Posted on 11/14/2002 11:56:40 AM PST by xzins
|
1 And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
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.
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
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.
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,
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,
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
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,
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
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.
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. 6. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1940). 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. 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. 25. Herman A. Hoyt, "A Dispensational Premillennial Response," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 193. 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. 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.
|
So Jesus couldn't do miracles.
was limited in his divinity, while in the flesh, but he was God nonetheless.....he gave up something of this divinity on purpose....He gave up divinty for us
Which is it: he gave up part of it or all of it? In a post you haven't answered, scripture makes clear that God cannot change. He cannot stop being God.
This of course leads to the inescapable conclusion that he is something less than he was before his incarnation.
That is your logical conclusion. As far as Scripture is concerned he as God and man in one person, risen from the dead, having accomplished our salvation and is something more, not less.
Of course, all my arguments are completely devoid of logic, fact and scripture. I realize that this is all tradition rot and you are one of the favored few who correctly reads the bible.
The official statment of beliefs for the United Church of God can be found here.
I attend services with the United Church of God because their doctrinal content is the closest to the the teachings of Christ and the early church according to scripture. When God called me and I became a Christian I became aware that following Christ as closely as possible is what a loving son does to honor his father.
My conclusion is subject to change based on logic. I'll give you the point that animals have souls. Do you say that man has nothing new in his creation to set him apart from animals?
I'll continue my argument on trinity. Light is a trinity, the parallelism goes like this:
Infrared/ Visible/ UltravioletFather/ Son/ Spirit
I Jn 1:5 "...God is light ..."
I took this "out of context" to show scripture that allows us to make the comparison. A detailed study of light reveals much of God's character. It shows how the Triune God can be one entity and yet have different characteristics. The absolute properties of light are the source of our standards of measure. All other things become relative. Even in a totally dark room the infrared(source of heat and communication) light allows us to see with proper equipment. Christ, the visible spectrum appears the most obvious. The Spirit, ultraviolet, allows us to see qualities not otherwise seen.
Something you might not expect, the particle/wave proprerties seem to show that as you move toward gamma rays and beyond light takes on more and more particle properties. (Interesting). With the dopler effect(differential speed between you and a light source), any frenquency can appear to be any other frequency.
"I would submit that the number 2 is stamped all over man. Two sexes, two arms, two legs, two halves of the brain, two hands, etc., two in marriage, Adam and Eve were two. All of humanity screams binary."
But you say; God made light on the first day that makes for a number one. Or the source of light for the natural world(sun, moon, stars - a trinity) was the subject of the fourth day, the fourth seal, the fourth trumpet, the forth vial, must be a number four.
You say that creation is binary. No, the other numbers don't replace the three, they are added to it.
You stopped at "two" and missed the three, the four, imprinted on man's heart, the fives on his hands and feet, and how many other of the myriad parallelisms that God has given us in his work. God not only chose "light" to for a parable, he created it for a parable.
1 Cor 14:10 "There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification."
"The invisible things of him ... are clearly seen"
Awesome
Obviously he could and does. He created the universe, he knows things about it that we haven't even begun to understand.
Which is it: he gave up part of it or all of it? In a post you haven't answered, scripture makes clear that God cannot change. He cannot stop being God.
Of course he can't. Which is why I say he never stopped. But he can and did change his nature as the ultimate sacrifice for us. To answer this verse:
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
If you want to read this as saying that Christ could not go from spirit, to flesh, to spirit again then you are also forced to use it to say that Christ could not go from spirit, to flesh, to glorified flesh.
Actually literally it means what it says. The writer of Hebrews wrote it long after Christ's death. So Christ to him was the same yesterday, today and forever. He is eternal in all three time references. If he meant far back into eternity a more appropriate word would have been "palai", as used in Hebrews 1:1 and which is translated as "in time past" and usually means back into ancient times.
No, humans have the spirit of man according to scripture. This is the spirit that gives us intellect, thought and reason. It's what separates us from the animals:
Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Infrared/ Visible/ Ultraviolet>
Father/ Son/ Spirit
I Jn 1:5 "...God is light ..."
I've heard this argument used before. The problem I have is that the infared, visible and ultaviolte light are all part of the much broader electromagnetic spectrum (as you alluded to) that includes radio waves, x-rays, gamma rays, microwaves, etc.
This isn't evidence of a trinitarian pattern, but I will allow that it could be evidence of an even more profound pattern.
You say that creation is binary. No, the other numbers don't replace the three, they are added to it. You stopped at "two" and missed the three, the four, imprinted on man's heart, the fives on his hands and feet, and how many other of the myriad parallelisms that God has given us in his work. God not only chose "light" to for a parable, he created it for a parable.
It's true that there are other numbers associated with the human body but binary is the most prelevent. I think he created us with 10 toes and 10 fingers to represent the 10 commandments. Four chambers of the heart as you said. Five fingers on a hand. I don't know...but can you think of anything on the body which is three?
Was His name Jesus when He created the Universe? Jesus was a man in human sinful flesh...is that who created everything?
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
The writer of Hebrews wrote it long after Christ's death. So Christ to him was the same yesterday, today and forever. He is eternal in all three time references
No Doug God was revealing Himself to the elect
Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
That was written long before Jesus it is an eternal truth
He emptied himself of what? His divinity? What else? He took the form of a slave, us who are slaves to sin, and came in our likeness. He of course was not a slave to sin because he did not sin.
Doug, Doug, Doug...what are we going to do with you? Jesus emptied Himself of His Glory, not His Divinity! When did He get the Glory back? Two times: On the Mount of Transfiguration, and when He was resurrected. How can you miss this stuff?
He was still God while in the flesh, but he did not have an eternal substance, he did not have a spirit body for want of a better word
There you go again...you've got this big hangup about spiritual bodies and "spiritual substance". You've just got to make this either/or distinction between a body of flesh and bone, and a "spiritual body". I've explained it to you before...scripture says flesh and BLOOD cannot inherit the Kingdom, but it says an incorruptible body can. Would you agree that Jesus' body, whatever it is, is incorruptible? Yes? Good. Scripture says (despite you attempts to say it doesn't), that Jesus has a flesh and bone body since the Resurrection. Jesus said so Himself. Now, if Jesus' body is incorruptible, and it's flesh and bone, then the spiritual body you keep howling about is an incorruptible, flesh and bone body. And Christians get one just like it when Jesus comes back. What possible problem can you have with that? Oh, I know, you'd rather be a ghost....
A thick head and a hard heart is closer to the truth....
Don't break you arm patting yourself on the back!
I have no idea what you're driving at here.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
The writer of Hebrews wrote it long after Christ's death. So Christ to him was the same yesterday, today and forever. He is eternal in all three time references
No Doug God was revealing Himself to the elect
I already know that you don't like to believe the bible, but let me say this again. This time I'll use really big letters. And then you tell me WHY you don't believe the scripture:
The word YESTERDAY is translated from:
chthes. It means (this is another way of saying "WHAT THE WRITER INTENDED TO SAY") "Of uncertain derivation; “yesterday”; by extension in time past or hitherto: - yesterday.".
It is used 3 times in the new testament. Each time it's meaning is clearly YESTERDAY.
Now there is another WORD that is USED to describe a time period MUCH LONGER than yesterday. It is used in Hebrews 1:1.
Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
The word translated "in time past" is:
palai. It's meaning is "formerly, or (relatively) sometime since; (elliptically as adjective) ancient: - any while, a great while ago, (of) old, in time past."
This word is used 6 times in the new testament and it always means a LONG TIME AGO.
Now let's see your evaluation of this verse. Do you have one or is it just your intention to pop in here, insult me, and then leave once again?
Oh. Exactly what is glory? Can you please describe it to me.
I've explained it to you before...scripture says flesh and BLOOD cannot inherit the Kingdom, but it says an incorruptible body can. Would you agree that Jesus' body, whatever it is, is incorruptible? Yes? Good. Scripture says (despite you attempts to say it doesn't), that Jesus has a flesh and bone body since the Resurrection. Jesus said so Himself. Now, if Jesus' body is incorruptible, and it's flesh and bone, then the spiritual body you keep howling about is an incorruptible, flesh and bone body.
Boy howdy. You are one smart guy. I wonder why Saint Paul was so stupid. Can you believe this, Saint Paul (I guess he's some guy that wrote some books), says this:
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Hah. Stupid Paul! He actually thinks the church is Christ's flesh and bone body! Lol...I'm glad we have all have you here fool to tell us what Paul really meant.
Easton's bible Dictionary defines glory as the following:
Splendour, brightness, majesty (Gen. 45:13; Isa. 4:5; Acts 22:11; 2 Cor. 3:7); of Jehovah (Isa. 59:19; 60:1; 2 Thess. 1:9).
The glorious moral attributes, the infinite perfections of God (Isa. 40:5; Acts 7:2; Rom. 1:23; 9:23; Eph. 1:12). Jesus is the "brightness of the Father's glory" (Heb. 1:3; John 1:14; 2:11).
In other words, that splendor of His Majesty, His very appearance, a Holiness so pure it shines like the brightest light. It is what would consume a sinner who tried to stand in the presence of God. It is what turned Moses' hair white on Mt. Sinai...shall I go on, or do you get the picture?
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Hah. Stupid Paul! He actually thinks the church is Christ's flesh and bone body! Lol...I'm glad we have all have you here fool to tell us what Paul really meant.
No, Stupid Doug...the passage is speaking about how husbands are to treat their own wives, and compares this to Christ's love for the Church. Paul is speaking figuratively here and you know it. You are no more Jesus' elbow than I am. Christians are joined with Christ in a very similar fashion to the joining of husband and wife, in the sense that Christians have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them, and they are in Christ. It's a spiritual union. Paul's use of flesh and bone here is clearly to drive the point home that we are joined to Christ. You don't seriously think that somehow Christians are going to all meld into one body to be Christ's Bride, do you?
You ridicule that which you refuse to understand, Doug, because if you accepted the truth of Jesus' Resurrection Body, then the rest of your theology would tumble like a house of cards. You know it, I know it, and everyone esle here knows it.
Ah, yes, Doug, the language expert who despises education, but somehow is so smart he is going to give us a lesson in Greek....LOL
Doug, it is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt....
Is Jesus God? Was he the same when He was on earth or was he no longer God when he was here? IF He was no longer God when he was here...that scripture was a lie
It is you that deny the bible not me doug
he shows himself lost and not wanting to be found a reprobate
It's a sobering thing when someone finds out that what they've believed in is a lie, and a series of lies. Very disillusioning. They have two choices: face up to it, repent and embrace the Truth, or go into denial. One or the other. One leads to life, the other to death.
We've shown Doug the Truth, but until now, his deception has put him in denial. I pray the eyes of his understanding are opened, and the spirit of deception is bound, that he can see and hear, and turn from deception to Truth.
The division of the electromagnitic field is not exactly arbitrary. I see three sections with subdivisions because I see a triune God. You have listed seven divisions, splitting the high and the low into three each, maybe there is something there after all the rainbow is assoiated with the number seven, and there are a lot of sevens in scripture. Seven completes the series, and is often known as the perfect number, but just as seven is special in scripture so are the other numbers, and God put meaning onto each one.
"I don't know...but can you think of anything on the body which is three?
Good question. The answer is no. I cannot think of any. I'm not saying there is none, I just cannot think of any. It may have something to do with the meaning of the number three. The meaning of the numbers comes by looking at the way God uses them. Three in scripture occurs many times in connection with the spirit. Three is also assoiated with the tabrenacle, temple, and New Jerusalam, because they are cubes. It speaks of manifestation and resurrection also. As with all symbols, understanding the real thing makes the symbol easy to understand. When we speak of the father and son in relation to the numbers 1 and 2, we have an easy picture which we can put into words, but the spirit is much more difficult in these matters. Coming up with words the explain it is not easy. This makes understanding the symbols even more difficult, but I am convinced that they are not outside of our grasp.
For this reason, you should not be suprised that the number two is more pronounced on men in the natual world. We are closely assoiated with Christ, the second person of the god head.
The three is shrouded in mystery. How the spirit is related to the rest of "us" is really not obvious, at least not to me, but I submit that the study of light will yeild fruit. I do not see splitting the spectrum into just two parts.
Oh I get the picture. So how does Christ obtain his glory? What makes Christ glorious?
No, Stupid Doug...the passage is speaking about how husbands are to treat their own wives, and compares this to Christ's love for the Church. Paul is speaking figuratively here and you know it.
I know that it's incredibly sad if you think Paul is speaking figuratively. Christ's physical body IS the church because Christ is a spirit inhabiting all of us in his church. You said it yourself:
YOU:"in the sense that Christians have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them, "
It's not "sense". Christians really DO have Christ, the spirit, living in us. WE ARE Christ's physical body on earth.
Paul's use of flesh and bone is clearly to drive home the idea that Christ has returned to his divine spiritual nature and that his physical body today is the flesh and bones of his followers.
I know you hate the bible, but let's see how many people in the bible disagree with you:
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, an innocent person for the guilty, so that he could bring you to God. He was put to death in the sphere of the flesh but was made alive in the sphere of the spirit,(ISV)
Look. Here's Peter. He thinks Christ is in the sphere of the spirit now. He was flesh. He is spirit.
1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
Look. It's the spirit of Christ once again. And it's IN them. You know, the flesh and bone bodies of believers
Phi 1:19 For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,
Look. Here's Paul. He's talking about the spirit of Jesus Christ.
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Look. Here's Christ in us. If we are to believe your theory Christs flesh and bone body resides in our flesh and bone bodies.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Golly. This is getting tedious isn't it? Trying to teach you about Christ is like trying to teach a blind man what color is. There is that spirit of Christ again living in that "figurative" body of flesh and bones that is the church.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:
Look. Here is Christ living in Paul once again. How did Jesus cram that flesh and bone body into Paul's flesh and bone body?
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Look. Here is Paul referring once again to the "figurative" body of Christ.
1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Look. Here's Paul once again refuting your silly headed idea that the church is not "really" the body of Christ.
Nearly the whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 12
Paul goes to great lengths to explain to his flock that they really ARE the body of Christ.
1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
Gee. There it is again. Funny isn't it?
Rom 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Again.
So you see verse after verse after verse after verse refutes your idea that the church isn't "really" the body of Christ. It refutes your idea that Christ is made today of flesh and bones. Peter and Paul say you're wrong. They say the flesh and bone body of Christ is the church. Yet you WILL NOT listen to them. You listen to other men.
Oh. Did I do something wrong with Hebrews 13:8 in the post above? Did I lie about what any of the words are? Are they actually listed in the concordance? Are there actual definitions? Do the words mean what I say they meant in the other passages? Look them up for yourself. Tell me how and why the words used don't mean what they say.
Doug, it is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt....
You are certainly proving that point. :-)
Since you've shifted to a different piece of scripture to try and justify your viewpoint without refuting my comments on Hebrews 13:8 should i take it that you agree with my reading on Hebrews 13:8. If you disagree please give me your reading so that at least I know you do more than just cut, paste and insult.
God bless you Terry. Whether you realize it or not you're doing the Lord's work whenever you make comments like this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.