Capital idea! I've been feeling a bit on the defensive myself, and thought maybe I'd just suggest a few forced interpretations for you to explain their obvious natural hermeneutic basis. Here they are.
Rev 20:1-3 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:1-3 that even though Satan is bound with a great chain, shut, sealed, and locked in an abyss (depthless, i.e. (specially) (infernal) "abyss":--deep, (bottomless) pit.) so he could not deceive the nations any longer, that crafty old dragon outwitted God's angel and can still be "on the playing field" but deceiving only gentiles, but even so his binding is not necessarily total.
Jean Chauvin #566 Therefore, it is just as reasonable to limit this binding of Satan to the stated "effect" which is already present in the text. We don't need to go any further than what is stated in the text. The text does not lead us to a necessary conclusion that Satan "has been removed from the playing field". Since we know that the binding is effective to keep Satan from deceiving the gentiles, we can understand that the descriptive words such as "chained" and "cast" are to communicate the absoluteness of Satan's new found inability to deceive the gentiles.
Jean Chauvin #690 Now, I have presented a Biblical argument [in post #593] as to the fact that since we can understand that the binding of demons spoken of in 2 Peter 2 is ~not~ total and complete, then we can also conclude that the binding of Satan (which is described using extremely similar language) is not ~necessarily~ to be understood as being complete/total.
Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:4 that the "beheaded souls" are not "physically dead" but rather they must be the "alive in the body" type of souls, who though slain for their testimony in Rev 6:9 and refused to worship the beast or take his mark they were still victorious (and alive in the body) souls in heaven in Rev 15:1-2 and were not killed physically. And so because they were never physically dead, they did not live again, they just continued their existing physical life spans for a thousand years with Christ, but came to life spiritually instead because (I guess) their testimony and rejecting the beast just wasn't good enough.
Jean Chauvin #112 "It is not reasonable to conclude that people who are alive in the body are 'resurrected from the ~dead~."
Jean Chauvin #136 I'm asking how living people who have never ever died are supposedly resurrected from the ~DEAD~?
Jean Chauvin #1404 You are forgetting those John sees in vs 4 who are currently alive in their bodies:
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [Jean Chauvin's bold emphasis]
Jean Chauvin #1927: You are correct that [John] doesn't use ["alive in their bodies"], but you should also note that neither does John actually "identify" any of these people as "physically dead". On the other hand, there is good reason to conclude that those who did not worship the beast are alive in their bodies.
Jean Chauvin #2004: Precisely what Rev 20:4 says about both the people who have died in Christ as well as those John sees who are alive in their bodies. This is why it is improper to read the “again” into live. It isn’t there for a reason. And, according to John 11 and 1 Thess 5, it is completely improper to insist that “live” must be understood necessarily as “lived again” –especially in Rev 20:5.
Rev 20: 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
Rev 20:12-13 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.
The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on Rev 20:5 and 12-13 that 'the rest of the dead' are the gentile nations (see first forced interpretation) deceived by Satan whose limited binding now has no effect over the gentiles, which 'stand' at the white throne (alive in their bodies), but were never physically dead, just spiritually dead (because it's biblical, and I guess because they also have incredibly long life spans so they never physically die because they were not resurrected), but they are punished to remain spiritually dead forever. In fact, no physically dead people are mentioned anywhere in Rev 20 (not even the dead given up by the sea).
gdebrae #352 You posted an article about interpreting scripture which emphasized paying attention to the context. The context of the entire book of Revelation is the church. The subject matter in Rev. 20 is clearly the deceived gentile nations, not the state of Israel. The dead of verse 5 are gentiles nations. The great white throne is the judgment of gentile nations. The deceived armies satan gathers against the church (Hebrews 12:22-24) are gentile nations. All the previous references in the book of Revelation to the object of satan's hostility and war are to the church, the seed of the woman and not to Israel.
gdebrae #936 My paraphrase of vs 5 would be something like "The rest of the dead (those still deceived by satan) have no spiritual life during the accomplishment of the 1000 years." They are physically alive but spiritually dead. And when we get to vss 11-15 these physically alive but spiritually dead persons are still spirituall dead and are stand before the great white throne physically alive but spiritual dead and are judged physically alive but spiritually dead forever.
Jean Chauvin #1958 Unless you can prove that the reference to the “rest of the dead” is a reference to “physically dead” people, I would suggest that this is another of your presumptions. The notion of being “spiritually dead” is biblical. Furthermore, it notes that Rev 20:11 literally tells us that “the dead” are “standing” in front of the “Great White Throne Judgment” for judgement. Notice, also, there literally is no explicit statement declaring that the "dead are resurrected in vs 11-15. Furthermore, since we know that there will be unbelievers (spiritually dead) who are “alive in their bodies” at the Great White Throne Judgment, wouldn’t it be correct to conclude that the “dead” who are “standing” in front of the Great White Throne are actually only “spiritually dead” and not necessarily ~all~ physically dead?
Jean Chauvin #2004: Precisely what Rev 20:4 says about both the people who have died in Christ as well as those John sees who are alive in their bodies. This is why it is improper to read the “again” into live. It isn’t there for a reason. And, according to John 11 and 1 Thess 5, it is completely improper to insist that “live” must be understood necessarily as “lived again” –especially in Rev 20:5.
Jean Chauvin #2091 I can look all day long in Rev 20 for the “literal” words “the first resurrection is bodily” and I will never find it. In fact, you never even find explicit words declaring something has risen from the dead.
gdebrae #2291 Matter of fact - Rev. 20:4-6 define what the binding is about. There is a causal relationship between vs 3 and 4. Vs 1-3 see all the nations as spiritually dead as deceived by satan. His binding prevents him from deceiving the nations. The result is that some of the spiritually dead are seen sitting on thrones, living and reigning with Christ, the first and foremost resurrection. The rest of the dead (vs5) remain under satan's deception and have no spiritual life and are finally cast into the lake of fire to experience the second death. Those participating in the First Resurrection live and reign with Christ forever. This is God's final judgment about those who believe in Christ.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
Rev 20:3b until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.
Rev 20:4b and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
Rev 20:5a The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.
Rev 20: 6b and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Rev 20:7 When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison,
The Amillennialist position forces the interpretation on all six identical "thousand years" that they are not an actual real 1000 years, but rather a metaphor of an era or 'vast' time, and scripture must be diligently searched to find other scriptural definitions of "thousand years" because the usage in Rev 20 can only be symbolic. Gosh, even more symbolism is found in the thousand years of Rev 20:5a being a different thousand years than that of Rev 20:6b (yes! metaphors within metaphors!) because the tense of the verbs in the sentences change.
Jean Chauvin #1404 argues the first resurrection is 'a thousand years' that is separate and prior to reigning with Christ for 'a future thousand years':
Clearly one must have already be apart of the First Resurrection (living and reigning for a thousand years) in order to be "priests" and "reign with Christ a thousand years" (future application).
No, the grammar tells us that one must be apart of the First Resurrection in order to be apart of the future 1000 year reign in vs 6. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the First Resurrection (past tense)" The folks who have already been privy to the "First Resurrection" are the ones who shall (future tense) be preists of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years.
gdebrae #1104 there is a precedent set for the number 1000 being used to indicate a vastness. You are definitely on the right track. Ps 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." The thousand years is used here as reference to God's eternity compared to our finiteness and understanding of time.
Jean Chauvin #1131 gdebrae is correct, we are looking at the phrase "thousand years" and looking at other Scriptural uses of the phrase "thousand years" to see if we can find precedent for how Scripture uses this term.
Ya know what Jean? I'm beginning to see how xzins gets so confused. I'm perplexed myself.
But I'm sure you'll clear this up in no time and perhaps we can move on to the_doc's forced interpretation in post 848 and post 875 and post 894 and post 898 and post 965 and post 971 and post 1084 and post 1347and post 2090:
The beheading idea in Revelation 20:4 is not necessarily limiting us to physically dead Christians anyway. It definitely includes those who have died physically, certainly including literal martyrs, but the verse may very well be just borrowing a martyrdom scenario for beautiful metaphorical purposes in the vision--including metaphorical purposes involving Christians who are still physically alive!
So, what are those metaphorical purposes and what is Christ who is our spiritual head, teaching us in this metaphor of believers in Christ testifying to Him, rejecting Satan, and yet losing their metaphorical heads to an already bound Satan?
"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:
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