Sorry I didn't mean to be snarky. I apologize for that. My point was that how can that which is second in order be considered the first?
I see what you are getting at. This form of pre-trebbism is logical. If I understood your view correctly, you would say the Church is in heaven during the millennium, and those OT saints who are resurrected in the "first resurrection" are reigning on the earth in order to fulfill the promise made to the patriarchs? (And I assume of course, this includes those who are left behind and martyred and didn't take the mark of the beast, as Rev. 20:4 states)
But could you explain to me the first resurrection, why is it called the first when in your view it is indeed the second in order?
That's a fair question.
Let's go back to Christ Himself. Was He not the true and genuine first to be resurrected? Was that not the "first resurrection" to have ever taken place? What many people tend to do is get hung up on key words rather than honing in on concepts.
Christ was the first to have ever been resurrected with a glorified body. Now we find ourselves faced with the harpadzo, which is also a resurrection of the dead in Christ into glorified bodies with the living transformed, all into glorified bodies like Christ right before the tribulation. Then, we are told of the resurrection of the faithful from ancient Israel and those of the "everlasting gospel" groupings (from before the cross) in what Paul referred to as the "first resurrection."
So, what you are asking actually hits upon a distinction in destinies. You see, ancient Israel and modern Israel who will comprise the remnant, they will inhabit the earth in the Millenium and upon the new earth in the new Jerusalem. The body of Christ is different in that we will not live upon the earth during the Millennial Kingdom nor upon the new earth within the New Jerusalem. We will dwell in "Heavenly places," as is stated in scripture. This is a very basic breakdown of the conceptual differences in groupings, and that also shows that the "first resurrection" was not and will not be confined to a miniscule point in creation's timeline.
The benefit in distinguising between the first and second resurrections is the "who" within the two groupings. Only the redeemed will be raised up in the first resurrection, which is the meaning behind Paul's stating the blessedness for those who are raised in that conceptual framework. Those raised in the second resurrection will be those who will pass into the second death.
So, getting hung up on words that one tends to define through the filtering lenses of our modern vernaculars and definitions subjectively applied, there ensues confusion and controversy.
I hope this helps your understanding of my statements about scripture. My background as an Israeli sometimes makes it difficult for me to explain complex thoughts and relate it all through my Jewish background.
MM