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

[gracebeliever]

Of course I didn't answer for you. But you knew that. Nevertheless, my observation stands. Since you claim to your faith is an "intelligent decision" you obviously have some reason for which you can glory in the presence of God.

Being facetious works both ways! Tell me, without the cutesy names, when you made your decision to trust Christ for your salvation, did you hear or read something, or did you just feel an urge? If you heard or read something, then you made a decision, intelligent or otherwise, based on the information you had. If you had an urge, chances are it was also based on information you had received at some time. God is clear in His Book that it is the Word that saves, not anything our intellect conjures up on its own, or by some clever words of some man. Salvation is by grace through faith, plus nothing. As you truthfully state, if it were otherwise, we'd potentially have something to brag about before God. The only thing we have to brag about, is the shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

My statement that saving faith, as well as faith in general, is based on an intelligent understanding of God's Word it true, otherwise we can scratch Ro. 10:17 out of the Book. That's because we need to know what the gospel is that saves today and what in the Scriptures applies to us today so we can live in the position we have "in Christ." If that's a "dumb" understanding, then I guess I'm dumb, but I'd much rather have an intelligent understanding of God's Word, wouldn't you. This has nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism, although I figured my comment would trigger a reaction from at least the Calvinists. So thanks.

[the_doc]

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), is God's plan, not Satan's (as explained in post #1228), and singular (as was explained in post #1402 and post #1810). None of which has happened yet and Satan is not yet bound and won't be until that future 1000 years.

All of these posts merely assert the premillennial position. They contain your presuppositions twisted around to sound like arguments, whereas they are not true arguments at all. Lurkers are noticing this, even if you don't notice it.

Moreover, you have completely ignored my argument--which is a real argument. Lurkers are noticing this, too.

***

John 5:25 describes Christian conversion itself as involving the dead coming to life. If you are a Christian, you know from experience what He was talking about, so, please don't make this discussion unduly difficult. It's patently obvious that regeneration is being presented as a kind of spiritual resurrection.

(This is precisely what Paul was talking about in Ephesians 1:18-2:7.)

In short, John 5:24 is formally paired to v.25 to show that v.25 is characterizing regeneration as a spiritual resurrection from a state of spiritual death. And please notice that literal/material resurrection from the state of physical death is not covered until vv.28-29.

Notice also that v.25 is stylistically coupled to v.28. This means that the larger passage is contrasting two different senses of resurrection. The first one (v.25) is that spiritual resurrection phenomenon which is regeneration. The second one is the bodily, material resurrection episode at the end of time.

Do you see this? You surely need to see it. It's not all that difficult, IMHO. But people believe only what they want to believe. And premills don't want to believe what they are looking at--precisely because John 5:25-29 is definitely presenting the amillennial position! (It's pretty funny when you realize what is going on!)

FR's premills should be honest enough to admit that John 5:25-29 does stand as at least a potential key for understanding the two "resurrections" in Revelation 20--because there is no hermeneutically solid reason to presuppose that Revelation 20 is to be read in an exclusively literal/materialistic way. (Saying, in effect, "Hey, I believe Revelation 20 is literal!" doesn't impress me even if it impresses you.)

Once the halfway honest premill concedes that John 5:25-29 might be the key to understanding the resurrections in Revelation 20, I have the amillennial clincher for him. It consists in the fact there is only ONE resurrection in John 5:28-29.

This incontrovertible fact utterly destroys the premillennial theory for Revelation 20. John 5:25-29 is emphatically arguing for the amillennial position against the premillennial position.

So is Ephesians 1:18-27 and 2 Peter 3 and Luke 19:11-25.

(And these are just a few of the reasons why our Protestant forefathers were amills.)

I submit that if you continue to be a premill, you do so in flagrant defiance of God. So, I am resolved to be completely unimpressed by your Christianity until you repent of this.

[gracebeliever]

The metaphors used are obviously talking about how to get treasures out of the Bible.

And just what "treasures" do you mine that apply to us, or do all the treasures apply equally to all people throughout all ages in the Bible? My contention is that while all the Bible is for us, as your reference from Proverbs would indicate, all the Bible is not written to us nor is about us. Therefore, 2Ti. 2:15 tells us we need to study to understand the divisions God placed in His Book, so we know His will for us for today. Rightly dividing the Word "helps" minimize the confusion division that exists in Christendom. Thanks for the encouragement.

[Corin Stormhands]

Now, one more time, the gospel has a proper name that is exactly 5 words and the gospel can be expressed in exactly 3 words. Can you do it?

Oh, HEAVEN HELP US ALL!!! Not this stupid game again....

[xzins]

Moreover, you have completely ignored my argument--which is a real argument. Lurkers are noticing this, too.

Dream on doc. Lurkers notice you saying that the 1000 year millennial reign of Christ on earth doesn't exist.

Star and grace have real arguments because they follow the actual words of the text.

The bottom line is the same as it has been for some time: Do you interpret John 5 in light of the further revelation of Revelation 20, or do you interpret Revelation 20 in the light of John 5.

I think God revealed the special information of the book of revelation as a way of further explaining what had been earlier written. Why? Because he had always explained earlier revelation with follow-on revelation.

[xzins]

What was his answer last time?

Repent the kingdom of God is at hand. Nope that's 8 words.

Repent and believe the gospel. That's 5 words. But it has gospel in it....hmmm.

Grace, Woody's a riot but ya gotta take him with a coupla aspirins. He's been so irrelevant for so long now that I've forgotten he was one of the wall fixtures.

[the_doc]

My, that was a lovely post, Mr. Wolf. (No substance at all--just nasty fuming to try to embolden dumb sheep not to heed my serious warnings.)

[RnMomof7]

I agree with the doc...no discernment there

[xzins]

doc, doc, doc....wudamigunnadowidja?

if you don't start your posts with "I don't consider you a christian" then I won't know it's really you. For example, this recent post could be an imposter. It could be your wife or your dad or your housekeeper.

BTW, I don't consider you to be the Canadian Prime Minister.

[xzins]

ping to 2049 and related posts

[CCWoody]

Tell me, without the cutesy names, when you made your decision to trust Christ for your salvation, did you hear or read something, or did you just feel an urge? ~ "grace"believer (there, back to your "I really don't believe in free grace" name)

1. I did not "make a decision" for Christ in order to get "saved". I believe that Christ has already "saved" me. And that is a true gospel distinction. You would know this if you knew how to express the gospel in it's simplest form (exactly 3 words).
2. The Lord opened my blind eyes to see and I saw what was lacking in the afflictions of Christ.

Salvation is by grace through faith, plus nothing. ~ "grace"believer

It seems that you are preaching salvation = grace + intelligence

As you truthfully state, if it were otherwise, we'd potentially have something to brag about before God. ~ "grace"believer

You mean like being more intelligent that the stupid smuck who doesn't have the sense to make an "intelligent decision" for Christ.

My statement that saving faith, as well as faith in general, is based on an intelligent understanding of God's Word it true, otherwise we can scratch Ro. 10:17 out of the Book. ~ "grace"believer

Your statement is false, your misunderstanding of Romans 10:17 aside. Saving faith is based solely upon the free grace of God, which you deny.

That's because we need to know what the gospel is that saves today and what in the Scriptures applies to us today so we can live in the position we have "in Christ." ~ "grace"believer

So much for the everlasting gospel. The gospel that saves "today" will not save tomorrow, nor did it save "yesterday". Is this what you call "rightly dividing" the Word? From here, it looks like the preaching of a false gospel.


The gospel has a proper name which is exactly 5 words.
The gospel can be expressed in exactly 3 words.

I'm sure that one of the Arminians will be along shortly to email you the answer. Or, you can pick up your Bible and start reading about it for yourself. I recommend you start in Mark.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

And just what "treasures" do you mine that apply to us, or do all the treasures apply equally to all people throughout all ages in the Bible? ~ "grace"believer

I adivse you to mine for the treasure of the gospel. After you have found out how to name and express this gospel, then you have at least a shot at having an intelligent discussion with me about the gospel.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

Not this stupid game again.... ~ CS

I was not aware that discussing the gospel was a "stupid game". Perhaps in your world where anything goes as long as you believe learning how to express the gospel is a "stupid game".

Woody.

[Corin Stormhands]

I was not aware that discussing the gospel was a "stupid game".

Oh get over yourself Woody. Your stupid word game is not "discussing the gospel."

[gracebeliever]

Of course, as one whom I believe has professed a belief in 14 different gospels, I would not expect you to even know what the gospel is, much less express it.

Speaking of twisting words. I only stated that there are something like 14 gospels in the Bible; nowhere did I say I believed any other than the gospel of grace.

The kingdom of God is not coming to earth; it has already come: Matthew 12:28-30 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad

First, I responded to this passage in a post long ago, maybe it was in reply to you, I don't recall, so I'll address a different issue here. In verse 28, note it says "if" and in your quote it says "surely". In the KJV, the "surely" is translated "then." An if-than connection is always a conditional statement. In this instance, it is a hypothethical senario that would become reality if they would believe that He is their Messiah. Christ was telling the religious leadership/intelligensia what they should have known about Him and what He was doing from the prophetic scriptures, particularly how Israel needed to be cleansed of demons and sicknesses before the kingdom came. But they didn't any more than you do by believing that the kingdom of God is here on earth today, at least by inference from your statement.

The kingdom wasn't there then, and it's not here yet today. They knew, or at least should have known, that Christ had to suffer first, which had been prophesized by many OT writers, especially Isaiah, before His glory. They also should have known that the prophesized Great Tribulation, or the day of Jacob's trouble (day of wrath) had to occur before the kingdom would come. They also should have known by prophecy that Christ would return in glory at the end of the Great Tribulation to establish His throne (David's) and His Kingdom. Peter states in 1Pe. 1:9-12 that the prophets themselves didn't understand the meaning of, and the timing of the "sufferings of Christ" and the "glory that should follow." The "glory" refers to returning in glory to establish the kingdom.

The foretaste of the kingdom began for the "little flock" of true Jewish believers in Acts 2-5, but it ceased when Israel blasphemed the Holy Ghost, when the unpardonable sin was committed by the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7. Had the program continued, the great tribulation was the next event in Israel's prophetic calendar followed by the kingdom. Thus the kingdom is not here as yet, but will be established in the future. This is according to the Bible, not some twisting of scriptures to support an end times position.

Now, one more time, the gospel has a proper name that is exactly 5 words and the gospel can be expressed in exactly 3 words. Can you do it?

I indicated before that if you want to enlighten me, that's fine. I would like to see your version of the gospel.

P.S. The rest of your post is just as contrary to the gospel as the part I chose to address.

I'm sincerely sorry you feel this way, but hopefully you'll yet see the light.

[Corin Stormhands]

BTW, I don't consider you to be the Canadian Prime Minister.

doc ????

[jude24]

I only stated that there are something like 14 gospels in the Bible; nowhere did I say I believed any other than the gospel of grace.

You'd better clarify, and damn quick.

There is only one Gospel in Scripture. "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be damned!" (Gal 1:8, my translation).

The only possible explanation I can see, giving you all the benifit of the doubt, is if by your statement you mean there are 14 distinct references to the Gospel, such as "the glorious gospel of the Blessed God." (1 Tim. 1:11). But something tells me that is not what you mean....

[jude24]

And I suspect someone's going to object to my choice to use the word "damn" in the above post. But that is not frivolous profanity, it is completely justified in the contexts it was used.

[gracebeliever]

Your statement is false, your misunderstanding of Romans 10:17 aside. Saving faith is based solely upon the free grace of God, which you deny.

Woody, I don't have time right now to respond to your less than gracious comments. However, what is your understanding of Ro. 10:17? This is one of the most plain verses in the Bible.

Ro. 10:17 is very similar to what Christ stated in John 6:45, "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." Now, tell me that faith comes by any method other than hearing, and as Christ said, learning, in order to "come to" Christ.

Christ goes on in John 6:63 to state, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak to unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." How's this different than Ro. 10:17? And, if you got "life" and you got it from other than the Word of God, you got something other than what Christ was speaking about.

Apparently you believe God saved you without you responding to His Word. I suppose you think that's His grace because you've always been saved. How wrong that is since we're all born spiritually dead and need life. Christ, Himself, said that His words are "life." Furthermore if by grace God saved you from your birth, or possibly before, then His grace doesn't apply to all, which flies in the face of His statement through Paul that His will is for all men to be saved,1Tim. 2:4, not some, or only Calvinists, or Baptists, or Catholics or Jews or ... Compare this verse with Mt. 20:28 where Christ says He came to "give his life a ransom for many." I suppose you consider yourself one of the "many" not one of the "all." This is where you need to "rightly divide" the Word for understanding of the difference in these verses. Otherwise, which one do you believe?

But then, I believe it when God says His grace and salvation is freely available to all that believe the gospel (1Cor. 15:1-4) of God's grace. To believe implies that a decision was made to believe and that no decision is a decision not to believe the Word. Foolish me, I guess!

[the_doc]

The bottom line is the same as it has been for some time: Do you interpret John 5 in light of the further revelation of Revelation 20, or do you interpret Revelation 20 in the light of John 5.

Right. But it's impossible to interpret John 5:25-29 in the light of Revelation 20--at least, it's impossible when a premill is the one who is doing it. The problem is, premillennialism does not constitute an interpretation of John 5:25-29 but an outright contradiction of that text.

To say that premillennialism is an honest interpretation of John 5:25-29 is a lie.

(You might be inclined to say. "Well, that's just your position." But my position is correct, xzins. You need to repent of your silly position. You need to re-read John 5:25-29 with an honest spirit which you don't even have.)

I think God revealed the special information of the book of revelation as a way of further explaining what had been earlier written.

This is smarmy nonsense dressed up to sound reasonable. I am not fooled by your phony hermeneutics. You are just presupposing that Revelation "further explains" John 5:25-29 and does so in the specific way of a literalistic/materialistic reading.

But that literalistic/lmaterialistic approach to the text is precisely what you can't defend. It's just a presupposition. And you are foolishly proud of your literalism. Pardon me, but that makes you a kind of Christian Pharisee, IMHO.

And as I said earlier, your whole interpretive theory is revealed to be bankrupt in that it is impossible for you to harmonize John 5:25-29 with Revelation 20. John 5:25-29 flatly, even emphatically contradicts your premillennial understanding of the millennium. (So does 2 Peter 3.)

Why? Because he had always explained earlier revelation with follow-on revelation.

This is another example of the demonic fraud of premillennialism. Your claim is hermeneutically ridiculous. You have no right whatsoever to argue that a later text surely interprets an earlier text. This is NOT a principle of sound hermeneutics. It is an utterly foolish misrepresentation of the doctrine of progressive revelation.

***

In short, you have made two monumental hermeneutical blunders:

1) You have presupposed that Revelation 20 is to be read in a strictly literalistic/materialistic way. You can't even begin to prove that this approach is correct. (And the fact that the Lord delighted to use metaphor as a way of sealing His enemies in their confusion is a warning that you must abandon you literalistic/materialistic presupposition. Ah, but every time we warn you with this Truth, you get more stubborn. [Well, guess what? That's perfectly okay with me.])

2) You have presupposed that hermeneutics is a relatively simple matter of figuring out which text was written first--then reading both texts literally, then ignoring the fact that this approach actually rapes the first text!

Notice that these two errors interlock to reinforce each other.

You don't see any problem, of course. It's because you have a carnal contempt for sound hermeneutics. Your denominational pride has incapacitated your discernment.

So, if you want me to regard you as a Christian, you are going to have to recant an awful lot of stuff.