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

[the_doc]

You actually insinuated that your family had been threatened in an e-mail (from RnMomof7). Even Dr.Brian concluded from your posts about her e-mail that that's precisely what had happened. But this was not the case.

In short, you should have apologized for lying. You never really did do so.

In my subsequent e-mail to you, I pointed this out and said I was prepared to go public with the details (since RnMomof7 had sent me a copy of what she had actually said). That's when you left FR.

Proverbs 28:1

[JesseShurun]

I liked the Ambassador.

[BibChr]

So here's what you wrote:

I say that it is in clear conflict with the NT teaching [— which you never showed] ...so we must then ask what is truth? You want to ignore the words of the disciples and Hebrews [reading my mind, contrary to my consistent witness; nice trick]....You are serving a God that is not sovereign in this Dan [no proof, no logical connection, just a charge]..your God has not made up his mind as he screwed up to begin with and now has to backtract [sic][appropos of not one syllable of conversation]..in short you are no Calvinist brother you are an Arminian..

Now this whole, astonishing paragraph, and particularly the last clause, bring this verse to mind:

Do not be deceived: "Evil companycorrupts good habits."
1 Corinthians 15:33

You've picked up some bad habits. I prefer to think you're better than this. When one of the locals here was abusing you and persecuting you, I had nothing to do with it. Now look at you. How wonderful your new friends have been for you.

I do not say lightly: you should be ashamed of yourself.

And if you're not up to a serious Biblical discussion in the future, just drop out of it.

Dan

[drstevej]

Ezekiel 16

8 ”‘Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine.

15 ”‘But you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become a prostitute. You lavished your favors on anyone who passed by and your beauty became his. 16 You took some of your garments to make gaudy high places, where you carried on your prostitution. Such things should not happen, nor should they ever occur. 17 You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them. 18 And you took your embroidered clothes to put on them, and you offered my oil and incense before them. 19 Also the food I provided for you—the fine flour, olive oil and honey I gave you to eat—you offered as fragrant incense before them. That is what happened, declares the Sovereign LORD.

32 ”‘You adulterous wife! You prefer strangers to your own husband! 33 Every prostitute receives a fee, but you give gifts to all your lovers, bribing them to come to you from everywhere for your illicit favors. 34 So in your prostitution you are the opposite of others; no one runs after you for your favors. You are the very opposite, for you give payment and none is given to you. 35 ”‘Therefore, you prostitute, hear the word of the LORD! 36 This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Because you poured out your wealth and exposed your nakedness in your promiscuity with your lovers, and because of all your detestable idols, and because you gave them your children’s blood, 37 therefore I am going to gather all your lovers, with whom you found pleasure, those you loved as well as those you hated. I will gather them against you from all around and will strip you in front of them, and they will see all your nakedness. 38 I will sentence you to the punishment of women who commit adultery and who shed blood; I will bring upon you the blood vengeance of my wrath and jealous anger. 39 Then I will hand you over to your lovers, and they will tear down your mounds and destroy your lofty shrines. They will strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry and leave you naked and bare. 40 They will bring a mob against you, who will stone you and hack you to pieces with their swords. 41 They will burn down your houses and inflict punishment on you in the sight of many women. I will put a stop to your prostitution, and you will no longer pay your lovers. 42 Then my wrath against you will subside and my jealous anger will turn away from you; I will be calm and no longer angry.

59 ”‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will deal with you as you deserve, because you have despised my oath by breaking the covenant. 60 Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your sisters, both those who are older than you and those who are younger. I will give them to you as daughters, but not on the basis of my covenant with you. 62 So I will establish my covenant with you, and you will know that I am the LORD. 63 Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation, declares the Sovereign LORD.’”

=====

Ephesians 5 -- The Wedding is still FUTURE when these words are written....

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Revelation 19 -- Strange time to have a Wedding Supper if this is the adulterous wife of Ezekiel 16!

9And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.

=====

***Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't regard the union between the LORD and Israel in the OT as a spiritual union. That union was voided by Israel. It is no more. There is a new union, which IS a spiritual union.***

I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth...

[RnMomof7]

Corin (Ward) has apologized to me personally... ..That seems like a lifetime ago now ..it was a nasty time..sometimes it is best to let things be and remove them as far as the east is from the west.. which is what I have done..

[RnMomof7]

The truth is Dan that you are dodging the question..how can it be that the NT and OT have such a marked conflict? I say because the Temple prophecy was to the returning Jews..they chose to ignore it..

The dispensational Theology prefers to believe that Gods words in the NT are in error..as a Calvinist I do not believe that God makes mistakes that he has to go back to fix later..

[the_doc]

You are right about that to a degree.

Unfortunately, his attacks against Matchett-PI needed to be addressed. (And he never apologized to me for the larger Ward Smythe mess--so, for his potential benefit, I propose to be a little more hardnosed than you for the time being [grin].)

[CCWoody]

Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.

• And the LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are--northward, southward, eastward, and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your Seed FOREVER.
  
  
• Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
  
  
• Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

The marriage relationship spoken of by the Lord in the OT with Israel is the covenant of the Law. It is not a spiritual relationship, nor does it supercede the great promise made to Abram. It was established to keep us until the "revealing of faith" that we "might be justified by faith". Furthermore, we are not bound to this relationship under the law for we are dead to it, nor is [spiritual] blood Israel. We all live under the new covenant as an expectant bride awaiting her Husband. This is how Israel can be described as married to the Lord under the Law and be a spotless bride waiting for her Husband through faith

Woody.

And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

[xzins]

Is that what the Bible indicates, Woody?

Isaiah 54:6
The LORD will call you back as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit- a wife who married young, only to be rejected," says your God.

Ezekiel 16:32
" 'You adulterous wife! You prefer strangers to your own husband!

Ezekiel 16
31 When you built your mounds at the head of every street and made your lofty shrines in every public square, you were unlike a prostitute, because you scorned payment.
32 " 'You adulterous wife! You prefer strangers to your own husband! 33 Every prostitute receives a fee, but you give gifts to all your lovers, bribing them to come to you from everywhere for your illicit favors.

The LORD will call you back as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit- a wife who married young, only to be rejected," says your God.


Hosea 3:1
The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes."



Hosea 1:2
When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, "Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD ."

[xzins]

stipulating that I threatened Ward Smythe. I don't care if answer or not. You just admitted what Corin had always maintained: your words WERE INTENDED as a threat. In your weird world, anything that disagrees with you is a lie.

[Freedom2specul8]

I was just reading the title and glancing at the last page and figured it was about JH since it's in the smokey room.

[Freedom2specul8]

sigh::: JH = JW

[xzins]

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Rn, you are better with the bible than to quote a verse without its context.

A remembrance....PAST....We are looking BACK IN TIME at the sacrifice.

If you missed that part, fine, you missed it. But if you intentionally excised the remembrance part simply to make your point, then you need SERIOUSLY to consider what Bib Chr (Dan) is saying to you.

Your charge that he is an arminian is absurd and you simply know better.

[xzins]

I've always been amazed at those who can write so much. When they write to me, I just tell them I will read a few paragraphs. What I say to one I say to all: concise is nice.

These two take each statement made and meticulously answer it in excruciating detail.

There's a level at which I admire their dedication to work. But the Army Briefing training side of me wants to say what old Colonel Bill Tetu (artillery) would say: "Bullets...give me bullets. I mean bullet statements. If you can't say it in sentence then you can't say it."

[xzins]

TAking Ezek 40-48 seriously does not require believing that the Holy Spirit is a liar or that Hebrews is uninspired. Both things can not be true..either Christ completed his work or not which is it?

Your not listening, Rn. I didn't say TAKING EZEK 40-48 MY WAY. I said TAKING EZEK 40-48 SERIOUSLY.

You must be able to explain Ezek 40-48 and do so in a SERIOUS manner. Therefore, WHEN in history/future do you think the Ezek 40-48 Temple appeared/appears?

[Wrigley]

I've always been amazed at those who can write so much. When they write to me, I just tell them I will read a few paragraphs. What I say to one I say to all: concise is nice.

I honestly think this is where you are missing the point. I have read both Jean and Starwind's posts. The detail is important. You might get more out of it if you read them. Shoot, you may even see that Jean is right.

[xzins]

....You are serving a God that is not sovereign in this Dan..your God has not made up his mind as he screwed up to begin with and now has to backtract..in short you are no Calvinist brother you are an Arminian..

Does this mean that one's eschatology determines if they're calvinist or arminian?

It is an attack on a brother who will immediately turn to me an tell me that my arminianist tendencies are unbiblical. He doesn't waver. Nor does Drstevej. They haven't changed their calvinist position at all.

That has to be one of the few most puzzling comments I've heard on Free Republic Religion Forum.

[xzins]

how did you find out it was banned. what got it banned? Anyone know?

Ambassador wasn't a pal, but he/she was a conservative, imho.

[Matchett-PI]

"You just admitted what Corin had always maintained: your words WERE INTENDED as a threat."

Thanks for providing more evidence that the perceptions of the emotionally unstable are unreliable. As I have shown, you have a reputation for misrepresenting what others have written.

Those without malicious intention, and those capable of being objective are easily able to arrive at an accurate conclusion about what the_doc intended after reading what he wrote. Here it is again:

The_doc: "I only threatened to expose him for his repeated lying. Evidently there was substance in my charges .. because he promptly left FR."
2692 posted on 12/17/2002 4:47 PM EST by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2600 | View Replies

the_doc to Corin: "You [Corin] actually insinuated that your family had been threatened in an e-mail (from RnMomof7). Even Dr.Brian concluded from your posts about her e-mail that that's precisely what had happened. But this was not the case."

"In my subsequent e-mail to you, I pointed this out and said I was __prepared to go public with the details__ (since RnMomof7 had sent me a copy of what she had actually said). That's when you left FR. Proverbs 28:1"
2701 posted on 12/17/2002 5:12 PM EST by the_doc

[xzins]

Wrigs, They can give it to me a few paragraphs per post as easily as they can as a treatise in one post.

There's too much going on in one paragraph to think you're going to get by even that little bit of info without needing some questions answered.

People (except for Hamlet perhaps) don't speak in monologues to others if they expect understanding to take place.