection” (v. 5). Premillennarians understand prōtos in the purely sequential sense of first in a series of items of the same kind. Consequently, premillennarians interpret “the first resurrection” in Revelation 20:5 as a bodily resurrection, “But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.” They also interpret the resurrection event described in Revelation 20:12–13 as a bodily resurrection, “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.”
Kline opposed such a reading of the first resurrection on exegetical grounds. He argued that the contextual usage of prōtos (“first”) in Revelation 20 does not support a sequential understanding as premillennialists put forth. Rather, the exegesis “points compellingly to an interpretation of ‘the first resurrection’ found in (so-called) amillennial exegesis.” In making his argument, Kline turned to the usage of “first” in the immediate context of Revelation 21 to explain the correct understanding of the usage of “first” in Revelation 20.
Kline opposed such a reading of the first resurrection on exegetical grounds. He argued that the contextual usage of prōtos (“first”) in Revelation 20 does not support a sequential understanding as premillennialists put forth. Rather, the exegesis “points compellingly to an interpretation of ‘the first resurrection’ found in (so-called) amillennial exegesis.” In making his argument, Kline turned to the usage of “first” in the immediate context of Revelation 21 to explain the correct understanding of the usage of “first” in Revelation 20.
“First,” “New,” and “Second”
In Revelation 21 John employs “first” as the opposite of “new.” At the consummation, God will usher in a “new heaven and a new earth” and a “new Jerusalem” (Rev. 21:1–2); he will make “all things new” (Rev. 21:5). When this takes place, when God makes all things new, “the first things” pass away—tears, death, sorrow, pain (Rev. 21:4 ASV).Here “first” means to belong to the order of the present world, which is passing away. That which is “new” supersedes that which is “first.”In John’s terminology, then, “first” describes the present world; “second” and “new” are used in connection with the future world. Against the premillennial contention, then, Kline maintained from Revelation 21 that “first” does not merely mark the present world as the first in a series of worlds, or as the first in a series of worlds of the same kind. He said, “On the contrary it characterizes this world as different in kind from the ‘new world.’ It signifies that the present world stands in contrast to the new world order of the consummation which will abide forever.”
The Pauline and New Testament Use of Prōtos
To counter the sequential interpretation of "first," Kline examines how prōtos is used in antithetical pairs elsewhere in the New Testament to signify distinct historical stages or qualities, rather than a mere numerical list:
1. The Argument from Hebrews
- Hebrews 10:9: In the phrase, "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second," the word "second" serves as an alternate for the "new" covenant. Therefore, "first" is used in contrast to what is final and enduring.
- Hebrews 8:7 & 8:13: While some might read the "first covenant" sequentially, the author of Hebrews notes that God makes the first covenant "old" or "obsolete". Thus, "first" represents a provisional, passing historical stage that stands in direct opposition to the permanent, final stage.
Although the term “second” appears along with “new,” it is “new” that predominates as the counterpart to “first.” Accordingly, the significance of “first” in this context is not so much priority in a series but opposition to the idea of “new.” Prōtos thus functions here as an equivalent for “old,” our traditional designation for the Mosaic covenant.
Indeed, the author of Hebrews expressly observes that when God speaks of a “new covenant, he hath made the first old,” adding, “Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away” (Heb.8:13).
This contrast between the first and new covenants does not correspond exactly to that between the first and new worlds in Revelation 21, but in both cases the reality described by the term “first” is one that passes away. In Hebrews as in Revelation 21 prōtos is used for the provisional and transient stage in contrast to that which is consummative, final, and enduring.
To be called “first” within that pattern is to be assigned a place in this present world with its transient order. That which is “first” does not participate in the quality of consummate finality and permanence which is distinctive of the new kingdom order of the world to come.
This antithetical usage of prōtos reveals a great error in premillennial exegesis. Rather than using prōtos to indicate sequential ordering in bodily resurrections, John uses prōtos to indicate different kinds of resurrections. Textually, Kline argued,
John sees the Christian dead in Revelation 20:4. The meaning of their passing from earthly life is found in the heavenly state where they as royal priests live and reign with Christ. “Hence the use of the paradoxical metaphor of ‘the first resurrection’ (Rev. 20: 5-6) for the death of the faithful believer. What for others is the first death is for the Christian a veritable resurrection!”
Kline concluded, then, that Revelation 20 and 21 did not support the argument that the “first resurrection” is first in a series of bodily resurrections. It is not man’s bodily introduction to the permanence of the world to come, for the contextual force of “first” is descriptive of the pre-consummation stage of things.
WE RISE IN THE FIRST RESURRECTION THROUGH BAPTISM. CAESARIUS OF ARLES: [The first resurrection] is that by which we rise through baptism. As the apostle says, “If you have been raised with Christ, seek the things which are above. Col. 3:1” And again he says, “living as [those who have been brought to life] from the dead. Rom 6:13” For sin is death, as the apostle says, “when you were dead through trespasses and sins. Eph 2:1”
If “the first resurrection” were regeneration, the death of which “the first resurrection” was the triumphant reversal would be fallen man’s death in sin, his unregenerate state. But the living and reigning (Rev. 20:4) which is “the first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5) is surely to be regarded as answering to the death experience described earlier in the same verse, the death of Christian martyrdom:
Martyr death would obviously be a most unsuitable figure to depict death in sin. It would be incongruous even for the Christian experience of dying to sin. Those who participate in “the first resurrection” are not those who are dead in sins but those who are righteous in Christ.
The same problem surfaces in the reference to “the rest of the dead” who do not take part in “the first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5). On the interpretation under criticism this would be another group of the unregenerate and verse 5 would then become a rather pointless statement to the effect that the unregenerate are unregenerate during the thousand years.
Kline pointed out that Christian death is also the subject of the second beatitude, Revelation 14:13, “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them.”
To be called “first” within that pattern is to be assigned a place in this present world with its transient order. That which is “first” does not participate in the quality of consummate finality and permanence which is distinctive of the new kingdom order of the world to come.
2. The Argument from 1 Corinthians 15
- 1 Corinthians 15:45–47: Paul contrasts the "first man Adam" with the "last Adam". Kline notes that "first" here does not mean the first in a sequential series of many Adams, because there are no corporate "Adams" between the first and the last.
- Instead, it is antithetically qualitative. Echoing theologian Geerhardus Vos, Kline explains that the first Adam is earthy/psychical, while the last Adam is heavenly/Spiritual.
- The first Adam is earthy and psychical; the last Adam is heavenly and Spiritual (1 Cor. 15: 45, 47). Because of the federal position occupied by the two Adams, the qualities of each one also inform the life sphere at the head of which he stands (1 Cor. 15: 44-49).
- “First” is thus correlated with the preliminary, pre-consummative phase of kingdom development over against the eschatological final stage of the kingdom which bears the image of last Adam.
Kline then observed that both 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation 21 use “first” in antithetical fashion in putting forth an age-spanning structure of biblical eschatology that divides universal history into stages: this world and the world to come.
“First” means to be assigned a place in the present world with its transient order that is passing away.In neither passage does “first” function as a mere ordinal in the process of counting objects similar in kind. Kline concluded from the exegetical study of Hebrews, 1 Corinthians 15, and Revelation 21 that
“that which is ‘first’ does not participate in the quality of consummate finality and permanence which is distinctive of the new kingdom order of the world to come.”In his commentary upon Gen. 2:17, Kline wrote, “Surely die (v. 17). A curse balanced the covenant’s blessing, symbolized by the tree of life and Sabbath, threatening the opposite—not physical death but eternal perdition (later called ‘second death’).”
In his Genesis: A New Commentary, Kline elaborated on the connection between Gen. 2:7 and 1 Cor. 15:42–49. He wrote, “The Hebrew wordplay is reflected in Paul’s commentary that the first Adam was fashioned in a natural body for earthly existence. The apostle further observed that the last Adam shared in the earthly state in order to secure for fallen man in the resurrection the spiritual body of imperishable glory (1 Cor. 15:42–49), the prospect forfeited by the first Adam” (18–19).
Kline concludes from Hebrews and 1 Corinthians 15 that in biblical eschatology, "first" characterizes a transient order that is passing away and does not participate in the permanent quality of the world to come.
The Exegesis of Revelation 20 and 21
Kline applies this qualitative understanding of prōtos directly to the book of Revelation:
- Revelation. 21: John uses "first" as the opposite of "new" (the "first heaven and first earth" pass away to make room for the "new" order). John also uses "second" in antithesis to "first" (the physical death of the present world vs. the "second death," which is a metaphorical, eternal spiritual perdition in the lake of fire).
- The Crisscrossing Pattern: In Revelation 20, there is an interlocking pattern: first-(second) resurrection and (first)-second death. Kline argues that because the "second death" is metaphorical and non-physical, its parallel—the "first resurrection"—must also be metaphysical and non-bodily. If the eventual second resurrection is bodily, the first resurrection textually cannot be.
This antithetical usage of prōtos reveals a great error in premillennial exegesis. Rather than using prōtos to indicate sequential ordering in bodily resurrections, John uses prōtos to indicate different kinds of resurrections. Textually, Kline argued,
“If the second resurrection is a bodily resurrection, the first resurrection must be a non-bodily resurrection.”
The crisscrossing pattern then teaches that the “first resurrection” and the “second death” are metaphysical in meaning; “first death” and “second resurrection” are literal in meaning. But, if the “first resurrection” was not a bodily resurrection, then what did John mean in using that phrase? Kline answered, “Just as the resurrection of the unjust is paradoxically identified as ‘the second death’ so the death of the Christian is paradoxically identified as the ‘first resurrection.’
John sees the Christian dead in Revelation 20:4. The meaning of their passing from earthly life is found in the heavenly state where they as royal priests live and reign with Christ. “Hence the use of the paradoxical metaphor of ‘the first resurrection’ (Rev. 20: 5-6) for the death of the faithful believer. What for others is the first death is for the Christian a veritable resurrection!”
Kline concluded, then, that Revelation 20 and 21 did not support the argument that the “first resurrection” is first in a series of bodily resurrections. It is not man’s bodily introduction to the permanence of the world to come, for the contextual force of “first” is descriptive of the pre-consummation stage of things.
WE RISE IN THE FIRST RESURRECTION THROUGH BAPTISM. CAESARIUS OF ARLES: [The first resurrection] is that by which we rise through baptism. As the apostle says, “If you have been raised with Christ, seek the things which are above. Col. 3:1” And again he says, “living as [those who have been brought to life] from the dead. Rom 6:13” For sin is death, as the apostle says, “when you were dead through trespasses and sins. Eph 2:1”
Therefore, just as the first death is in this life because of sin, so also the first resurrection is in this life through the remission of sins.EXPOSITION ON THE APOCALYPSE 20:5, HOMILY 18. William C. Weinrich, ed., Revelation, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2005), 335.
If “the first resurrection” were regeneration, the death of which “the first resurrection” was the triumphant reversal would be fallen man’s death in sin, his unregenerate state. But the living and reigning (Rev. 20:4) which is “the first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5) is surely to be regarded as answering to the death experience described earlier in the same verse, the death of Christian martyrdom:
“(I saw) the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus … and they lived.” Though this martyrdom imagery is apparently a concrete, typical individualization of a more general kind of experience and is in that sense figurative, it is clearly a Christian experience that this figure portrays.
Martyr death would obviously be a most unsuitable figure to depict death in sin. It would be incongruous even for the Christian experience of dying to sin. Those who participate in “the first resurrection” are not those who are dead in sins but those who are righteous in Christ.
Their martyrdom is not the kind of death for which spiritual regeneration would be the remedy, but it is itself a consequence and seal of a spiritual regeneration that has been manifested in faithful Christian witness (cf. Rev. 2:10; 12:11).
A FIRST AND SECOND DEATH, A FIRST AND SECOND RESURRECTION. OECUMENIUS:
“This is,” it says, “the first resurrection,” clearly that of faith.
For the second resurrection will be the universal resurrection of the body. Therefore, “blessed is he who shares in the first resurrection!”
For we will all take part in the second resurrection, even those who are unwilling. Upon those who share in the first resurrection, that is, upon the faithful, “the second death has no power.” What sort of death is this second death? Clearly it is that of sin and of the subsequent punishment.
For just as he spoke of a first and a second resurrection, so also is there a first and a second death. The first death is physical and results in the separation of the soul and the body. The second death … is spiritual and is caused by sin. Of this death also the Lord spoke: Matt. 10:28
“Do not fear those who kill the body; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE 20:4–8. William C. Weinrich, ed., Revelation, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2005), 335.
The same problem surfaces in the reference to “the rest of the dead” who do not take part in “the first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5). On the interpretation under criticism this would be another group of the unregenerate and verse 5 would then become a rather pointless statement to the effect that the unregenerate are unregenerate during the thousand years.
However significant the theological observation that triumphant Christian death belongs to a spiritual process whose source is regeneration, spiritual resurrection from death in sin simply is not what is meant by “the first resurrection” in Revelation 20:5f.
The letter to the church in Smyrna in Revelation. 2 contains a section that closely parallels Revelation 20:4–6 in its treatment of the blessedness of Christian death. Like the Revelation. 20 passage it speaks of martyrdom and promises that through such death the “crown of life” will be secured, a life exempt from “the second death”: “be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life … He that overcomes shall not be hurt of the second death” (Rev. 2:10,11).
The letter to the church in Smyrna in Revelation. 2 contains a section that closely parallels Revelation 20:4–6 in its treatment of the blessedness of Christian death. Like the Revelation. 20 passage it speaks of martyrdom and promises that through such death the “crown of life” will be secured, a life exempt from “the second death”: “be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life … He that overcomes shall not be hurt of the second death” (Rev. 2:10,11).
An additional point of resemblance is the contextual reference in both passages to the activity of Satan (Rev. 2:9, 10 and 20:2f., 7ff.). There is also the intriguing possibility of a relationship between the numerical symbols of the ten days of tribulation (Rev.2:10) and the thousand years of reigning (20:4, 6).
The intensifying of ten to a thousand together with the lengthening of days to years might then suggest that the present momentary tribulation works a far greater glory cf. (1 Pet. 5:10; Rom.8:18; Heb.12:11; Job 5:17,18) to be experienced even in the intermediate state as the immediate issue of martyrdom. The equation of the state of Christian death referred to in this letter with “the first resurrection” state of Revelation 20 is of course firmly established by the common contextual mention of “the second death” (not found in any other context), the same assurance of deliverance from this “second death” being given in both cases.
But the “crown of life” promise in Revelation 2:10 is also a strong confirmation of this equation. The crown, stephanos, though it might be the festive garland might also be the royal crown. If the latter image is intended here, the “crown of life” promised to the Christian dead is precisely the nominal equivalent of the verbal “they lived and reigned” in the account of the experience that attends “the first resurrection” in Revelation 20:4ff. Meredith G. Kline, “The First Resurrection,” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 3 (1974): 372–374.
If the postmillennial view were to account at all plausibly for the almost total concentration on the intermediate state in the Revelation 20 description of the millennium, the justification would have to involve the assumption that the features here assigned to the intermediate state were at least peculiar to the millennial phase of it.
But if the millennium is restricted to a late phase of the present church age, such an assumption is quite unacceptable.
For in this book the beheaded faithful who provide the individualizing image for the Christian company who are said to live and reign during the thousand years (Rev.20:4) will naturally be understood to include those persecuted first century believers with whom the author identified himself as a companion in tribulation for the testimony of Jesus.
And certainly, according to the perspective of the series of Apocalyptic beatitudes to which Revelation 20:6 belongs, the Christian dead have participated in the blessedness of the millennial “first resurrection,” the blessedness of the intermediate state of royal rest with Christ, from the time of the church’s beginnings when the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ was revealed on Patmos. For the voice from heaven said to John: “Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth” (Rev.14:13). Meredith G. Kline, “The First Resurrection,” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 3 (1974): 375.
He believed that the promised sabbath rest blessing of Revelation 14:13 was very much the same as the millennial blessing of Revelation 20:5–6. Sabbath rest in the Bible includes enthronement after the completion of labor. The risen Christ’s sabbath rest is his kingly session at God’s right hand.
For the believer, to live and reign with the risen Christ is to participate in his sabbath rest.
This is the blessing promised to those who die in the Lord in the beatitude of Revelation 14:13, but it is also the blessing promised to those in the beatitude of Revelation 20:6 who have a part in the first resurrection.
The Paradox of Christian Death
If the first resurrection is not bodily, Kline concludes it is a paradoxical metaphor for the death of a believer. While physical death is a literal "first death" for the wicked, it is transformed for the Christian. The moment a believer dies, they instantly enter a heavenly intermediate state to live and reign with Christ. What looks like death to the world is actually a "veritable resurrection" and a state of royal, kingly Sabbath rest.
Implications for Millennial Views
Because the first resurrection is tied to "the thousand years," the millennium itself is designated as a "first" age belonging to the present, pre-consummation world order. This allows Kline to critique the three main millennial systems:
- Premillennialism is excluded because it requires the millennium to be a literal, physical kingdom established after Christ's Second Coming, rather than a "first" age prior to the final judgment.
- Postmillennialism is rejected because it views the millennium as a late, golden phase of earthly church prosperity. Kline argues this fails to explain why Revelation 20 focuses almost exclusively on the intermediate, heavenly state of deceased martyrs who lived in John's own era.
- Amillennialism is validated because it correctly identifies the "thousand years" as the present church age, recognizing that deceased believers are already participating in the blessedness of the millennial "first resurrection" by reigning with their Savior in glory.
This includes the believers persecuted for the testimony of Jesus with whom John identified himself in his own day.
Kline believed the approach that fit Revelation most faithfully was the amillennial viewpoint, in which earthly developments in the church and the world for the time denoted by the “thousand years” are dealt with throughout the book.
The amillennial view also does justice to Revelation’s teaching concerning the Christian dead and the intermediate state that the thousand years of Revelation 20 describes. According to the perspective of the Apocalyptic beatitudes to which Revelation 20:6 belongs, the dead in Christ have participated in the blessedness of the millennial first resurrection.
They are those who enjoy the blessedness of royal rest in the intermediate state in their Savior for the voice from heaven in Revelation 14:13 said to John, “Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth.”
Comments
Post a Comment