Revelation 20:4 identified those of the first resurrection:
1) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:
2) I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands
Which category do you fall into? I personally do not fall into either. When I read that first sentence, I always think of the disciples who Jesus promised would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes; and of course I think of the first century martyrs of Christ when I read the second sentence. I have met some very fine people in my life, but none would fit either of those categories, nor do I.
Let's revisit Paul's statements:
"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." (1Cor 15:51-55 KJV)
I agree that is the first resurrection, as is this one:
"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words." (1Th 4:16-18 KJV)
One thing I have noticed in "Paul's" resurrections is his use of the word "we," as if he expected to be alive at the first resurrection. All the apostles thought the first resurrection was imminent, with good reason. Jesus told them it would occur in their generation.
How about this resurrection from Daniel?
"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)
That is obviously a partial resurrection since it reads "many" instead of all. It also seems to occur during the great tribulation. But note that both believers and unbelievers are resurrected. Is that also the first resurrection?
This is a resurrection passage from Jesus:
"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." (Jn 5:28-29 KJV)
That is a complete resurrection, since Jesus used the words "all" instead of "many." But, like the resurrection in Daniel, both good and bad are resurrected. Is that also the first resurrection? Jesus didn't mention the tribulation, as Daniel did.
If those last two are not the first resurrection, but the second; then who are the good people who are resurrected, if all Christians were taken away in the first resurrection?
Then there is this, which I have always assumed to be the coming of Christ associated with the first resurrection:
"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mt 16:27-28 KJV)
I hope you can see why I cannot reconcile those resurrections with the futurist interpretation of the resurrection.
Philip
“Which category do you fall into? I personally do not fall into either.”
Where does Revelation say that everyone who is part of the first resurrection was a martyr? It doesn’t say that. It says he saw those that sat upon the thrones AND those who were martyred. It doesn’t say “I saw those who sat upon the thrones, who were martyred”. Since we know from the other descriptions of the first resurrection that it includes the entire church, living and dead, there is no reason to try to read such a contradiction into this verse, except to serve your own purposes.
“One thing I have noticed in “Paul’s” resurrections is his use of the word “we,” as if he expected to be alive at the first resurrection. All the apostles thought the first resurrection was imminent, with good reason. Jesus told them it would occur in their generation.”
Nonsense. He’s teaching the church, and saying we, in the sense of the entire body of the church. He knew some would be alive, but there is no suggestion that he thought he would be alive. That is really stretching.
“That is obviously a partial resurrection since it reads “many” instead of all.”
Does it know? Maybe you should check out the Hebrew word that is translated there as “many” and see how it is normally translated in the various other passages in the OT:
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/elleh_428.htm
Note that the vast majority of the translations of that word actually show it to mean “these”, not “many”. It seems to be a word which specifies a group more than summarizing that groups’ size. Unless you are trying to create contradictions in the Bible, it only makes sense to read it that way, rather than the way you are trying to read it.
“That is a complete resurrection, since Jesus used the words “all” instead of “many.” But, like the resurrection in Daniel, both good and bad are resurrected. Is that also the first resurrection?”
It’s both the first and the second, described in short succession, as they are closely related events. Obviously that is more likely than that God has lied in His descriptions of the events in other passages to confuse us.
“Then there is this, which I have always assumed to be the coming of Christ associated with the first resurrection:”
Again, a compound, less detailed description of the entire sequence of events. You seem to be under the impression that if God didn’t describe the entire sequence in exact detail in every passage, we should assume His other more detailed descriptions can just be dispensed with, but that is an unreasonable position.
“I hope you can see why I cannot reconcile those resurrections with the futurist interpretation of the resurrection.”
No, I can’t. I can see why you don’t want to reconcile them, because that would not support your view. You are perfectly able to reconcile them, though, if you cared to.