Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[RnMomof7]

Does the bible say he fears it? He thinks he is going to win..that would be a time of victory not fear...the scripture does not say what he believes .but what he feels.......

[Starwind]

me: Well, because "as a thousand years is like a day to God" is a thousand years for us humans and a day for God, so that is consistent with what the Rev 20 text says.

you: BUT if this is a direct revelation from God it is HE saying a thousand years, not John..so what is a thousand years to God? Are you absolutely positive ?

Absolutely positive? I guess I'd have to say No. But fairly well convinced and unaware of a better answer, yes.

A thousand years is nothing to God, but the revelation was to John in human terms he could grasp, and as I mentioned in an early post, Christ instructed that the "words of this prophecy not be sealed up (Rev 22:10). Minimally I construe that to mean we humans (at least the saved and spiritually quickened among us) are to understand it, and thus it will be understandable in human terms, especially more so to each generation closer to the end (as we have more history to reflect on).

me: I don't single out Rev 20 for literal interpretation. I try (albeit not always well) to interpret all of Revelation and all scripture literally, unless scripture informs me otherwise (because it is a parable for example).

you: But you do single it out..inspite of the fact that it is surrounded by strongly symbolic literature you point to this and say this is literal...so will Jesus return with a sword in His mouth..will Mary be in the heavens like the Catholics picture her? Could the thousand years be literal years to God? 1000,000 years?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point. It may appear I've singled out Rev 20 for a literal interpretation, but then the bulk of this thread (and consequently the comments) are about Rev 20, and my viewpoint in general will be a literal one. On other threads about eschatological issues, I've taken an equally literal if not more so interpretation (see Proof Dan 9:25 is fulfilled in Jesus and Proof Dan 9:27 is unfulfilled for example).

Surrounded by strongly symbolic literature? Well not really, certainly not relative to most of eschatological prophecy. This post (and this thread) doesn't lend itself to a survey of what is truly symbolic (like seven lampstands) versus what is merely hard to picture like Rev 9:7-10 wherein John is trying to describe with his 1st century comprehension what may be 21st century military technology.

Will Jesus return with a sword in his mouth? Yes, the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God.. A spiritual sword, not a physical sword, but literally a "sword" as defined in Eph 6:17.

Mary as the Catholics picture her? I'd guess not as that "picture" is extra biblical.

Could the thousand years be literal years to God? 1000,000 years? I suppose they could, but that would so far off the scale of the rest of biblical human history that it seems unlikely. Biblical creation history of the heavens and earth - a 7 "day" creation (this may seem contradictory but in fact I believe also to be fairly literal, but it will take you reading a couple books on the subject by a Jewish physicist to get the background) seems to have taken 10-12 billion years. That's a billion human year timeframe. However, biblical human history since Adam and Eve todate is a several thousand year timeframe. As the millennium is the end part of the same biblical human history, I would expect it to be within that same scale of thousands rather than millions of years. Could it be 1055 years? 2000? 999? I suppose, but again I don't see that the bible gives me any good reason to pick some other number on my own - so I stick with 1000 years literally as that is what scripture records.

And now your questions from post 2455:

me: I don't know positively if the "rapture" qualifies exactly as a "resurrection".

you: If the raptured are coming back in new bodies I do not know how you can not count it as a resurrection..

Well, in fact I tend to treat the rapture as a resurrection. Where that assertion begins to break down is when you compare the type of bodies, location, and time. We don't know when the rapture is. If you believe (as I do) the raptured saints are the great multitude of Rev 7:9-17 then they are in heaven at that time, not on earth, and hence may not have earthly bodies. But then I do believe the raptured saints will have 'glorified' bodies similar to Jesus' whatever those are. Long term for eternity what kind of bodies will we have? Will the resurrected beheaded souls of Rev 20:4 and the raptured saints end up with the same resurrected bodies? I would think so but this is pretty much speculation at this point. I'm not trying to be evasive. But in a detailed literal interpretation, there are many considerations, and scripture is silent on some of it.

I've made (and corrected) too many typo's tonight. Been drinking some wine - and freepers shouldn't let freepers drink and post - so I'm outta here til tomorrow.

[xzins]

God did not change his view of time....in fact that is impossible. God created time itself.

I would go with your suggestion that our understanding of time is insufficient. However, the point of the passage is that the passage of time is insignificant to God.

[RnMomof7]

Will Jesus return with a sword in his mouth? Yes, the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God.. A spiritual sword, not a physical sword, but literally a "sword" as defined in Eph 6:17.

NOT a literal sword...and not a literal thousand man years.. and not a literal woman standing with her foot on the snake ...it is a vision..not a literal work

[drstevej]

As I understand it, the tree is the people of God.

This has been debated ad nauseum before and I am not inclined to repeat. As an aside, I have a good treatment that unfortunately isn't published. It was John H. Walton's master's thesis at Westminster Seminary defending the distinction between Israel and the Church. (He did the chronological charts of the OT and NT published by Zondervan). It is quite good and was done at a school holding the opposite position.

John was an elder in the church I attended in Philly. A great guy.

One analogy, for fun. We have two children. One via natural birth and one via adoption. Both are Johnsons. Both are heir to the Johnson fortune (such as it is). We are one family. Yet these two are distinct and participate in the blessings of the Johnson family through different routes. Our family tree has a natural and an adopted branch. We love them both dearly.

[RnMomof7]

scripture??

[drstevej]

This has been debated ad nauseum before...

[xzins]

Mattie, (:>)

[DouglasKC]

Does the bible say he fears it? He thinks he is going to win..that would be a time of victory not fear...the scripture does not say what he believes .but what he feels.......

I think they know their fate:

Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

These particular demons knew they were going to be tormented at some point in the future. Satan surely knows.

Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

I think Satan knows exactly what's going to happen to him. and it terrifies him. But he has absolutely refused to ever give God authority over him. He's going to go down to the wire kicking and screaming and being divisive, angry, bitter, and wrathful and attempt to take as many people as he can with him.

[xzins]

Technically, if I understand 1Th4 correctly,

"the dead in Christ will rise first."

then

"We who are alive....will be "changed" (raptured)"

The necessity of changing this living body into a glorified body IS part of the resurrection. Bodies (living or dead) are glorified.

[Seven_0]

"We who are alive....will be "changed" (raptured)"

The necessity of changing this living body into a glorified body IS part of the resurrection. Bodies (living or dead) are glorified

Since it is appointed unto man, once to die, can we count the rapture as a death too? Sorry to be picky, but it seems there is always something that does not fit.

[xzins]

Paul clearly points out that last generation of Christian as having a UNIQUE experience in the history of the world. Those who are living, and only those at that time, will be "changed."

I personally look at it in terms of the seed illustration he also uses in 1 Co 15. The seed must "die" for the new plant to exist. For some the seed stays "planted" for hundreds of years. For those of that rapture generation, the seed goes through the "planting" process immediately.

Scripturally, 1 Th 4 applies ONLY to this final generation.

[Jean Chauvin]

"The necessity of changing this living body into a glorified body IS part of the resurrection. Bodies (living or dead) are glorified. "

LOL!

So, you've "finally caught on"!

You now have to redefine "resurrection of the dead" to include the people who John sees in Rev 20:4 who are alive in their bodies.

How utterly bankrupt and shameful!

Jean

[xzins]

Your views are carefully stated in your post. I will consider them.

[Seven_0]

I personally look at it in terms of the seed illustration he also uses in 1 Co 15. The seed must "die"

I like the example, but it doesn't really adress my question. I have studied the numerical structure of scripture for many years now. My previous post #2122 explains some of my thoughts but I come up against verses like John 5:29. I'm just trying to see if I am missing something. I have some thoughts on the matter but they are kind of weak.

[xzins]

Perhaps I misunderstood your question. Could you restate it a different way?

[Jean Chauvin]

x, the whole point of 1 Corinthians 15:51,52 is to denote specifically that not all will be physically dead at Christ's return and not all will be raised from the dead.

"Resurrection of the dead" does not necessarily involve receiving a "glorified" body.

Some notable "resurrections of the dead" where a glorified body was ~not~ received:

• Lazarus
  
• The rich man's daughter
  
• The widow's son
  
• The child Elijah raised from the dead
  
• Eutychus

~Necessarily~ then, being "raised from the dead" is not the same thing as receiving a "glorified body".

"Resurrection of the dead" is simply bringing to life what was dead.

However, you "now" realize that this poses a problem for the premillennial interpretation of Rev 20:4. To overcome this problem you must ~REDEFINE~ "resurrection of the dead" and claim that people who will ~never~ DIE will be "resurrected from the dead"...

...just like you:

• Redefine the Greek word zao found in Rev 20:4 to mean "resurrection of the dead" when it ~only~ means "live"

• Redefine the Greek word krima found in Rev 20:4 to mean "authority to judge" when in ~only~ means "verdict/judgment/sentence"

• Redifine "hour" in John 5:28,29 to be 1000+ YEARS long

• Add 1000 years into 2 Peter 3 when it is not remotely found in that passage

• Add 1000 years in to 1 Corinthians 15 when it is not remotely found in that passage

• Add 1000 years into John 5:28,29 when it is not remotely found in that passage

• Change Isaiah 65 to be talking about the "millennial kingdom" from what the text explicitly declares is a description of the "New Heavens and the New Earth"

I could go on!

All this editing done to back up a supposedly "literal" interpretation which is said to be based on the "clear" teaching of Rev 20:4! LOL!

If Rev 20 is as "clear" as you claim and if your intepretation is so "literal" as you claim, WHY THE NEED to add words to that text and change the definitions of the words in that text???

Perhaps if you'd just allow the text to speak on it's own, matters would clear up!

Ah! But that would entail a rejection of Premillennialism! And you are stubborn! You don't ~wan't~ to do that!

Jean

[xzins]

I've always believed that the final generation was raptured and that the rapture is a bestowing of a glorified body. In fact, I've always been TAUGHT that. This is not new.

Your many, many, many words are always fodder for thought.

[Seven_0]

The second resurrection, if there is a second resurrection has been a question for me for quite some time now. God referred to a first resurrection, and then was silent as to a second. I must admit that I never really thought of Christ in relation to the second resurrection until I was reading this thread. Somewhere around post 1000, I wish I could find it, somebody was talking about the resurrection in relation to Christ, and I wondered if there was something very different about Christ’s resurrection. I have been fascinated over the years by the structure of scripture, and I liked the thought of Christ being the second resurrection because it meets certain criteria that I have not found in any other interpretation that I have heard.
In order for something to be true, it must always be true. Therefore it is always easier to disprove something, just find a case where it is false, whereas to prove something is true, it must meet all criteria. In this case as in all cases of Doctrine, there is no list of criteria. I have been blindsided by arguments on doctrine many times, and I don’t expect this subject to be any different. Sometimes crazy arguments sometimes lies sometimes verses from scripture. I have already made some statements that will bring opposition. That having been said lets take the “sword of spirit” and swing it around a bit. Nobody ever got skillful with a sword without practice, and sometime in the future we will be called on to use that skill. A word of caution to those who treat the sword carelessly, you might cut yourself.
First as to the structure of Scripture, as I said before, the order is Birth Death, and Resurrection. This is a trinity and corresponds respectively to The Trinity. The father always comes first, the son always comes second, the spirit third. The most common parallel we have in the natural world is Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The order is always the same. In fact Birth Death, and Resurrection correspond to the meaning of 1,2,and 3 if you are interested in studying the meaning of the numbers.
There is one illustration that may show what the importance of the order. Consider Gen 1:1 …God created the heavens and the earth, in the second verse the earth was void, in the third verse he began creating again with light. Here we have creation, destruction, and recreation. (A plug for the gap theory, I know what’s coming on this one) It‘s the same lesson. Light is also a trinity with the visible section, the rainbow, Christ in the middle. It seems a small argument to make, but the strength is in the numbers, and remember, it is God, who sees the end from the beginning, who put this on the very first page. I hope you can at least understand why I cringe when people put spiritual death before spiritual birth.
Just a quick note here, some say that it is easy to see The Father and Son, in Abraham and Isaac but how does Jacob represent the spirit? I think it has something to do with Proverbs 25:2 which I a re-thinking.

Second let us look at the spiritual death.

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Is the second death the lake of fire? Maybe the lake of fire is just a symbol, like the thousand years. Maybe, and this is my vote, the second death is separation From God. Could this happen to Christ? Heb 9:27 “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” Does this apply to Christ? I remind you of Christ’s own words “ Why hast thou forsaken me?” That sounds benign, but I believe that was the second death. “It is a fearful thing to fall onto the hands of the living God.” Don’t think for one minute that God’s wrath was mitigated because Christ was his son. God’s wrath was poured out without mixture, just as it would have been poured out on me. I submit that however bad you think it might have been. It was worse, compounded by his holiness.
If you think I’m wrong let me know. I did not state my question well at all. I am only trying to clear up my own opposition to these thoughts.

[Matchett-PI]

"Your views are carefully stated in your post. I will consider them."

He's not trying to fool you Jean. (#2434)