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

[CCWoody]

So, the NASB also identifies beast not-worshippers and mark-rejecters as physically killed, though in Rev 13, but killed nonetheless and not alive when John saw them come to life and reign with the beheaded souls. Again, no souls or killed saints (rev 13) are excluded from coming to life and reigning with Christ 1000 years in the NASB translation. ~ Starwind

This is an erroneous conclusion. Unfortunately for you, as Jean has been pointing out, all the greek is against you. The only conclusion you can correctly draw is that all of these people were dead when they came to life, not that they have been killed and came to life.

I thought I'd point this out, just in case Jean missed it.

Woody.

The kingdom is the Lord's, and He rules over the nations.

[gracebeliever]

The problem is, you can't prove the point which I emphasized with bold font. And Peter's Pentecost sermon actually contradicts your claim.

It is easy to make an assertion, but you do not indicate how Peter's Pentecost sermon contridicts my statement. The whole OT from Gen. 3:15 forward points to the "seed of the woman" who will smash the head of the serpent. In fact, from Gen. 1:2 the Bible is strictly about the earth, other than Paul's writings in Romans through Philemon. The Abrahamic covenant and promise, and the later covenants are all about the earth and an earthly kingdom. To believe in what you state is to deny what nearly all the Scripture is about, and that's reconciling the earth to God through the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ is currently on exile, so to speak, and being such is not seated on the throne of the kingdom, which is David's throne, but He will when HE returns in glory. I've never seen you state, although you will correct me if you have, whether your position includes Christ's second advent on earth. So, what's your position on this issue?

And whether you agree with me about that or not, you already knew that I take the position that the Lord's throne is in heaven rather than on earth. So, when you said in your earlier post that we amills maintain that "earth is the same as heaven," you were not being honest in the argument.

How can you say that when, as I just indicated, the Bible points to the throne on earth with there not being a single specific verse that says David's throne is now, or was ever intended to be in heaven. The heavens will be the dominion of the Body of Christ with Christ as the "head," as Paul clearly teaches, not as "king." So if the Bible never states that David's throne is in heaven, but is to be on the earth, yet your position is the throne is in heaven, then my conclusion, whether right or wrong from your perspective, is that you make no distinction between the two from a practical standpoint regarding David's throne. BTW, does your position see David's throne returning to earth, or is it perpetually in heaven?

(Don't feel too bad for the rebuke. None of FR's dogmatic premills have been honest in this argument.)

I'd rather be dishonest regarding your position than with the Scriptures, which clearly teach something different than what you profess.

The rest of your post has similar problems. You need to re-read John 5:25-29 again. And it's really simple. That's one of the reason why the premills are not able to concede that it rules out premillennialism. But it does. My goodness, if John 5:28-29 is true, then Revelation 20 has to be figurative.

What is not true is your take of what is in fact a rather simple and straight forward passage, particularly when taken in context. You continue to be accusative, but it's you that confuses regeneration with resurrection and resurrection of Christ with being currently seated on David's throne. That's the problem with human logic and with reading more into a passage, or verse thans there. BTW, my questions aren't rhetorical, and you haven't bothered to answer, so unless I see some answers rather than accusations (or rebukes), it is not a productive use of time to continue this discussion.

[the_doc]

It is easy to make an assertion, but you do not indicate how Peter's Pentecost sermon contridicts my statement.

Why should I "explain" what Peter says in Acts 2? You have a good English translation, I'm sure. And Peter really is saying that the Lord is right now on the throne promised to David's Son. He is saying that the Spirit-baptism of the Church is proof that Christ has been coronated as prophesied.

If my overall position is correct, it will not do you any good for me to explain Acts 2 any further than that (which is already obvious anyway).

How can you say that when, as I just indicated, the Bible points to the throne on earth with there not being a single specific verse that says David's throne is now, or was ever intended to be in heaven.

See my comments above.

While you're at it, go back and read John 5:25-29.

I'd rather be dishonest regarding your position than with the Scriptures, which clearly teach something different than what you profess.

Dishonesty is dishonesty is dihonesty is dishonesty.

If you can't be trusted not to misrepresent my position, then you certainly can't be trusted to interpret Scripture. Your spirit is wrong. See 1 Corinthians 2:14.

You continue to be accusative, but it's you that confuses regeneration with resurrection and resurrection of Christ with being currently seated on David's throne.

You are still dishonestly accusing me of "confusing regeneration with [bodily] resurrection," whereas I am obviously not at all "confused" about the difference between these. I am merely pointing out that John 5:25 is talking about coming spiritually alive from a state of spiritual death. And I am saying that this phenomenon mentioned in John 5:25 is what Revelation 20 is calling the "first resurrection."

And I am saying that John 5:28-29 proves that I am right. You just don't see it yet.

[the_doc]

I meant to include you in that post to gracebeliever and FruManchu.

[the_doc]

Please see my #1963.

[RnMomof7]

The mechanics are that those who hear the word and believe are regenerated,

Actually those that are regenerated CAN hear the word and believe

[gracebeliever]

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 and post #1809). 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.

I've enjoyed your comments to Jean Chauvin and feel your comments are right on about the Millennial Kingdom, Satan being bound then, and about physical, bodily resurrection.

What I find strange is the number of people who feel there is a "spiritual resurrection" when the Bible doesn't state this anywhere. As I've indicated to Doc, there is a general confusion of regeneration and resurrection, which are totally different. All believers are regenerated the instant they believe, which is bringing spiritual life, which is new life, to what was spiritually dead, or never had life to begin with. Resurrection is bringing back to life, and to "stand upright" a body that had once been alive but is now physically dead.

Once a person physically dies, there is no longer the opportunity to be spiritually regenerated, in other words, those who have been regenerated will continue in that state and those who are spiritually dead will stay dead. There will be a bodily resurrection of the physically dead. Three are indicated in Scripture as being yet future.

I like what Paul says in 2Cor. 5:6,8 that to "be absent from the body" is to "be present with the Lord." This occurs immediately upon physical death and applies to believers. Unbelievers are just like Jesus stated in His description of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31; they will go directly to hell, or torments as stated here, immediately upon physical death. I think some confuse what is stated here as being in a physical body when the rich man can see, hear, taste, feel and think. But the physical body is in a grave, so what's here is the soulism man, which is the real person, not our fleshly shell. These passages preclude any thought of a spiritual resurrection since the spirits and souls never die, thus cannot be resurrected. Furthermore, since the spirits and souls of believers go immediately to heaven and the souls of non-believers go immediately to hell upon physical death, a so-called spiritual resurrection is an impossibility.

Keep up the good work!

[Seven_0]

"What I find strange is the number of people who feel there is a "spiritual resurrection" when the Bible doesn't state this anywhere. As I've indicated to Doc, there is a general confusion of regeneration and resurrection, which are totally different. All believers are regenerated the instant they believe, which is bringing spiritual life, which is new life, to what was spiritually dead, or never had life to begin with. Resurrection is bringing back to life, and to "stand upright" a body that had once been alive but is now physically dead"

The Bible does not mention a spiritual resurrection, but that does not mean there is not one. Consider, there are two deaths, natural and spiritual. When we say that christ died for us, we do not be the natural death or we would not die. Therefore it must have been the spiritual(second) death that he was talking about when he said, "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 11:26) It follows that if Christ died the second death, that he would need the second resurrection.

[gracebeliever]

Actually those that are regenerated CAN hear the word and believe

While this is a correct statement, my statement is also correct and must take place before a person is regenerated. A person's regeneration occurs the very instant that person believes the Word of God that is heard. Paul reiterates in Romans 10:17 what Jesus Christ taught in John 3-6 that "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." That Word must be the appropriate Scripture for that person to be saved, not just any words from the Bible.

It's clearly stated by Paul in 1 Cor. 2:14 that the "natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Verse 12 hits it for believers, "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but that spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." So we have to have the Spirit of God before we can understand the things, which refers to doctrine, of God. We receive the Spirit of God at regeneration, but we don't know the things of God until we study and the Spirit illuminates the Word of God.

[Starwind]

Keep up the good work!

Thanks very much. Stay tuned.

[Jean Chauvin]

"What I find strange is the number of people who feel there is a "spiritual resurrection" when the Bible doesn't state this anywhere"

John 5:24,25
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Because the "hour now is", the "dead" spoken of here are the "spiritually dead". At the end of vs 25, John's record of Jesus declaration uses the same Greek word the very same John uses for "lived" in Rev 20:4: "zao"

Jesus clearly says the the hour that the "dead" shall live is "now". Since there was no bodily resurrection at this time, this is a clear reference to the "spiritual dead" coming to life.

This is supported by the words of vs 24 in which Jesus tells that all those (living people) who believe have "passed from death to life" (past tense).

Here we have another clear reference to people who are alive in their bodies that are referred to as "dead". This can only be understood as being "spiritually dead". Furthermore, these very same people who are alive in their bodies are said to "pass from death to life". When one passes from death to life, one is necessarily resurrected.

John 11:25,26
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Jesus states that he is the "resurrection". This is the Greek word "anastasis". The author of the Gospel of John is, obviously, the Apostle John and he is, obviously, the very same author of Revelation. Notice, that in Rev 20:5 we find John using the same, identical word "anastasis"/"resurrection" that John uses in John 11:25,26.

But is Jesus talking about a physical/bodily resurrection in John 11:25,26?

Let's look Jesus' eplanation of what he means by "resurrection":

vs 25: "he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live"

"he that believeth in me": obviously a refernece to people who are alive in their bodies. Since people who are dead no longer have the opportunity to believe or not believe, then this is obviously a refernece to people who are alive in their bodies.

"though he were dead": Jesus is point blank telling us that people who are alive in their bodies "were" (past tense) "dead". This can only be a reference to "spiritual death", since people who are alive in their bodies are not physically dead.

"yet shall he live": Jesus is point blank telling us that these people who are/were "dead" "shall live". The Greek word for "live" here is "zao and is the identical Greek word the very same author, John, uses in Rev 20:4 to describe the mass of peole he saw ("they lived...").

Clearly here, Jesus is telling us that he is the source of "resurrection" from which people who are alive in their bodies, yet are spiritually dead "shall live" if they believe!

Eph 2
1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Here Paul is telling people who are alive in their bodies that they "were dead" (past tense). Since these people are currently alive in their bodies, the only way to understand this being "dead" is that this is a refernece to "spiritual death".

These individuals who were spiritually dead but alive in their bodies were "quickened" (past tense). This is the Greek word "suzoopoieo" literally means "to make one alive".

Therefore, Paul tells us that we, who are alive in our bodies, but spiritually dead were "made alive"/"quickened" -"resurrected".

Eph 2
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Here Paul repeats himself and tells us that these same people who are alive in their bodies were "raised up" (past tense). This is the Greek word "sunegeiro" which literally means "to raise up together". This is another obvious reference to "resurrection" and therefore "resurrection through regeneration".

Furthermore, is their any doubt that the "heavenly places" which we sit together are the "thrones" which John sees in Rev 20:4?

Col 2
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Here Paul again is talking to people who are alive in their bodies who he says are "risen" (past tense). The word for "risen" here, is the same Greek word we find in Eph 2:6: "sunegeiro". This is another obviously clear reference to "resurrection of regeneration" through faith!

Col 3
1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

Again, we find another passage where Paul is talking to people who are alive in their bodies who are said to be "risen" (past tense). This, again, is the same Greek word used in Eph 2 and Col 2 ("sunegeiro") and is another clear reference to people who are alive in their bodies being "resurrected"/"regenerated" from a state of spiritual "death".

Quite clearly, there is ~ample~ Biblical evidence to support the idea of the "ressurrectin of regeneration"! Jean

[gracebeliever]

John 5:24,25...Because the "hour now is", the "dead" spoken of here are the "spiritually dead". At the end of vs 25, John's record of Jesus declaration uses the same Greek word the very same John uses for "lived" in Rev 20:4: "zao"

The word used by the Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in John 5 is zoe, "life," which is derived from zao. Go back to John 4:23,24 to get the sense of the "hour now is." Actually you need to start in verse 23 to understand who Jesus is speaking of, and its not the church, the Body of Christ, "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." Believers must have God's Spirit in them in order to worship Him in truth (in Christ truthfully). That's why we need to be regenerated.

Jesus clearly says the the hour that the "dead" shall live is "now". Since there was no bodily resurrection at this time, this is a clear reference to the "spiritual dead" coming to life.

Conceptually you have this right, but you ignore the common definitions of the words. Resurrection is "the act of coming back to life." That's the understanding I believe we all have for the meaning of resurrection.

By contrast, regeneration, not withstanding the "re" in the word, means to "create anew" not recreate. As indicated in the prior post and above, everyone is spiritually dead until God's Spirit "quickens" us or makes us alive. We get His life and since that life wasn't in us to begin with, this is something totally new and it is spiritual. "Quickeneth," as used by Christ in John 5:21 and 6:63, as well as by Paul in Ro. 4:17 and 1Tim. 6:13, means to "vitalize, make alive, give life." That's the sense of regeneration. Note it doesn't say bring back to life, or any similar definition.

This is supported by the words of vs 24 in which Jesus tells that all those (living people) who believe have "passed from death to life" (past tense).

Yep, that's true for every believer, otherwise we'd be unable to know the things of God.

Here we have another clear reference to people who are alive in their bodies that are referred to as "dead". This can only be understood as being "spiritually dead". Furthermore, these very same people who are alive in their bodies are said to "pass from death to life". When one passes from death to life, one is necessarily resurrected.

All the unregenerate are "dead men walking." The spirit and the body are two distinct and separate entities which you seem to ignore. The spirit is from God and the fleshly body is from the earth and is of Adam's corrupted seed. Understand the definition of resurrected and you'll see you're beating a "dead" horse here - that's still dead.

John 11:25,26...Jesus states that he is the "resurrection". This is the Greek word "anastasis". The author of the Gospel of John is, obviously, the Apostle John and he is, obviously, the very same author of Revelation. Notice, that in Rev 20:5 we find John using the same, identical word "anastasis"/"resurrection" that John uses in John 11:25,26. But is Jesus talking about a physical/bodily resurrection in John 11:25,26?

Let's look Jesus' eplanation of what he means by "resurrection":...Clearly here, Jesus is telling us that he is the source of "resurrection" from which people who are alive in their bodies, yet are spiritually dead "shall live" if they believe!

Keeping in context, Martha confessed in verse 24 that Lazarus would indeed "rise again in the resurrection at the last day." This is the proper definition of resurrection: to rise again. The Bible's great about defining bible words and terms. Jesus in verse 25 is addressing those who have already died, like Lazarus, and affirms Martha's statement of faith by stating "yet shall he live" referring to the "resurrection at the last day." That's the resurrection you keep referring to. In verse 26, Jesus is stating a more comprehensive truth, that being that true believers, whether physically dead or still alive, will never die referring to spiritual life and eventually physical life in our resurrrected bodies. Look at the definition for the word resurrection - it always refers to rising "again," or being brought "back" to life, or standing erect, which is a physical act.

Here Paul repeats himself and tells us that these same people who are alive in their bodies were "raised up" (past tense). This is the Greek word "sunegeiro" which literally means "to raise up together". This is another obvious reference to "resurrection" and therefore "resurrection through regeneration".

In this and the other reference to Paul's writings, which I didn't copy, you are attempting to read something that is not there. This passage, however, refers to our position and standing in Christ. This is how God sees us in Christ the instant a person is saved, but this is a future reality that will occur at the Rapture. This is the same as Eph. 2:6 where we are said to be "seated with Christ in the heavenlies." This is not a spiritual resurrection.

Furthermore, is their any doubt that the "heavenly places" which we sit together are the "thrones" which John sees in Rev 20:4?

Sorry to disappoint you, but we're in the heavenlies, and the thrones are on the earth. Those thrones are occuppied by the twelve apostles, who will "judge the twelve tribes of Israel." And no matter what you may think, the church, the Body of Christ isn't Israel.

Quite clearly, there is ~ample~ Biblical evidence to support the idea of the "ressurrectin of regeneration"! Jean

Don't have time to respond to the other Pauline passages. However, and as stated before, please understand the definitions and take the words as defined, not as you wish them to be defined. But "resurrection" and "regeneration" are different and there isn't a "spiritual regeneration" no matter how much you attempt to read it into verses.

[RnMomof7]

Lots of folks "hear" the word of God without hearing it..they are not intended to

A person's regeneration occurs the very instant that person believes the Word of God that is heard.

It is not given to all to believe..saving faith is a gift not a natural possession

It is not self generated

[RnMomof7]

All the unregenerate are "dead men walking."

Exactly why the first resurrection is being converted..from death to life.

[fortheDeclaration]

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.

An excellent post!

To expose 'Jean's' false statements and half-truths is a daunting task, but you have accomplished it brilliantly.

Thank you!

[Wrigley]

FYI ping

[Jean Chauvin]

Why bother? He's our greatest asset, after all!

LOL!

Jean

[Seven_0]

"Quite clearly, there is ~ample~ Biblical evidence to support the idea of the "ressurrectin of regeneration"! Jean"

How can spiritual resurrection come before spititual death? Spiritual death comes after the great white throne judgement still future. "Birth, Death Resurrection." the order is set in stone in the natural world, and the natural world is as reliable a tool for interpertation of God"s word as is possible, since God"s Creation and God's word will not contradict one another, and it is the only way we have to understand the spiritual world.

BTW to all the would argue that some of these things are obvious, I say that not only is the Truth not always obvious, sometimes it is very elusive.

Prov 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

[RnMomof7]

We are ~born~ spiritually dead

[the_doc]

How can spiritual resurrection come before spititual death? Spiritual death comes after the great white throne judgement still future. "Birth, Death Resurrection." the order is set in stone in the natural world, and the natural world is as reliable a tool for interpertation of God"s word as is possible, since God"s Creation and God's word will not contradict one another, and it is the only way we have to understand the spiritual world.

You need to re-think Proverbs 25:2.

The fact is, you were born already dead. So, the order of things inherent in Jean Chauvin's argument is correct.