Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
|
1 And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
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.
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
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.
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,
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,
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
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,
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
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.
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. 6. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1940). 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. 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. 25. Herman A. Hoyt, "A Dispensational Premillennial Response," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 193. 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. 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.
|
I will do that.
I think this post is long enough. Maybe we will discuss the beheading idea at greater length after you abandon premillennialism completely.
Actually, I'm very appreciative of the length and detail to which you've gone. I would hope you would not make my advance agreement with you a prerequisite to further discussions.
Having said that, in light of your having opted for the allegorical explanation of beheading, would you elaborate on the explanation hinted at in your interpretation #3:
The beheading idea in Revelation 20:4 is not necessarily limiting us to physically dead Christians anyway. It definitely includes those who have died physically, certainly including literal martyrs, but the verse may very well be just borrowing a martyrdom scenario for beautiful metaphorical purposes in the vision--including metaphorical purposes involving Christians who are still physically alive!What are those metaphorical purposes and what is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of believers in Christ testifying to Him, rejecting Satan, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan?
I would suggest the following reading of Rev. 20:4
"And I saw thrones, and they (all believers) sat upon them, and verdict was rendered about them:
and I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded (all who have died in Christ) for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God,
and I saw such (all who still are alive in Christ) as worshipped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they had eternal life and reigned with Christ a thousand years"P>I would suggest this reading for two reasons. First - the descriptive phrases "for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God - such as worshipped not the beast nor recieved his mark - are found elsewhere in the book of revelation. These phrases can be used interchangeably for both are marks of faith. In Rev. 1:9 John says he was on Patmos "for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." Rev. 6:9 uses these two phrases for the souls under the altar, which is undoubtedly why they are used again in Rev. 20:4.
The phrases about worshipping the beast and receiving his mark are used primarily in reference to those living who follow the beast and his image. The refusal to do so is the mark of the believer living in the midst of this pressure or tribulation. See Rev. 14:9-12.
In the second place this reading closely parallels two other NT texts. First Romans 14:8,9 and secondly I Thess 5:9,10 "For God appointed us not unto wrath, but unto the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that,whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
Rev. 20:4-6 is about the eternal security of all who belong to Christ by faith. Cf Romans 8:31-39. In the troubled times of the early church that was certainly a message they needed to hear. No matter what, in the final analysis, Christ and all who belonged to him, not satan and his followers, were truly victorious.
I have long held essentially the same interpretation you have of this passage - as well as its application. I would like to make a couple of suggestions about parallel passages to this text. I find the entire chapter of Rev. 20 within John 5:24-27 talking about the realities of spiritual life and spiritual death.Rev. 20 could also be seen as an expansion of John 3:16-21.See also John 5:39,40 which speaks of those who refuse to come to Christ that they may have life.
Its interesting to read Rev. 20:12-13 in the greek text to see how the word nekroi, nekrous,(the dead) jumps out at you. The "dead are standing" and "the dead are judged". While one can assume a bodily resurrection there is not one mentioned in these verses. This is God's final verdict about those who have refused to believe in Christ.While they may be physically alive they are forever dead spiritually.
Parallels to John 5:28,29 are found in Rev. 11:15-18, II Thess. 1:6-10, Matthew 13:37-43 (where the wicked are raptured out of the kingdom) and Matt 25:31-46.
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,
If the Wicked One to be revealed is Satan then this verse makes no sense. It would say that Satan's coming is after the working of Satan, well no duh.
Well, if he is, then you need to kiss Premillennialism goodby.
Well since the Wicked One of that verse is obviously not Satan, just him whose coming is after the working of Satan, then I guess I don't have to kiss my Premillenialism goodbye quite yet.
Have a great Thanksgiving Woody. I'm taking off for NH until next week. See you then. BTW, I'm still looking forward to your post explaining if a totally depraved person can even recognize if they sin or not.
I believe the_doc holds the view that John 5:28,29 describes the rising of the good and the evil to judgment which corresponds to the "2nd resurrection" in Rev 20:11-15, which in the_doc's view is a physical resurrection of everyone, saved and unsaved. I asked as much in post #660 and the_doc concurred in his post #697, and then in my post #727 I layed it out visually.
Then here in the_doc's post #771 in response to my question:
So to sum up my questions, from the Amillenial viewpoint, when do the already dead believing Christians get bodily resurrected and found in the Book of Life, according to faith in Christ, not of works?
the_doc answered:
They are resurrected in a bodily way with all the rest of the physically dead--in the very same hour with everyone else. But Revelation 20 doesn't bother to emphasize this.
You state your view of John 5:28,29 applying to Rev 20 as
Its interesting to read Rev. 20:12-13 in the greek text to see how the word nekroi, nekrous,(the dead) jumps out at you. The "dead are standing" and "the dead are judged". While one can assume a bodily resurrection there is not one mentioned in these verses. This is God's final verdict about those who have refused to believe in Christ.While they may be physically alive they are forever dead spiritually.
So it would seem you and the_doc have different views of how John 5:28,29 describe the '2nd resurrection' in Rev 20:11-15.
Of course the_doc should clarify for himself, if he hasn't already by the time this gets posted.
Aside to Starwind about Matt 25:31-46: This seems to be a good passage for explaining the idea of the judgment of believers "according to their deeds." (It strikes me that it appears to be strictly positive, positive in ways that surprise even the believers.)
All the physically dead are raised--saved and unsaved. The spiritually dead (unregenerate) are condemned. The spiritually alive (regenerate) are rewarded.
However, I will concede that M. de Brae may see something else that I don't see.
This is in fact much closer to my own view of Rev 20:11-15, and would seem at odds with your view that All the physically dead are raised--saved and unsaved...The spiritually alive (regenerate) are rewarded.
Revelation 20 is a strange text in some ways, but I think it's clear from John 5:28-29 that the physical resurrection of the physically dead occurs all at the same time. (Revelation 20 merely keys on those who are condemned in their spiritual deadness.)
This is basically why gdebrae and I aren't premills. (Well, there are other reasons, of course, but...)
***
I'll get back to you after the holidays. Have a nice thansgiving!
Don't put me in the win column quite yet; I still want to see the kinks worked out ;-). (Hey, I did grow up in the denomination Darby started. ).
Assuming my current inclinations bear themselves to fruition, and I do join the amil camp, it will have been pretty gradual (well over a year in the making).
I agree that there will be one historical resurrection event where both believer and unbeliever are bodily raised. That is the clear teaching of John 5 as well as other passages.Note for instance, Matthew 13:47-50 "So shall it be at the end of the age (eon, not cosmos):the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the righteous, (the rapture of the wicked) and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth."
I think that Rev. 20:11-15, while relevant to the historic event, is showing us the spiritual dimension of one aspect of that event, namely the spiritual deadness of all who have refused to believe in Christ. This is God's final word about unbelievers. God's final word about believers is found in Romans 8:1,2 as well as Rev. 20:4-6.
I agree it is God's final word about all unbelievers. However the text is silent on believers. The text does not identify anyone at the white throne judgement found in the book of life. No one 'living' is standing there. So, just to be clear, do you interpret Rev 20:11-15 as including the bodily resurrection of all other believers (not included in Rev 20:4-6), those who are physically dead and saved in Christ?
This is the point where I think I see you and the_doc taking different interpretations.
All believers are included in verses 4-6. There are no other believers aside from those who have died in Christ and those who are still alive in Christ. Parallel passages - Romans 14:7-9 and I Thess 5:9,10. No believer is left out of living and reigning with Christ, sitting on thrones (Eph 2), being made priest of God and being unafraid of and unaffected by the second death, which is eternal punishment.
the-doc and I are essentiall on the same page. We may slightly differ about the great white throne judgment. The typical amil position i was taught always said something like - simply because the believer is mentioned in verses 11-15 doesn't mean believers were not included.
I've come to see what I posted in #837. This is not first of all descriptive of an historical event but is making clear God's eternal verdict which is behind that event - that all those who refuse to believe in Christ are eternally dead.
Let me repeat. God's final judgment about all believers is found in verses 4-6. God's final judgment about all unbelievers is found in verse 5a, and 11-15. God's final judgment about satan is found in verse 1-3 and 7-10.
I understand the entire chapter to speak about eternal life and death and is not first of all speaking about specific eschatalogical events as we usually define them. However, what is said in Rev. 20 is relevant to the historical events and helps us to understand what they are all about.
John 5:28,29 describes an actually historical event. Rev. 20 properly understood, helps us to understand something about the significance and real meaning of that very real historical event.
Perhaps yes, a subtle (but I think you'll agree) important difference that further bears on the interpretation and application of John 5:28-29.
God's final judgment about all unbelievers is found in [Rev 20] verse 5a, and 11-15.
John 5:28,29 describes an actually historical event. Rev. 20 properly understood, helps us to understand something about the significance and real meaning of that very real historical event.
the_doc's view (I believe) as I've previously accumulated and posted here in #828 is that John 5:29 records 'those who have done evil rising to condemnation' (John 5:29b) which agrees with your view of Rev 20:11-15, and also records 'those who have done good rising to life' (John 5:29a) which would seem to disagree with your view of Rev 20:11-15.
the_doc has stated John 5:28-29 is the 'clear picture' through which Rev 20 must be viewed and also drew a parallel correspondence between John 5:28-29 specifically with Rev 20:11-15, which correspondences I clarified and the_doc concurred.
So what I wish to be clear on is that you are stating that Rev 20:11-15 is "God's final judgment about all unbelievers" while the_doc's correspondence of Rev 20:11-15 with the 'clear picture' of John 5:29a (the 'good rising to life') would contradict.
You also point out John 5:28,29 "describes an actually historical event." So again if John 5:28-29 is the 'clear picture' that applies to Rev 20:11-15, you seem to further imply that Rev 20:11-15 is likewise a historical event. I don't think you mean that Rev 20:11-15 is already history, do you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.