Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[xzins]

An Analysis of the Amillennial Interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3.

1 And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,
3 and threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he should not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time (Revelation 20:1-3).

One distinctive of amillennial theology is the belief that Satan is bound during this present age. This belief stems from an interpretation that sees the binding of Satan described in Revelation 20:1-3 as being fulfilled today. The purpose of this work is examine the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 and address the question, "Is Satan bound today?" In doing this, our evaluation will include the following: 1) a brief definition of amillennialism; 2) a look at the amillennial approach to interpreting Revelation; 3) an explanation and analysis of the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3; and 4) some concluding thoughts.

DEFINITION OF AMILLENNIALISM

Amillennialism is the view that there will be no future reign of Christ on the earth for a thousand years.¹ Instead, the thousand year reign of Christ mentioned six times in Revelation 20 is being fulfilled during the present age. According to amillennialists, the "thousand years" is not a literal thousand years but is figurative for "a very long period of indeterminate length." ² Thus the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 describes the conditions of the present age between the two comings of Christ. During this period Satan is bound (Rev. 20:1-3) and Christ's Kingdom is being fulfilled (Rev. 20:4-6).³

THE AMILLENNIAL APPROACH TO INTERPRETING REVELATION

Before looking specifically at how amillennialists interpret Revelation 20:1-3, it is important to understand how they approach the Book of Revelation. Amillennialists base their interpretation of the Book of Revelation on a system of interpretation known as progressive parallelism. This interpretive system does not view the events of Revelation from a chronological or sequential perspective but, instead, sees the book as describing the church age from several parallel perspectives that run concurrently. ⁴ Anthony Hoekema, an amillennialist, describes progressive parallelism in the following manner:

According to this view, the book of Revelation consists of seven sections which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ's first coming to the time of his second.⁵

Following the work of William Hendriksen,⁶ Hoekema believes there are seven sections of Revelation that describe the present age. These seven sections give a portrait of conditions on heaven and earth during this period between the two comings of Christ. These seven sections which run parallel to each other are chapters 1-3, 4-7, 8-11, 12-14, 15-16, 17-19 and 20-22. What is significant for our purposes is that amillennialists see Revelation 20:1 as taking the reader back to the beginning of the present age. As Hoekema states, "Revelation 20:1 takes us back once again to the beginning of the New Testament era."⁷

Amillennialists, thus, do not see a chronological connection between the events of Revelation 19:11-21 that describe the second coming of Christ, and the millennial reign discussed in Revelation 20:1-6. As Hendriksen says, "Rev. 19:19ff. carried us to the very end of history, to the day of final judgment. With Rev. 20 we return to the beginning of our present dispensation."⁸ The amillennial view sees chapter nineteen as taking the reader up to the second coming, but the beginning of chapter twenty takes him back once again to the beginning of the present age. In other words, the events of Revelation 20:1-6 do not follow the events of Revelation 19:11-21.

THE AMILLENNIAL VIEW OF REVELATION 20:1-3

With the principle of progressive parallelism as his base, the amillennialist holds that the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 took place at Christ's first coming.⁹ This binding ushered in the millennial kingdom. As William Cox says,

Having bound Satan, our Lord ushered in the millennial kingdom of Revelation 20. This millennium commenced at the first advent and will end at the second coming, being replaced by the eternal state.¹⁰

Thus the present age is the millennium and one characteristic of this millennial period is that Satan is now bound. This binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3, according to the amillennialist, finds support in the Gospels, particularly Jesus' binding of the strong man in Matthew 12:29. As Hoekema states,

Is there any indication in the New Testament that Satan was bound at the time of the first coming of Christ? Indeed there is. When the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan, Jesus replied, "How can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man?" (Mt. 12:29). ¹¹

Hoekema also points out that the word used by Matthew (delta epsilon omega) to describe the binding of the strong man is the same word used in Revelation 20 to describe the binding of Satan.¹² In addition to Matthew 12:29, amillennialists believe they have confirming exegetical support from Luke 10:17-18 and John 12:31-32. In Luke 10, when the seventy disciples returned from their mission they said to Jesus, "'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.'" And He said to them, 'I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning'" (Luke 10:17-18). According to Hoekema, "Jesus saw in the works his disciples were doing an indication that Satan's kingdom had just been dealt a crushing blow-that, in fact, a certain binding of Satan, a certain restriction of his power, had just taken place."¹³

John 12:31-32, another supporting text used by amillennialists states: "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." Hoekema points out that the verb translated "cast out" (epsilon kappa beta alpha lambda lambda omega) is derived from the same root as the word used in Revelation 20:3 when it says an angel "threw [ballo] him into the abyss." ¹⁴

What is the significance of this binding of Satan according the amillennial position? This binding has special reference to Satan's ability to deceive the nations during the present age. Because Satan is now bound, he is no longer able to deceive the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ. Before Christ's first coming, all the nations of the world, except Israel, were under the deception of Satan. Except for the occasional person, family or city that came into contact with God's people or His special revelation, Gentiles, as a whole, were shut out from salvation.¹⁵ With the coming of Christ, however, Jesus bound Satan, and in so doing, removed his ability to deceive the nations. This binding, though, did not mean a total removal of Satan's activity, for Satan is still active and able to do harm. As Cox says, "Satan now lives on probation until the second coming."¹⁶ But while he is bound, Satan is no longer able to prevent the spread of the Gospel nor is he able to destroy the Church. Also, according to amillennialists, the "abyss" to which Satan is assigned is not a place of final punishment but a figurative description of the way Satan's activities are being curbed during this age.¹⁷

Hoekema summarizes the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 by saying,

"We conclude, then, that the binding of Satan during the Gospel age means that, first, he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel, and second, he cannot gather all the enemies of Christ together to attack the church."¹⁸

AN ANALYSIS OF THE AMILLENNIAL INTERPRETATION OF REVELATION 20:1-3

Though amillennial scholars have clearly and logically laid out their case for the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3, there are serious hermeneutical, exegetical and theological difficulties with their interpretation of this text.

1) The approach to interpreting Revelation known as "progressive parallelism is highly suspect The first difficulty to be examined is hermeneutical and deals with the amillennial approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation. In order for the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3 to be correct, the interpretive approach to Revelation known as "progressive parallelism" must also be accurate. Yet this approach which sees seven sections of Revelation running parallel to each other chronologically is largely unproven and appears arbitrary. As Hoekema admits, the approach of progressive parallelism, "is not without its difficulties."¹⁹

The claim that Revelation 20:1 "takes us back once again to the beginning of the New Testament era,"²⁰ does not seem warranted from the text. There certainly are no indicators within the text that the events of Revelation 20:1 take the reader back to the beginning of the present age. Nor are there textual indicators that the events of Revelation 20 should be separated chronologically from the events of Revelation 19:11-21. In fact, the opposite is the case. The events of Revelation 20 seem to follow naturally the events described in Revelation 19:11-21. If one did not have a theological presupposition that the millennium must be fulfilled in the present age, what indicators within the text would indicate that 20:1 takes the reader back to the beginning of the church era? A normal reading indicates that Christ appears from heaven (19:11-19), He destroys his enemies including the beast and the false prophet (19:20-21) and then He deals with Satan by binding him and casting him into the abyss (20:1-3). As Ladd says, "There is absolutely no hint of any recapitulation in chapter 20."²¹

That John uses the formula "and I saw" (kappa alpha iota  epsilon iota delta omicron nu) at the beginning of Revelation 20:1 also gives reason to believe that what he is describing is taking place in a chronological manner.²² Within Revelation 19-22, this expression is used eight times (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1). When John uses "and I saw," he seems to be describing events in that are happening in a chronological progression. Commenting on these eight uses of "and I saw" in this section, Thomas states,

The case favoring chronological sequence in the fulfillment of these scenes is very strong. Progression from Christ's return to the invitation to the birds of prey and from that invitation to the defeat of the beast is obvious. So is the progression from the binding of Satan to the Millennium and final defeat of Satan and from the final defeat to the new heaven and new earth with all this entails. The interpretation allowing for chronological arrangement of these eight scenes is one-sidedly strong. ²³

A natural reading of the text indicates that the events of Revelation 20 follow the events of Revelation 19:11-21. It is also significant that Hoekema, himself, admits that a chronological reading of Revelation would naturally lead one to the conclusion that the millennium follows the second coming when he says, "If, then, one thinks of Revelation 20 as describing what follows chronologically after what is described in chapter 19, one would indeed conclude that the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 will come after the return of Christ.²⁴

Herman Hoyt, when commenting on this statement by Hoekema, rightly stated, "This appears to be a fatal admission."²⁵ And it is. Hoekema admits that a normal reading of Revelation 19 and 20 would not lead one to the amillennial position. In a sense, the amillennialist is asking the reader to disregard the plain meaning of the text for an assumption that has no exegetical warrant. As Hoyt says,

To the average person the effort to move the millennium to a place before the Second Coming of Christ is demanding the human mind to accede to something that does not appear on the face of the text. But even more than that, the effort to make seven divisions cover the same period of time (between the first and second comings) will meet with all sorts of confusion to establish its validity. At best this is a shaky foundation upon which to establish a firm doctrine of the millennium. ²⁶

The hermeneutical foundation of amillennialism is, indeed, a shaky one. The seriousness of this must not be underestimated. For if the amillennialist is wrong on his approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation, his attempt at placing Satan's binding during the present age has suffered a major if not fatal blow.

2) The amillennial view does not adequately do justice to the language of Revelation 20:1-3 According to the amillennial view, Satan is unable to deceive the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ, but he is still active and able to do harm in this age. His activities, then, have not ceased but are limited.²⁷ This, however, does not do justice to what is described in Revelation 20:1-3. According to the text, Satan is "bound" with a "great chain" (vv.1-2) and thrown into the "abyss" that is "shut" and "sealed" for a thousand years (v. 3). This abyss acts as a "prison" (v. 7) until the thousand years are completed. The acts of binding, throwing, shutting and sealing indicate that Satan's activities are completely finished. As Mounce states:

The elaborate measures taken to insure his [Satan's] custody are most easily understood as implying the complete cessation of his influence on earth (rather than a curbing of his activities)."²⁸

Berkouwer, who himself is an amillennialist, admits that the standard amillennial explanation of this text does not do justice to what is described:

Those who interpret the millennium as already realized in the history of the church try to locate this binding in history. Naturally, such an effort is forced to relativize the dimensions of this binding, for it is impossible to find evidence for a radical elimination of Satan's power in that "realized millennium." . . . The necessary relativizing of John's description of Satan's bondage (remember that Revelation 20 speaks of a shut and sealed pit) is then explained by the claim that, although Satan is said to deceive the nations no more (vs. 3), this does not exclude satanic activity in Christendom or individual persons. I think it is pertinent to ask whether this sort of interpretation really does justice to the radical proportions of the binding of Satan-that he will not be freed from imprisonment for a thousand years. ²⁹

The binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 is set forth in strong terms that tell of the complete cessation of his activities. The amillennial view that Satan's binding is just a restriction or a "probation," as Cox has stated,³⁰ does not hold up under exegetical scrutiny.

3) The amillennial view conflicts with the New Testament's depiction of Satan's activities in the present age The view that Satan is bound during this age contradicts multiple New Testament passages which show that Satan is presently active and involved in deception. He is "the god of this world [who] has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:4). He is our adversary who "prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). In the church age he was able to fill the heart of Ananias (Acts 5:3) and "thwart" the work of God's ministers (1 Thess. 2:18). He is one for whom we must protect ourselves from by putting on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-19). Satan's influence in this age is so great that John declared "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19). These passages do not depict a being who has been bound and shut up in a pit. As Grudem has rightly commented, "the theme of Satan's continual activity on earth throughout the church age, makes it extremely difficult to think that Satan has been thrown into the bottomless pit."³¹

What then of the amillennial argument that Matthew 12:29 teaches that Jesus bound Satan at His first coming? The answer is that this verse does not teach that Satan was bound at that time. What Jesus stated in Matthew 12:29 is that in order for kingdom conditions to exist on the earth, Satan must first be bound. He did not say that Satan was bound yet. As Toussaint says:

By this statement He [Jesus] previews John the Apostle's discussion in Revelation 20. Jesus does not say He has bound Satan or is even in the process of doing so. He simply sets the principle before the Pharisees. His works testify to His ability to bind Satan, and therefore they attest His power to establish the kingdom.³²

Jesus' casting out of demons (Matt. 12:22-29) was evidence that He was the Messiah of Israel who could bring in the kingdom. His mastery over demons showed that He had the authority to bind Satan. But as the multiple New Testament texts have already affirmed, this binding did not take place at Christ's first coming. It will, though, at His second. What Jesus presented as principle in Matthew 12:29 will come to fulfillment in Revelation 20:1-3.

Luke 10:17-18 and John 12:31-32 certainly tell of Christ's victory over Satan but these passages do not teach that Satan is bound during this age. No Christian denies that the work of Christ, especially his death on the cross, brought a crushing defeat to Satan, but the final outworking of that defeat awaits the second coming. That is why Paul could tell the believers at Rome that "the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet" (Romans 16:20).

For the one contemplating the validity of amillennialism the question must be asked, Does the binding of Satan described in Revelation 20:1-3 accurately describe Satan's condition today? An analysis of multiple scriptural texts along with the present world situation strongly indicates that the answer is No.

4) Satan's deceiving activities continue throughout most of the Book of Revelation According to amillennialists, Satan was bound at the beginning of the Church age and he no longer has the ability to deceive the nations during the present age. But within the main sections of Revelation itself, Satan is pictured as having an ongoing deceptive influence on the nations. If Satan is bound during this age and Revelation describes conditions during this present age, we should expect to see a cessation of his deceptive activities throughout the book. But the opposite is the case. Satan's deception is very strong throughout Revelation. Revelation 12:9, for instance, states that "Satan. . . deceives the whole world." This verse presents Satan as a present deceiver of the world, not one who is bound.³³

Satan's deception is also evident in the authority he gives to the first beast (Rev. 13:2) and the second beast who "deceives those who dwell on the earth" (Rev. 13:14). Satan is certainly the energizer of political Babylon of whom it is said, "all the nations were deceived by your sorcery" (Revelation 18:23).

Satan's ability to deceive the nations throughout the Book of Revelation shows that he was not bound at the beginning of the present age. Grudem's note on the mentioned passages is well taken, "it seems more appropriate to say that Satan is now still deceiving the nations, but at the beginning of the millennium this deceptive influence will be removed."³⁴

CONCLUSION

The amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 that Satan is bound during this age is not convincing and fails in several ways. Hermeneutically it fails in that its approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation is based on the flawed system of progressive parallelism. This system forces unnatural breaks in the text that a normal reading of Revelation does not allow. This is especially true with the awkward break between the millennial events of Revelation 20 and the account of the second coming in Revelation 19:11-21. Exegetically, the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 does not do justice to the language of the text. The binding described in this passage clearly depicts a complete cessation of Satan's activities-not just a limitation as amillennialists believe. Theologically, the view that Satan is bound today simply does not fit with the multiple New Testament texts that teach otherwise. Nor can the amillennial view be reconciled with the passages within Revelation itself that show Satan as carrying on deceptive activity. To answer the question posed in the title of this work, "Is Satan bound today?" The answer from the biblical evidence is clearly, No.

---

Footnotes

1. The prefix "a-" means "no." Amillennialism, therefore, means "no millennium."

2. Anthony Hoekema, "Amillennialism," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, Robert G. Clouse, ed. (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1977), p. 161.

3. Among amillennial lists there are differences of opinion as to exactly what Christ's millennial reign specifically is. Augustine, Allis and Berkhof believed the millennial reign of Christ refers to the Church on earth. On the other hand, Warfield taught that Christ's kingdom involves deceased saints who are reigning with Christ from heaven.

4. This approach to Revelation can be traced to the African Donatist, Tyconius, a late fourth-century interpreter. Millennium based on a recapitulation method of interpretation. Using this principle Tyconius saw Revelation as containing several different visions that repeated basic themes throughout the book. Tyconius also interpreted the thousand years of Revelation 20:1-6 in nonliteral terms and understood the millennial period as referring to the present age. This recapitulation method was adopted by Augustine and has carried on through many Roman Catholic and Protestant interpreters. See Alan Johnson, "Reve lation,"Expositor's Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), v. 12, pp. 578-79.

5. Hoekena, pp. 156-57.

6. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1940).

7. Hoekema, p. 160.

8. Hendriksen, p. 221.

9. Hendriksen defines what the amillennialist means by "first coming." "When we say 'the first coming' we have reference to all the events associated with it, from the incarnation to the coronation. We may say, therefore, that the binding of satan [sic], according to all these passages, begins with that first coming" Hendriksen, p.226.

10. William E. Cos, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966), p. 58.

11. Hoekema, p. 162.

12. Hoekema, pp. 162-63.

13. Hoekema, p. 163.

14. Hoekema, pp. 163-64.

15. Hoekema, p. 161.

16. Cox, p. 57.

17. Hoekema, p. 161.

18. Hoekema, p. 162.

19. Hoekema, p. 156.

20. Hoekema, p. 160.

21. George Eldon Ladd, "An Historical Premillennial Response," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 190.

22. Harold W. Hoehner says, "Though these words are not as forceful a chronological order as 'after these things I saw' ( (meta tauta eidon; 4:1; 7:9; 15:5; 18:1) or 'after these things I heard' ( meta tauta ekousa, 19:1), they do show chronological progression." Harold W. Hoehner, "Evidence from Revelation 20," A case For Premillennialism: A New Consensus, Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend, eds. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), pp. 247-48.

23. Robert. L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), pp. 247-48.

24. Hoekema, p. 159.

25. Herman A. Hoyt, "A Dispensational Premillennial Response," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 193.

26. Hoyt, p. 194.

27. As Cox says, "Satan's binding refers (in figurative language) to the limiting of his power." Cox, p. 59.

28. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerchnans, 1977), p. 353. Grudem also adds, "More than a mere binding or restriction of activity is in view here. The imagery of throwing Satan into a pit and shutting it and sealing it over him gives a picture of total removal from influence on the earth." Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology

29. G.C.Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), p. 305.

30. Cox, p. 57.

31. Grudem, p. 1118.

32. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah, 1981), p. 305.

33. The argument that the casting down of Satan in Revelation 12:9 is the same event as the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 breaks down for two reasons. First, in Revelation 12:9 Satan was thrown from heaven to the earth. But in Revelation 20:1-3 he is taken from the earth to the abyss. Second, in Revelation 12:9 Satan's activities, including his deception of the nations, continue, while in Revelation 20:1-3 his activities are completely stopped as he is shut up and sealed in the abyss.

34. Grudem, p. 1118.

---

Back to Top

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Well, there's a Christian attitude for you.... Un-freakin-believable.

In other words "I thank God I'm not like that publican". You're a hypocrite dude. Do you think I care whether or not you converse with me? I'll answer that for ya since you're not responding anymore. No.

[jude24]

Well, Woody, what do you think of 1801?

Somehow I got to be the hypocrite. I guess denial's not just a river in Egypt.

[xzins]

mattie doesn't have to make sense. it's not one of the rules.

[editor-surveyor]

"Did He have SEXUAL intercourse with Mary?"

Are you going to jump over the cliff with Woody?

I know that you know that was not what I meant. - Anyway, I have a new perspective on this matter since spending some time last night reading the passage in the Book of Enoch on the same subject (Enoch was the book that was removed by the RC church around the third or fourth century; it is quoted in the NT by Jude and James. A copy was brought back to the west by James Bruce in 1773).

Enoch makes it plain that it was angels (which are called watchers in enoch) and that it was the offspring of those acts that are the source of the demons, or evil spirits if you prefer, that provide torment and disease in the present world.

This is becoming a thread hijacker.

[RnMomof7]

The thought of cross species fertalization is not unimportant..

[editor-surveyor]

"The thought of cross species fertalization is not unimportant.."

It wasn't to God either, so he brought the flood to purge them from the Earth.

[jude24]

he brought the flood to purge them from the Earth

That's not why the Scripture says he flooded the earth:

5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 ¶ The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

-- Gen. 6:5-7

Notice, by the way: he's blotting out men, not some kind of Dr. Morreau man-angel hybrids.

[jude24]

And he made men.

When did he make "mangels?"

[Starwind]

Starwind: "the rest of the dead are spiritually and physically dead (white throne context) did not live again (but stayed dead) until the 1000 years finished"

Jean Chauvin: Correction. The text does not read "live again". It reads only that they "did not live" or "lived not" until the 1000 years.

No, Jean, the text clearly does read "lived not again":

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead [nekros] lived [anazao] not [ou] again [anazao - aorist]. The Greek text clearly states ... anazao ou anazao or 'lived not again':

326 anazao {an-ad-zah'-o}

from 303 and 2198; TDNT - 2:872,290; v

AV - be alive again 2, revive 2, live again 1; 5

1) live again, recover life
1a) to be restored to a correct life
1a1) of one who returns to a better moral state
1b) to revive, regain strength and vigour

Jean Chauvin: You are forgetting those John sees in vs 4 who are currently alive in their bodies:

Most recently in post 1404, and throughout several early posts (112, 114, 117, 120, 129, 131, 136, 142, 152, 162...) Jean Chauvin advances the argument that the people John sees in Rev 20:4 are "alive in the body" and therefore could not be resurrected, and that John's use of the Greek 'zao' can not be applied to bodily resurrection, and thus Rev 20:4-6 is a 'spiritual resurrection' and therefore the millennium is metaphorical. Jean Chauvin first advances this argument to xzins in post #112, and further clarifies the argument in post #136:

Post #112

"It is not reasonable to conclude that people who are alive in the body are 'resurrected from the ~dead~."

Post #136

xzins, John tells us in Rev 20:4 that he sees two groups of people:A) the souls of those beheaded
and
B) those who did not worship the beast

Obviously, then, John sees some people who are, current to his perspective, alive in the body (Group B). (i.e. they are not ~DEAD~).
John then tells us in verse 5 that ~ALL~ of these people he sees are active participants in what he calls "The First Resurrection".
According to Premillennial theory, "the First Resurrection" is the resurrection of the body.
Since that, according to premillennial theory, is the case, how can those people who John sees that are alive in the body rise from the ~DEAD~.
I'm not asking what kind of body they have.
I'm asking how living people who have never ever died are supposedly resurrected from the ~DEAD~?

Jean Chauvin, gdebrae, the_doc, jude24, (others?) further assert their view is made clear by interpreting Rev 20:4-6 in the light of John 5:24,25; that the first resurrection of Rev 20:4-6 is spiritual and ongoing now during a metaphorical millennium, an era of regeneration unto conversion. This view that John 5:24-25 corresponds to Rev 20:4-6 and John 5:28-29 corresponds to Rev 20:11-15 is summarized in post #727.

However, there are three false premises in Jean Chauvin's argument advanced in post #136:

1. The beheaded souls and [those] which had not worshipped the beast, etc. are two groups.
2. That the beheaded souls were alive in the body and can't be resurrected.
3. The presumption that the Greek 'zao' can not be construed as resurrection from a prior dead state.

Firstly, dissecting Rev 20:4

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.

John sees two groups:

And I saw

1. thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them

   and [kai]

2. the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness [dia marturia] of Jesus, and for [kai dia] the word of God, and which [kai hostis] had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands

These two groups are distinguished by the descriptions of what those on the thrones do, then separated by 'and' [kai], followed by the introduction of the beheaded and the description of why they were beheaded; namely witnessing for Jesus and the word of God and rejecting the beast and his mark.

But now dissecting post #136 below, we see Jean Chauvin incorrectly splits the phrase 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.:

xzins, John tells us in Rev 20:4 that he sees two groups of people:

A) the souls of those beheaded
and
B) those who did not worship the beast

Jean Chauvin then goes on to interpret his second grouping as being alive in the body and not dead:

Obviously, then, John sees some people who are, current to his perspective, alive in the body (Group B). (i.e. they are not ~DEAD~).

And then incorrectly concludes that group B was never beheaded, not dead, and hence could not be supposedly resurrected from the ~DEAD~

John then tells us in verse 5 that ~ALL~ of these people he sees are active participants in what he calls "The First Resurrection".
According to Premillennial theory, "the First Resurrection" is the resurrection of the body.
Since that, according to premillennial theory, is the case, how can those people who John sees that are alive in the body rise from the ~DEAD~.
I'm not asking what kind of body they have.
I'm asking how living people who have never ever died are supposedly resurrected from the ~DEAD~?

The three false premises again were:

1. The beheaded souls and [those] which had not worshipped the beast, etc. are two groups.
2. That the beheaded souls were alive in the body and can't be resurrected.
3. The presumption that the Greek 'zao' can not be construed as resurrection from a prior dead state.

A plain reading of Rev 20:4 indicates that 'beast not-worshippers' isn't a separate group.

Rev 20:4 reads the souls of them that were beheaded. This was not a spiritual beheading. They were testifying for Christ and rejecting the beast when they lost their heads and became souls. There is no reason for Christ to remove his spiritual headship from them. They were already spiritually resurrected, they were saved, we are told by Christ (through John) they were testifying for Christ. It was a physical beheading by the beast and physical bodies without heads die, and can then be physically resurrected.

And as has been pointed out by xzins and drstevej, 'zao' in the context of Rev 20:4 can be interpreted as lived again and John further tells us literally that the beheaded souls (who lived prior to their beheading) lived after their beheading (again), the same as did Christ in Rev 2:8

Rev 20:4 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 [lambano - second aorist] his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived [zao - aorist] and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Rev 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead [nekros], and is alive [zao - aorist];

The context we are literally told is the first resurrection (proto anastasis) which includes the beheaded souls who lived [zao - aorist] and excludes the rest of the dead lived [anazao] not again [anazao- aorist]. The context in Rev 2:8 is Christ which was dead, and is alive [zao - aorist], and we know Christ was resurrected from the dead and thus those who participate in the Rev 20 'first resurrection', likewise can be resurrected.

What scripture doesn't tell us, is what kind of body they receive, but then Jean Chauvin states in post #142 that is not an issue:

"Again, I'm not concerned with what kind of bodies they will eventually possess. (remember, the Bible calls these bodies "spiritual" or "glorified" bodies, not "resurrection" bodies)"

So, the 1st resurrection of Rev 20 is about bodily resurrection, not a spiritual resurrection, and contrary to the assertion that the 'regeneration unto conversion' of John 5:25 is the 'clear picture' which explains Rev 20:4.

Regarding the other group of people who John sees, those on the thrones; as has been posted previously, scripture does not tell us that all are killed at the end of the tribulation. Not only does the seal, trumpet and bowl judgments not kill everyone, but Jesus tells us in Mark 13:20 that these days would be shortened for the sake of the elect - for the sake of some that are saved and live through the tribulation and enter the millennium physically alive and spiritually saved. Rev 20 does not specifically tell us who is on the thrones, nor does Revelation clarify where the 'raptured' are during the millennium, nor any 'translated' OT figures like Enoch or Elijah.

The first resurrection of Rev 20:4-6 clearly precedes the white throne judgment and 2nd death of 'the rest of dead' by a real 1000 year millennium. There is no requirement to construe John 5:28,29 as mandating the same simultaneous hour of resurrection for both groups (those who have done 'good' and 'evil'), and would further complicate the plain language of Rev 20:11-15 on judgment and condemnation of 'the rest of the dead' by their works alone. This has been explained ad nauseam in post #854, post #861, post #865 and post #951.

What Rev 20 literally tells us is that the first resurrection is bodily, not spiritual (as explained in this post and post #1734 and post #1778). It is a resurrection of souls who learned the gospel during the tribulation (as explained in post #1347, post #1382 and post #1391) and rejected a real graven mark of the beast (as explained in post #1068). The 1000 year millennium is real (not merely metaphorically 'vast' as was explained in post #1133 and post #1155) and singular (as was explained in post #1402). None of which has happened yet and Satan is not yet bound and won't be until that future 1000 years.

[Starwind]

Jean, you're still arguing for two one-thousand-year millenniums, neither of which you believe are real. Surely you're not going to propose a second metaphorical millenium?

Yes, those who have experienced (past tense) the First Resurrection (living and reigning with Christ a thousand years) shall be preists of God and of Christ (future tense) and shall reign with him a thousand years (future tense).

Clearly one must have already be apart of the First Resurrection (living and reigning for a thousand years) in order to be "priests" and "reign with Christ a thousand years" (future application).

No, the grammar tells us that one must be apart of the First Resurrection in order to be apart of the future 1000 year reign in vs 6.

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the First Resurrection (past tense)"

The folks who have already been privy to the "First Resurrection" are the ones who shall (future tense) be preists of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Revelation 20 notes the 1000 year period 6 times and not once is there a reference to a particular thousand versus some other thousand years. John did not so distinguish any particular reference because all 6 references are the same 1000 year period.

The fact that John switches tense is irrelevant. The tense is on the verbs describing the actions (laid hold, bound, lived, reigned, shall be, shall reign, will be released), but the nouns 'thousand years' all remain the same.

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

Rev 20:4 and they lived [zao - aorist] and reigned [basileuo - aorist] with Christ a thousand years.

Rev 20:5a But the rest of the dead lived [anazao] not again [anazao- aorist] until [heos] the thousand years were finished [teleo - aorist]

Rev 20:5b, 6a This is the first resurrection [proto anastasis]. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath [echo - present] part in the first resurrection [proto anastasis]:

Rev 20: 6b on such the second death hath [echo - present] no power, but they shall be [esomai - future] priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign [basileuo - future] with him a thousand years.

Rev 20:7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison

John does not once qualify the thousand years as previous, current, or future. In Rev 20:2-3 John describes what he saw happen to Satan and the result (laid hold, bound) naturally in past tense. John then describes why (should deceive no more) naturally in present tense, and the future (should be fulfilled, after that) naturally in a future tense. Again in Rev 20:4 John describes what he saw happen to the beheaded souls (lived and reigned) again naturally in past tense. In Rev 20:5a John tells us the 'rest of the dead' lived not again (yes "lived not again" is in the text - see post #1809) during the thousand years, naturally in present tense. And in Rev 20:5b-6 John is describing the first resurrection participants and what will happen to them (shall be, shall reign) naturally in future tense. Lastly, when the thousand years are over, John describes what will happen to Satan (will be released) in the future.

So, in fact John changes tense several times depending on whether he is describing what he saw, what is or why, or what will happen. But those tense changes do not become the basis for several millenniums and throughout all 6 references to 'thousand years' not one of them are ever qualified or distinguished in any way as being distinct from any of the others, because there is only a single thousand year millennium and how John describes the actions therein doesn't change that.

[Starwind]

Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead [nekros] lived [anazao] not [ou] again [anazao - aorist]. The Greek text clearly states ... anazao ou anazao or 'lived not again':

(sigh)

I have relied on the Greek/English translations provided by the "Blue Letter Bible" here for Rev 20:5 and upon closer inspection of the Greek script in the 1550 TR compared to the Greek root words corresponding to the English translation, they don't match.

So, I thought I was seeing the original Greek when I referred to anazao ou anazao but that appears to be the Greek root words used to explain the english text, not the original Greek from which the English is derived.

So in my post #1402 while the KJV and YLT (and other english translations) use 'lived not again', I can not explain how this translation is made. My reliance on the Blue Letter Bible translation for the original Greek is misapplied.

Though most English translations used 'lived not again' or some variation.

[Revelation 911]

stop ! youre killin me LOL

[RnMomof7]

"The thought of cross species fertalization is not unimportant.."

Have you ever tried to mate a horse with your dog ?

God made it so His work could not be defiled..

You should be an arminian if you believe that God is so careless

[xzins]

Star, I had the same problem the first time I went to an internet text. I don't remember which, but it didn't adequately portray the text.

The point is the context, however, so the argument doesn't really change. When dead people come alive again, then the "live" is clearly to be combined with the again. In the Greek, the ingressive aorist (determined from context) clearly calls for the "again" to be present.

This is seen most clearly in Rev 2:8 which uses the same Greek word, ezeisen (zao), as does Rev 20:4 & 5. Jesus himself says, "I became dead and I did live." It's hard to argue that Jesus was speaking of his "salvation experience." We sort of know that in his case he truly was executed and truly was dead.

[CCWoody]

Self-warped comes to mind. It is obvious to me that we should take the Lord's adivce and leave him alone 'cause he acts just like a tare. Matt 13:40

[Starwind]

The point is the context, however, so the argument doesn't really change. When dead people come alive again, then the "live" is clearly to be combined with the again. In the Greek, the ingressive aorist (determined from context) clearly calls for the "again" to be present.

This is seen most clearly in Rev 2:8 which uses the same Greek word, ezeisen (zao), as does Rev 20:4 & 5. Jesus himself says, "I became dead and I did live." It's hard to argue that Jesus was speaking of his "salvation experience." We sort of know that in his case he truly was executed and truly was dead.

Oh, I agree. I'm just exposing my mistake about what the original Greek says. But it is nonetheless translated (by those who know NT Greek far better than I) as 'again', consistent with context.

[Jean Chauvin]

"FYI: Re "ingressive aorist" That a verb is aorist is determined by the inflection. That it is an ingrssive aorist is determined by context. "

So, to my understanding, the "ingressive" aspect is a "judgement call".

If this is the case, then what is the context which indicates that the "zao" in Rev 2:8 is "ingressive"?

"FYI#2: 2 Corinthians 8:9 is an aorist tense verb. "

I referenced 2 Cor 8:9 as an example of an "ingressive aorist" tense because the Greek gammar book I consulted identified it as such.

I ~did~ however, mess up by applying this to Titus. It is applied to Christ (that shows what a late night quick read will do after a long and busy day).

Nevertheless, my point still stands. 2 Corinthians 8:9 does not concern us with the "vehicle" by which Christ came into poverty is most definately not the point. The point is that he came in to poverty for our sakes.

Emphasis is on poverty.

Likewise, in Rev 2:8, the emphasis is on Chirst's living status. Even with an assumed "ingressive" aorist, this does not change.

You had mentioned to me in an earlier post that if John wanted to emphasize Christ's current status of being alive, then he should have used the present tense.

I can turn tables on you and claim that if John wanted to emphasize Christ's resurrection, he should have used the accepted Greek words for "resurrection".

"Rev 2:8 says He became dead/died (aorist) and lived (aorist). Context (i.,e. it is describing Jesus) indicates that the cause of death was crucifiction and the cause of living was resurrection"

Double check your claim that "became dead" is "aorist" or even "ingressive aorist". The Greek reads, not "died", but "became dead" "egeneto nekrox".

Even so, to my understanding, the fact that we know the cause of "ingressive aorist" state of being, doesn't mean that this is inherently implied in the "ingressive aorist tense" in general. Would it not be the case that we could find other "ingressive aorist" examples in the NT where the "vehicle" to the state was not known? So then, the fact that we find an "ingressive aorist" does not ~in and of itself~ tell us or even emphasize the "vehicle" to the state of being it describes.

A person could be said to have "become the ruler". Does that tell us how? Is that even concerned with "how"? No, the emphasis is on the fact that the person wasn't king and now is king. Whether it was a dictatorship, coup, popular election, monarchy through blood...is not relevant to the emphasis. Even if we knew what the "vehicle" to the rulership was, the "ingressive aorist" tense does not concern ourselves with that. It's emphasis is on the fact that one now is "king", "alive", "poor"...

"Why is this so hard, the repeated NT message is that He died and was raised again."

Steve, I have no problems with a repeated NT message of a contrast with Christ's death and Christ's resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15 is a prime example of that fact. However, the proper Greek terminology is used to reference that contrast. "zao" is not one of them.

Furthermore, just a few verses prior to Rev 2:8, we find an explicit declaration of the contrast between Christ's death and Christ's living status!

While this has repeatedly been brought to your attention, you have steadfastly ignored this also repeated NT message.

Therefore, you must make your case, other than simple assertion, that "zao" in Rev 2:8 is a reference to Christ's resurrection. The biblical evidence which we have already shown, which you have so far ignored, makes your case quite questionable.

Jean

[editor-surveyor]

"Have you ever tried to mate a horse with your dog ?
God made it so His work could not be defiled..."

You are living in a fantasy world if you believe the above. We are living with proof positive of numerous ways in which his perfect creation has been defiled. - Sin defiles it in every way.

Children are born grotesquely deformed every day

Frogs, bats, sheep, rabbits and who knows what else are born deformed in ways that are passed on to their offspring.

People have intercourse with sheep and the sheep give birth to living creatures that have to be destroyed to prevent scandal.

Are you really blind to all of this?

If this weakens your faith, perhaps you should stick to the 'sincere milk.' - Sin is the cause of disease, which is fully born out by the word:

Prov. 26:2
"As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come."

[Jean Chauvin]

"You're the one who said that "crucifixion" parallels "resurrection." It was wise of you to back off quickly. "

There you go again, x. Putting words in my mouth. I never made a parallel between "crucifixion" and "resurrection".

I defy you to find where I did such.

Your a liar! LOL!

Matchett-PI should really enjoy this!

"Zao in Rev 2:8 definitely points to resurrection. (ezeisen) From the dead to life and emphasis on that point in time when it occurs equals "resurrection." It equals "come alive again." "

That we know that Jesus was resurrected from the dead is not the point of 2:8. The point is that Jesus was dead and is now alive!

Look just a few verses before 2:8 in 1:17,18. Here we see explicit contrast between Christ's death and Christ's living status. This is ~not~ a contrast between Christ's death and his "resurrection". Sure, we know he was resurrected from the dead, but that is not the point here.

There is nothing inherent in the "aorist" tense or even an assumed "ingressive" aorist tense which would necessarily emphasize the "vehicle" to the new found state of being which is described by an "ingressive aorist tense".

Futhermore, there is nothing inherent in an "aorist" tense or even an "ingressive aorist" tense which indicates a necessary "again".

As gdebrae has already told you, evey example of "zao" which is translated as "came to life" or "lived again" works just fine without the additional wording. Therefore, you have shown us no reason, other than a really bad eisegetical desire, for us to add the word "again" or change the definition of "zao".

Your "it just does" argument is getting a bit old! LOL!

"Just accept that it is clearly an ingressive aorist and you will see that it means that Rev 20:4 is easily interpreted as a resurrection of dead people. "

I won't apologize for not simply "taking your word for it"! LOL!

You have only made assertions, you have shown no biblical evidence. Furthermore, you have blatantly ignored the Biblical evidence that has contradicted your assertions.

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

"Oh, I agree. I'm just exposing my mistake about what the original Greek says. But it is nonetheless translated (by those who know NT Greek far better than I) as 'again', consistent with context."

Yup, don't bother me with the details about what is or is not in the original Greek!

This must be the "literal unless I want to add words or change definitions to suit my premillennial theology" hermeneutic! LOL!

Jean