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]

the facts of the Gospel aren't hard to explain to a Roman Catholic, either. That isn't the problem, is it? Thank God Woody's salvation isn't at stake in this (the_doc to the contrary, notwithstanding). ~ Dan

I am an Amillennialist because I finally got the facts of the gospels straight. I found it impossible to square what the gospels plainly reveals with what the Premillennialists tell me is going to happen. For example, I could not make Matthew 13:36 fit Premillennialism, despite the assurance by Premillennialists that it fits. I found that they were not being honest with the passage. This is just one of many things I noticed.

Of course, I'm not an Arminian for the same reason. I found that they were not being honest with what the gospels teach. For example, they tell me that people will go to hell because they don't believe, but there is a very interesting encounter with Christ that says that it is much more than a matter of belief. But, that is another thread.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

You might try this little program I use called Text Pad. You can put together templates of HTML that you can steal from other Freepers and simply plug your text into them. Plus, when you save and your computer dies, you don't lose your work because the program doesn't tie up the file you have on your drive.

http://www.textpad.com/

[the_doc]

Do you mean that he cannot deceive the Gentile nations as a block?

Yes. This was the bottom-line point of the posts which OrthodoxPresbyterian offered several weeks ago. It's a pretty important point. Overall numbers aside, the missionary should expect success.

[BibChr]

Nonsense.

If you mangled and abused the soteriological and Christological passages as you do God's prophetic Word, you'd be a universalist, a unitarian — or anything else you want. Amillennialism both dovetails with Roman Catholicism AND warrants their criticism that every reader becomes a little Pope. That's all you are, randomly applying the grammatico-historical approach here, and imposing baseless spiritualizing metaphors there, guided only by your prejudices and tradition.

You are a Christian in spite of your mangling of God's prophetic Word.

Dan

[CCWoody]

The first wall to fall was when I figured out that we are in the age of the kingdom of God right now. Once I figured out that, all the parables fell neatly into place. This is far simpler than you make it out. dispensationalism is wacky complicated with its segretationism.

[nobdysfool]

Again, you fail to take into account the possibility that Satan might have already been loosed to create this havoc! I certainly hold that as a possibility! It fits perfectly into Amillennial theology!

In order for that to be true, you must demonstrate that Satan was bound for a period of time between the First Advent and the present day, and demonstrate that he has been loosed from his prison within recent subjective time. I don't believe you can convincingly do so.

In other words, you have only demonstrated that it might be true that Satan is not currently bound. You have yet to demonstrate that Satan has not yet been bound.

I believe that the context of the passage in Revelation argues for Satan being bound at a future time (from our perspective, the same as from John's perspective), because of the details of events around that passage, and from, once again, simple observation. I do not believe you can show any evidence for Satan being bound in any meaningful way in the last 2000 years. The detail given as to his binding, being cast in the Bottomless Pit, sealed so that he may not escape for 1000 years, all are too graphic for it to be taken as an allegory, symbolism, or only "spiritual". Words mean things, Jean.

Now, I have presented a Biblical argument as to the fact that since we can understand that the binding of demons spoken of in 2 Peter 2 is ~not~ total and complete, then we can also conclude that the binding of Satan (which is described using extremely similar language) is not ~necessarily~ to be understood as being complete/total.

Without going into a long list of quotes, there is evidence in scripture that some, if not most of the angels who originally sinned with Lucifer, are currently bound awaiting judgment. There is reference to the 4 angels bound at the Euphrates River, and it is understood that they are fallen angels. I'm not absolutely sure whether demons are fallen angels or the spirits of the offspring between men and angels, or some other sort of spiritual being...demons have been, and are still wreaking havoc and oppressing and sometimes possessing people to this day, no doubt about it. We have authority over them through the Blood of Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit, so our activities against them impose restrictions on their activities. With apologies to our RC lurkers, we have been given authority by Jesus to bind and loose, not only demons but also angelic beings, within the Will of God.

My point is, 2 Peter 2:4 has at least partially already been fulfilled. The judgment is still future, but they have already been bound with chains of darkness. Revelation 20: 1-3 is a separate event, and in the context of the whole section of the book, is not something that has yet happened. The detail of his binding and banishment to the Pit, sealed away for a specific period of time is too graphic and specific to be equated with 2 Peter 2:4. They are two separate things. What you're trying to do is say that since 2 Peter 2:4 is partially fulfilled, that Revelation 20:1-3 must also be partially fulfilled. You cannot make that connection with any accuracy, because there is nothing that really connects the two events other than the mention of a chain.

The context of Peter's letter indicates that he is referring to events in the far past, and then works his way to the present time, with the mention of the Flood, then Sodom and Gommorah, etc. The events in Revelation are to show "what must happen hereafter", meaning future, from John's perspective, and I believe, from ours as well. To connect separate passages of scripture on the basis of similar language is not enough. Context and subject matter must also be taken into account.

My expectations are not the basis I use to understand scripture. Your indication that I interpret scripture according to my expectations is inaccurate, and designed to put me on the defensive, because I have poked a hole in your argument, a hole which you hope no one else will see. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but I have yet to see an overwhelmingly convincing argument or proof for the Amil position. There are too many things about it which just don't line up.

[BibChr]

Yeah, a lot of people find the Bible hard. I imagine it's tempting just to squish over all the details and edges, and force it all into a big, pastel, washy water color painting. When there are no controlling facts, it's a lot easier. The cult I was saved out of did that.

And I've heard all sorts of stories about why folks left Protestantism for Roman Catholicism, all sad. I tend to stick to the facts of the text, as noted above, again and again.

Dan

[CCWoody]

Jean and I must have really irritated you yesterday. Your posting is getting more and more colorful.

BTW, besides figuring out that we are right now in the age of the kingdom of God, I also figured out that the first resurrection in Rev 20 could not possibly be the resurrection of the dead. When the Lord finally gave me ears to hear, all of this stuff became absurdly simple to figure out.

[BibChr]

With what your tradition drives you to do to God's Word, I can't pretend to be surprised that you should try to find something other than my words to you. But as for my thinking, it's really all there, just exactly what I say, no more, no less.

Responsible Bible reading is not for the lazy. It's a pity; so many "Reformed" folks are so sharp in so many ways. But they leave the heavy lifting to the Dispensationalists when it comes to the faithful reading of Biblical prophecy.

Dan

[CCWoody]

I do not believe you can show any evidence for Satan being bound in any meaningful way in the last 2000 years. ~ nobdysfool

If you let the below quote speak for itself, you will discover two interesting things:

1. The kingdom of God has come unto us.

2. Jesus has bound the strong man Satan and plundered his house.




Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

And how about this verse which flatly declares that the working of Satan is even right now currently bound by Him; that is, unless He has been taken out of the way:



• 2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: [Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

Woody.

[CCWoody]

With what your tradition drives you to do to God's Word... ~ Dan

Were I to adhere to tradition, I'd be a dispensationalist. I live in a sea of them and happen to be the only Reformed Amill in the entire church. Having also never ever read any commentaries by Reformed Amills, I'm at a bit of a loss as to where I could have found this traditionalist influence. To my knowledge I have only embraced 2 Primitive Baptists who claim to be Calvinists, but aren't, and have never shaken the hand of a single Calvinist in my entire life.

Woody.

[RnMomof7]

Could that Temple be built BEFORE the return of Christ..Could it be the nation of Israel is yet deceived and wants to return to the law?

[the_doc]

One of the strangest blunders by the really hardcore dispensationalists involves their so-called Kingdom Postponement theory. Although I think that this is a bad theory, I am not merely appalled that they hold to this theory. I am specifically appalled that they try to argue it from Luke 19:11.

I first encountered this in a Sunday School class at the dispensational church I mentioned in my previous e-mail. The fellow leading the discussion read Luke 19:11 and said “See? That proves that the premillennial position is right! The verse is telling us that the Kingdom has been postponed! The amills are making the same mistake the Lord’s disciples made when they assumed that the Lord’s kingdom was coming soon!”

(I later discovered that this completely maniacal way of reading Luke 19:11 is in many of the standard books “proving” dispensationalism.)

***

In that particular Sunday School session, I politely stopped the teacher and said “Wait a minute. Just because the Lord was not intending to go on at that time to accomplish His Own death and resurrection doesn’t mean that the premills are correct about their larger Kingdom Postponement theory.”

I told them that I thought that they had stepped into a trap of the sort which Christians should easily avoid. I told them that we needed to go on and look more closely at the parable which the Lord gave His disciples to straighten out their confusion.

I pointed out that in v.12, the Lord said “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.”

I pointed out that this idea of receiving a kingdom in a far country actually fits the amillennial interpretation. According to Acts 2, the Lord was enthroned--i.e., RECEIVED FOR HIMSELF A KINGDOM--in HEAVEN. That fits the “far country” idea inasmuch as HEAVEN is a FAR COUNTRY from which He is scheduled to RETURN.

(Furthermore, there is no hint whatsoever of the premillennial emphasis concerning the “future kingdom.” The verse is talking to us about the Lord’s PRESENT status as the KING of a KINGDOM. There is no postponement of the sort which the dispies argue.)

I continued reading the text to our Sunday School class: “And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.”

I stopped at this point and said that it sounds to me like the Lord is warning us that there will be foolish professing Christians who will think that they can accept Jesus as Saviour but scoff at His Lordship—which, of course, is the position of the mainstream dispies! (Christ is not condoning this attitude on the part of the dispies. Rather, He is condemning it.)

I continued reading: “And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.”

I stopped again and said “Hey, look at this! Upon His return, this Lord Who is already King, Who has been enthroned since He went to heaven, will immediately gather His subjects in one gathering and JUDGE them.”

Hmmmm.... Sounds like the amillennial position to me! In fact, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the premillennial position. Unfortunately, the eyes of the rest of the Sunday School participants were strangely glazed over.

I kept reading the “judgment” section of the parable, eventually getting to the verse which says “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”

I concluded my comments by saying that the dispensational preachers who teach a “carnal Christian theory” which entails “accepting Jesus as Saviour but not as Lord” are going to have to watch their converts suffer damnation. (And in some cases, the dispensational preachers are going to be damned with them.)

***

Historical premills do not make the completely idiotic mistake which so many dispensationalists make in regard to Luke 19. But I maintain that the parable is opposing all forms of premillennialism--since the parable definitely seems to be telling us that the Lord received his Throne in heaven and that the next time He appears on earth will be Judgment Day.

(I believe historic premillennialism is just a transitional step in the overall downhill slide into the really nasty deception of dispensationalism.)

[RnMomof7]

not to beat a dead horse,

Can a dead horse be beaten back to life?

[RnMomof7]

Thanks. It wasn't really that hard, was it? But then again, the facts of the Gospel aren't hard to explain to a Roman Catholic, either. That isn't the problem, is it? Thank God Woody's salvation isn't at stake in this (the_doc to the contrary, notwithstanding).

Even a broken clock is right twice a day ...Do you accept the Trinity..first taught by ther "Catholic church"?

[RnMomof7]

I have had that happen...I always consider it a work of God..:>)

[CCWoody]

Yep! That is just one of the many parables that caused me to reconsider Premillennialism. It is plainly obvious from v27 that when the Lord returns He will slay His enemies who did not want His reign. And He said this as He was going to Jerusalem:

• Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

[the_doc]

I have had that happen...I always consider it a work of God..

Actually, I laughed about it. (I was aware that jude24 already has plenty of info.)

[BibChr]

Not because. And brace for this: if anyone showed me that the Bible did not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, as it assuredly does not teach amillennialism, I would reject the doctrine. I believe it because the Bible teaches it.

Dan

[the_doc]

I meant to include you in my #713.