I prefer what I would dare to call an "Occam's Razor approach" (which approach also excuses me from having to read things into John 5:28-29!).
that's just too hysterical!! LOL.
That blantant exposition of 2 resurrections in Revelation 20 and that very real picture of a REALLY imprisoned satan...you ignore them. And say you don't read things into???
Occam's Razor is about choosing the obvious. You IGNORE the obvious. You wouldn't know occam's razor if it shaved your nose hairs.
***
I say it is simpler to see the souls as disembodied until the second resurrection. I furthermore say that the only reason why it is necessary for you to believe that they somehow became embodied by the end of v.4 (despite the fact that it doesn't actually say that they did) is because you are presupposing that the first resurrection was materialistic (desite the fact that this is only a presupposition and despite the fac that the first resurrection in John 5:25-29 was not materialistic).
Whew!
You see, my approach, comparing Revelation 20 with John 5, really is a lot simpler--for the oddly obvious reason that I'm not trying to make the passage agree with unproven presuppositions of literalism.
Furthermore, the Apostle Paul himself offers the very idea which I am proposing as the explanation of disembodied spirits being seated with Christ right now. In Ephesians 2, Paul says that all regenerate sinners are already seated in heaven with Christ.
I maintain that John saw THAT.
(You see, my explanation is simpler than yours AND it is apostolically supported by an explicit teaching from yet another apostle.)
But is there evidence in Paul's text that these spirits who are with Christ on His throne in heaven are to be regarded as resurrected souls? You bet there is. In Ephesians 1, Paul says that these are souls who have been regenerated by the Power of Jesus's Own RESURRECTION.
So, that would argue that the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20 is the regeneration-unto-conversion of which Paul speaks--and, of course, is the first resurrection mentioned in John 5:25-29. It's the one which you have ignored in John 5:25.
Please notice also that I don't have to invoke an idea of a thousand-year delay in John 5:28-29--which delay isn't really there in the text anyway.
So, I submit that my explanation is simpler and more elegant; I submit that it is hermeneutically disciplined; I honestly believe that it is exegetically carefully. Alas, I am forced to regard your position as complicated, tortured, hermeneutically dubious, and eisegetical--all in the name of defending a literal presupposition which you can't prove.
And 2 Peter 3 finishes you off (grin).
I don't intend any offense in this. But I think you ought to get away from premillennialism. I think it's one of the nastiest frauds in the history of Christianity. I think it is a Judaizing mess.