Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Satan Bound Today?
BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by 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


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; devil; evil; lucifer; satan; thedoc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,541-2,5602,561-2,5802,581-2,600 ... 3,801-3,803 next last
To: RnMomof7; BibChr; Jerry_M; the_doc; Jean Chauvin; Matchett-PI
You are right ...that inabilty to " fit" things together made me look at it again..the idea of animal sacrifices in the temple did it for me

I must admit -- the idea of "animal sacrifices" didn't "do" it for me.

For me, the_doc's gentle chiding to read II Peter 3 as Peter wrote it was probably the "clincher". The_doc (gently, but sternly) advised me that it was high time I started reading II Peter 3, and my reading of Dr. David J. Engelsma (whom I have called "the Doctor of Amillennialism") thereupon "clinched the deal".

But, once I started thinking about these issues, the "Millennial sacrifices" issue always wrankled my soul, I'll be the first to admit.

I wonder if I would be entirely wrong if I characterized PreMillennialism as...

That's probably a bit trenchant on my part... but then again, as my FRiends know -- I usually am.

2,561 posted on 12/16/2002 11:56:57 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2518 | View Replies]

Comment #2,562 Removed by Moderator

To: Matchett-PI; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Corin Stormhands; RnMomof7; xzins; SpookBrat; ...
.....nice thread hijack on your part though

.....sorry xzins
2,563 posted on 12/17/2002 1:50:58 AM PST by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2559 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin; nobdysfool; xzins; fortheDeclaration; gracebeliever; BibChr; Revelation 911; ...
Now, I admit that the premil's have been on the defensive almost entirely. 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".

Capital idea! I've been feeling a bit on the defensive myself, and thought maybe I'd just suggest a few forced interpretations for you to explain their obvious natural hermeneutic basis. Here they are.

Rev 20:1-3 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:1-3 that even though Satan is bound with a great chain, shut, sealed, and locked in an abyss (depthless, i.e. (specially) (infernal) "abyss":--deep, (bottomless) pit.) so he could not deceive the nations any longer, that crafty old dragon outwitted God's angel and can still be "on the playing field" but deceiving only gentiles, but even so his binding is not necessarily total.

Jean Chauvin #566 Therefore, it is just as reasonable to limit this binding of Satan to the stated "effect" which is already present in the text. We don't need to go any further than what is stated in the text. The text does not lead us to a necessary conclusion that Satan "has been removed from the playing field". Since we know that the binding is effective to keep Satan from deceiving the gentiles, we can understand that the descriptive words such as "chained" and "cast" are to communicate the absoluteness of Satan's new found inability to deceive the gentiles.

Jean Chauvin #690 Now, I have presented a Biblical argument [in post #593] as to the fact that since we can understand that the binding of demons spoken of in 2 Peter 2 is ~not~ total and complete, then we can also conclude that the binding of Satan (which is described using extremely similar language) is not ~necessarily~ to be understood as being complete/total.

Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:4 that the "beheaded souls" are not "physically dead" but rather they must be the "alive in the body" type of souls, who though slain for their testimony in Rev 6:9 and refused to worship the beast or take his mark they were still victorious (and alive in the body) souls in heaven in Rev 15:1-2 and were not killed physically. And so because they were never physically dead, they did not live again, they just continued their existing physical life spans for a thousand years with Christ, but came to life spiritually instead because (I guess) their testimony and rejecting the beast just wasn't good enough.

Jean Chauvin #112 "It is not reasonable to conclude that people who are alive in the body are 'resurrected from the ~dead~."

Jean Chauvin #136 I'm asking how living people who have never ever died are supposedly resurrected from the ~DEAD~?

Jean Chauvin #1404 You are forgetting those John sees in vs 4 who are currently alive in their bodies:

4 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. [Jean Chauvin's bold emphasis]

Jean Chauvin #1927: You are correct that [John] doesn't use ["alive in their bodies"], but you should also note that neither does John actually "identify" any of these people as "physically dead". On the other hand, there is good reason to conclude that those who did not worship the beast are alive in their bodies.

Jean Chauvin #2004: Precisely what Rev 20:4 says about both the people who have died in Christ as well as those John sees who are alive in their bodies. This is why it is improper to read the “again” into live. It isn’t there for a reason. And, according to John 11 and 1 Thess 5, it is completely improper to insist that “live” must be understood necessarily as “lived again” –especially in Rev 20:5.

Rev 20: 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
Rev 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:5 and 12-13 that 'the rest of the dead' are the gentile nations (see first forced interpretation) deceived by Satan whose limited binding now has no effect over the gentiles, which 'stand' at the white throne (alive in their bodies), but were never physically dead, just spiritually dead (because it's biblical, and I guess because they also have incredibly long life spans so they never physically die because they were not resurrected), but they are punished to remain spiritually dead forever. In fact, no physically dead people are mentioned anywhere in Rev 20 (not even the dead given up by the sea).

gdebrae #352 You posted an article about interpreting scripture which emphasized paying attention to the context. The context of the entire book of Revelation is the church. The subject matter in Rev. 20 is clearly the deceived gentile nations, not the state of Israel. The dead of verse 5 are gentiles nations. The great white throne is the judgment of gentile nations. The deceived armies satan gathers against the church (Hebrews 12:22-24) are gentile nations. All the previous references in the book of Revelation to the object of satan's hostility and war are to the church, the seed of the woman and not to Israel.

gdebrae #936 My paraphrase of vs 5 would be something like "The rest of the dead (those still deceived by satan) have no spiritual life during the accomplishment of the 1000 years." They are physically alive but spiritually dead. And when we get to vss 11-15 these physically alive but spiritually dead persons are still spirituall dead and are stand before the great white throne physically alive but spiritual dead and are judged physically alive but spiritually dead forever.

Jean Chauvin #1958 Unless you can prove that the reference to the “rest of the dead” is a reference to “physically dead” people, I would suggest that this is another of your presumptions. The notion of being “spiritually dead” is biblical. Furthermore, it notes that Rev 20:11 literally tells us that “the dead” are “standing” in front of the “Great White Throne Judgment” for judgement. Notice, also, there literally is no explicit statement declaring that the "dead are resurrected in vs 11-15. Furthermore, since we know that there will be unbelievers (spiritually dead) who are “alive in their bodies” at the Great White Throne Judgment, wouldn’t it be correct to conclude that the “dead” who are “standing” in front of the Great White Throne are actually only “spiritually dead” and not necessarily ~all~ physically dead?

Jean Chauvin #2004: Precisely what Rev 20:4 says about both the people who have died in Christ as well as those John sees who are alive in their bodies. This is why it is improper to read the “again” into live. It isn’t there for a reason. And, according to John 11 and 1 Thess 5, it is completely improper to insist that “live” must be understood necessarily as “lived again” –especially in Rev 20:5.

Jean Chauvin #2091 I can look all day long in Rev 20 for the “literal” words “the first resurrection is bodily” and I will never find it. In fact, you never even find explicit words declaring something has risen from the dead.

gdebrae #2291 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.

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
Rev 20:3b until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
Rev 20:4b and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev 20:5a The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
Rev 20: 6b and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Rev 20:7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison,

The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on all six identical "thousand years" that they are not an actual real 1000 years, but rather a metaphor of an era or 'vast' time, and scripture must be diligently searched to find other scriptural definitions of "thousand years" because the usage in Rev 20 can only be symbolic. Gosh, even more symbolism is found in the thousand years of Rev 20:5a being a different thousand years than that of Rev 20:6b (yes! metaphors within metaphors!) because the tense of the verbs in the sentences change.

Jean Chauvin #1404 argues the first resurrection is 'a thousand years' that is separate and prior to reigning with Christ for 'a future thousand years':

Clearly one must have already be apart of the First Resurrection (living and reigning for a thousand years) in order to be "priests" and "reign with Christ a thousand years" (future application).

No, the grammar tells us that one must be apart of the First Resurrection in order to be apart of the future 1000 year reign in vs 6. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the First Resurrection (past tense)" The folks who have already been privy to the "First Resurrection" are the ones who shall (future tense) be preists of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years.

gdebrae #1104 there is a precedent set for the number 1000 being used to indicate a vastness. You are definitely on the right track. Ps 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." The thousand years is used here as reference to God's eternity compared to our finiteness and understanding of time.

Jean Chauvin #1131 gdebrae is correct, we are looking at the phrase "thousand years" and looking at other Scriptural uses of the phrase "thousand years" to see if we can find precedent for how Scripture uses this term.

Ya know what Jean? I'm beginning to see how xzins gets so confused. I'm perplexed myself.

But I'm sure you'll clear this up in no time and perhaps we can move on to the_doc's forced interpretation in post 848 and post 875 and post 894 and post 898 and post 965 and post 971 and post 1084 and post 1347and post 2090:

The beheading idea in Revelation 20:4 is not necessarily limiting us to physically dead Christians anyway. It definitely includes those who have died physically, certainly including literal martyrs, but the verse may very well be just borrowing a martyrdom scenario for beautiful metaphorical purposes in the vision--including metaphorical purposes involving Christians who are still physically alive!

So, what are those metaphorical purposes and what is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of believers in Christ testifying to Him, rejecting Satan, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan?


2,564 posted on 12/17/2002 3:08:34 AM PST by Starwind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2557 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
If you do not die you do not need the resurrestion.

If you equate resurrection and regeneration, I can see why you'd say that. Those who are dead physically do need resurrection. Those who are dead spiritually need regeneration. A subtle difference, but an important one.

The two terms are related, but distinctly suited to their situations. I don't believe it's wise to use them interchangeably, because they deal with specific states of being (or not being). In other words, using the terms interchangeably could obscure truth, or lead to wrong conclusions.

2,565 posted on 12/17/2002 3:44:21 AM PST by nobdysfool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2558 | View Replies]

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

OP, I think you know better than that. I've heard that interpretation of that scripture for years. You say you're not playing "gotcha"...why don't you be honest? That's exactly what you're trying to do. I'm not going to play that game.

Context is a valuable key to understanding scripture. In 1 Cor. 13:8-10, Paul is talking about the progression of things from immaturity to maturity, equating them with the process of a man growing up. In the previous chapter, Paul spends time on the analogy of the Christian as a part of a body, comparing the workings of the Body of Christ with the workings of our own bodies, detailing the various ways we all have specific and vital functions. In chapter 13, he reveals the "glue" that holds it all together: Love. John wrote that God is Love. Paul shows how Love is what makes the Body work and gives it life. That would be analogous to blood. Nowhere in that passage does he refer to the written Word as being the object of his discourse. Paul then goes on in chapter 14 to set some "rules of decorum" for the outworking of the various gifts given by God for the functioning of the Body of Christ.

My point is, your interpretation of "the Perfect" as being the written Word is not supportable from this passage, and your citing of 2 Tim 3 is not either. The object of 2 Tim 3 is "the man of God". Scripture is given so that the man of God may be perfect.

There are a lot of people who actually worship the Written Word, holding it up as a perfect thing, when it is obvious that the translations are not 100% accurate. I am not disparaging the Written Word, for it is the vehicle through which we learn and come to know God. But the Written Word is not the "Perfect" that Paul refers to. Jesus is Perfect, and His coming will bring with it perfection. That is the significance of Paul saying that now (presently) we see in a glass darkly, but then (when Christ comes) face to face. The Written Word doesn't have a face. Jesus does.

Have you not EVER considered that?

2,566 posted on 12/17/2002 4:14:03 AM PST by nobdysfool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2560 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911; Matchett-PI; xzins; fortheDeclaration; ShadowAce; winstonchurchill; RnMomof7; ...
#1.) the phrase was "hairy buttocks"

WHAT? One of the Chauvinists quoted a private freepmail? And they even changed what you said?

Why that's almost as bad as what that slimey Ward Smythe did!

But wait, Ward apologized pretty thoroughly. Right before they killed him.

NOTE TO ALL: I wasn't planning on coming back until after the first of the year, but I was pinged to this post. Matchett-PI substituted the @#$%#$ garbage for Rev's word "buttocks," implying that he said "hairy ass."

He did not. I got a copy of the freepmail. Sure what Rev said was crass and irreverant, but he said it in private after she spit on his prayer request.

Matchett-PI is a liar with an axe to grind.

2,567 posted on 12/17/2002 6:36:38 AM PST by Corin Stormhands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2562 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; xzins
Hey, everbody... MESSIAH HAS COME AGAIN -- let's go back to the blood-sacrifice of bulls and goats!!

Come one, come all... get your TYPES AND SHADOWS right here, 'cause here we go again, baby!!

I wonder if I would be entirely wrong if I characterized PreMillennialism as...

PreMillennialism: the eschatology for Christians who HAVEN'T read the Book of Hebrews!!

In reverse order:

(1) Yes, you'd be dead wrong, but you'd be in-step with the cliche.

(2) How's this? (And though it breaks the pace of my intended humor, I can't bear not to make this disclaimer: it genuinely pains me to mock mockery of holy things with mockery; but then, Paul did it [Galatians 5:12]. Doesn't mean I have to like it, though.)

"Hey, everyone! The Messiah has come! Let's pretend we died with Him by playing splishy-splashy! Let's pretend about His death with some juice and crackers!"
< /mocking mockery >

The point being that, I guess if childish prattle is a good substitute for serious thought, you can make fun of anything, can't you?

But that's no great surprise. Dispensationalists figured out that... well, if we're talking theology, apologetics, soteriology, Reformed folks are the best brothers you can have.

But when it comes to Biblical prophecy, amillennialists just aren't up to the heavy lifting.

Dan

2,568 posted on 12/17/2002 6:47:38 AM PST by BibChr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2561 | View Replies]

To: BibChr; OrthodoxPresbyterian
The Millennial Reign will be a different dispensation.

For an amillennial the Millennium for 1000 years on earth would be an assumption simply for the sake of understanding. If they would engage in that assumption for just a moment, they would see that the millennium would be a different dispensation.
2,569 posted on 12/17/2002 6:57:30 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2568 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands; Matchett-PI; Jerry_M; the_doc; RnMomof7
Can't speak for the boys, but Corin thinks you're all clymers. Come on smart boy. Find me a post where Corin OR Ward said God doesn't know the future. ~ Corin Stormhands Woody.

P.S. Think Ward, think!
2,570 posted on 12/17/2002 7:18:07 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2111 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands; Revelation 911; Matchett-PI; wai-ming; Starwind; nobdysfool; fortheDeclaration; ..
Matchett-PI is a liar with an axe to grind.

Corin words can be supported for those interested in looking.

Proof is on these recent pages of this thread. Yesterday, I commended Drstevej's honesty when he changed his position on a Hosea interpretation.

Matchett pretended that post was my apologizing for being dishonest.

here

and here

and here

2,571 posted on 12/17/2002 7:18:17 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2567 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I'm at peace with calvarm. All of God's words are true. I guess you can call me a "pan-calvarmist." To quote a wise man, "it'll all pan out in the end." ~ xzins Woody.

P.S. It might be wise to figure out if man's will is sovereign or if God is sovereign before you unexpectedly pan out in hell in the end.
2,572 posted on 12/17/2002 7:24:57 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2115 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody; Corin Stormhands
Woody, you need to rewrite this. I have no idea what you're asking?????
2,573 posted on 12/17/2002 7:25:36 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2570 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
????

All God's words ARE true, Woody. Surely you don't have a problem with that, do you?

I also have no problem with those that say God is sovereign.
2,574 posted on 12/17/2002 7:31:15 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2572 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody; xzins
No Woody, follow the thread. The implications of what you (and your buddies) said are clear.

Read, Woody, read.

But I don't wanna play your reindeer games right now. I'll be back after Christmas, so you can ping me then if you'd like.

2,575 posted on 12/17/2002 7:32:14 AM PST by Corin Stormhands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2570 | View Replies]

To: xzins
***I commended Drstevej's honesty when he changed his position on a Hosea interpretation. ***

Actually, I changed my view that Israel is better called a child through adoption and the Church called a child through birth and not the reverse.

My family illustration likened by adopted son to the Church and my natural born daughter to Israel in one family. My admission was that it would be better to see my son representing Israel and daughter the Church.

My interpretation of Hosea remains the same. Israel is a unfaithful wife awaiting future reconcilliation. The Church is a expectant Bride seeking to be spotless for her Groom.

2,576 posted on 12/17/2002 7:36:12 AM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2571 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Exactly....I was going by memory. I was impressed that you had no qualms with going back and saying, "Yep. On reflection, I want to change this."

I don't want this to become a DrJ Admiration Society....but you done good. Thanks.
2,577 posted on 12/17/2002 7:40:53 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2576 | View Replies]

To: gracebeliever; Jerry_M; RnMomof7; Jean Chauvin; lockeliberty; jude24; the_doc; ...
You're both right and wrong here. Right in the sense that undoubtedly you mean that God has always and only saves man by His grace, which is absolutely true. It is also true that salvation has only been by the blood of Christ Jesus, however, prior to Paul's teachings, this was unknown. ~ "grace"believer Nearly all dispensationalists believe that salvation in every dispensation has been based on faith in the revealed Word of God at that time.... Therefore, there has been a change in content of the message which was the object of faith. ~ "grace"believer Regarding the case in point, the content of the "gospel of the kingdom" preached by the apostles during and shortly after the earthly ministry of Christ never contains the teaching that Christ would die for the sins of the world, be buried and rise the third day. ~ "grace"believer The problem in the various positions regarding the gospel seems to reside in the proper definition of gospel, its relation to dispensations and to salvation. ~ "grace"believer Sometimes the good news is about a program of God, such as the gospel of the kingdom, which is the good news that God is going to establish His kingdom in the earth. ~ "grace"believer Woody.

The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.
2,578 posted on 12/17/2002 7:45:41 AM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2121 | View Replies]

Comment #2,579 Removed by Moderator

To: Corin Stormhands; Matchett-PI
But wait, Ward apologized pretty thoroughly. Right before they killed him.

No, Ward NEVER apologized for LYING. He dropped off and came back as Corin Stormhands when I threatened to expose him for that.

Matchett-PI is not the liar in this.

2,580 posted on 12/17/2002 7:53:28 AM PST by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2567 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 2,541-2,5602,561-2,5802,581-2,600 ... 3,801-3,803 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson