Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[xzins]

An Analysis of the Amillennial Interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3.

1 And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,
3 and threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he should not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time (Revelation 20:1-3).

One distinctive of amillennial theology is the belief that Satan is bound during this present age. This belief stems from an interpretation that sees the binding of Satan described in Revelation 20:1-3 as being fulfilled today. The purpose of this work is examine the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 and address the question, "Is Satan bound today?" In doing this, our evaluation will include the following: 1) a brief definition of amillennialism; 2) a look at the amillennial approach to interpreting Revelation; 3) an explanation and analysis of the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3; and 4) some concluding thoughts.

DEFINITION OF AMILLENNIALISM

Amillennialism is the view that there will be no future reign of Christ on the earth for a thousand years.¹ Instead, the thousand year reign of Christ mentioned six times in Revelation 20 is being fulfilled during the present age. According to amillennialists, the "thousand years" is not a literal thousand years but is figurative for "a very long period of indeterminate length." ² Thus the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 describes the conditions of the present age between the two comings of Christ. During this period Satan is bound (Rev. 20:1-3) and Christ's Kingdom is being fulfilled (Rev. 20:4-6).³

THE AMILLENNIAL APPROACH TO INTERPRETING REVELATION

Before looking specifically at how amillennialists interpret Revelation 20:1-3, it is important to understand how they approach the Book of Revelation. Amillennialists base their interpretation of the Book of Revelation on a system of interpretation known as progressive parallelism. This interpretive system does not view the events of Revelation from a chronological or sequential perspective but, instead, sees the book as describing the church age from several parallel perspectives that run concurrently. ⁴ Anthony Hoekema, an amillennialist, describes progressive parallelism in the following manner:

According to this view, the book of Revelation consists of seven sections which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ's first coming to the time of his second.⁵

Following the work of William Hendriksen,⁶ Hoekema believes there are seven sections of Revelation that describe the present age. These seven sections give a portrait of conditions on heaven and earth during this period between the two comings of Christ. These seven sections which run parallel to each other are chapters 1-3, 4-7, 8-11, 12-14, 15-16, 17-19 and 20-22. What is significant for our purposes is that amillennialists see Revelation 20:1 as taking the reader back to the beginning of the present age. As Hoekema states, "Revelation 20:1 takes us back once again to the beginning of the New Testament era."⁷

Amillennialists, thus, do not see a chronological connection between the events of Revelation 19:11-21 that describe the second coming of Christ, and the millennial reign discussed in Revelation 20:1-6. As Hendriksen says, "Rev. 19:19ff. carried us to the very end of history, to the day of final judgment. With Rev. 20 we return to the beginning of our present dispensation."⁸ The amillennial view sees chapter nineteen as taking the reader up to the second coming, but the beginning of chapter twenty takes him back once again to the beginning of the present age. In other words, the events of Revelation 20:1-6 do not follow the events of Revelation 19:11-21.

THE AMILLENNIAL VIEW OF REVELATION 20:1-3

With the principle of progressive parallelism as his base, the amillennialist holds that the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 took place at Christ's first coming.⁹ This binding ushered in the millennial kingdom. As William Cox says,

Having bound Satan, our Lord ushered in the millennial kingdom of Revelation 20. This millennium commenced at the first advent and will end at the second coming, being replaced by the eternal state.¹⁰

Thus the present age is the millennium and one characteristic of this millennial period is that Satan is now bound. This binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3, according to the amillennialist, finds support in the Gospels, particularly Jesus' binding of the strong man in Matthew 12:29. As Hoekema states,

Is there any indication in the New Testament that Satan was bound at the time of the first coming of Christ? Indeed there is. When the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan, Jesus replied, "How can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man?" (Mt. 12:29). ¹¹

Hoekema also points out that the word used by Matthew (delta epsilon omega) to describe the binding of the strong man is the same word used in Revelation 20 to describe the binding of Satan.¹² In addition to Matthew 12:29, amillennialists believe they have confirming exegetical support from Luke 10:17-18 and John 12:31-32. In Luke 10, when the seventy disciples returned from their mission they said to Jesus, "'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.'" And He said to them, 'I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning'" (Luke 10:17-18). According to Hoekema, "Jesus saw in the works his disciples were doing an indication that Satan's kingdom had just been dealt a crushing blow-that, in fact, a certain binding of Satan, a certain restriction of his power, had just taken place."¹³

John 12:31-32, another supporting text used by amillennialists states: "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." Hoekema points out that the verb translated "cast out" (epsilon kappa beta alpha lambda lambda omega) is derived from the same root as the word used in Revelation 20:3 when it says an angel "threw [ballo] him into the abyss." ¹⁴

What is the significance of this binding of Satan according the amillennial position? This binding has special reference to Satan's ability to deceive the nations during the present age. Because Satan is now bound, he is no longer able to deceive the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ. Before Christ's first coming, all the nations of the world, except Israel, were under the deception of Satan. Except for the occasional person, family or city that came into contact with God's people or His special revelation, Gentiles, as a whole, were shut out from salvation.¹⁵ With the coming of Christ, however, Jesus bound Satan, and in so doing, removed his ability to deceive the nations. This binding, though, did not mean a total removal of Satan's activity, for Satan is still active and able to do harm. As Cox says, "Satan now lives on probation until the second coming."¹⁶ But while he is bound, Satan is no longer able to prevent the spread of the Gospel nor is he able to destroy the Church. Also, according to amillennialists, the "abyss" to which Satan is assigned is not a place of final punishment but a figurative description of the way Satan's activities are being curbed during this age.¹⁷

Hoekema summarizes the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 by saying,

"We conclude, then, that the binding of Satan during the Gospel age means that, first, he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel, and second, he cannot gather all the enemies of Christ together to attack the church."¹⁸

AN ANALYSIS OF THE AMILLENNIAL INTERPRETATION OF REVELATION 20:1-3

Though amillennial scholars have clearly and logically laid out their case for the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3, there are serious hermeneutical, exegetical and theological difficulties with their interpretation of this text.

1) The approach to interpreting Revelation known as "progressive parallelism is highly suspect The first difficulty to be examined is hermeneutical and deals with the amillennial approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation. In order for the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-3 to be correct, the interpretive approach to Revelation known as "progressive parallelism" must also be accurate. Yet this approach which sees seven sections of Revelation running parallel to each other chronologically is largely unproven and appears arbitrary. As Hoekema admits, the approach of progressive parallelism, "is not without its difficulties."¹⁹

The claim that Revelation 20:1 "takes us back once again to the beginning of the New Testament era,"²⁰ does not seem warranted from the text. There certainly are no indicators within the text that the events of Revelation 20:1 take the reader back to the beginning of the present age. Nor are there textual indicators that the events of Revelation 20 should be separated chronologically from the events of Revelation 19:11-21. In fact, the opposite is the case. The events of Revelation 20 seem to follow naturally the events described in Revelation 19:11-21. If one did not have a theological presupposition that the millennium must be fulfilled in the present age, what indicators within the text would indicate that 20:1 takes the reader back to the beginning of the church era? A normal reading indicates that Christ appears from heaven (19:11-19), He destroys his enemies including the beast and the false prophet (19:20-21) and then He deals with Satan by binding him and casting him into the abyss (20:1-3). As Ladd says, "There is absolutely no hint of any recapitulation in chapter 20."²¹

That John uses the formula "and I saw" (kappa alpha iota  epsilon iota delta omicron nu) at the beginning of Revelation 20:1 also gives reason to believe that what he is describing is taking place in a chronological manner.²² Within Revelation 19-22, this expression is used eight times (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1). When John uses "and I saw," he seems to be describing events in that are happening in a chronological progression. Commenting on these eight uses of "and I saw" in this section, Thomas states,

The case favoring chronological sequence in the fulfillment of these scenes is very strong. Progression from Christ's return to the invitation to the birds of prey and from that invitation to the defeat of the beast is obvious. So is the progression from the binding of Satan to the Millennium and final defeat of Satan and from the final defeat to the new heaven and new earth with all this entails. The interpretation allowing for chronological arrangement of these eight scenes is one-sidedly strong. ²³

A natural reading of the text indicates that the events of Revelation 20 follow the events of Revelation 19:11-21. It is also significant that Hoekema, himself, admits that a chronological reading of Revelation would naturally lead one to the conclusion that the millennium follows the second coming when he says, "If, then, one thinks of Revelation 20 as describing what follows chronologically after what is described in chapter 19, one would indeed conclude that the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 will come after the return of Christ.²⁴

Herman Hoyt, when commenting on this statement by Hoekema, rightly stated, "This appears to be a fatal admission."²⁵ And it is. Hoekema admits that a normal reading of Revelation 19 and 20 would not lead one to the amillennial position. In a sense, the amillennialist is asking the reader to disregard the plain meaning of the text for an assumption that has no exegetical warrant. As Hoyt says,

To the average person the effort to move the millennium to a place before the Second Coming of Christ is demanding the human mind to accede to something that does not appear on the face of the text. But even more than that, the effort to make seven divisions cover the same period of time (between the first and second comings) will meet with all sorts of confusion to establish its validity. At best this is a shaky foundation upon which to establish a firm doctrine of the millennium. ²⁶

The hermeneutical foundation of amillennialism is, indeed, a shaky one. The seriousness of this must not be underestimated. For if the amillennialist is wrong on his approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation, his attempt at placing Satan's binding during the present age has suffered a major if not fatal blow.

2) The amillennial view does not adequately do justice to the language of Revelation 20:1-3 According to the amillennial view, Satan is unable to deceive the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ, but he is still active and able to do harm in this age. His activities, then, have not ceased but are limited.²⁷ This, however, does not do justice to what is described in Revelation 20:1-3. According to the text, Satan is "bound" with a "great chain" (vv.1-2) and thrown into the "abyss" that is "shut" and "sealed" for a thousand years (v. 3). This abyss acts as a "prison" (v. 7) until the thousand years are completed. The acts of binding, throwing, shutting and sealing indicate that Satan's activities are completely finished. As Mounce states:

The elaborate measures taken to insure his [Satan's] custody are most easily understood as implying the complete cessation of his influence on earth (rather than a curbing of his activities)."²⁸

Berkouwer, who himself is an amillennialist, admits that the standard amillennial explanation of this text does not do justice to what is described:

Those who interpret the millennium as already realized in the history of the church try to locate this binding in history. Naturally, such an effort is forced to relativize the dimensions of this binding, for it is impossible to find evidence for a radical elimination of Satan's power in that "realized millennium." . . . The necessary relativizing of John's description of Satan's bondage (remember that Revelation 20 speaks of a shut and sealed pit) is then explained by the claim that, although Satan is said to deceive the nations no more (vs. 3), this does not exclude satanic activity in Christendom or individual persons. I think it is pertinent to ask whether this sort of interpretation really does justice to the radical proportions of the binding of Satan-that he will not be freed from imprisonment for a thousand years. ²⁹

The binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 is set forth in strong terms that tell of the complete cessation of his activities. The amillennial view that Satan's binding is just a restriction or a "probation," as Cox has stated,³⁰ does not hold up under exegetical scrutiny.

3) The amillennial view conflicts with the New Testament's depiction of Satan's activities in the present age The view that Satan is bound during this age contradicts multiple New Testament passages which show that Satan is presently active and involved in deception. He is "the god of this world [who] has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:4). He is our adversary who "prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Peter 5:8). In the church age he was able to fill the heart of Ananias (Acts 5:3) and "thwart" the work of God's ministers (1 Thess. 2:18). He is one for whom we must protect ourselves from by putting on the whole armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-19). Satan's influence in this age is so great that John declared "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19). These passages do not depict a being who has been bound and shut up in a pit. As Grudem has rightly commented, "the theme of Satan's continual activity on earth throughout the church age, makes it extremely difficult to think that Satan has been thrown into the bottomless pit."³¹

What then of the amillennial argument that Matthew 12:29 teaches that Jesus bound Satan at His first coming? The answer is that this verse does not teach that Satan was bound at that time. What Jesus stated in Matthew 12:29 is that in order for kingdom conditions to exist on the earth, Satan must first be bound. He did not say that Satan was bound yet. As Toussaint says:

By this statement He [Jesus] previews John the Apostle's discussion in Revelation 20. Jesus does not say He has bound Satan or is even in the process of doing so. He simply sets the principle before the Pharisees. His works testify to His ability to bind Satan, and therefore they attest His power to establish the kingdom.³²

Jesus' casting out of demons (Matt. 12:22-29) was evidence that He was the Messiah of Israel who could bring in the kingdom. His mastery over demons showed that He had the authority to bind Satan. But as the multiple New Testament texts have already affirmed, this binding did not take place at Christ's first coming. It will, though, at His second. What Jesus presented as principle in Matthew 12:29 will come to fulfillment in Revelation 20:1-3.

Luke 10:17-18 and John 12:31-32 certainly tell of Christ's victory over Satan but these passages do not teach that Satan is bound during this age. No Christian denies that the work of Christ, especially his death on the cross, brought a crushing defeat to Satan, but the final outworking of that defeat awaits the second coming. That is why Paul could tell the believers at Rome that "the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet" (Romans 16:20).

For the one contemplating the validity of amillennialism the question must be asked, Does the binding of Satan described in Revelation 20:1-3 accurately describe Satan's condition today? An analysis of multiple scriptural texts along with the present world situation strongly indicates that the answer is No.

4) Satan's deceiving activities continue throughout most of the Book of Revelation According to amillennialists, Satan was bound at the beginning of the Church age and he no longer has the ability to deceive the nations during the present age. But within the main sections of Revelation itself, Satan is pictured as having an ongoing deceptive influence on the nations. If Satan is bound during this age and Revelation describes conditions during this present age, we should expect to see a cessation of his deceptive activities throughout the book. But the opposite is the case. Satan's deception is very strong throughout Revelation. Revelation 12:9, for instance, states that "Satan. . . deceives the whole world." This verse presents Satan as a present deceiver of the world, not one who is bound.³³

Satan's deception is also evident in the authority he gives to the first beast (Rev. 13:2) and the second beast who "deceives those who dwell on the earth" (Rev. 13:14). Satan is certainly the energizer of political Babylon of whom it is said, "all the nations were deceived by your sorcery" (Revelation 18:23).

Satan's ability to deceive the nations throughout the Book of Revelation shows that he was not bound at the beginning of the present age. Grudem's note on the mentioned passages is well taken, "it seems more appropriate to say that Satan is now still deceiving the nations, but at the beginning of the millennium this deceptive influence will be removed."³⁴

CONCLUSION

The amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 that Satan is bound during this age is not convincing and fails in several ways. Hermeneutically it fails in that its approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation is based on the flawed system of progressive parallelism. This system forces unnatural breaks in the text that a normal reading of Revelation does not allow. This is especially true with the awkward break between the millennial events of Revelation 20 and the account of the second coming in Revelation 19:11-21. Exegetically, the amillennial view of Revelation 20:1-3 does not do justice to the language of the text. The binding described in this passage clearly depicts a complete cessation of Satan's activities-not just a limitation as amillennialists believe. Theologically, the view that Satan is bound today simply does not fit with the multiple New Testament texts that teach otherwise. Nor can the amillennial view be reconciled with the passages within Revelation itself that show Satan as carrying on deceptive activity. To answer the question posed in the title of this work, "Is Satan bound today?" The answer from the biblical evidence is clearly, No.

---

Footnotes

1. The prefix "a-" means "no." Amillennialism, therefore, means "no millennium."

2. Anthony Hoekema, "Amillennialism," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, Robert G. Clouse, ed. (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1977), p. 161.

3. Among amillennial lists there are differences of opinion as to exactly what Christ's millennial reign specifically is. Augustine, Allis and Berkhof believed the millennial reign of Christ refers to the Church on earth. On the other hand, Warfield taught that Christ's kingdom involves deceased saints who are reigning with Christ from heaven.

4. This approach to Revelation can be traced to the African Donatist, Tyconius, a late fourth-century interpreter. Millennium based on a recapitulation method of interpretation. Using this principle Tyconius saw Revelation as containing several different visions that repeated basic themes throughout the book. Tyconius also interpreted the thousand years of Revelation 20:1-6 in nonliteral terms and understood the millennial period as referring to the present age. This recapitulation method was adopted by Augustine and has carried on through many Roman Catholic and Protestant interpreters. See Alan Johnson, "Reve lation,"Expositor's Bible Commentary, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), v. 12, pp. 578-79.

5. Hoekena, pp. 156-57.

6. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1940).

7. Hoekema, p. 160.

8. Hendriksen, p. 221.

9. Hendriksen defines what the amillennialist means by "first coming." "When we say 'the first coming' we have reference to all the events associated with it, from the incarnation to the coronation. We may say, therefore, that the binding of satan [sic], according to all these passages, begins with that first coming" Hendriksen, p.226.

10. William E. Cos, Amillennialism Today (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1966), p. 58.

11. Hoekema, p. 162.

12. Hoekema, pp. 162-63.

13. Hoekema, p. 163.

14. Hoekema, pp. 163-64.

15. Hoekema, p. 161.

16. Cox, p. 57.

17. Hoekema, p. 161.

18. Hoekema, p. 162.

19. Hoekema, p. 156.

20. Hoekema, p. 160.

21. George Eldon Ladd, "An Historical Premillennial Response," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 190.

22. Harold W. Hoehner says, "Though these words are not as forceful a chronological order as 'after these things I saw' ( (meta tauta eidon; 4:1; 7:9; 15:5; 18:1) or 'after these things I heard' ( meta tauta ekousa, 19:1), they do show chronological progression." Harold W. Hoehner, "Evidence from Revelation 20," A case For Premillennialism: A New Consensus, Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend, eds. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), pp. 247-48.

23. Robert. L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), pp. 247-48.

24. Hoekema, p. 159.

25. Herman A. Hoyt, "A Dispensational Premillennial Response," The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, p. 193.

26. Hoyt, p. 194.

27. As Cox says, "Satan's binding refers (in figurative language) to the limiting of his power." Cox, p. 59.

28. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerchnans, 1977), p. 353. Grudem also adds, "More than a mere binding or restriction of activity is in view here. The imagery of throwing Satan into a pit and shutting it and sealing it over him gives a picture of total removal from influence on the earth." Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology

29. G.C.Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), p. 305.

30. Cox, p. 57.

31. Grudem, p. 1118.

32. Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah, 1981), p. 305.

33. The argument that the casting down of Satan in Revelation 12:9 is the same event as the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 breaks down for two reasons. First, in Revelation 12:9 Satan was thrown from heaven to the earth. But in Revelation 20:1-3 he is taken from the earth to the abyss. Second, in Revelation 12:9 Satan's activities, including his deception of the nations, continue, while in Revelation 20:1-3 his activities are completely stopped as he is shut up and sealed in the abyss.

34. Grudem, p. 1118.

---

Back to Top

[CCWoody]

Better still, the real evidence points to acknowledging, with Paul and Christ, the uniqueness of the church as a "new man" (Ephesians 2). ~ Dan

Ephesians makes an excellent case for the unity of the church as including both Israel (by blood) and the gentiles.

Nevertheless, you have yet to show a single verse where Christ came to establish the church.

No need to try to force Paul into making one exception in tens of thousands of verses. His meaning, in the context of Galatians, is clear. "Israel of God" refers to the elect remnant within the nation. Very Pauline, very Biblical. Not neo-Romanist, of course, but the Bible isn't, either. ~ Dan

Are you telling us that you are a better greek translator than what we have in the Strongs?

From Strongs #2474:
3. Christians, the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), for not all those who draw their bodily descent from Israel are true Israelites, i.e. are those whom God pronounces to be Israelites and has chosen to salvation.

These, he declares, shall be the portion of all the Israel of God, by whom he means all sincere Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, all who are Israelites indeed, who, though they may not be the natural, yet are become the spiritual seed of Abraham ~ Matthew Henry

The "Israel of God," or as the Arabic version reads it, "Israel the propriety of God"; which he has a right unto, and a claim upon; who are chosen by him, Israel his elect; who are redeemed by him, out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation; who are called by his grace, and are styled Israel his called; who are justified in his Son, and by his righteousness; and for whose sake he is exalted as a Prince and a Saviour, to give them repentance and remission of sin; and who are, or will be saved by him, with an everlasting salvation; and is a name that includes all God's elect, whether Jews or Gentiles: though it may have a particular respect to such of the Israelites, or Jews, God had foreknown and reserved for himself; and who believed in Christ, and walked as new creatures, without confidence in the flesh. ~ Gill

Etc.

I understand your need to segregate the Jews from the gentiles. Your eschatology demands it. Yet, Paul, more than any other Apostle, tells us that we are all one body.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

The Geneva Study Bible:

6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the n Israel of God.

(n) Upon the true Israel, whose praise is from God and not from men; (Romans 2:29).

Woody.

[nobdysfool]

Since we know that the binding is effective to keep Satan from deceiving the gentiles, we can understand that the descriptive words such as "chained" and "cast" are to communicate the absoluteness of Satan's new found inability to deceive the gentiles.

Two points and a question: First, if Satan is bound and prevented from deceiving the gentile nations (as you put it), why are the gentile nations so deceived today? Doesn't seem to me that the binding has had much effect. I base that on simple observation. You can quote scripture to me all day long, but when I can see with my own eyes and ears things that could not and should not be happening if your interpretation were correct, then I must conclude that your interpretation is incorrect, because it does not account for what can be plainly seen.

Second, you take me to task for using the term "removed from the playing field" as though I had quoted it as scripture, when I plainly used it as a metphor to make my point. You accuse me of sleight of hand, and demand that I present a case of why it must be so. Fact is, I did do just that. Problem is, you don't want to accept it, so you belittle and attack my words, without ever really establishing your own case. You insist on absolute clarity in reading the words in the last part of the passage, but want to gloss over the clear meaning of the words used to describe the binding and removal of Satan (and yes, there is a removal). It is you who are being inconsistent.

Finally, the question: Is the Bottomless Pit a place, or just a spiritual concept? And in consigning Satan to the Bottomless Pit, is there not an implication that he is no longer able to act or have any influence on things and people not in the Pit with him? Would that not be a reasonable and accurate understanding of the term "Bottomless Pit", and the clear mental image those words evoke? So, if Satan is seized by an Angel, bound in chains, and cast into a Bottomless Pit, and the opening or entrance to it sealed, why try to make it say other than what it actually and clearly does say, that Satan is completely and totally rendered inoperative and powerless to act, by virtue of his not only being bound, but put into a place from whence he obviously cannot escape, and cannot exert any influence on people and things outside the Bottomless Pit? Also the verse says that he is thus dealt with "that he deceive the nations no more." It did not say "that he deceive the nations not as much as he did before" or "that he decieve some of the nations, but not others." It says "no more", implying "not at all." Can you honestly, before God and all these witnesses, say that none of the nations are currently deceived?

[fortheDeclaration]

Eze 42:13 Then said he unto me, The north chambers [and] the south chambers, which [are] before the separate place, they [be] holy chambers, where the priests that approach unto the LORD shall eat the most holy things: there shall they lay the most holy things, ~and the meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering;~for the place [is] holy. Hbr 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, ~which can never take away sins~ Hbr 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

I would recommend you try to understand the difference between confession of sins and Atonement of sins.

In the Old Testament, they could only cover the sin, which they did once year in the Day of Atonement.

Since the Atonement is past, In this age we use 1Jn.1:9, and in the Millennial they will use sacrifices to confess their sins which have been atoned (paid for)

Neither has to do with Hebrews 10:11-12 which is the Atonement, which is not repeated in the Millennial Sacrifices.

Heb.10 is the basis for using 1Jn.1:9, since we have an advocate in heaven (1Jn.2:1)who pleads His blood when we confess our sins.

The blood in the Millennial sacrifices will represent that same blood.

Maybe you do not think sins do not need to be confessed even though they have been paid for at the Cross?

That is a relationship issue (Amos 3:3)

[fortheDeclaration]

I want to know when Christ bodily left the earth and returned to heaven for the Great White throne judgement. Surely that should be somewhere in Revelation it would be another resurrection

The Great White Throne Judgement will happen after the Millennial reign and before the creation of the New Heavens and Earth.

Revelation 20-21 is very clear on the order of the events.

Is someone feeding you these questions, since you do not seem to understand them yourself.

[RnMomof7]

Since the Atonement is past, In this age we use 1Jn.1:9, and in the Millennial they will use sacrifices to confess their sins which have been atoned (paid for)

SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURE

Where does it say for the ~CONFESSION~ of sin Dec?

Live with it Dec..it says

~SACRIFICES~ FOR SIN

Eze 43:18 And he said unto me, Son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; These [are] the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.

Eze 43:19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin offering.

Hbr 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

[RnMomof7]

The Great White Throne Judgement will happen after the Millennial reign and before the creation of the New Heavens and Earth.
Revelation 20-21 is very clear on the order of the events.
Is someone feeding you these questions, since you do not seem to understand them yourself.

~EXCEPT~ You seem to have A problem Reading MY question whioch was ~ Not YOUR question

I did NOT ask ,

~ WHEN ~

I asked

~WHERE~

I know when I want to know where the throne is ..

[BibChr]

Argued like a loyal Roman Catholic.

Dan

[Jean Chauvin]

Oh, I knew what you were saying. I just thought it was a really bad argument.

Here's why:

You attempt to make the case that it's 'statistically' more 'favorable' to identify the 'church' with a 'secular political assembly' than with 'Israel'.

This is a bad argument for a few reasons:

First, the use of ekklesia in Acts 19 is a specific refernce to an "ennomos ekklessia" which is literally defined as a "lawful assembly"

This word usage is ~NEVER~ utilized to describe the 'church' visible or invisible. NEVER.

Since this wording is NEVER used to identify the 'church' it is 'statistically' impossible and even Biblically impossible to identify the 'church' with a 'secular political assembly'. Can't happen. Doesn't work.

Second, you attempt to demonstrate, with this argument, that it is illegitimate to identify the 'church' as "Israel".

Using your same argument, I can turn in backwards. I can make a GREAT case ('statistically' speaking) of identifying Israel as the 'Church'!

Since that is preceisely the amillennial argument -i.e. that Israel ~is~ the Church and that the Church ~is~ Israel, you have just made our case ('statistically' speaking)

Third, you fail you also fail to take account for the use of ekklesia in the Old Testemant LXX.

ekklesia literally means the "called out ones" or the "assembled ones".

The corresponding Hebrew word is qahal.

qahal is used 116 times in the Old Testemant.

The KJV translates this word 86 times as the word "congregation", 17 times as "assembly", 17 times as "company" and 3 times as "multitude".

More interestingly, the LXX uses "ekklesia" in place of "qahal" several times (~70~ times) (ex. Exod 12:6, Num 14:5, Deut 5:22, Josh 8:35).

(Now you know why some folks fink the need to insist that the LXX was fabricated around 300 A.D.)

So, if your going to get hung up on a word like "ekklesia", you'd better look at the bigger picture.

Jean

[CCWoody]

Argued like a loyal Roman Catholic. ~ Dan

Sticks and stones...

Do you have anything which suggests that I and Strong and all of the Reformers were wrong about this passage? Or are you merely content to reduce this discussion to the level of Ad Hominem?

For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, that the city shall be built for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. The surveyor's line shall again extend straight forward over the hill Gareb; then it shall turn toward Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the Brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or thrown down anymore forever."

So, which Jerusalem do you think that the Lord is talking about; the Jerusalem which now is or the Jerusalem which is free, which is the mother of us all?

Woody.

[BibChr]

Then I regret my wasted time. Lesson learned.

So the matter stands: never once is the church called Israel, in any sense, in Scripture.

Dan

[Starwind]

That being the case, they should have seen that the two "resurrections" in Revelation 20 are the same two which we have been talking about in John 5:25-29.

So I'm clear on your interpretation, could you please state exactly which verses in Rev 20 are the two "ressurections" and what order they happen, and could you then also show their correspondence to the two ressurections you allude to in John 5?

[Jean Chauvin]

"First, if Satan is bound and prevented from deceiving the gentile nations (as you put it)..."

The Greek word used for "nations" is ethnos. This word is used ~far~ more in the N.T. as "Gentiles".

Furthermore, the phrase "the Nations" is a biblical reference to the very same thing: Gentiles.

"...why are the gentile nations so deceived today? Doesn't seem to me that the binding has had much effect"

Many are! But, not to the total extent that we found before the first advent of Christ.

Just after the first anneversary of 9/11, there was an article in my local paper where the speaker said, "Our Nation mourned, yesterday".

You tell me, did he mean that every man, woman and child "mourned"? Did he mean the majority? Did he mean a large plurality?

I don't recall seeing anybody "literally" mourning that day! However, his statement was most accurate! Our Nation did indeed mourn! Our language most absolutely allows for these kinds of concepts to be communicated in this exact way.

The term "deceive the gentiles no more" is so basic and understandable that the first time I posted this 'translation', xzins spent a considerable amount of time to "prove" that ethnos cannot possibly be "gentiles".

The problem he had is that he didn't prove his case. He only made an argument, much like yours, that it was a 'reasonable conclusion' (to use your words) that "ethnos" does not mean "gentiles" in this passage. He did not make the case that it could not possibly be "gentiles".

He spent a considerable amount of time trying to make his case -a few hours I think. Now, if that phrase is so incompatable with todays reality, then why did he spend so much time trying to refute the rendering of that phrase?

"Deceiving the Gentiles no more" is a perfectly good phrase to use to describe the spreading of the gospel post resurrection through the gentile peoples!

Furthermore, you have also failed to take into account the possiblity that your eyes deceive you as Satan could very likely have already been "released from his prison to deceive the gentiles once more".

"I base that on simple observation"

I prefer to do my "observation" of general revelation through the spectacles of Scripture.

"You can quote scripture to me all day long, but when I can see with my own eyes and ears things that could not and should not be happening if your interpretation were correct, then I must conclude that your interpretation is incorrect, because it does not account for what can be plainly seen."

Yes, I most certainly have observed this to be so, although I don't think this is necessarily a good thing!

"Second, you take me to task for using the term "removed from the playing field" as though I had quoted it as scripture, when I plainly used it as a metphor to make my point. You accuse me of sleight of hand, and demand that I present a case of why it must be so. Fact is, I did do just that."

Actually, no, you didn't "do just that". You did ~NOT~ make your case that Satan's binding must necessarily be total! Your exact words were "reasonable conclusion".

A "reasonable conclusion" is not the same thing as a ~NECESSARY~ conclusion!

You have not made the case that Satan's binding must necessarily be complete and total.

"Problem is, you don't want to accept it, so you belittle and attack my words, without ever really establishing your own case. You insist on absolute clarity in reading the words in the last part of the passage, but want to gloss over the clear meaning of the words used to describe the binding and removal of Satan (and yes, there is a removal). It is you who are being inconsistent. "

I apologize for your infernece that I was "belittling" your words, that wasn't my intention.

If you looked at my presentation, though, I most certainly did take seriously the words used in the first part of the passage. I used them clearly and Biblically -as we find in 2 Peter 2.

2 Peter 2 uses some very similar language ("cast down", "chains"...), however, this passage is most certainly not giving us a picture of the complete binding as you insist on in Rev 20.

I'm not ignoring those words at all. I don't need to. Scripture interprets Scripture!

"Is the Bottomless Pit a place, or just a spiritual concept? "

I recall a past discussion with you where you insisted that this must be a literal/physical chain.

I, at that time, quoted from a Dispensational Premillennial Study Bible which told us that this was obviously symbolic language because spiritual beings can't be bound with physical/material chains...

So, I stand with other Premillennialists who interpret this passage symbolically.

I find your insistance on the materialness of these chains and pits to be interesting. To my understanding the "literal hermeneutic" doesn't ~require~ you to take this literally any more than you would interpret Rev 19:15 to be telling us that Jesus will have a physical/material sword coming out of his mouth!

Jean

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

A "reasonable conclusion" is not the same thing as a ~NECESSARY~ conclusion!

"I categorically deny that I never did nothing to nobody, and I never told no one to not do what he did." :)

BigMack

[Jean Chauvin]

"So the matter stands: never once is the church called Israel, in any sense, in Scripture"

Galatians 6
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

There ya go! Woody already showed you this one.

Jean

[rdb3]

Case in point right here.

[CCWoody]

Speaking of Israel and the church:

Notice in Jeremiah 31:31 that the Lord will establish a new covenant with the "house of Israel". Notice that Paul in Galatians calls the current Jerusalem the Old covenant and the Jerusalem from above the New covenant. Notice that Paul says that the Jerusalem from above is the mother of us ~ALL~. I think that we can make a far better case that Jeremiah is talking about more than just a material land kingdom for Israel than Dan can that this is somehow exclusively talking about the blood offspring of Abraham.

[CCWoody]

Last I checked I wasn't a Catholic, despite what Dan may think. I think that a better case can be made that dispensationalism is "segregation theology" over Amillennialism being "replacement theology"--especially since we claim a unity with the blood offspring of Abraham who happen to be children of the promise and not a separation from them in matters of the Lord's promises.

[rdb3]

You're totally missing my point.

Nevermind. I'll just drop it.

[Jean Chauvin]

"Notice in Jeremiah 31:31 that the Lord will establish a new covenant with the "house of Israel"."

Hebrews 8
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Jean