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]

"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."

Amillennialists are not alone in understanding that the chain and abyss is figurative and symbolic. Many Premillennialists also understand this to be so.

But, in order to play "gotcha", you must show us ~why~ this must ~NECESSARILY~ be understood ~only~ literally.

Furthermore, Scripture has already told us that Satan is bound: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6.

It seems to me, then, that the problem you are having is that Amillennialists understanding of Satan's binding does not live up to ~YOUR~ expectations.

No where in Rev 20:1-3 do we read that Satan is bound completely and totally. It just ain't there.

Furthermore, the biblical understanding of "binding" never demands the idea of a total and complete inability to do anything.

Rev 20:1-3 declares to us that Satan's binding is such ~ONLY~ that he is unable to deceive the gentiles.

You will have to show us that this inability of Satan to decieve the gentiles necessarily requires us to understand he is completely unable to do anything whatsoever.

So, in summary, you must show us that:

• The chains and abyss are necessarily to be understood literally in a book filled with much symbolism.

• Satan's binding is necessarily total/complete. The text does not say this, so you must show us why this ~MUST~ be the necessary understanding.

Until you show us why these things must ~NECESSARILY~ be understood as you do, your complaint is no more than a complaint our understanding of Satan's binding does not live up to ~YOUR~ expectations.

"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."

Actually, we believe the "beheaded souls" are indeed physically dead.

I've made declared this to you many times. In my post #1927 I made the statement:

"Look at the distinction that John himself makes:

A) and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded

and

B) and which had not worshipped the beast...

In group A) John tells us that he saw "souls" that were "beheaded". John doesn't tell us that these were "physically dead" in those direct words, but we can safely presume (according to premillennilism's "literal hermeneutic") that these people are physically dead."

It is the people who John identifies who had "not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands."

You know this very well. So, it is a little disengenuous for you to claim that Amillennialists "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..."

No, we make a distinction between "souls that were beheaded" and those "which had not worshipped the beast". It is the people John sees who did not worship the beast or take his mark that are physically alive.

You have attempted to show that those who did not worship the beast must necessarily be considered a reference to some of the "souls" John saw. But you failed miserably and you were wise to drop that argument in your post #2227.

"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)."

Your first point should be addressed by gdebrae since it is he who made the point. It is certainly not a forced interpretation as one notes in vs 1-3 we have a reference to Satan being unable to decieve the gentiles any longer. Therefore, in context, it certainly is reasonable to conclude that John is describing the effects of Satan's binding of the gentiles. Therefore, what follows is a discription of the "dead" gentiles.

You then go on to make the comment regarding the "dead" standing before the Great White Throne: "which 'stand' at the white throne (alive in their bodies), "

Rev 20:12 ~ACTUALLLY~ doesn't tell us they were "alive in their bodies".

Rev 20:12 ~ACTUALLLY~ tells us (quite literally) that the "~DEAD~" were standing before God and the Great White Throne.

It appears that it is ~YOU~ that is attempting to force the idea that these folks are "alive in their body".

The text manifestly does ~NOT~ say they were "alive in their body". That is ~YOUR~ ASSUMPTION The text says they were "dead"!

The rest of your points are several "straw man" arguments of things we never actually said. Perhaps out of frustration in your inability to show our interpretations are ~necessarily~ wrong you need to revert to the straw man fallacy. The critical reader, however, will note that you are simply grasping for straws here.

"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."

First of all, you will have to show us that the "1000" years must necessarily be understood as a literal time frame. You attempt to "prove" this by saying that the "1000" years is mentioned 6 times. How on earth does the fact that "1000 years" is mentioned SIX times mean that we are NECESSARILY REQUIRED to understand this as a literal time frame???

Why is that necessary to conclude? Why must we understand that BECAUSE "1000 years" is mentioned SIX times that it logically necessitates a literal understanding????

Why is that ~NECESSARY~???

And, quite frankly, I cannot help the fact that you cannot see or understand that verse 6 tells one must have already been a part of those who have already been a part of the "lived and reigned for a thousand years" in vs 4 must in order to take part of the "1000 years" in vs 6 which is mentioned in the future. Forced understanding? Hardly. I'm rather suprised that someone who proudly trumpets his literal understanding of Scriptures sarcasticly chides those who look carefully at the words and grammar used in Rev 20.

It's also interesting to note that, in your failure to prove us wrong, you resort to mocking innuendo in an attempt to "prove" your point, LOL!

Jean

[Corin Stormhands]

No, Ward NEVER apologized for LYING.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ward corrected his statement within 55 minutes of making it. He proceeded to correct it and then posted it in full, making a complete apology.

But the blood-thirsty coven of calvinists couldn't let it go.

And once again it all comes back to "it's all Ward's fault."

How pathetic of all of you.

[xzins]

Ward never lied.

I was there. I remember. And your reputation is not one which inspires others to believe someone else is the "vitriolic" one. You definitely get the prize for being the abusive one.

[lockeliberty]

Therefore, there has been a change in content of the message which was the object of faith. ~ "grace"believer

Crap! ~ Woody

Methinks gracebeliever does not understand shadows and types.


These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

[CCWoody]

There are two main reasons why most Calvinists are amills. The first is that all Calvinists are peculiarly aware that regeneration-unto-conversion definitely is an experience of spiritual resurrection from a state of spiritual death. ~ the_doc

It is absurdely obvious that this is the case for those of us who have already experienced the resurrection to eternal life...

The other reason concerns what I said in my earlier post: The Bible is designed to let God's enemies find all sorts of eschatological red herrings (see Proverbs 25:2!!!!!!). ~ the_doc

... and are not so stubborn as to carnally deny that it is the only resurrection which is important for living forever with the Lord.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

My salvation was definitely a supernatural act of grace. ~ xzins

Don't you mean that your salvation was definitely your act of using God's grace?

Woody.

[xzins]

My salvation was definitely a supernatural act of grace. ~ xzins

Nope. I mean exactly what I wrote above.

[Revelation 911]

what I will note is that your post to Corin got deleted by posting part of that private email within it. The threat was implied -

as for not prayin for my pop - I frankly dont want your kind of prayers nor those of OP or the_doc or any other abusive personality who cant see past personal hatred of me to pray for the salvation of a family member of my own.

Marvelous Christian fruit you have there matchett

....and again, nice thread hijack -LOL I frankly dont CARE if you or the doc or OP think I lie - You matter not one iota, bit, or smithereen - what matters is that I requested prayer - you and OP saw it as an opportunity to spew yet again at an Arminian with whom theyve had words with previously.

center square on my prayer chain, you are, right next to that demon who drowned her kids.

[Matchett-PI]

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

Xzins to the_doc: "Ward never lied. I was there. I remember. And your reputation is not one which inspires others to believe.."

the_doc: "Ward NEVER apologized for LYING."

Who to believe? Who to believe???

Unfortunately for you, xzins, your reputation for honesty preceeds you. LOL

[the_doc]

You are doing it again. As I said in my previous post, Ward dropped off and came back as Corin Stormhands when I threatened to expose him for that.

[Corin Stormhands]

Who to believe? Who to believe???

You can believe the email I copied to you, can't you.

YOU KNOW YOU CAN!!!!

[Corin Stormhands]

Doing what again? Your threat to me was "you have no idea what we are prepared to do...."

And before Ward left, WARD posted the email in question.

Why should I give a rip what a psychopath like you thinks?

Here's a clue: I don't.

[xzins]

All, See 2571. Facts are there for those who can read. Wai-ming misunderstood YOUR posts at the time.

[Starwind]

Furthermore, Scripture has already told us that Satan is bound: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6. [...snip...] So, in summary, you must show us that: The chains and abyss are necessarily to be understood literally in a book filled with much symbolism. Satan's binding is necessarily total/complete. The text does not say this, so you must show us why this ~MUST~ be the necessary understanding

No I don't. You invited examples of your forced interpretation. You explain your interpretation. If you think Satan is already bound, and the beheaded didn't really loose their heads, then you explain the metaphor that Christ is teaching us in this revelation to John. 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? Explain that.

we make a distinction between "souls that were beheaded" and those "which had not worshipped the beast". It is the people John sees who did not worship the beast or take his mark that are physically alive.

So how do the people John sees who did not worship the beast or take his mark that are physically alive go on to live with Christ a thousand years? How do their non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years?

Rev 20:12 ~ACTUALLLY~ doesn't tell us they were "alive in their bodies". Rev 20:12 ~ACTUALLLY~ tells us (quite literally) that the "~DEAD~" were standing before God and the Great White Throne. It appears that it is ~YOU~ that is attempting to force the idea that these folks are "alive in their body".

It is the Amillennialist statements forcing the interpretation that the 'dead' of Rev 20:12 are alive in their bodies, their statements, not Rev 20:12. The Amillennialist statements force the interpretation. Not I, nor Rev 20: Here is your personal post from #1958:

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?

First of all, you will have to show us that the "1000" years must necessarily be understood as a literal time frame

No I don't. Rev 20 by default states exactly a thousand years in plain simple literal words. You insist on the symbolism. Why is it we must understand that because "thousand years" is mentioned 6 times they must be symbolic? Why must it be symbolic? Why can't a thousand years be a thousand years, as Rev 20 literally states it?. You invited examples of where Amil views forced an interpretation. You explain your interpretation. Rev 20 no where states the thousand years are symbolic. Your forced interpretation does. Your forced interpretation stated that the thousand years is symbolic, a metaphor, and further a metaphor of two different thousand years in Rev 20:5a and 6b. This is your forced interpretation. Here are your statements again from your post #1404:

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.

And you never did explain how if no one is ever physically dead, no one ever physically died, then how did all these 'not resurrected again' 'physically alive' people live for a thousand years? How did they live through two different thousand years?

And you never did explain how the dead given up by sea, were physically alive. How does that happen?

[xzins]

REV, you are correct.

Matchett owes you an apology for making fun of your father and your prayer request.

[Matchett-PI]

"center square on my prayer chain, you are, right next to that demon who drowned her kids."

I'll bet you've even "spewed those sort of hateful words" to your family members and the others you told me about that you hold responsible for your unhappiness, too, haven't you.

You must be a joy to live with. I'll bet if those you've accused behind their backs to me and others were here, they could reeeeeeally tell us some stories!

No doubt if they did, you would call them liars, too.

[the_doc]

You acted as if you had made a single misstatement in a single public post. And you are stilling pretending that this is all it the affair involved.

So, although you apologized for a misstatement, we insisted that you apologize for something more profound.

[CCWoody]

You are ready to claim victory before you've even engaged the enemy. ~ editor-surveyor

Of course, I have already won. Where I am sitting, Satan ain't nuthin but a tiny winnie putty tat!


• Ephesians 1
  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
  
  
• Ephesians 2
  But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
  
  
• Ephesians 6
  Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

And now that I'm all dressed up for war, what does my Lord command--that I go off to a battle that has already been won? No, this is the command from the King to His army:


Ephesians 6:14
Stand therefore

Woody.

[Revelation 911]

No doubt if they did, you would call them liars, too.

The insinuation is I have done so with you. Im sorry, but I dont recall calling you a liar - If I did please show me where

[xzins]

Your version of events is wrong.

The problem was that AT THAT TIME you issued what was easily and fairly construed to be a threat. You did it by private email. I saw it.

Since we'd already learned that you are a bit whacky in your presentation of yourself, it's no small thing to worry about whether your threat should have been taken literally.