Revelation 20, 4-6, reading from the majority text, And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus and on account of the word of God, even those who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand. and they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. Now the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one having a part in the first resurrection. Upon such, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him. a thousand years. Amen. Father, we thank you for your word. You truly are an awesome God, and we delight ourselves in you. We find great pleasure in being your bondservants, and yet, Father, you have elevated us to sons and daughters. You have even exalted us, those who are overcomers, to sit with Christ in the heavenly places, and I pray that each one of us would be those overcomers, each one of us would have that faith to view life from our position in Christ from the heavenlies, that we would not be discouraged, that we would not look at life only through carnal eyes, but Father, may we have the eyes of Christ granted to us by your spirit. I do bless the preaching of your word and bless this your people, we pray in Jesus' name, amen. Well, we come to another passage where godly men and women have had strong disagreements. In fact, I was counting up my friends who have disagreements on this passage, and they land in four quite different camps. And we're not going to look at every angle of those different camps, or it would make this sermon way too complicated. But just the critiques that I'm going to be bringing to Two of the most common of those viewpoints will actually do away with every other alternative view. And by the way, the fact that you got a four-page outline does not mean it's going to be four times longer, okay? Just want to give you a heads up. I wanted you to have more detailed information that you could take home with you. And there is good news. I always look forward to the times when there's something everybody agrees on in the book of Revelation, okay? Let me outline for you some things in which there is absolutely no controversy. First, everyone agrees that the first sentence of verse five is a parenthetical statement. and that the second sentence in verse 5 returns to the theme of the last sentence of verse 4. Everybody agrees with that. So if you just put a parentheses around the first sentence of verse 5, like the Pickering's translation and the outline has it, if you put a parenthesis around that, it'll help you to see the logic that is going on in the passage. So if you were to delete the parenthesis, just so you see the two sides of that same thing pulled together, the text would read this way, starting with the last sentence of verse four. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years, dot, dot, dot, This is the first resurrection. Okay, so the first sentence of verse 5 explains what happens to those who are not a part of the first resurrection. It's giving a parenthetical statement, and then it returns back to the theme of the first resurrection that he had just been talking about. There is absolutely no controversy on that, so you don't need to stress your heads about it, even if it seems a little confusing. Why did he put a parentheses in there? There's no controversy. We can move on. Second thing that people are agreed on is that the thrones and the judgment of the first sentence of verse 4 are associated with the first resurrection, not with the second resurrection. Okay, you don't need to stress your brains about that phrase. That one everybody agrees with. Third, everyone seems to be in agreement that the second resurrection is a literal resurrection. Hallelujah. I don't have to prove anything on that phrase either. This is something everybody's agreed on, that at the end of the thousand years, whatever those thousand years are, so we won't get into that right now, whatever they are, at the end of the thousand years, there's going to be a literal resurrection of bodies up out of the ground. I've got over a hundred commentaries that I look through and not a one of them disagrees. Now Beal, his commentary, he's got like 10 times more commentaries than I do. I think he's probably read over a thousand. The guy's amazing. He's quite the brain. And he says the same thing. He's a little more humble than I am. He says, all commentaries apparently agree. So again, even full preterists, I've looked through their commentaries and there is one commentary that I have by a heretical full preterist that doesn't believe in the resurrection at all. Okay. Most full preterists say that at the end of the thousand years, there's a literal resurrection of bodies from the ground. Now, strangely, weirdly, they think the thousand years is the 40 years between 8030 and 8070. I'm not going to get into all of that debate. It's not worth it this morning. The key thing is that the first phrase of verse five that says now the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were finished is interpreted by everyone as a literal resurrection. So that makes my job much, much easier in interpreting this paragraph. Now, where the controversies lie are on the nature and the timing of the first resurrection and the nature of the thousand years. Now, we dealt with a thousand years last week, and I think it'll make this sermon too complicated to get into that. I want to quickly dispose of the vast bulk of the aumil and postmil interpretations of the two resurrections. Now, I'm a postmil myself, but when it comes to the two resurrections, I land solidly with the premillennial camp. Always have, and I've just never been able to see how you can get around their watertight arguments. And by the way, There is a growing movement of amillennialists and postmillennialists who are coming to the same interpretation that I do. They say, wow, it's pretty hard to argue with the premillennials on that. There are two literal resurrections, and they've been coming in this direction. Where we disagree with the premillennial interpretation is on timing. They think that the first resurrection is sometime off in our future, and then they say there will be another resurrection 1,000 years later, not to claim That the first resurrection to have happened in history is in the future, to me, just doesn't make any sense. It's a denial of the priority, the centrality, the importance of Christ's resurrection in all of the scripture, even if you don't account all of the Old Testament saints who rose with Christ. If you just look at the resurrection of Christ, because the word first over and over modifies the resurrection of Christ. He is the first to rise from the grave. He is the first born from the dead. He's the first fruits from the dead. I don't know how you can deny that there was a resurrection in the first century. So according to Scripture, first resurrection has already happened in the first century, and the text goes on to say, the rest of the dead will not be raised till the thousand years are finished, which means what? A post-1,000 years, a postmillennial resurrection. So far from this being a strong premillennial passage, this is an incredibly strong postmillennial proof. Many pre-millennialists, some of you have read George Eldon Ladd's commentary. Many like him have said if it wasn't for Revelation 20, they would ditch pre-millennialism because there's so many problems with it, but they feel forced to because it clearly talks about two resurrections. Well, my interpretation helps them to jump ship, okay? Well, not jump ship, transfer ships into another ship. Jumping ship probably sounds a little dangerous, but Anyway, it should help them over the hump. But even though premills do not get the timing right, their arguments are watertight on the nature of the two resurrections being two physical resurrections. So the more you think about this, if there are two literal resurrections, it destroys premillennialism, because the first has already happened. The rest can't happen till the post-millennium, at the end of the millennium. So I think we've got to correct this view in our camp if we were to get a hearing. Now of the two most common theories that are out there, the first one that I've listed there is by far the most common. It claims that the first resurrection is the regeneration of our soul. This was the view of Augustine, John Calvin, it's the view of many modern reformed people like Kim Riddlebarger, Norm Shepard, Sam Hamstra, Sidney Page, Floyd Hamilton, William Cox, you name it. There's just a ton of people who hold to this. William Cox says, we believe entrance to the ongoing millennium is gained solely through the new birth and that John refers to this as the first resurrection. And these are not stupid people. Okay, some of them are brilliant. By the way, Ken Gentry holds to this view as a post-millennialist, and I respect him a great deal. And by the way, it will not make me offended at all if you guys aren't convinced by my argument, and you hold to his view. Okay, there's a lot of strong arguments for this view, and I'm going to give you, I'm going to start off with their three strongest arguments. First argument is that regeneration is indeed likened to a resurrection of the soul in other passages. Absolutely no question about this. All Calvinists agree. Calvinists believe with the scripture that the whole being of man is spiritually dead and unable to approach to God. And so Ephesians 2 verse 1 says, you he has made alive who were dead in trespasses and sins. And verses 5 through 6 says, even when we were dead in trespasses, he made us alive together with Christ. By grace you have been saved and raised us up together, made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. So he's clearly likening our regeneration to a resurrection. And obviously the resurrection of our souls has to precede the resurrection of our bodies. So they say it's logical. That's the first resurrection. The second resurrection for us would be the resurrection of our bodies. So that's their argument. Colossians 2, 11 to 12 says much the same thing. 1 John 3, 14, we know that we have passed from death unto life. Now I won't go through the other scriptures. I've given a bunch of the scriptures that you can find in their commentaries in your outline. And so I just say right off the bat, I totally agree. There is a resurrection of our souls when God gives us new life. Hallelujah. That is a wonderful, blessed doctrine. The question is, is that the resurrection that our passage is talking about? At least theoretically, it's a possibility. And I'm going to start off by granting that possibility. A second strong point in their argument is the phrase in verse four that says, I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded, and it is those souls that are later said to be resurrected. Okay, they say that a soul is not a body. So if a soul is resurrected, it's got to be a spiritual resurrection. Well, what kind of spiritual resurrection does the body talk about? Well, over and over it talks about the regeneration of our souls, right? So it's a pretty good argument. If I didn't know better, I'd be tempted to almost be convinced by now. And then finally, they appeal to John 5, 24 through 29. I want you to go ahead and turn to this because this is their prize verse that teaches to resurrection. And in context, it is actually a very, very strong proof text. And I can see why they are convinced by it. John 5, 24 through 29. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has everlasting life and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. And so this is likening the regeneration of our souls at conversion to a resurrection. Then verse 25 goes on. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming And now is when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." And on their interpretation, the hour is coming resurrection is a reference to the resurrection at the end of history. It's a physical resurrection. And the hour that is resurrection is a reference to our souls. We can't get resurrected in the future if our souls don't first get resurrected. So they say the same voice, the divine voice that will raise the dead from the graves in the future is now, right now, working at raising our spirits from the dead. By the way, let me give you my interpretation because I may not remember to return to it later. My interpretation is no, that's two literal resurrections. The hour is coming resurrection is in the future. The hour that now is resurrection is the imminent resurrection of Jesus and the Old Testament saints who rose with him. Remember Matthew 27 and Hosea 6 and Isaiah 26, a number of passages talk about many people rising with Christ in AD 30. But anyway, given the context of verse 24, I will grant them, this is an incredibly strong proof text, and I'll say, hey, If exegetically Revelation 20 fits this, we'll go with it. That's fine. Continuing to read in verses 26 through 29, For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this for the hour is coming, which all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation. So each of those three points are quite strong, even though they can be interpreted two different ways. Now let's look at some of the weaknesses of this position, and I believe it is so weak that it completely, 100% discredits this view. At least in my understanding, it discredits it. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on my own interpretation, because frankly, every one of these weaknesses is an argument in favor of there being two literal resurrections. And I won't reiterate what I'm saying. I'm trusting you to be smart enough to pull all of these facts together as I go through. I'm trying to keep this sermon within bounds. Now, the first weak point is that the regeneration view violates the rules of standard Greek grammar in the last sentence of verse four. Now, if you don't know Greek, just turn your hearing aids off for 30 seconds and we'll get back again. John uses an accusative of time, kilia et te, which indicates that the saints so raised will raise for the entire millennial period, not just portions of it. Now this is exactly the same accusative of time that was used in verse 2 of Satan being bound for the entire thousand years, the entire millennium. Now these regeneration view people, they're inconsistent in that they apply the accusative of time to Satan being bound for the 1,000 years. They say, well, it's obvious. He's bound for the entire 1,000 years, whatever that 1,000 years is. And then they come down here and they say, well, it's not true for regeneration because people are going to be regenerated all the way up to the last day of history. So the person who's regenerated on the last day of history, he's going to rule for one day. He's not ruling for 1,000 years. So anyway, there is a little bit of inconsistency There, it seems to me, if Paul intended to mean what they say he means, he would have used the genitive of time rather than the accusative of time, or simply said that they will reign during the thousand years, not for the thousand years. But if they were physically resurrected, as I believe that they were, it fits perfectly. Every one of them did indeed reign for every single day of that entire period of the thousand years. Now, we reign as well, but that's a subject for a different paragraph in Revelation. This is talking about Old Testament saints not missing out on the kingdom. God has blessed them in a way that many people thought, oh, that's too bad that they lost out. They weren't part of the kingdom. No, they're going to be included. Now, the second weakness is tied to the same clause. Who gets to live and reign with Christ for a thousand years? Now, I believe it is all saints who died before A.D. 70, but on the regeneration view, it seems to exclude any saints who regenerated before the thrones are set in place. Most of them tend to see the thrones being set in place in A.D. 30. But it still presents a problem. The order of the text, if you look at it, is thrones being set in place, saints sitting on those thrones, judgment being committed to them, those beheaded being resurrected, perhaps because of their sitting on the thrones, then reigning for the thousand years. But this interpretation completely reverses that and has the regeneration logically becoming before any of those things, before verse 4. It makes the supposed meaning of the text extremely awkward. Old Testament saints were regenerated just as much as we are, so how does their regeneration usher them into the thousand-year reign on their view? That's the question. And the follow-up question is how does their regeneration happen after Thrones are put in place. It can't. The third weakness is that the souls of verse 4 seem to be saved before they are resurrected. On their interpretation, that would make them saved before they are regenerated, an impossibility. Let's read verse 4 again. And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus and on account of the word of God, even those who had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand, and they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." Who lived and reigned? The people in the preceding clauses, the people who had been faithful. And yet Amillennialists insist that the word lived, and postmillennialists like Gentry as well, insist that the word lived in the phrase lived and reigned means they were regenerated. It is a huge problem and they recognize it. The amillennialist Fowler White says that putting the regeneration after their godly lifestyle should not be a conclusive argument against it. Now in his view, the last sentence is simply explanatory of the previous clauses why they were even possible. But it sure doesn't seem to flow from the text. It seems to be a forcing the text to fit a predetermined conclusion. But even more embarrassing than the previous weakness is the fact that the souls were beheaded before they got regenerated. How could that be? Now let's substitute regenerated for they lived and I think you'll see that. I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded dot dot dot and they, who's the they? It's those who had been beheaded they were regenerated and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. That's really an embarrassing order to the text and it's made some awe mills like Meredith Klein completely ditch this theory and come up with the second theory we'll look at where at death our souls get resurrected to heaven. Okay well that fits the order much better doesn't it? So they say it's just it's just too awkward to say it's regeneration we're going to opt for theory two and we'll get to that in a bit. But our R. Fowler White argues with Meredith Klein. So we got two amillennialists arguing with each other in this journal. And he tries to salvage the regeneration view by saying that the first resurrection, quote, actually precedes and ironically leads the saints into martyrdom rather than delivering them from it. And Meredith Klein says, well, that's a fine theory, but that's not what the text says. And I tend to agree. The interpretation just seems extremely unlikely. An additional problem with this view is found in the next verse, where it says that the rest of the dead do not come to life until the thousand years is finished. Now, if the first coming to life is regeneration, then the rest of the dead refers to the rest of the spiritually dead. But since coming to life means coming to life from deadness that they share in common, that would imply that the non-elect get regenerated or they get saved at the end of the thousand years. Now, if you're a universalist, no problem. They say, yeah, people get saved during this time. And then at the end of time, everybody gets saved. But nobody who's Orthodox can buy into that because it contradicts so many other scriptures. So there's a major problem here. The phrase, the rest of the dead, implies that both resurrections are referring to the same kind of coming to life from the same kind of death. And with those two issues standing in the way, Matt Waymire is correct when he says, John makes it clear that those who came to life in verse 4 were indeed physically dead when they experienced the first resurrection. That is the most natural reading of the text. The sixth problem with the regeneration view is that the word anastasis, that's the word for resurrection in verse 5, is not used of regeneration one single time in the Bible. The seventh problem is that even in the passages that I've already agreed do describe our regeneration as a resurrection that uses synonymous terms. Okay, so let's look at those. There is a resurrection of the soul. Every one of those passages makes clear in context that these people are spiritually dead and in order to be saved They've got to be spiritually resurrected. That's quite different from the context here The context here is that the these people have been who are going to be resurrected have been beheaded Souls don't get beheaded okay, it's bodies that get beheaded. In fact the word for a beheaded there is simply a term that was used of the Roman capital punishment of an axe cutting off a person's head, right? That's what it's a decapitation. So the context itself dictates the interpretation of what kind of resurrection he is talking about. What is dead here? Their bodies are dead, not their souls. In fact, there's not a single word in the entire context would indicate that their souls are dead. In fact, the exact opposite. They are faithful, regenerate Christians before any resurrection is mentioned. But what about their argument that the word soul is used? While that may seem like a strong argument, it actually isn't, and I've given you 13 verses, which we won't go through all of them, 13 verses where soul clearly refers to a person in a body. He has a body, yet he's a soul, right? For example, Acts 2 verse 41 says that 3,000 souls were baptized and added to the church. Those souls were not disembodied spirits. Acts 15.26 speaks of people risking their lives for the gospel and the word for lives there is exactly the same word for souls. And if you just study all of the verses that I've put into your outline, you will see why dictionaries say that the word soul is really person. That's what it means. So you can have embodied persons, you can have disembodied persons. It's the context, but if John had used the word spirits, okay, slam dunk, it would have been a very clear reference to that. Now, I'm willing to even grant them this point because these souls are souls of people who had been beheaded, right? Of the persons who had been beheaded, but I'll point out that it's after they are disembodied that they get resurrected. So it completely rules out the regeneration view, though not the second Amel view. But the ninth weakness is a pretty significant weakness. It is that the exact same word, za'o, and even the exact same form of the word, edzason, occurs in verses 4 and 5. Now everyone agrees that the word describes a physical resurrection in chapter 5a, I mean verse 5a. So it would be very odd to use exactly the same word, the same form of the word to describe a regeneration in verse 4, and then 15 words later to use it to describe a physical resurrection. It just seems very odd. And this is especially so when the comparison is made by John of some dead people and the rest of the people. The rest implies both groups belong to the same category of deadness. and therefore logic dictates that if one is physical, the other has to be physical. If one is spiritual, the other has to be spiritual. Premillennialist Alva McLean rightly says, if the people involved were beheaded physically and then lived again, common sense would suggest that they received back the same category of life that that had been lost. Now, those who hold the regeneration theory are not idiots. They've got answers to all of these objections. But their answers tend to be, well, your position has problems too, so get over it. Now, they don't word it that way, but that's really the effect of their argument. So their first rebuttal is the claim that the Bible speaks of only one general resurrection in the future. And therefore, even if logic and exegesis might seem to dictate a physical resurrection here in this passage, Systematic theology dictates otherwise. It's kind of like saying, my system demands this interpretation, and your system should demand this interpretation too, if you take it all seriously, all of these verses that talk about one general resurrection. But that assertion, that all Scripture presents only one general resurrection in the future, is patently false, as I've already proved in this Revelation series. 1 Corinthians 15 clearly says that there is an order to the resurrections, and no matter how you interpret, you can look at a hundred commentaries on 1 Corinthians, you're going to come to the same conclusion. No matter how you interpret it, there are a minimum of two resurrections in 1 Corinthians 15, And Premilles and me and others say it's actually three resurrections that he's talking about there. 1 Corinthians 15. John 5, verse 25, which is their favorite proof text, also distinguishes between a resurrection that is imminent and a resurrection that is future. Listen to Matthew 16, verses 27 through 28. For the Son of Man is about to. Now in this book, we've seen the Greek word mellow is a very powerful word. He is about to come in the glory of his father with his angels and then he will reward each according to his works. Now rewarding each according to his works is over and over again, not universally, but over and over again tied with our resurrection. That's when each is rewarded according to his works. And people say, well, that can't possibly refer to AD 70 then. Well, to ward off any misinterpretation, Jesus in the very next verse defines what he meant when he says, it's about to happen. Okay, this resurrection and judgment is about to happen. He says, assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. And we've seen in previous verses that there were several eyewitness accounts at the time of AD 70, the Jewish war, people seeing this huge figure of Jesus in the sky leading these angelic armies on a judgment against Jerusalem. It was literally fulfilled. Now it wasn't the second physical coming of Christ. That has not yet happened. But it was a parousia. It was an appearing in the sky. So when God says something will happen soon, it happens soon. When he says it is about to happen, it's not going to be 2,000 years later. We can take the scripture at face value. Acts 24, 14 through 15, Paul uses the Greek word mellow again, and he says this. But this I confess to you, that according to the way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust." Now the New King James translators are futurists, and they just left out the translation of that Greek word mellow, even though it occurs in every Greek manuscript. Okay, the Greek word mellow means about to happen. It's imminent. There was an imminent resurrection. Acts 24, verse 25 also speaks of an imminent judgment. 2 Timothy 4, verse 1 says that God and the Lord Jesus Christ were about to judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom. So it is flat out false for people to claim that there are only references to one general resurrection at the end of history. And they should know better, actually, because liberals have been quoting these scriptures I've just quoted, and they're using them to mock evangelicals. They say, oh, you say this is going to happen in the future, and that this is about to happen. The apostles thought it was about to happen. Jesus thought it was about to happen, a soon resurrection, and it didn't. The Bible's wrong. And we have been demonstrating in the book of Revelation that these liberals are wrong. There is historical evidence that all of these things that God says were about to happen did happen to that generation. And the things that he says, like the second coming, is a long ways away. It's distant. People can wait for it and it won't seem to happen ever. That's talking about the second coming. That's at the end of history. There are quite different approaches to these two things. OK, but the Regeneration View proponents give yet another objection to what we have said. They claim that this is the only place where the word first is used in connection with the resurrection. And because it is unique, it probably refers to first in importance, not first in sequence or series. They lose the argument if it's first in sequence or series, right? So their logic is a bit strange, but they insist, because this is the one and only occurrence of this word first with the resurrection, it must be qualitatively first, not sequentially first. But is it true that the word first is never used in any other passage with the word resurrection? And the answer is absolutely not. They are wrong. Acts 3.26 refers to Jesus' resurrection as the first anastasis that God gives, resurrection. Likewise, Acts 26, 23 says that Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead. And I've listed a whole bunch of scriptures in your outline that speak to a firstfruits from the dead, firstfruits resurrection. And Jews would have understood that, that the barley harvest was divided up into two parts. There was the green, you couldn't even eat it, it was the green barley harvest, which was a reference to the ultra-early resurrection of Jesus and a few Old Testament saints, some of the Old Testament, there was still many. And then there was the bulk of the barley harvest in 80-70, but the barley harvest is a reference to a first century resurrection, and the wheat harvest, which occurs later, is a reference to the second coming resurrection at the end of history. And I gave an entire sermon in Revelation 11 pointing, describing those two harvests. I'm not going to repeat what I said back then. But then the regeneration of the soul advocates produce a beautiful chart, which I've reproduced from Beal's commentary in your outlines, showing a chiasm of two different kinds of death, the first death being physical, the second death being spiritual, two different kinds of resurrection. First being spiritual, the second being physical. Now the first time I saw that graphic, I was very impressed with its symmetry. They say that unless the first resurrection is a spiritual resurrection, this beautiful symmetry is destroyed. They also insist that the first deals with this world, that's why Adam was the first Adam and Jesus is the second Adam. First Adam deals with this earth, second Adam deals with eternity. this chiastic teaching supposedly reinforces their assertion that the word first must be different in quality from the second, not first in sequence of the same kind of things. And I could have actually put this argument as one of their first strong arguments, because I think it is actually a pretty impressive chart. But it really only appears to be strong, because when you look at the chart, and the paper describing the chart, you say, okay, that makes a great deal of sense, but when you look at the text of Scripture itself, you say, huh, how does that kind of work again? You go, you look at the chart, and then the chart makes a lot of sense, and the description of the chart makes sense, but you look at the text, and I think what happened here is that God deliberately made the the word order to be extremely awkward to ward off this interpretation. Maybe not, but it clearly does not flow from the text. It's an artificial construct. It's ideas that are a chiasm, whereas in Hebrew, a chiasm always is in the structure. The structure itself of the text is formed like a chiasm. You don't find that in the text. It's not there. The ideas are there, but not the text itself. Second, every other example of the word first in Revelation appears to be first in sequence. And I don't know of any examples where the word first in the book of Revelation does not refer to first in sequence. Now, people might say, well, what about, you know, the first Adam and the second Adam? I would say, well, the first Adam is sequentially before the second Adam, isn't he? Okay, so this point is that the word first in Revelation appears to be first in sequence everywhere else. And so the idea that it's first in quality, not first in sequence, doesn't flow from the text. Wehmeyer says this, how can the new birth be considered the qualitative and polar opposite of a future resurrection? Is the believer's regeneration antithetical to permanence? Will the new life received at conversion pass away and be replaced by his bodily resurrection? Can it really be said that the spiritual birth of believers belongs to the present sin, curse, creation, and therefore that the spiritual life of regeneration does not participate in the age to come? Now, obviously, he's answering a lot of detailed exegesis that the ominals give that I'm not getting into, but there are huge holes in their logic. And when you begin to analyze all that they're importing, into the word first, it falls apart. And this is why many, many omnils and postmils have begun deserting that position in the last 50 years, and either adopting the second interpretation or my interpretation. Now, the third problem I have with their complicated exegesis is that the second death is not simply spiritual separation from God, it is also physical separation, as verses 13 through 15 make clear. There are bodies that will be separated from God. As Matthew 10, verse 28, words it, do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. So again, it highlights the fact that there are supposedly rigid contrasts between spiritual and physical or somewhat artificial. Now, the fourth problem is that this still makes no sense in explaining the meaning of the rest of the dead. Okay, if the first set of dead are spiritually dead, does the rest of the dead mean the spiritually dead at the end of history? But none of these theories holds to that. Actually, primos sometimes sound like they hold to it, because they talk about the resurrection of the righteous at the beginning of the millennium, resurrection of the non-elect at the end. And so you ask them, okay, so what about the people who die during the millennium? And they say, well, they'll also get resurrected during the resurrection of the non-elect, but no, it doesn't make sense. It's an artificial construct. Here's the thing the phrase the rest of implies that a part of a set gets raised in the first century So you got a little part of that set and the rest of the entire set gets raised at the end of time But it's the same set it is the set of dead corpses spiritually dead makes no sense of the text whereas physically dead does now my fifth problem is is that it is a complex theory that does not seem to easily read from the text even after you've understood the text. Always be suspicious of a theory if it makes sense only when you're reading the book. You know, you've probably seen this on things. Wow, that's a pretty clever idea. And you read what they're saying, and we've seen this with Bojidar and others as well. You read what they're saying, okay, that sounds good. You look at the text, okay, how did he get that again? And you keep reading back and forth. And I will admit, I have done interpretations this way before. I wrote a paper in seminary one time in the roles of women. that my professors begged me to publish. They said, this is genius stuff, this will answer a lot of conundrums people have. And at the time, I just didn't feel comfortable doing it, and I am so glad that I did not, because I was flat out wrong in my interpretation. And over the next five years, it took me about five years to figure out I was wrong. I would read my paper, and it would make a great deal of sense to me, And then I would read the text and I'd say, wow, it sure did not seem to flow out of there. I'd read the paper again, look at that, and it finally dawned on me, what's going on here is that I am imposing a system upon the text. rather than allowing the text to dictate my system. And you see this all the time happening. That's what's going on with this regeneration view. They've got a system that has to be defended, and so they're coming up with this exegesis. This is exactly what happens with the full Preterist interpretations. They've got a system they're desperately trying to hold onto, and so they try to force the thousand years into 30 to 70 AD. We've got to be very, very careful. I repented immediately, fell on my knees before the Lord. asked His forgiveness for having distorted His Word. We've got to be so sensitive to allow the text to dictate what we think. Now, it's because of many of these problems that modern omnils have often adopted a different view of the first resurrection. And I forget what page this is on in your outline, but William Hendrickson says that the first resurrection is this, quote, the translation of the soul from this sinful earth to God's holy heaven via death. Anthony Hoekema, James Hughes also hold to the same paradigm. Even though I'm not fond of Meredith Klein, he's got a lot of heretical ideas, one of the most intriguing defenses of this was done by Meredith Klein, who said this, 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. What for others is the first death is for the Christian a veritable resurrection. So if I were to have included a chart, which I should have done in your outlines, it would look very similar to the regeneration one, but it would actually be more consistent than the generation one. When I was in seminary, I was very intrigued by this theory, much stronger than the regeneration view. even though it shares many of the same weaknesses and strengths. I'm going to deal with the strengths first. Probably the strongest argument in favor of this view is that it would have brought tremendous comfort to the original audience that was being persecuted by Rome and that faced the imminent threat of martyrdom. What is martyrdom but instant resurrection to heaven? Look forward to it. There's nothing to fear. As Sam Storms words it, what better more appropriate or even more biblical way could he have done so than by assuring them that though they may die physically at the hands of the beast, they will live spiritually in the presence of the Lamb. I can think of no more vivid way of making this point than that of life beyond and in spite of death." So the first strong point, this would have brought comfort. This is taking seriously the original audience, the original context of martyrdom that they were facing. Second strong point is that the word thrones often has the context of heaven. So if the thrones are being set in heaven, it can't refer to their regeneration which happens on the earth, right? But if the death is If death is a resurrection, then these saints go straight from martyrdom to their thrones. And so it's really a cool thought. And I happen to agree that the thrones are in heaven, so it's much stronger than the regeneration view. The third strong point is that like the regeneration theory, they point to the word souls as proving that it is souls that are resurrected, not bodies. Now, what makes it stronger than the Regeneration view is that they take the order of the text a bit more seriously than the Regeneration view. The soul is resurrected when? After he is beheaded or martyred. So it's much stronger than the Regeneration view. Fourth, they claim that this interpretation is consistent with Luke 20, verse 38, which says that God, quote, is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him. And the context is Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus is proving the resurrection through Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Well, I'm giving away my interpretation But anyway, Abraham Isaac and Jacob God is their God. And so these people say How is God their God? Well, it's because their souls were resurrected to heaven. It should be obvious now my objection is okay if that was the case and Weren't they resurrected in the Old Testament to heaven? And so there are some full Preterists who adapt this and they say, well, Sheol was emptied out in AD 70, and that's when their souls went to heaven. The problem with that is that we've proven already that AD 30 was when Sheol, Hades, was emptied out. But anyway, it's a fairly decent argument. And then finally, they point out that two other passages in Revelation show the blessedness of dying, that death brings even more life. Revelation 2 10 says be faithful until death and I will give you the crown of life Okay, verse 11 says he who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death So it shows that our death is life Revelation 14 13 blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on I'm not gonna deal with every problem this view has because it really does share most of the problems of the regeneration view that we've already dealt with but let me just point out three First, the Bible never speaks of death as a resurrection. It does speak of regeneration, but it never speaks of death as a resurrection. Cool as the thought is, it never speaks of death as a resurrection. And all millennialists agree with this. At least the books by the Amillennials I've read agree with this. But they say, okay, this is the only passage in the Bible that speaks of death as a resurrection. We agree, but once is enough. And I say, no, if there are other cogent interpretations, is once really enough? I don't think so. We must be sure that our system is not dictating our exegesis. Nor does the word anastasis ever refer to life after death. is always a raising of the dead to life. Let me explain the difference. The regeneration view would say that if somebody is spiritually dead and made alive, he could be said to be resurrected spiritually, but someone who is spiritually alive, in other words, his soul is already regenerate, cannot be said to be resurrected when he dies. The soul itself is not being resurrected from spiritual death. And I agree. Or if somebody is physically dead and made alive, he could be said to be resurrected. But when somebody who is spiritually alive continues to live after a physical death, no coming to life has happened. He already had eternal life. So even in terms of systematic theology, this interpretation doesn't work. Now like I say, they share many other problems with regeneration view, but let me just reiterate one more. Jack Deere says, if Edzason in both verses refers to a physical resurrection, there is no problem. But if Edzason refers to spiritual resurrection in both passages, then the exegete is confronted with an insurmountable problem, for this would imply that the unbelieving dead of verse 5 live spiritually in heaven like the martyrs of verse 4 after the thousand years is completed. Now to me this is an insurmountable problem. As A.J. Gordon writes about the verb they lived, quote, the meaning of the one occurrence of this verb fixes the meaning of the other. Back in the 1800s, Henry Alford wrote his Greek New Testament commentary, and he said this, As regards the text itself, no legitimate treatment of it will extort what is known as the spiritual interpretation now in fashion. If, in passages where two resurrections are mentioned, where certain tz'uche edz'ezon, or souls, lived at the first, and the rest of the nekroi edz'ezon, dead lived, only at the end of a specified period after the first, if in such a passage the first resurrection may be understood to mean spiritual rising from the grave, then there is an end of all significance of language and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything. The point is, I don't think This passage needs to be confusing if we will quit imposing our systems on the text and simply let the text lead us where it leads us. Let me give you my view in a nutshell, and then we'll quickly go through the passage phrase by phrase. My view is that a literal resurrection of bodies from the ground happened in 8070, and the second resurrection will be at the end of history. Boom. Easy. Okay? And the first resurrection happened when Satan was bound in the abyss. The second resurrection happens when he is released from the abyss. Boom. Easy. Easy peasy. Now this overthrows the premill view, which says that the first resurrection is future. It also overthrows the amill and postmill interpretations. Again, I hold the postmillennialism that Christ is coming back after the millennium, right? But by adopting the premillennial idea of two resurrections, we resolve insuperable problems that all mills and postmills have had in the past. It is the perfect postmill interpretation. In fact, only the postmill interpretation can do adequate justice to the idea of two physical resurrections. Premills have a minimum of four resurrections. Some have five. Now because it is not as common of a view today, there are some modern scholars that hold to my view, but because it's not as common, people are skeptical, they think that it's novel, and therefore to be rejected. But not only are there some modern people, but there are ancient church fathers who held to my view as well. For example, Ignatius, who was born in 8035 and he died in 108. He lived through 8070, right? He ought to know. He ought to have been a witness of some kind of a resurrection. And he did. He said that Jesus came for his saints and raised them from the dead. He speaks of the resurrection of saints as having occurred in the past. He came for his saints and raised them from the dead. But just as I see the first fruits of this first resurrection as occurring the day Jesus rose from the dead, so too, Ignatius says, that the 80-30 resurrection of saints was a real resurrection, the first fruits of the first harvest. He says, those under the earth, the multitude that arose along with the Lord, for, says the scripture, many bodies of the saints that slept arose, their graves being opened, he descended indeed into Hades alone, but he arose accompanied by a multitude." Melito of Sardis was another very early church father whose writings have been mostly lost, but what has been retained shows a belief that the first resurrection is past. He says, Jesus rose up from the dead and cried aloud with this voice, who is he who contends with me? Let him stand in opposition to me. I set the condemned man free. I gave the dead man life. I raised up the one who had been entombed. Who is my opponent? I, he says, am the Christ. I am the one who destroyed death and triumphed over the enemy and trampled Hades underfoot and bound the strong one and carried off man to the heights of heaven. I, he says, am the Christ. Now in 1909, Rendell Harris discovered the church's first hymnbook. It's called by some the Odes of Solomon, or the Songs of Solomon. Scholars say its final form was put together in AD 125, but they also say that it's obvious that many of these songs were composed earlier between AD 70 and AD 125. And I want to read the entire hymn number 22 because it's almost a commentary on this 80-70 binding of the dragon and resurrection of the saints. Now scholars say the I and the me in here is Jesus speaking. So it says, he who caused me to descend from on high and to ascend from the regions below and he who gathers what is in the middle and throws them to me He who scatters my enemies and my adversaries, who gave me authority over bonds so that I might unbind them. He who overthrew by my hands the dragon with seven heads and set me at his roots that I might destroy his seed. You were there and helped me. And in every place, your name surrounded me. Your right hand destroyed his evil venom and your hand leveled away for those who believe in you. And it chose them from the graves and separated them from the dead ones. It took dead bones and covered them with flesh. But they were motionless, so it gave them energy for life. Incorruptible was your way and your face. You have brought your world to corruption, that everything might be resolved and renewed. And the foundation of everything is your rock, and upon it you have built your kingdom. And it became the dwelling place of the Holy Ones." Hallelujah. So in connection with the destroying of the seven-headed dragon, Satan, It speaks of a literal resurrection of bodies from the grave, the expansion of the kingdom after that, and all in the past tense. Ode 17 also speaks of a past resurrection. Not all fathers believed in an AD 70 resurrection. Some believed that the AD 30 resurrection was the first resurrection. But it's still the same purpose, the same point. Irenaeus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Clement of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers, Remigius, they all spoke of a massive resurrection of glorified bodies from the ground. So even on their interpretation of the first resurrection, the first resurrection has already happened. So there is precedent for my interpretation and it definitely resolves the impasse that people find themselves on this passage. Now having disposed of the wrong interpretation, let me very quickly go through the passage phrase by phrase and apply it. Verse 4 says, and I saw thrones. Of the 47 times that John uses the word throne, all of them refer to thrones in heaven except for two. One's the throne of Satan. The other is the throne of the beast. So just based on word usage, the likelihood is these are thrones set in heaven. But it becomes absolutely certain that these are thrones set in heaven when you realize that Daniel 7 stands as the background for this paragraph. And most commentaries agree, yeah, Daniel 7 is clearly behind this. But Daniel 7, 9 through 10, says this. As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. The court was seated, and the books were opened. So that's clearly in heaven. When does this happen? Well, both Daniel and Revelation point to AD 70. AD 70. We looked last week at the timing indicators. We saw that chapter 20 comes immediately after chapter 19. So the order is the three and a half year war. against Jerusalem, then the binding of the beast and the false prophet. That's the last verses of chapter 19. Then in the first three verses of chapter 20, you've got the binding of Satan and then thrones and a resurrection. And that's the same thing you see in Daniel 7. The thrones were prophesied to be after the three and a half years war in close connection with the binding of the beast and just prior to the glorious expansion of Christ's kingdom, which by the way, uses Olam. Christ's kingdom will be for an olam, an indefinite future. That's the word we saw last week is put in synonymous parallelism with 1000. So we have confirmation from context and from Daniel that this takes place in AD 70. Verse 4 continues, and I saw thrones and they sat on them. Now commentators wonder who is the they? There's nobody in context, immediate context, that the they would refer to. Well, in the Greek, we have clues because every pronoun is either masculine, feminine, or neuter. And there's always an agreement between the pronoun and the noun that it is referring to. So if you thought that this is referring to the souls in the next clause, that can't be because that is not the same gender as them. So it tends to rule out the martyr-only theory, and besides, it puts things out of order. Another problem with the martyr-only theory is that chapter 3, verse 21 says all overcomers reign with Christ. All of them. What are the other options? Well, them can't refer to nations that got converted in the previous verses, since that's the neuter gender. The only other alternative in context is the angels and saints of chapter 19, both of which are in the masculine gender. And this is confirmed by Daniel 7. John had Daniel 7 again strongly in his mind when he wrote this and Daniel 7 says that it is the saints It's all believers who are said to sit on these thrones who are united with Christ So all saints whether they're on earth or in heaven are seated with Christ and the heavenlies from 80 30 and on by the way That's why the thrones are already there even before the resurrection They're already there But verse 9 of Daniel 7 says, I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated. And then it goes on to describe myriads of God's saints who sit in this courtroom, who are involved in judgment. Then it says, but the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever. The court shall be seated. Then the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him. So both precedent in chapter 9 and the antecedent and Daniel 7 define the them as saints, either those already in heaven or all saints. Now this is what Paul was referring to when he scolded the church in Corinth for not knowing how to judge cases. He said, do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life? And that is what the third part of verse 4 affirms. It says, And judgment was committed to them. What was being judged? Well, Daniel 7 says, At least the beast and the other demons were being judged by them. So Paul's time for the judging of angels has begun in AD 70, but it's much more than angels. The rest of Daniel 7 indicates that judgment against ungodly governments was committed to them as well. And I find it quite interesting that saints who are seated with Christ in the heavenlies render judgment on how long ungodly rulers will continue to be able to rule. Now that to me assumes that the church needs to be united and engaging in this kind of judgment. So Daniel 7 verse 26 says that the seated court was involved in taking away authority from the demonic kingdoms of this world, turning them into the kingdom of Christ. And verse 12 indicates that demons would be allowed to remain for an epoch in the time. So that's what the saints in the Old Testament had been looking forward to. They thought it would be a tremendous privilege to live after Messiah comes and be part of turning the world to Christ. Who would not count it a privilege to fight in Messiah's armies. But they all died before 8070, and so the rest of our paragraph explains, examines why the faithful saints of old did not miss out on the kingdom after all. Indeed, the New Testament martyrs who didn't quite make it to 8070 did not miss out either. Where we are privileged to be on the front lines of Christ's army, they had several privileges as well. And the first privilege is they got to get resurrected before we do. Verse 4 goes on to say, I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded on account of the testimony of Jesus and on account of the word of God, even 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 lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. Now there's a lot of debate on who gets resurrected. Is it two groups or one group? Is it martyrs or is it martyrs plus somebody else? Or is it like I say, it's one group of both martyrs and saints. But how many get resurrected? Daniel 12.1 describes the war against Jerusalem that ended in AD 70 and says, at that time, many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. Many means that not all get raised. Many is different than all. Okay? That's another strong argument that there must be two resurrections, but which ones get raised in that many? Matthew Henry says it's only martyrs. And that's possible. That would mean that all of the rest of the Old Testament dead would have to be raised when we are raised at the end of history. It's possible. But many could also be a distinction from the smaller group that were raised in 8030 in the first fruits of that same resurrection. So first fruits is a smaller many, main harvest is a greater many, or many could be a contrast to those raised at the end of history. So many get raised in 8070, there are many that get raised at the end of history. I'm not dogmatic on which interpretation is true. I tend to believe that it's everybody who died, all the saints who died before 8070. I think there's hints in Paul's writings and Matthew 24, 31 sure seems to indicate that all the elect who have died to that point are gathered by the angels together into his kingdom. So that's my tentative view. But what would have been very encouraging to anyone risking martyrdom before 80, 70 was that they would not lose out on experiencing the kingdom. Once raised, they would reign with Christ from heaven. So verse 10 says, they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The regenerate reigned from earth. And they're seated with Christ in the heavenlies. They have real authority to advance the kingdom. But the resurrected saints also reign with Christ in the heavenlies for the full duration of the millennium. Now, in contrast, those dying after 80, 70, whether elect or non-elect, must wait till the millennium, end of the millennium, to get resurrected. So the parenthetical part of verse 5 says, now the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were finished. So again, it's emphasizing pre-80s, 70 people are not disadvantaged. God has equalized the benefits of people on each side of the cross. We have some things they didn't have, they had some things we don't have, but both groups share in the kingdom. And thus the word first and first resurrection is not only sequential, it highlights special honor. accorded to the pre-kingdom saints. They precede us in being glorified. And most importantly, they will be conscious. They're going to be very active after death. There was a heresy circulating around at that time that once you're dead, that's the end. There's no more consciousness. Sadducees held to this view. And Paul wrote an entire chapter of 1 Corinthians to discredit that view. And in chapter 15, he says, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. So Paul's teaching on heaven and on the resurrection assured people, hey, those who died prior to the full ushering into the kingdom are still going to share in the kingdom. I mean, it's really cool how God did this. So he says, blessed and holy is the one having a part in the first resurrection. Upon such, the second death has no power. In other words, they are no less blessed than we are. They are no less the recipients of grace or of eternal life than we are. That would have been a huge comfort. So this paragraph is a devastating apologetic against the Sadducees. And then verse 6 assures people that death does not stop the ministry of those saints. It says, they will be priests of God and of Christ. Even in heaven, they will be priests of God and of Christ. We already saw the priestly ministry of some of those saints, dead saints, in Revelation 6, where the same souls who had been beheaded are praying on behalf of the earthly church. So they weep. They enter into the earthly church's sorrows. They also rejoice. They enter into the earthly church's victories. Everyone from Adam to the end of history will have the privilege of in some way advancing Christ's glorious kingdom. Now it's true, people who are closer to the end of the millennium are going to experience such knowledge, such righteousness, such financial blessings, such other blessings, they say, oh, if only I could reign there. But hey, they don't have some things that we have, right? They're only going to experience a short period. So there's an equalizing of what every saint throughout history enjoys and the whole body of Christ actively shares in the glory of victory. And that includes reigning with Christ. Verse 6 ends, and will reign with him a thousand years. It's not just living saints who are seated with Christ in the heavenlies. Dead saints reign with him as well. In fact, they're going to be reigning a whole lot longer than we will. They have 2,000 year head start. So you do not need to feel sorry for the Old Testament saints at all. They're not missing out. They share in the kingdom. And all of this would have brought tremendous comfort to people whose relatives had died before, who longed to be in the kingdom. Sort of like Moses standing up and they said, Lord, I wish I could go into Canaan. God said, no, you're not going to go into Canaan. So they're viewing the kingdom from afar. But this says, hey, after their death, they're going to be sharing in this advancement of the kingdom. So whether you take the 1,000 years as future to us and literal, which is one postmillennial possibility, or whether you take the 1,000 years as symbolic of the whole time from 87 to the end of history, it is an inescapable fact that the first resurrection happened already in the first century. To say otherwise is a denial of the resurrection of Christ and the saints who rose with him. It's also a denial of Acts 24, 14 through 15, where Paul said this. There is about to be a resurrection of the dead. So if you hold to a future thousand years, fine. The first resurrection still preceded it. And verse five says the rest of the dead do not come to life until the thousand years is finished. So it teaches a post-millennial resurrection and coming of Christ, not a premillennial one. So what difference does all of this make? Let me end quickly with four applications. First, this passage makes us treat the physical realm as being extremely important to God. The physical was so important, He raised Jesus from the dead in a physical body. It was so important, He devoted two portions of that barley harvest to symbolize first century resurrection. It's so important, He's going to raise us at the end of history. It is so important to God that even dead saints right now are very interested in continuing to pray planet earth. It was important enough for them to desire to reign over the earth, to be involved in judgments on the nations, to be very interested in the course of history. They haven't escaped from the battles on earth. This planet has not been abandoned by God. Every square inch of this world is important to Jesus. It has been redeemed by Jesus, will one day glorify the Father. So that's the first important application. The physical world is important to God. It should be important to us and the resurrection proves it. Second, this passage demonstrates the importance of the Old Testament church. They were not simply an unimportant prelude to the real thing. They prepared the way. They continue to be involved in the real thing. They are currently ministering as priests on your behalf. Their prayers are integral to the advancement of the kingdom. And as more and more millions join them in heaven, the prayers for planet earth are going to expand. Hebrews 12 makes clear, you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God, the judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect. And by the way, made perfect is a reference to resurrection. So there were some in heaven already at that point who had been raised in AD 30 who had perfected bodies, glorified bodies. But in any case, Hebrews tells us, do not disparage the church of the Old Testament. We are one with them. They are one with us. Third, the doctrine of heaven and the resurrection gives Christians great boldness in the face of persecution. There is nothing unbelievers or demons can do to rob us of the kingdom. And then fourth, this passage shows the difference between true Christians and false Christians. Verse 4 defines Christians as willing to face martyrdom rather than to deny Jesus. They're willing to face social pressures rather than worship the beast. They're willing to take economic losses rather than to put the mark of the beast upon them, okay? True Christians are faithful to Christ against great risks, and the reason is they don't just have an outward Christianity. but the power of God Himself working in us and through us. May we exhibit the same characteristics that they did. Amen. Father, we thank you that you give us difficulty passages in the Scripture, and we thank you that you also enable us by comparing Scripture with Scripture to be able to sort through those difficulties. We thank you, Father, for the challenges that you give in our Christian walk, and we thank you for the victories and the joys that you give to us as well. We pray that you would enable this people to remain faithful to you, even in the face of death and persecution, and that you would guide and direct us in our study of the scriptures. In Jesus' name, amen.