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

[Jean Chauvin]

Understanding the Matthew passage doesn't clearly present the notion that the Lord's Supper will end at Christ's return, I should have posted from 1 Cor 11:

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

"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. "

But the fact that all believers will receive glorified bodies before/at the rapture is a distinct concept from the definition of "resurrection of the dead".

1 Corinthians 15 tells us this!

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:

• for the trumpet shall sound,
  
• and
  
• the dead shall be incorruptible,
  
• and
  
• we shall be changed.

Clearly stated in 1 Corinthians is the fact that "resurrection of the dead" and "we shall be changed" are two completely distinct ideas.

If the "resurrection of the dead" ~NECESSARILY~ results in a "glorified" body, why does Paul tell us that the dead will be raised "incorruptable"? Isn't that a little redundant?

No. Paul realizes that "resurrection of the body" is a different concept that receiving a "glorified body".

He understands that there have been several "resurrections of the body" in which a "glorified body" was not received. (Goodness, he, through the power of Christ, raised one to life himself!) Thus, he is compelled to note that these who are raised will be raised "incorruptable". Likewise, he notes, that in addition to the dead being raised, "we shall ~ALL~ be changed."

He specifically and explicitly notes in vs 52 that ~ONLY~ the "dead" will be raised, but we will "all" be changed!

Obviously, then, there is a distinction between "resurrection of the dead" and those of us alive at Christ's return receiving "glorified" bodies!

Likewise, it is just as obvious that it is bankrupt and shameful for you to attempt to change the definition "resurrectin of the dead" in response to the the problem Premil's have when noting that John sees people who are yet alive in their bodies in Rev 20:4 and noting that John tells us in Rev 20:4 that ~ALL~ he sees "lived and reigned" (i.e. take part in the Premil's understanding that this is a bodily resurrection).

People who are alive in the body at Christ's return do not get "resurrected from the dead". Paul has explicitly told us this in 1 Corinthians 15:51,52. Shame on you for attempting to change the definition of "resurrection of the body" to solve the premillennial problem in Rev 20:4.

Better yet, why don't you simply accept that the people who are alive in their bodies which John sees in Rev 20:4 will not be "resurrected from the dead". Oh, I understand, that would ~REQUIRE~ you to reject Premillennialism and see clearly that John can ~ONLY~ be referring to a spiritual resurrection in Rev 20:4.

This can only be a spiritual resurrection (John 11:25,26) in 20:4 because the people that John sees who are alive in their bodies cannot possibly be resurrected from the dead because people who are alive in their bodies do not die. Paul tells us this in 1 Cor 15. But, we know that people who are alive in their bodies ~are~ brought to spiritual life! They ~DO~ experience spiritual resurrection!

1 John 3
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

We "have passed" (Past Tense) -already happened!

from death unto "life" (spiritual resurrection)

Obviously a reoccurring theme of the Apostle John is to note that we were formerly dead and now have life!

John 5
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

John 11
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Revelation 20
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

If only you would allow Revelation 20 to speak on its own without editing it and then claiming a "literal" interpretation, things would be clearer.

Ah! But that would require you to reject Premillennialism. You are stubborn and you do not ~want~ to do that!

Jean

[wai-ming]

Xzins is a friend of mine. He is one of the people who introduced me to "Christianity." He has acknowledged his mistake. I think we should cut him some slack.

The Chinese have a saying (actually they have a lot of them). "Think three times before blurting something out."

I think this applies to "posting" as well. Before clicking the Post button, perhaps we should pause and ask ourselves: "Is this honest? Is this kind? Is this useful?"

That would spare us a lot of regrets. "It's better to prepare and prevent than to repair and repent."

[xzins]

I read your first paragraph and got to a point where I had a difference of opinion. It's the same result. Of course it's different process. That's the nature of it's being unique generation that's alive when Christ returns. That's one of the theological issues that had been troubling the Thessalonians.....the disposition of those who are still living when Christ returns.

Try to be more succinct.

[xzins]

check your freepmail

[Revelation 911]

If you're not sure if he has copied you on my entire reply, you may copy me on what he sent you, and I will verify whether or not it's complete. I have the origional.

I do not want a private email posted detailing in any way the abuse I have experienced. If my pinged FR friends care to read your response, they may ask me and I will forward it to them. I have not done so because it gives you a forum to spew your hatred and contrary spirit.

[RnMomof7]

xzins is a friend of mine too...nice guy..wrong but nice **grin**

[JesseShurun]

Jews and Gentiles

I believe from my reading of the scriptures that these are one and the same

[Matchett-PI]

"Xzins .. has acknowledged his mistake. I think we should cut him some slack. .. we should.. ask ourselves: "Is this honest ....?" That would spare us a lot of regrets. .."

I agree. :)

[nobdysfool]

I'm still waiting for you to cite me a single verse which says that you have only half a kingdom of God.

Sorry, I don't see where I ever said that. Now you're putting words in my mouth (in my posts, actually) that I never said. I point out that Jesus released people from bondage and told them that the Kingdom of God had come to them, but it's obvious from the situation and context that He was bring one aspect of the Kingdom to the situation, that of releasing people from bondage. That is not the whole Kingdomn of God, and you know it.

Jesus quoted Isaiah when He said "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek; He hath sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord (at this point Jesus stopped reading in the synagogue, on the day He proclaimed His ministry) , and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified."

The point here is that the Kingdom of God is more than exorcism. It is more than food or drink. It is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. It is deliverance from sin, health to the body, provision in time of need, comfort for those who mourn, power over the Enemy, good news to those whom God has chosen. It is all these things and so much more, because it is !

You and others seize upon this passage (Matthew 12:28-29) and then try to say that Jesus said the entire Kingdom of God had come. It's obvious that Jesus was referring to the effect of the application of Kingdom principles, in this case the opening of the prison to them that are bound. That is not the whole Kingdom, that is only one aspect of it. Jesus said the Kingdom of God is within you (and me). If it is fully come, and entire and complete, then why are we still here in these sinful broken bodies? Obviously there is an inward beginning, and a day when it will be literally, fully complete, not only in us but in all the Earth! That day has not come yet. It's called the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Until then, "we see in part, and we prophecy in part. When that which is perfect has come, that which is partial shall be done away".

[nobdysfool]

Since it is appointed unto man, once to die...[snip]

As a general rule, that is true. However, there have been exceptions. Enoch and Elijah come to mind right off the bat. God is Sovereign. He can make exceptions (and still be consistent with Himself), and the very fact that He took Enoch and Elijah without them dying is proof.

(C)an we count the rapture as a death too?

I don't see how you would count that as "death". How would it be? It's the instant transformation of the physical, mortal body into a glorified, immortal body. No death involved.

Sorry to be picky, but it seems there is always something that does not fit.

When something doesn't seem to fit, it's a sure sign that you need revelation or teaching from the Holy Spirit. God's Word, rightly divided, is not inconsistent, and everything "fits".

Mom said: .."the idea of animal sacrifices in the temple did it for me"

Ok, Mom, when does the New Temple, complete with animal sacrifices, take place?

[nobdysfool]

For some strange reason, I lost a couple words in partof my post to you that were rather critical. I'll repeat the paragraph, with the missing words at the end, and maybe it will make more sense...

The point here is that the Kingdom of God is more than exorcism. It is more than food or drink. It is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. It is deliverance from sin, health to the body, provision in time of need, comfort for those who mourn, power over the Enemy, good news to those whom God has chosen. It is all these things and so much more, because it is IN HIM!

[RnMomof7]

When something doesn't seem to fit, it's a sure sign that you need revelation or teaching from the Holy Spirit. God's Word, rightly divided, is not inconsistent, and everything "fits".

Perhaps you are the one that needs revelation ..to rightly divide the words of scripture in this Nbdy

     Eze 43:15   So the altar [shall be] four cubits; and from the altar and upward [shall be] four horns.   

  Eze 43:16   And the altar [shall be] twelve [cubits] long, twelve broad, square in the four squares thereof.

     Eze 43:17   And the settle [shall be] fourteen [cubits] long and fourteen broad in the four squares thereof; and the border about it [shall be] half a cubit; and the bottom thereof [shall be] a cubit about; and his stairs shall look toward the east.

     Eze 43:18   And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These [are] the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.

     Eze 43:19   And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering.

     Eze 43:20   And thou shalt take of the blood thereof, and put [it] on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about: thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it.

     Eze 43:21   Thou shalt take the bullock also of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the appointed place of the house, without the sanctuary.

     Eze 43:22   And on the second day thou shalt offer a kid of the goats without blemish for a sin offering; :and they shall cleanse the altar, as they did cleanse [it] with the bullock.   

  Eze 43:23   When thou hast made an end of cleansing [it], thou shalt offer a young bullock without blemish, and a ram out of the flock without blemish.   

  Eze 43:24   And thou shalt offer them before the LORD, and the priests shall cast salt upon them, and they shall offer them up [for] a burnt offering unto the LORD.

     Eze 43:25   Seven days shalt thou prepare every day a goat [for] a sin offering: they shall also prepare a young bullock, and a ram out of the flock, without blemish.

     Eze 43:26   Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves.

     Eze 43:27   And when these days are expired, it shall be, [that] upon the eighth day, and [so] forward, the priests shall make your burnt offerings upon the altar, and your peace offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord GOD.

  Hbr 10:9   Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
     Hbr 10:10   By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
     Hbr 10:11   And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
     Hbr 10:12   But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

So which is true?

[the_doc]

BTT top.

[nobdysfool]

So which is true?

C'mon, I asked you a question, and you answer me with a question, and you don't answer the question I asked?

Keep in mind, that until Israel accepts the Messiah (Jesus), they (at least the practicing Jews) will want to resume the sacrifices and ordinances of the Law. I don't profess to know what to make of Ezekiel. I haven't even really looked at it that much, but from what you quoted, I cannot see how that was the thing that changed you from a Premil to an Amil. I've read a lot of the so-called proof that has been thrown around on this thread, and I'm not convinced, because I can see clear cases where the Amil position forces an interpretation that isn't consistent with the context or the clear meaning of the words.

You can accuse me of being deluded, but can you prove you're not? It hasn't been proven to me that I'm deluded, and I'm certainly not resistant to truth. I pray every day for God's guidance and enlightenment, and I'm just crazy enough to believe that He answers my prayer. I don't think that's a prayer that God would refuse to answer, and as He is my witness, I truly do want to know the truth.

One thing I see among Calvinists that I find curious is a tendency to make everything black and white, all or nothing, and no room given for the fact that maybe, just maybe, there are some points about even Calvinism that aren't 100% correct. Same with the Amils...they will denounce the Preterist, when they are at least 90% in complete agreement, doctrinally, with the Amils. I haven't found the exact thing that sets off the alarms in my spirit about the Amil position, but I will find it, and when I do, I'll share it. I know this: I'm believing God to show me the truth, to lead me into truth, and to keep me in the truth, and I'm walking in faith that He is doing that very thing in me. I am yielded to Him in that, and am not conscious of any resistance to the truth in my spirt. I ask God daily to root out any resistance, and to show me where I need to change. What more can I do? You tell me.

[Jean Chauvin]

"because I can see clear cases where the Amil position forces an interpretation that isn't consistent with the context or the clear meaning of the words. "

I've heard either you or others (or both) make this statement before.

Now, I admit that the premil's have been on the defensive almost entirely.

So, I'd like to give you this opportunity to show us which passages we "force" an interpretation on. Go through the passage and explain to us why our interpretation is "forced".

Jean

[Seven_0]

"I don't see how you would count that as "death". How would it be? It's the instant transformation of the physical, mortal body into a glorified, immortal body. No death involved."

If you do not die you do not need the resurrestion.

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

I know that everything in God's word fits, I just don't see how sometimes. Perhaps God will count it for death even as he counts faith for rightousness.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I realize some would be shocked and offended to know that such a *quiet spirit* as yourself would be talking privately to me about your hairy @#%$^&, etc.

Shocking? From Rev911??

You're kidding, right?

Offensive, probably. But hardly shocking.

After all, Rev911's spirit is pretty obvious to those who follow these threads (his public facades aside).

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

That day has not come yet. It's called the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Until then, "we see in part, and we prophecy in part. When that which is perfect has come, that which is partial shall be done away".

Respectfully, I am going to suppose that you have never considered the possibility that Paul was prophetically referring to the completion of The Written Revelation.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (II Timothy 3 KJV, Paul's last Epistle)

I am not trying to play "gotcha"... but I would ask you to admit, True or False:

Until I brought up this point, you had NEVER previously considered the possibility that Paul was herein prophetically referring to the completion of The Revelation of Jesus Christ.

You have never even CONSIDERED such a possibility (despite the congruent language of II Timothy 3), because your Teachers have NEVER presented you this idea... Right??

(At the very least, it certainly CANNOT refer to the "Millennial Kingdom" of the Pre-Mills and Post-Mills... with their "thousand year reign" of APOSTASY, HYPOCRISY, REBELLION, AND LIES... among the Tares of the Earth).

At the very least, "When that which is perfect has come" MUST refer to the Amillennial vision of a Final Judgment at the Second Coming, and a perfect New Heaven and a New Earth... no "thousand year reign" of hypocrisy and lies, but PERFECTION.

But if it DOES NOT refer thereto, then you must admit a possibility which you have never even considered: The Completed Revelation of Written Scripture is that which is PERFECT.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (II Timothy 3 KJV, Paul's last Epistle)

True, or False: This is the first time that you have even CONSIDERED this possibility.

Neh???