Why couldn’t first and second be referring not to number but to type or order? You have two types of resurrection - one to eternal life, one to destruction. The first type of resurrection being is the resurrection of the saved. The second type of resurrection is the resurrection of the damned. Time wise, Christ will also raise all of the first type before he deals with the 2nd.
Another thing to consider is you can have several “resurrections” and indeed their have been several resurrections throughout history. In reality, the “First” resurrection is likely number 2 or 3 (Jesus, The saints at Christ’s death, and now this resurrection.) Other examples include, the Shunamite woman’s son. Jairus’s daughter. The young man the fell asleep during Paul’s sermon. Tabitha. The raising of the two witnesses. And of course, Lazarus. But they all died again. This is something akin to “second death.” Even though one will likely go through physical death to go through the second death, it is not a given. For example, the antichrist and the false prophet are cast alive into the lake of fire. They obviously taste the second death without first dying physically. At best, their second death is also their first.
If it refers to type rather than number (which I believe is the case), there is no issue whatsoever about the 1000 years. Common sense prevails and no allegory is necessary.I believe there will be at least 3 resurrections of the saved during the Trib. Some go up at the rapture and miss the wrath of God. Others are raised at some point during the tribulation - for it talks about those who had been beheaded for Christ during the tribulation coming to life and reigning with Christ, the rest don’t get resurrected until the 1000 years is up. There also may be a resurrection of the 144,000 in there; but since I don’t see their death it could be some other supernatural manifestation.
Rev 20:12 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.Is this the resurrection of the damned? Perhaps resurrection doesn’t require that you are made alive. I don’t have a good definition for resurrection, but I think that there are just two types, the first is physical, and the second is spiritual. Same as birth and death.
Or, they could be of different types as in one is spiritual and one is physical corresponding to death. Or they could be different in the way outlined in 1 Cor. 15:23, "Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming." Rev. 20:6, "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection." It is certainly true that all who are in Christ have a part in His resurrection, since He is the firstfruits.
But there are verses that seem to join the physical resurrection of all men together, e.g.,:
"I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust." (Acts 24:15)
If it refers to type rather than number (which I believe is the case), there is no issue whatsoever about the 1000 years.
That is true, depending on how to define the types. This leave you wide open to a postmil/amil interpretation of Rev. 20.