Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
Are angels real ..yes sir..so are swords..do you believe Jesus will return with a sword sticking out of His mouth?
So whoever is sitting on the thrones is literally going to sit for 1000 years. That sure sounds like something to look forward to. Would that be something like sitting on a church bench for a 1000 years?
Remember now that there is nothing symbolic in Rev. 20. It is all completely literal. Right?
The literal interpretive method calls us to use scripture to explain scripture and to identify that which is figurative/symbolic.
The sword IS EXPLAINED in scripture as being figurative of the Word of God.
Ephesians 6:17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Revelation 19: 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.
The chains are not viewed figuratively but as real and divinely effective.
Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home–these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
Wrong question. It should be: "How does one put ~REAL~ chains on a ~REAL~ being?
Answer: Through the eternal and effective power of a ~REAL~ God!
Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home–these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
Therein, you had asked: Isn't your position that the result of satan's binding is the establishment of the millennial kingdom where the bodily resurrected saints are sitting on thrones reigning with Christ?
No that is not my position. Satan's binding does not cause the establishment of the millennial kingdom. Christ's return (in Rev 19) is the cause of the millennial kingdom. Binding Satan during the millennial kingdom is part of God's plan, as are those sitting on the thrones and the beheaded souls who reign with Christ part of God's plan. Binding Satan is a result of God (or Christ) establishing the millennium. In cause/effect terms, Satan's binding is effect, not cause.
As to your statement here in post #2291:
I challenged on premil on this thread to show the causal connection between the binding and loosing of satan and verses 4-6 and the reply I received is that there is no causal connection, there is only a conincidental relationship.
My answer in post #1228 was: My argument is that there is no causative relation between Satan's binding and the establishment of the millennium. Again, God's plan for the millennium included binding Satan. God establishes the millennium, not Satan's binding.
I was further stepping through your statements and questions, one of which was Vss 4-6 are not a parenthesis unrelated to vss 3 and 7. The chain and the pit establish the fact of satan's binding. to which I responded:
Related yes (more like 'associated'), by virtue of being concurrent within the thousand years, but not cause and effect relationship. I and others would go further and argue, as we have, verse 3 describes the totality of Satan's binding as well as the fact.
So my characterization of an 'associative relationship' was as opposed to 'unrelated' or no relationship. Clearly Satan was bound during the thousand years, but Satan's binding did not cause the millennium to begin, nor did the millennium cause Satan's binding. Christ's return is the cause of Satan's binding.
I did not present Satan as having absolute power, to the contrary:
The premil presents satan as having absolute power, a loose canon that Christ can't do anything about.
I lead off in post #1228 with: Satan's binding does not cause the establishment of the millennial kingdom. Christ's return (in Rev 19) is the cause of the millennial kingdom. Binding Satan during the millennial kingdom is part of God's plan, as are those sitting on the thrones and the beheaded souls who reign with Christ part of God's plan. Binding Satan is a result of God (or Christ) establishing the millennium. In cause/effect terms, Satan's binding is effect, not cause.
Another question of your's which I quoted in post #1228 was: Isn't your position that the result of satan's binding is the establishment of the millennial kingdom where the bodily resurrected saints are sitting on thrones reigning with Christ? to which I answered:
My argument is that there is no causative relation between Satan's binding and the establishment of the millennium. Again, God's plan for the millennium included binding Satan. God establishes the millennium, not Satan's binding.
You had then asked a follow-up question in your post #1314, quoting Starwind from #1228: So, again, Satan's binding is not causative, and verse 5 is not the result of verse 3.
Rev. 20:4-6 describe what takes place during the thousand years. If satan's binding is not causative, then it has no effect on what takes place during the millennium. His binding then is simply coincidental and in fact meaningless and unncessary.
Since it has no effect on what takes place during the thousand years then what is the PURPOSE of his binding?
It does not follow from not being causative to having no effect. Christ's return was the cause of Satan's defeat in Rev 19 and then his binding at the beginning of the millennium in Rev 20. But the effect of Satan's binding is that Satan not deceive during the 1000 years. But just because Satan is not deceiving, does not mean that sin or human depravity in the millennial population is altogether eliminated. As humans, they remain sons of Adam.
But as to the PURPOSE of Satan's binding (beyond the obvious suppression of deception) I think goes to God's larger purposes for the 'nations', and their identity and God's plan for them is the subject of debate elsewhere on this thread.
Matter of fact - Rev. 20:4-6 define what the binding is about. There is a causal relationship between vs 3 and 4. Vs 1-3 see all the nations as spiritually dead as deceived by satan. His binding prevents him from deceiving the nations. The result is that some of the spiritually dead are seen sitting on thrones, living and reigning with Christ, the first and foremost resurrection. The rest of the dead (vs5) remain under satan's deception and have no spiritual life and are finally cast into the lake of fire to experience the second death. Those participating in the First Resurrection live and reign with Christ forever. This is God's final judgment about those who believe in Christ.
No. There is no causal relationship between Rev 3 vs and 4.
Gdebrae, you write "some of the spiritually dead are seen sitting on thrones, living and reigning with Christ," Are you serious? Spiritually dead reigning with Christ? Of course not. What is the metaphor in that pray tell?
I disagree with the characterization of 'The rest of the dead' as merely spiritually dead. They are physically dead as well. What is stated in verse 5 (the rest of the dead not coming to life) is not the result of the action in verse 3 (Satan's binding). Again, Satan's binding is not the cause of the dead remaining dead. The physically and spiritually dead of verse 5 stay dead for the duration of the millennium because they are unsaved (unlike the saints and beheaded souls) and consequently in God's plan, are destined for judgment and condemnation at the white throne. They stay dead, but not because Satan is bound. They stay dead because they're unsaved and awaiting judgment. Likewise, if/when Satan were not bound, the dead of verse 5 would still remain dead as neither physical nor spiritual resurrection is within Satan's power, bound or not. So, again, Satan's binding is not causative, and verse 5 is not the result of verse 3.
So they wll not be ~ literally~ seated for a Thousand years only a ~part ~ of the thousand years?
You keep trying to link together the "binding" in Matthew chapter 12 and Revelation Chapter 20.
But what is the result of the binding in Revelation 20?
Rev 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
The result is that he does NOT deceive the nations anymore. But here:
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
The "deceivth the whole world" is present tense. Revelation was the last book written, long after Christ's death. He is actively on earth today deceiving the whole world.
You then have to somehow explain away these passages:
2 Corinthians 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Eph 2:2 in which you once lived according to the ways of this present world and according to the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now active in those who are disobedient.
Satan is actively deceiving. He is not bound as he will be bound in Revelation 20 since he is still deceiving.
Scripture interpets scripture. But linking two passages together in isolation doesn't mean they're talking about the same event.
Where in the world did you get a crazy idea like that?
Don't you know this is the thread where all the changing of the mind is taking place, and the only place to be if you want a life changing event to occur in your life?
Please stop making these insane statments on this life changing thread, you are blocking the light. I sure hope I put you in your place!
Could Revelation 20 be referring to one day or 1000,000 years Mack? Either it is ALL literal and Jesus has an REAL sword coming out of His mouth or Revelaton is symbolic liturature
Boy that was fast, how ya doing Mom? :)
And just why does it have to be ALL literal?
BigMack
No. He has the authority but it is not yet his time to rule.
1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
The apostles understood that Christ was going to establish a physical, earthly government. They asked him point blank, after his resurrection, if now was the time.
Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.
He says in effect "No, it's not for you to know when."
Daniels vision in Daniel chapter 7 also affirms the establishment of this earthly kingdom. He has a vision of 4 earthly kingoms, once occurring after another. In the end another ruling power replaces them. The chapter is too long to cite here, but read it. It in no way indicates a vague, spiritual rule, but instead an earthly kingdom.
Also:
Mat 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Mat 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Here Satan offers kingdoms to Christ. Christ doesn't say "they aren't yours to give liar." They are Satans kingdoms by the assent of God not the power of Satan. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Having all power and exercising that power are not the same thing. God has not exercised his authority. The United States has the power to expunge Sadaam and rule Iraq. It has not exercised that power yet. In the same way Christ has all power and authority but has not exercised it yet. He will though.
Now you are reading something into the text. The text makes no such interpretation. So it isn't literal after all. OR IS IT ONLY HALFWAY LITERAL? In other words, the text is literal when they are sitting on the thrones judging. But when they take a coffee break, or go home to bed then they are no longer literally sitting on the thrones. If they only put on an 8 hour day judging, well probably by that time the work week will be only 20 hours, so they probably only work 4 hours per day, therefore "the sitting on thrones" must be only one sixth literal.
Come on xzins - you can't have it literal and non literal at the same time. Either they are literally sitting for 1000 years or the "thrones" are symbolic of something else.
Furthermore, there is no reason for judges to exist during the 1000 years. For Messiah Jesus has everything under control with his rod of iron. Or is this going to be a police state where obedience is rigidly enforced or else?
Are you an adult male? (The comment wouldn't be surprising coming from some females).
If so, it must be hell to have "free will" and use it to choose VICTIMHOOD.
It is "probematic" to attempt to stick an absolutely literal chapter in the middle of a book full of symbolistic imagery
Do you believe as gb pointed out that those on the thrones will never get off of them? Or was that a figure of speech?
Nor does it rule out the symbolic..is Christ a literal rock?
So when faced with a book that is fully symbolistic..why would you choose to ignore the ~actual~ words of Christ in John 5? What is YOUR measuring rod?
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.