Second the issue of resurrection in Rev. Before I answer, could you provide me with the 3 resurrections to which you are referring?
Be glad to.
The first is the resurrection and rapture of the Two Witnesses:
Revelation 11:11-12
King James Version (KJV)
11 And after three days and an half the spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
I am aware of the popular view that the Two Witnesses are not literal men, but representative of something other than men. Many suggestions are made, one example being the Old and New Testament, and recently another member suggested Christian Testimony. Of course we would look at Zechariah 4:12-14 due to the terminology, and I agree with that, because I believe both have in view the Two Offices referred to in Zechariah...the High Priest and the King.
But that doesn't mean I don't see these as two literal man, though they represent those Two Offices. In debating a Progressive Dispensationalist (which is just another way to say "Covert Amil," lol), I did a post listing quite a few reasons why these had to be literal men, but for now, I will just mention a few.
First, a bodily death is in view.
Second, we are hard pressed to see the Word of God, or Christian Testimony...taken out of the World.
Lastly, we have a clear picture of bodily resurrection and rapture. They are caught up to Heaven, and the only logical conclusion I think we can draw is that these are two men who die, and as it is written, raised again.
That is the first resurrection of Revelation, not to be confused with the First Resurrection, which is the second listed:
Revelation 20:4-5
King James Version (KJV)
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and 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; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
It is often thought that "first" (protos, I have provided a link if you are interested, see usage) is a reference to sequence, however, a quick study of the word will show that it can also refer to rank. Here, it is actually the second resurrection listed in Revelation. If we wanted to state which Resurrection is first in sequence, that would be the Lord's own Resurrection, for which cause He is called the Firstfruits from the Dead and the Firstborn from among the dead.
Our third reference to resurrection is found in the same place...
Revelation 20:4-5
King James Version (KJV)
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and 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; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
So despite whether we view this as a literal thousand years or symbolic, we cannot deny that this period separates when the Tribulation Martyrs are raised and when the rest of the dead (presumably the lost, though it could be debated that there will be those from among the just raised at that time as well, i.e., those who die during the Millennial Kingdom) are raised.
So there you have it, three resurrections that occur in Revelation.
And not one of them could be said to resemble Paul's teaching concerning the resurrection and Rapture of the Church. It cannot be at the time of the Two Witnesses, because only two men are given. It cannot be the resurrection of the Tribulation Martyrs, because we see no mention of the dead in Christ being raised (and I no an argument from silence might seem to be the case, but, the text is not silent, it states precisely who is raised and distinguishes them from the "rest of the dead"); it might be said that it occurs at the final resurrection, but, this too falls short because again, the Rapture specifically includes all members of the Body of Christ, both living and dead.
I tried to search through this thread but it wasn't going so well.
That's not surprising, lol, most threads get derailed and a variety of other issues take the place of the focus of the OP.
And I have more important things to do than to read through every post here. It would surely help the debate.
Hope that helps, Tim, though again this is a discussion that is sweetest among premillennials. The primary debate with A-millennials is why there is no literal thousand years.
But that can be a lot of fun, as well as edifying as well. It is always good to be challenged, and sometimes our best apologetics arise from those debates.
If you want to know my view, G. K. Beale talks about this in his article, "The Millennium in
Revelation 2:1–10: An Amillennial Perspective."
Criswell Theological Review 11 no 1 Fall 2013; 29–62 (see especially pp. 50–51).
I am pretty familiar with most views, including the A-millennial view. While I will not likely take a look at the link, I will take a quick gander at Revelation 2:1-10. If there is something of note in the teaching, feel free to share that, as I said, I don't have a problem looking at these issues.
God bless.