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

[RnMomof7]

Actually it was YOUR side that did it because you were getting killed ..you guys do it all the time..BUT that is OK..because those with ears will hear no matter whener you try to hide it..

[BibChr]

I don't personally expect to. But "how (I am)" is I am a Christian disciple (= student). I don't go to the Bible to impose my systematics on it; I go to learn from it.

Bow the knee before God and take Ezekiel 40-48 seriously and reverently, as verbally inspired, and it appears that God plans to enable the building of a temple that will have animal sacrifices.

Bow the knee before your own imagination and biases, and there's no telling where you'll end up.

Dan

[Revelation 911]

The perceptions of emotionally immature, self-focused mentalities are not reality.

cant post where I called you a liar ? - still waiting....now the namecalling tells me youve run out of legs

[Starwind]

If you are charging us with "forcing" our interpretation on the passage, then you most certainly ~must~ show us why your interpretation is the ~NECESSARY~ one!

No I don't. This isn't about my interpretations. This is about you explaining yours. You invited examples of your forced interpretations. You've been given them (in post #2564 and a subset again in post #2594). You must show how your interpretations are not forced. I provided your (and other amil's) statements showing your forced interpretations. You explain how those interpretations are not forced. You have avoided explaining each one of your interpretations to date. Now please do explain, as per your invitation.

"How do their non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years?" Another "straw man" argument! We never claimed that their "physical bodies" have a "life span" of a "thousand years". We simply say, as John 11:25,26 tells us, "they NEVER die"! Obviously, John 11 is not meant to be understood as their physical bodies never dying!

Your forced interpretation claimed they never died, nor were resurrected, but lived with Christ a thousand years. So, if John 11 is not meant to be understood as their physical bodies never dying, how does your answer explain "How do their non-resurrected physical bodies have a life span of a thousand years? How do their physical bodies never die throughout the thousand years? If their physical bodies never die and John 11 obviously doesn't address physical bodies never dying, then you explain your forced interpretation as to how they never die physically.

You've not explained why the thousand years must be symbolic and why there must two different symbolic thousand years periods.

You've not explained how the dead given up by the sea weren't physically dead at the white throne.

You've not explained how any one not resurrected, who did not live again, has physically lived for a thousand years, or for two thousand-year periods.

You've not explained 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?

You've not explained how Satan is bound now.

You've not explained how his binding is only partial, why simultaneously stating Scripture has already told us that Satan is bound: Matthew 12, Mark 3, 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6.

Now you explain your interpretations.

[RnMomof7]

Bow the knee before God and take Ezekiel 40-48 seriously and reverently, as verbally inspired, and it appears that God plans to enable the building of a temple that will have animal sacrifices.

Sorry Dan . That would mean the Holy Spirit was a liar in Hebrews ..I have a God that does not lie..

[Seven_0]

"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."

I suspect that all saints will have part in the first Resurrection, the wording in Rev 20:6 would seem to allow this, my problem is in 1 Cor 15:22 "For as in Adam all die,..." How do you get around the "all die?"

[Corin Stormhands]

Who will be the one to put it down first?

My hands are far from clean in this matter. But you know darn good and well I tried to put it to rest months ago.

But for now, Matchett-PI has been hounding Rev after he posted a prayer request. She thinks it's funny that he's been abused. You're a nurse Mom. You've seen the abused and the abusers. Tell her she's wrong.

And I've got a copy of the freepmail she mis-quoted.

I've been trying to leave these threads until after Christmas, but I keep getting pinged back into the fight. I'm willing to leave.

But whether I'm here or not won't change the simple fact that MPI is a liar and that doc is deranged.

[Revelation 911]

Im done ma

[BibChr]

Prove it.

[RnMomof7]

Thanks Rev..I have been waiting for someone to quit this foolishness..

[Corin Stormhands]

I'm gone too.

[RnMomof7]

Both CAN Not be true...eithor Jesus is our High Priest that sat down when it was finished or he is not..

Hbr 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Hbr 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Hbr 10:3 But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year.
Hbr 10:4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Hbr 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Hbr 10:6 In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Hbr 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Hbr 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and [offering] for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure [therein]; which are offered by the law;
Hbr 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Hbr 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
Hbr 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Hbr 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Hbr 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Hbr 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Hbr 10:15 [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Hbr 10:16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Hbr 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Hbr 10:18 Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for sin.
Hbr 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Hbr 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Hbr 10:21 And [having] an high priest over the house of God;
Hbr 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Hbr 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised;)
Hbr 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Hbr 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Hbr 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Hbr 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Hbr 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Hbr 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Hbr 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Hbr 10:31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Hbr 10:32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
Hbr 10:33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.
Hbr 10:34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
Hbr 10:35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
Hbr 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
Hbr 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.


Think on this dan...you pull us back with your doctrine..

Hbr 10:38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if [any man] draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.



Hbr 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.

[gracebeliever]

You statement that before Paul's teaching salvation was unknown is pure crap.

You make summary judgments without understanding what I said, which is absolutely true. I don't have the time, interest or inclination to respond to you or Jude24's assinine statements either right now or in the near future.

The reason is that last Friday night I took my wife to the hospital and she has been in intensive care since with several of her organs having failed with a rather bleak prognosis for recovery in the flesh. I am comforted that she is saved by grace through faith and knows the hope she has in Christ. Maybe that makes me "an heretick." Grace and peace.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Dear God, I'm so sorry for you, but praise God your wife is a believer! Becky and I will be praying for your wife and you to get thru this what ever the outcome may be.

BigMack

[Starwind]

Words are so inadequate for a trial like this. My prayers are with you and your wife, for God's healing and comfort.

[Seven_0]

"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"

Good illustration, we see the benefits to the children being the same, but if we change the players we may see differences. Chirst was born of Mary, adopted by Joseph. I think that there are a few things that he did not inherit in from Joseph because he was not related to Joseph by blood.

[jude24]

The reason is that last Friday night I took my wife to the hospital and she has been in intensive care since with several of her organs having failed with a rather bleak prognosis for recovery in the flesh. I am comforted that she is saved by grace through faith and knows the hope she has in Christ. Maybe that makes me "an heretick." Grace and peace.

Awwww man.... you have my prayers. That's far beyond any theological wrangling.

And I apologize for going a bit overboard. I stand by my assessment of what you are saying, but I think my presentation needed a bit of work.

[BibChr]

Nonsense. What one word of that has anything to do with whether Ezekiel was talking hopeless blither or not? I can cut and paste an entire chapter and say "Aha!" too. What single piece of that has anything to do with the interpretation of Ezekiel? Who denies Jesus' finished work? Certainly not I!

Like many who are misled by amill salesmen, you've just left off common sense for the Dance of the Falling Straw Men.

You have yet to get anywhere close to indicating that Ezekiel yammered on in exquisite detail meaning precisely nothing — as opposed to meaning precisely what he said, as the Biblical doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration would indicate.

Dan

[nobdysfool]

I asked you about the sacrifices in the New temple..are you choosing not to answer?

I believe I already said that I didn't know much about that, as I haven't really studied that portion of scripture in any detail. So, I'm choosing not to answer, because I don't have an answer for you.

Now how about you answering the question I asked of you? Or are you choosing not to answer?

[Matchett-PI]

xzins: "Wai-ming misunderstood YOUR posts at the time."

M-PI: "Oh, reeeeeeeeeally? I'm sure you set her straight behind the scenes in *private* FReepmail, though, didn't you."

xzins: "It's all in the open."

Reeeeeeeeally? LOL:

To: wai-ming

xzins: "check your freepmail"

2545 posted on 12/16/2002 2:46 PM EST by xzins

You'd better hurry and have the moderator pull your posts too like Rev.911 did so that nobody can refer back to them. LOL

Especially damning stuff like this:

Jerry_M:"I, too, was a bit taken aback by xzins statement of "Jerry, I too, wish we could be friends", when I wasn't aware that friendship was at stake."

M-PI: "Of course xzins knew you would be taken aback because he already knew that he was the one who attempted to lead others to believe that IT WAS *YOU* who said that friendship was at stake. He led people to believe that he was merely responding to your words.

I gave him numerous opportunities to set the record straight or provide a quote. He refused every request. And his last bad-faith response was merely to smile. This was his response in #535:

xzins: " :>) "

I'm glad you were able to find a minute in your busy schedule to deny the inferences he made against you.

As for myself in all this, I am reminded of Proverbs 10:18, to wit:

"Whoever HIDES HATRED has lying lips, and whoever SPREADS SLANDER is a fool."

The history of this matter --- a matter of record all in one place is:

HERE

Here's another place where you merely smiled, xzins:

To: Jean Chauvin; xzins; the_doc; Jerry_M; gdebrae; RnMomof7; CCWoody; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Wrigley..

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

M-PI: "He's not trying to fool you Jean."

2500 posted on 12/16/2002 1:41 AM EST by Matchett-PI

To: Matchett-PI

xzins: " :>) "

2502 posted on 12/16/2002 1:45 AM EST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2500 |

Like I said --- your reputation preceeds you. LOL