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.
|
I'll agree with that 100%.
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.
And God bless you for attempting to share what you think is the truth. I'm sure that will count for something in the kingdom of God.
Because He's God, Doug. Or don't you believe that? Christ doesn't have to obtain glory, He IS Glorious. It was His Glory that He set aside when He took on human flesh, NOT His Divinity. Jesus said He had Glory with the Father before the world was:
John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
You tell me, was Jesus Divine when He was on Earth? Was He the Son of God? Did He work miracles? Can an ordinary man work miracles on his own?
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.
Not so fast Doug...We are not flesh and bone, we are flesh and blood. Jesus made that distinction Himself, and Paul reinforced it. I have shown this to you many times but you refuse to believe it. The flesh and blood body is corruptible, and cannot inherit The Kingdom. The flesh and bone body, like the one Jesus has, was raised incorruptible, and can inherit the Kingdom of God. We will have bodies just like Jesus when He comes, because our bodies will be changed to be like His:
Philippians 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
Oh, but I keep forgetting....you think He is a ghost....
nobdysfool:"in the sense that Christians have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them, "
Doug: It's not "sense". Christians really DO have Christ, the spirit, living in us. WE ARE Christ's physical body on earth.
You don't understand plain English, do you? The word "sense" refers back to or compares the following statement with the preceding one. I said that Christians REALLY DO have Christ, by the Holy Spirit, living in them, and that was the meaning of what Paul was saying when he called the church the Body of Christ. But you must understand that it has a corporate meaning, not an individual meaning. It is the Church, or assembly, that is the Body of Christ, not individuals. I am not Christ. You are not Christ. You totally miss Paul's meaning. Jesus lives within us by the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself is seated at the right hand of the Father. He lives in us by the Holy Spirit, another proof that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead.
You're trying to say that the Spirit of Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Jesus has a glorified spiritual body made of flesh and bone, incorruptible, and he sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven. It is the Holy Spirit that lives in believers, and seals them in Christ. Since the Holy Spirit is God, and Christ is God, it is absolutely accurate to say that Christ lives within us BY the Holy Spirit. The word also says that we are seated with Christ in the heavenlies. The Word says we are in Christ. Are you saying we're inside His body? How can that be, seeing we are here and He is there? Oh, I know....it's speeer-i-chool...Man, are you ever confused!
The translation you quoted for 1 Peter 3:18 actually denies that Christ rose in the Flesh, the way it reads. I don't know what version the ISV is, but you can keep it, it isn't accurate, at least not in that verse. You quoted it because it seems to reinforce your twisted, heretical view.
I know you hate the bible, but let's see how many people in the bible disagree with you:
Doug, that is a lie and you know it. Don't you EVER accuse me of that again. I love the Word of God, and I will not allow you or anyone else to say that I don't. That's just plain evil. I rebuke you in the Name of Jesus for saying that.
You are lost Doug, and the sad part is, you don't even know it. You deny the physical resurrection of Christ, you deny the Holy Spirit is God, and you have denied the divinity of Christ while He was on earth. All heresy, all grounds for disfellowship and excommunication in most churches. We have tried time and time again to reason with you to show you the Truth, and you refuse to be taught, you refuse to listen, but instead keep spewing your heresy, lies and denial of truth. Your interpretation of scripture is false, and a stench in the nostrils of any true Christian. Repent before it's too late, and you are brought into judgement for your heresy by God.
No, I think it's laughable that you would say that you find HWA's lack of education an admirable trait, elevating his teachings because of that, and then turn around and try to explain Greek to us with a concordance.
Doug: Ah don't know a lick o' Greek, but Ah got me one o' them thar concordances, so ah reckon ah can cypher it out, an' git the rest o' y'all ejumacated...LOL
nobdysfool: Doug, it is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt....
Doug: You are certainly proving that point. :-)
Hardly...I'm watching the master of that little trick right here....
I asked "What gives him glory...why is he glorious?"
You answered "because he's God."
You're original explanation of what Christ emptied himself of in Phillipians 2:7 was his "glory". Meaning that he had no glory while he was Jesus? Correct?
If he's glorious because he's God, and he emptied himself of his glory are you now saying that he wasn't God when he was Jesus?
I honestly don't understand your position.
Not so fast Doug...We are not flesh and bone, we are flesh and blood.
The only thing you have to look at is this: I used a bunch of scripture to support my viewpoint that Christ has a spiritual body and that his physical body today are his church, the believers who have the spirit of Christ.
You responded with one piece of scripture that could just as easily support my view and then 3 or 4 paragraphs of your opinions mixed in with various insults.
Exactly why should I believe you?
Doug, that is a lie and you know it. Don't you EVER accuse me of that again. I love the Word of God, and I will not allow you or anyone else to say that I don't. That's just plain evil. I rebuke you in the Name of Jesus for saying that.
And I rebuke you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for calling me a "fool", a "heretic", "not a Christian", a liar, "a deceived, reprobate, foolish and unsaved heathen", a blasphemer of the holy spirit, a follower of Satan, hellbound, thicked headed, hard hearted, stupid and whatever other myriad insults you've thrown at me.
So again I ask you. Do you think I made a mistake in my usage of the concordance? Was there anything in the language used in Hebrews 13:8 that makes your reading different from mine? Do the words actually mean what I cut and pasted from the concordance? Was I correct in the number of the other verses that use similar words? Was I correct in that Hebews 1:1 uses a word that expresses a much longer time frame than "yesterday". Do you have an alternate explanation of this passage?
If you don't provide one than I'm forced to conclude that you agree with exactly how it's written and how I explained it.
You really don't understand plain English, do you? For your statement to be true, His Glory would have to be what makes Him God. He's Glorious because He's God, not God because He's Glorious. You have turned around your own statement and tried to make it look like that is what I was saying. Let me make it plain: Jesus, the Eternal Glorious Son of God, set aside His glory to take on human flesh, and took His Glory back up after His resurrection. Is that clear? Or do I need to use words of one syllable?
The only thing you have to look at is this: I used a bunch of scripture to support my viewpoint that Christ has a spiritual body and that his physical body today are his church, the believers who have the spirit of Christ.
What you did was prove that you do not understand the meaning of the Body of Christ as it relates to the Church, and you are denying the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus. I'm not going to say any more, because you obviously don't understand what I've said already about it. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who refuses to listen.
And I rebuke you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for calling me a "fool", a "heretic", "not a Christian", a liar, "a deceived, reprobate, foolish and unsaved heathen", a blasphemer of the holy spirit, a follower of Satan, hellbound, thicked headed, hard hearted, stupid and whatever other myriad insults you've thrown at me.
I have called you what the Bible calls those who willfully distort, deny, and attempt to obscure the Truth. It has been shown you time and time again, not only by me, but by others here. You accused me of something which is absolutely untrue. I love the Word of God. It is life to me.
I'm through with you, Doug. I will not waste my time anymore casting pearls before swine. Take that any way you want. Your judgment is on your own head. I am clean of any responsibility for your error. I have shown you the Truth, and you reject it. I will continue to pray for you, but I will not speak with you any longer. Do not post to me again.
One last answer: I will not endorse anything you say, because you are a heretic. Using a concordance does not mean you understand greek. You don't. You're just cutting and pasting, by your own admission. Anybody can do that, but it doesn't mean they're right. I'm not going to let you claim that I agree with you about anything, until you come to the knowledge of the Truth, and repent of your heresies. Do not post to me again.
Once again I'm not clear. You said that he emptied himself of his glory when he became flesh. That means he was no longer glorious when he was flesh. This denotes (in your mind) that whatever it is that gave him glory, or that makes him glorious, was missing while he was in the flesh. You said that being God made him glorious. How is it, using your own words, that he was still God while he was Jesus? I've told you that I believe he was God made flesh.
What you did was prove that you do not understand the meaning of the Body of Christ as it relates to the Church, and you are denying the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus.
What I did was show you many pieces of scripture that reflect the mind of Peter and Paul, authors of that very same scripture. Their understanding matches my understanding that the body of Christ is the physical church on earth today and the spirit of Christ is present in the body of Christ.
Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
If you read the verses prior to this in 1 Corinthains 12:27 you will see without a doubt that Paul considers the church to be Christ's physical body on earth. Without a doubt.
If you then couple that with:
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam a quickening spirit.
And then couple that with verses like this:
1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify...
that it make it clear that Christ lives in us.
So once again I can clearly make the case that the bible supports my viewpoint. You did not or can not use the bible to make your case.
I'm not going to say any more, because you obviously don't understand what I've said already about it. I'm not going to waste my time with someone who refuses to listen.
I understand what you're trying to say. I do not accept it because what you are saying is not based on the bible as I've shown you.
1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
Here is another passage that is a test of the spirit:
1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
I say and affirm that Jesus Christ is the Lord. He is my Lord. Jesus is Lord and he is my Lord. Jesus Christ has supreme authority over me and my life. My will is the will of Christ.
So once again I've shown you that scripture affirms that the spirit in me is in fact God's Holy Spirit. This is why your protestations to the contrary fall on deaf ears.
My God bless you Woody for your zeal. I'm truly sorry that you do not believe the bible on this.
Actually it would be "father, son, drstevej, doug, ccwoody, the_doc,rnmomof7, etc etc."...all given God's Holy Spirit.
1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
1Co 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
If you like I will consider myself the toenail clipping on the left little toe of the body of Christ. Don't even think of replying with the part of the body I know you really want me to be...
"1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:"
Ethan: This has been addressed. To deny the true, actual bodily Resurrection as a present reality is the spirit of antichrist. DouglasKC does not believe in Jesus' present bodily Incarnation, His true and literal Resurrection and conquering of the grave in a body of flesh and bone.
He stated I am a liar and added that I personally lied to each person on the forum, or, if I am not a liar, I am essentially stupid, because I pointed out his errors of grammar and word usage in blindly following the traditions of Armstrongism.
Fair enough. Let's look at the facts:
The meaning and context of the use of Soma in John 2 is not about the "church" (i.e., the metaphorical use of the word in reference to the "body of Christ"; e.g., Eph. 1:23; Col. 1:18), but it directly and contextually refers to the actual body of Jesus Christ that would be hung on the Cross and resurrected.
These are facts. I am not lying and I know precisely of what I speak. Any fair and proper utilization of reputable, scholarly Biblical references will substantiate this fact.
When the disciples saw Jesus after the resurrection they mistakenly thought they saw a spirit but Jesus corrected them. The text is explicit:
"But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:37-39, NASB).
I further provided reference to the definitive, landmark work on the subject, not merely a pet favorite of mine or a fringe work singled out to support a false position—the definitive, landmark work on the subject. The entire book deals in a scholarly manner on the definitional and contextual usage of the word Soma (Gr., "body") in the Greek New Testament, as well as its usage in the contemporary literature of the time. Robert Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology. (Cambridge University Press, 1976).
The word Soma in the context of John 2:18-22:
"Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" But He was speaking of the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken" (John 2:19-22, NASB).
Previously, "DouglasKC" (who can't read Greek) claimed that the use of the word soma may be used of the "body of Christ," and therefore since it may be used in such metaphorical usage it therefore didn't pertain to His bodily resurrection of flesh and bone.
This not only does violence to the context of the passages in relation to the bodily Resurrection of Christ (i.e., John 2:18-22; cf. Luke 24:37-39), but also displays a gross ignorance of the Greek and the meaning of the word Soma in the immediate context of John 2.
The word "body" (Soma) may be used metaphorically, and such metaphoric usage is found when discussing the Church as a group, "the body of Christ" (e.g., Eph. 1:23; Col. 1:18).
However, the entire point of John 2—spelled out in explicit detail—is the fact of Jesus' body (Gr., soma) being Resurrected from the grave. Jesus said if they destroy it (His body) that He would raise it back up again. John 2 is not about the metaphorical use of the word in relation to the Church, "the body of Christ" (e.g., Eph. 1:23; Col. 1:18, 22, 24). Its direct and exclusive context is Jesus' physical body being killed and His promise that He would raise it back again. The discples—after the Resurrection had taken place—remembered His promise (v. 22), and the passage explicitly states "but He was speaking of His body" (v. 21).
The historical fact is that the Biblical text explicitly presents the Resurrection body of Jesus Christ to be the raising of His dead body back to life. The theological fact is that the Biblical text explicitly presents the denial of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ to be a denial of the faith itself and is the mark of antichrist. It's a serious matter.
It is not enough to concede that Jesus was a man prior to His resurrection. According to the Bible a person must confess that His body was truly and literally Resurrected and that He truly and literally has a body of flesh and bone, a true raising from the dead, a true conquering of the death of the entire Person.
The word Soma in its primary definition and, most importantly, in the immediate context of John 2, refers to a physical form and in every single instance in the Gospels of Christ's resurrection appearances they are physical, bodily appearances.
"The "body" is not the man, for he himself can exist apart from his "body," 2 Cor. 12:2-3. The "body" is an essential part of the man and therefore the redeemed are not perfected till the resurrection, Heb. 11:40; no man in his final state will be without his "body," John 5:28-29; Rev. 20:13". The word is also used for physical nature, as distinct from pneuma, "the spiritual nature" (W.E. Vine, Merril F. Unger, William White, soma in Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), NT section, p. 72.
William Lane Craig, one of the foremost experts on the historicity and nature of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ alive today (B.A., Wheaton College; M.A., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Ph.D., University of Birmingham England; D.Theol., Ludwig-Maximilliéns-Universität, München, Germany) stated:
But what does he [Paul] mean by the words translated here as "physical/spiritual"? The word translated "physical" literally means "soul-ish." Now obviously, Paul does not mean that our present body is made out of soul. Rather, by this word he means "dominated" by or pertaining to human nature." Similarly, when he says the resurrection body will be "spiritual," he does not mean "made out of spirit." Rather, it means "dominated by or oriented toward the Spirit." It is the same sense of the word "spiritual" as when we say someone is a spiritual person. In fact, look at the way Paul uses exactly those same words in 1 Corinthians 2:14-15:The natural man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things but is himself to be judged by no one.
Natural man does not mean "physical man," but "man oriented toward human nature." And spiritual man does not mean "intangible, invisible man" but "man oriented toward the Spirit." The contrast is the same in 1 Corinthians 15. The present, earthly body will be freed from its slavery to sinful human nature and become instead fully empowered and directed by God's Spirit. Thus, Paul's doctrine of the resurrection body implies a physical resurrection. (William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith—Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1984), p. 286.
The notion of a "spirit being" resurrection is completely alien to both the Old and New Testaments (and the word "resurrection" itself). Resurrection refers to the raising of the dead body back to life. The oldest book of the Bible presents the doctrine of the bodily resurrection:
"I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end He will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God" (Job 19:25-26; cf. Isa. 26:19; Dan. 12:2-3; Ezekiel 37:1-12).
The significance of this ancient doctrinal belief in the book of Job cannot be underestimated. There is a coherent, unified doctrinal witness from the most ancient times, to the New Testament, and for 2,000 years of the Christian faith. The Resurrection is the resurrection of the body, the body of flesh and bone.
"It is generally accepted that Jewish beliefs about the afterlife included the concept of a physical resurrection of the body. This involved a continuity with the body that a person had before death. Jewish New Testament scholar Pinchas Lapide has examined the various schools of Jewish thought during and prior to New Testament times, and all schools agreed in holding to a notion of physical resurrection. The Sadducees denied the resurrection altogether, but even they agreed that if there was a resurrection, it would be bodily" (J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City — A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987), pp. 165-166.
As noted elsewhere, the concept of a resurrection of the body that was a "spiritual resurrection" is on par to arguing for a "square circle."
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a body of flesh and bone and not a spirit:
"But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:37-39, NASB).
The text is clear and a real case of cognitive dissonance is being exhibited by "DouglasKC"—he knows what Luke 24:37-39 says but he is wedded to the religious tradition of Armstrongism and cannot let the text speak for itself in its normal context and grammar, and therefore violate the grid of Armstrongism. He operates in an isolated box that has no interaction with serious Biblical and linguistic scholarship, for to do so would destroy the artificially put together religion of Armstrongism.
A great irony of his (and Armstrongism's ) claim is that the rejection of the bodily resurrection comes from pagan Greek philosophy, as they [the pagan Greeks] considered such a thing to be absurd, and not only absurd, to be something not to be desired—exactly as "DouglasKC" and Armstrongism consider it.
Douglas has expressed that the very idea of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ is essentially repugnant. This pagan view and repudiation of the concept of a bodily resurrection is discussed in Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection. New York: Doubleday, 1984).
Douglas essentially stated that even if the bodily Resurrection of Christ were true, such an idea should not be desire to be true as the concept of a bodily (Soma, material body) resurrection is deemed as undesirable. Douglas' view (Armstrongism) is directly from paganism, not Biblical theology.
The pagan Celsus wrote:
"The soul may have everlasting life, but corpses, as Heraclitus said, 'ought to be thrown away as worse than dung'". Plutarch similarly said it was "against nature" to "send bodies to heaven" and that only pure souls "cast no shadows" (i.e., had no bodies) and he even rejected accounts of bodily translations on this basis. "The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the immortal part could ascend to the gods" (cited in Perkins, p. 73).
Likewise, Plato viewed the ideal for man is the end of "corporeal defilement" and an existence as wholly spirit (documented in Murray Harris, Raised Immortal. Eerdmans, 1983), p. 116.
Armstrong promoted a non-christian concept that was foreign to the Bible and firmly based upon Greek pagan philosophy. To deny the true humanity and Incarnation of Jesus Christ, before or after the Resurrection, is to be the deceiver and the antichrist (1 John 4:2). To deny His bodily Resurrection, the fact that He truly was raised from the grave in a body of flesh and bone (Luke 24:37-39), is a complete denial of the faith once for all delivered (Jude 3) and is demonic.
Douglas, if you understood the sovereignty of God, including the docrine of reprobation, you would understand what is going on in your soul.
Douglas, as far as we all are concerned, this is game, set, and match. Your false doctrines have been weighed in the balance, and found wanting. Repent of your heresies. They are a stench and an abomination to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ and await His soon Coming.
Amen..Excellent post
And how ironic is it that it is Armstrong (and his spin-off organizations like the UCG) who accuse the historic, orthodox (Scriptural) Christian religion of exactly what they are guilty of; basing it's beliefs on "pagan philosophy"!!! LOL :
"It is time to strip off the scales of PAGANISM from our eyes [regarding THE FALSE CONCEPTS historic Christian religion holds about heaven, hell, etc.) and look at the plain truth revealed in the Bible." [Page 6 of the Armstrong booklet entitled, "The Three Resurrections" - 1973-1974 Ambassador College]
Thanks for the great post, Ethan! It really does settle the matter."
As an aside (in case anyone missed it), in addition to so many great posts by certain others, I think "Frumanchu" made some very good points regarding the Holy Spirit HERE, too.
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.