C. Marvin Pate writes,
“A spiritual resurrection can hardly explain the compensation provided for the martyrs in verse 4. From John’s perspective they are physically dead but spiritually alive. What they need is a bodily resurrection. (b) The best understanding of the verb esezan (they lived) in verse 4 is that it refers to a bodily resurrection” (Pate, “A Progressive Dispensationalist View of Revelation” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation
Carl Henry writes,
The case for a millennial kingdom rests on three arguments: 1)The Old Testament prophets speak so emphatically of a coming universal age of earthly peace and justice that to transfer this vision wholly to a transcendnet superterrestial kingdom is unjustifiable; 2) because the historical fall of Adam involves all human history in its consequences it requires an historical redemption that extends ‘far as the curse is found’ to complete Christ’s victory over sin; 3) the most natural interpretation of Revelation 20 seems to suggest an earthly, millennial reign prior to the inauguration of God’s eternal kingdom” (Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, 6 volumes. [Waco, Tex.: Word, 1983; reprint, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1999], 6: 504).
Anthony Garland writes,
Concerning thew view which regards the individuals who come to life in Rev. 20:4 as describing a spiritual birth:
“If this verse refers to the new birth, then the martyrs were beheaded before they were born again”(MacLeod, 2000: 57). This interpretation introduces “the absurdity of having souls being regenerated after they had been beheaded for their faithfulness to Christ!” (McClain 1974: 488).