Posted on 08/27/2002 4:44:19 PM PDT by xzins
John sees our souls in the same way I have seen the soul of my beloved wife. And yes we do reign with Christ in our 'glorified' bodies received for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-8) which occurs before the Return of Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:11-21 and the events of Rev 20. At the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is the Bride of Christ who are the Old and New Testament saints the Lord has brought home to Him and those martyred for Him during the Great Tribulation.
Don't you think we will have our 'glorified' bodies at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb?
According to the text, John explicitly says he sees souls who "were beheaded". These are dead people. These are people who have passed on. They are no longer living. I don't think that is how you 'see the soul of [your] beloved wife' (at least I hope not). Interesting, how the literal interpretation doesn't allow for your view. These are dead people! John makes a point of specifically mentioning that!
"And yes we do reign with Christ in our 'glorified' bodies received for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-8)"
I looked in 19:7-8. I didn't see any mention of 'glorified' bodies. Furthermore, don't we reign with Christ now? Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Paul is speaking of the 'here and now'. He declares that we "sit together in heavenly places". John declares that he "saw thrones, and they sat upon them". Strikingly similar language.
Look again at what Paul says in vs. 5,6: "Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ. And hath raised us up together..."
Again, with strikingly similar language John mentions (vs 4,5): "and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years...This is the first resurrection."
"which occurs before the Return of Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:11-21 and the events of Rev 20."
It does? Where do you get that idea from? Oh, your ~assuming~ Revelation is written in 'strictly chronological' order. Goodness, even the Gospel narratives aren't written so. Sorry, the events described in 19:17-21 and 20:7-10 are descriptions of the same event -albeit from a different perspective. Both passages even draw images from the same O.T. passage -Ezekiel 38-39.
Now, if your going to tell me that Rev ~is~ strictly chronological, I expect this 'chronology' to hold up through the ~entire~ book (we both know that isn't true) -or- I expect to see some indication of this fact from Revelation itself (we both know that it doesn't). Why should I ~assume~ or even 'take your word' that Rev is strictly chronological when not even the Gospel narratives are.
If Rev isn't ~strictly~ chronological, I expect you should be able to give me some indication why ch. 19-20 are indeed chronological. You will have to give me some indication that the only ~legitimate~ reading of ch. 19-20 is a 'chronological' reading.
I will warn you, that if you ~insist~ that ch. 19-20 are indeed chronological and only chronological, you will do great damage to your interpretion. I say this because if you ~insist~ that ch. 19-20 are indeed chronological, I will ~hold~ you to this for the entirety of those chapters. (Of course, I'm not going to tip my hat ~yet~. I'm more interested that you think about this and look at what the words of ch. 20 carefully and take them for what they say, not what I contend is read into them.)
"At the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is the Bride of Christ who are the Old and New Testament saints the Lord has brought home to Him and those martyred for Him during the Great Tribulation."
Again, if we don't ~assume~ ch. 19 and 20 are ~necessarily~ chronological, there is good scriptural warrant for concluding that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb doesn't ~necessarily~ happen before the 1000 years. In fact, there is excellent scriptural warrent for concluding that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb could not possibly happen before the 1000 years.
"Don't you think we will have our 'glorified' bodies at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb?"
Why, of course I do.
Now, I have answered your questions as best I could. I have yet to see some answers to many (any?) of my questions.
Why does Jesus speak specifically of a ~singular~ Day of Resurrection (John 6:39,40,44,54)?
Why does Jesus speak specifically of an hour in which ALL in their graves are raised up from the dead and Judged: some to the resurrection of life and some to the resurrection of death (John 5:28,29) According to Pre-Millenial theory, the resurrection to life happens before the millenium and the resurrection to death happens 1000 years later. Why does Jesus specifically and seemingly literally speak of a singular 'hour'?
Why does Peter, in his vivid description of 2 Peter 3, fail to mention the temporary '1000' year reign of Christ on earth which is supposedly to happen after the 2nd Coming (2 Peter 3:4,9) and before he destroys the old Heaven and Earth (2 Peter 3:7,10-13)? Why has he not mentioned this alleged event?
(A new one for you): Why, as is recorded in Acts 3:21, does Peter specifically declare of Christ: "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." He specifically says that the heavens must recieve Christ ~until~ the 'restitution of all things'. This is quite consistent with his statements in 2 Peter 3 that when Christ comes (the Day of the Lord) the Heavens and the Earth will be destroyed (the Day of the Lord) and the New Heavens and the New Earth are ushered in (2 Peter 3:13). Now, it can hardly be said of the alleged 1000 year millenial reign is the 'restitution of all things'. According to pre-millenial theory, we see evil rear its ugly head once again at the end of the '1000' years. Death, war and destruction are all still in the cards when the 1000 years is introduced. This can hardly be called the 'restitution of all things'. Now, why would Peter declare that Christ would remain in heaven ("Whom heaven must receive until"...) if the New Heavens and the New Earth ("restitution of all things") don't happen for another 1000 years?
Jean
I, of course respectively, disagree and think any distinction between 'ethnic' Israel and believing Gentiles has been completely and undoubtedly shattered:
Galatinas 3 (whoops, that typo looked pretty funny so I thought I'd leave it in)
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Colossians 3:
11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
It's pretty vivid, explicit and clear, dr.
Jean
According to the text, John explicitly says he sees souls who "were beheaded". These are dead people. These are people who have passed on. They are no longer living. I don't think that is how you 'see the soul of [your] beloved wife' (at least I hope not). Interesting, how the literal interpretation doesn't allow for your view. These are dead people! John makes a point of specifically mentioning that!
They are not dead people, they are those who have died and are absent their earthly bodies and present with the Lord.
"And yes we do reign with Christ in our 'glorified' bodies received for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-8)"
I looked in 19:7-8. I didn't see any mention of 'glorified' bodies. Furthermore, don't we reign with Christ now? Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus
Paul is speaking of the 'here and now'. He declares that we "sit together in heavenly places". John declares that he "saw thrones, and they sat upon them". Strikingly similar language.
Look again at what Paul says in vs. 5,6: "Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ. And hath raised us up together..."
Again, with strikingly similar language John mentions (vs 4,5): "and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years...This is the first resurrection.":
The glorified bodies is based on the chronology of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb where we differ. The context of Ephesians 2:5-6 "Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ. And hath raised us up together..." refers to salvation
"which occurs before the Return of Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:11-21 and the events of Rev 20."
It does? Where do you get that idea from? Oh, your ~assuming~ Revelation is written in 'strictly chronological' order. Goodness, even the Gospel narratives aren't written so. Sorry, the events described in 19:17-21 and 20:7-10 are descriptions of the same event -albeit from a different perspective. Both passages even draw images from the same O.T. passage -Ezekiel 38-39.
Now, if your going to tell me that Rev ~is~ strictly chronological, I expect this 'chronology' to hold up through the ~entire~ book (we both know that isn't true) -or- I expect to see some indication of this fact from Revelation itself (we both know that it doesn't). Why should I ~assume~ or even 'take your word' that Rev is strictly chronological when not even the Gospel narratives are.
If Rev isn't ~strictly~ chronological, I expect you should be able to give me some indication why ch. 19-20 are indeed chronological. You will have to give me some indication that the only ~legitimate~ reading of ch. 19-20 is a 'chronological' reading.
I will warn you, that if you ~insist~ that ch. 19-20 are indeed chronological and only chronological, you will do great damage to your interpretion. I say this because if you ~insist~ that ch. 19-20 are indeed chronological, I will ~hold~ you to this for the entirety of those chapters. (Of course, I'm not going to tip my hat ~yet~. I'm more interested that you think about this and look at what the words of ch. 20 carefully and take them for what they say, not what I contend is read into them.)
Ah, the crux of our different views. Of course, the scriptures are not always in chronological order but the first assumption and burden should be chronological order unless the text in context of all scripture demands otherwise.
Take for example your use of Ezek 38-39 to support your view that Rev 20:7-10 does not represent a second attack from Gog Magog after the Millenium. At minimum you have to explain your chronology. For example, Rev 20:2 says Satan will be bound for 1000 years. When is that period? And Rev 20:7 says that Satan shall be loosed when the 1000 years are expired followed by the Gog Magog attack in Rev 20:8. Or is that not chronological either?
"At the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is the Bride of Christ who are the Old and New Testament saints the Lord has brought home to Him and those martyred for Him during the Great Tribulation."
Again, if we don't ~assume~ ch. 19 and 20 are ~necessarily~ chronological, there is good scriptural warrant for concluding that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb doesn't ~necessarily~ happen before the 1000 years. In fact, there is excellent scriptural warrent for concluding that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb could not possibly happen before the 1000 years.
Curious as to where are your chronology breaks in Rev 19-20? And what’s your 1000 year period
Why does Jesus speak specifically of a ~singular~ Day of Resurrection (John 6:39,40,44,54)?
Where do you get singular. He is only speaking of those which the Father has given Him. See context:
Jn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Jn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me
Jn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Why does Jesus speak specifically of an hour in which ALL in their graves are raised up from the dead and Judged: some to the resurrection of life and some to the resurrection of death (John 5:28,29) According to Pre-Millenial theory, the resurrection to life happens before the millenium and the resurrection to death happens 1000 years later. Why does Jesus specifically and seemingly literally speak of a singular 'hour'?
The Greek word hora used for hour has the following possible meanings according to Strong’s:
1) a certain definite time or season fixed by natural law and returning with the revolving year 1a) of the seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, winter 2) the daytime (bounded by the rising and setting of the sun), a day 3) a twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun) 4) any definite time, point of time, moment
In the same chapter in John uses the same “hora’ to denote a time period or season not a singular hour. Jn 5:35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light
Why does Peter, in his vivid description of 2 Peter 3, fail to mention the temporary '1000' year reign of Christ on earth which is supposedly to happen after the 2nd Coming (2 Peter 3:4,9) and before he destroys the old Heaven and Earth (2 Peter 3:7,10-13)? Why has he not mentioned this alleged event?
He does not mention the events of the Great Tribulation either, it was not his purpose.
(A new one for you): Why, as is recorded in Acts 3:21, does Peter specifically declare of Christ: "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began." He specifically says that the heavens must recieve Christ ~until~ the 'restitution of all things'. This is quite consistent with his statements in 2 Peter 3 that when Christ comes (the Day of the Lord) the Heavens and the Earth will be destroyed (the Day of the Lord) and the New Heavens and the New Earth are ushered in (2 Peter 3:13). Now, it can hardly be said of the alleged 1000 year millenial reign is the 'restitution of all things'. According to pre-millenial theory, we see evil rear its ugly head once again at the end of the '1000' years. Death, war and destruction are all still in the cards when the 1000 years is introduced. This can hardly be called the 'restitution of all things'. Now, why would Peter declare that Christ would remain in heaven ("Whom heaven must receive until"...) if the New Heavens and the New Earth ("restitution of all things") don't happen for another 1000 years?
Perhaps the NASB translation which is regarded by most as the most literally faithful to the original text will clarify..
Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. (NASB)
Furthermore, there is nothing in that text or 2nd Peter 3 which states or implies that Day of the Lord, is anything more than a God’s post-millenial day of vengence against His final adversaries and Satan.
Isa 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
Ahhhh…..ummmm…..ahhhh…. that is what ~dead~ ‘saints’ are. To be a dead ‘saint’ means specifically to be absent from one’s ‘earthly’ body and to be with ‘present with the Lord’. Luke 23: 42,43 “And he said unto Jesus, ‘Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom’. And Jesus said unto him, ‘Verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.’
Notice the thief specifically mentions ‘thy kingdom’ and Christ responds, ‘to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.’ Note that the amillennial position likewise declares that Christ ~currently~ reigns his kingdom –“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence”
“The glorified bodies is based on the chronology of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb where we differ. The context of Ephesians 2:5-6 "Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ. And hath raised us up together..." refers to salvation”
As does Rev 20:4-6! It doesn’t say anything about earth whatsoever. You even admitted these ‘souls’ were absent their ‘earthly’ bodies. Sounds quite a bit like a description of Salvation:
Look again at the similarities between the two passages:
Eph 2:5,6 “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ…And hath raised us up together…”
Rev 20:4,5 “…and I saw the souls…and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years…This is the first resurrection.”
Notice both passages speak of dead people who then are said to have ‘lived’ and ‘quickened’ and ‘rasied up’ and ‘resurrected’.
Eph 2:6 “…and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:”
Rev 20:4 “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them…”
Notice, both passages speak of ‘sitting’
Eph 2:7 “That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.”
Rev 20:6 “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.”
Notice, both passages speak of a future time (‘ages to come’; ‘they shall be priests…and shall reign…’)
The similarities are striking!
But the clincher is in your admission that Eph 2 is a ‘salvation passage’. Look closely at Rev 20:4 once again: “and judgment was given them”. The Greek word translated as ‘judgment’ in this passage is krima -literally ‘verdict’. A verdict was given to the ‘souls’! What is the verdict? Why, of course, it is to ‘reign with Christ’ –Salvation!
It’s pretty simple. Allow the words to speak for themselves without bringing any preconceived ideas to the text.
”Ah, the crux of our different views. Of course, the scriptures are not always in chronological order but the first assumption and burden should be chronological order unless the text in context of all scripture demands otherwise. “
‘first assumption’: Why? Why is that the first assumption? Where do you get that idea? Why is that even important?
As I mentioned before, not even the Gospel narratives are strictly chronological. They are not chronological, because there point ~isn’t~ to be chronological. They are not intended to be History Books (that ~isn’t~ to say that we cannot get history from them!). They are topical. Not even Paul’s epistles are ordered in chronological order. They are ordered from longest to shortest. Chronology isn’t even the intention.
But, as I warned you, I’m now going to hold you to your standard! ;)
If Rev 19 and 20 are necessarily chronological, then tell me, which of the two millennia mentioned in Rev 20:4-6 specifically is the millennium which is to be the temporary reign of Christ on earth ~after~ the second coming and ~before~ the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth (remember, he’s going to reign on earth, then, too!)?
“Take for example your use of Ezek 38-39 to support your view that Rev 20:7-10 does not represent a second attack from Gog Magog after the Millennium.”
Well, for starters, there is ~no~ passage in all of Scripture which mentions 2 distinct attacks from Gog and Magog.
Rather, we get the idea of one final battle earlier in Revelation:
Revelation 16:14
For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God almighty
“…THE battle of THAT great DAY of God almighty.”
THE battle (singular event)
THAT great DAY (Singular Day)
Here we have a passage, which previously appears in Revelation, which is foretelling of a future singular battle on a future singular day. Hardly a good case for ‘two’ different battles.
Now, to my understanding, pre-millennial theology holds that the battle foretold of in Ch. 16 is the battle at Christ’s 2nd Coming. However, the description of the battle in ch. 16 refers to this as ‘the great day of God’ and with your conclusion (later in your response) that 2 Peter 3 that the ‘Day of the Lord’ is ‘God’s post-millennial day of vengeance against His final adversaries and Satan’
So, which is it? Does the battle described in ch 16 refer to the 1st Battle or the 2nd Battle?
In reality, this is an excellent example of eisegesis –since there is no other Scripture which mentions 2 distinct attacks from Gog and Magog, why should I assume there are 2 distinct attacks? I have a previous chapter in Rev (16) foretelling of ~one~ upcoming battle and I have the battle at the end of ch. 19 and the battle at the end of 20 ~both~ taking descriptions of their events from the ~same~ Ezekiel 38,39 passage! Thus, I have no reason to assume there are 2 distinct attacks. Why ~shouldn’t~ I maintain that these are both descriptions of the same event –especially in light of the ~fact~ that both passages draw descriptions from the ~same~ OT passage. It’s fascinating to me to see people read this theory (after all, no other scripture supports 2 distinct/separate battles) of 2 battles into the passage (ch 19 and 20) in ~question~ and then assume its up to the objector to establish contrary ~proof~.
It’s the same situation with the alleged 1000 year millennial reign which is said to occur ~after~ the second coming and ~before~ the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth. NO passage in scripture mentions this temporary kingdom. Rev 20 makes no mention of anything happening on earth until verse 8.
Rev 20:1 describes an angel coming down from Heaven. Why should I ~assume~ this is a description of the Angel coming specifically to earth? No mention is made of the Angel coming to earth. Sure, it’s possible, but isn’t it more appropriate to simply allow the words to speak for themselves and conclude ~only~ that the angel left the Heavenly Realm? The verse also mentions a ‘bottomless pit’. I know of no possible ‘bottomless pit’ on earth. (Furthermore, I don’t know how a ‘physical’/‘literal’ “bottomless pit” is even possible let alone ‘physical’/‘literal’ “chains” being used to ‘bind’ a ~Spiritual~ creature.)
Rev 20:2 simply mentions the angel binds Satan. Again, since no mention is made specifically of earth, why should I ~assume~ this activity necessarily takes place on earth?
Rev 20:3 now has its setting now in ‘bottomless pit’. Again, I know of no possible ‘bottomless pit’ on earth. I think this is pretty good evidence that the earth specifically is ‘ruled’ out.
Rev 20:4 specifically mentions ‘souls’ (as you admitted, individuals absent their ‘earthly’ bodies). Since we are talking about souls absent, as you admitted, from their ‘earthly’ bodies, and since there is no mention of ‘glorified’ bodies (also ‘earthly’, btw –“for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” –Luke 24:39), why should I assume this is taking place on earth? Does Pre-Millennial Theology not hold to the belief that we will reign with Christ in our glorified bodies ~on earth~? So, since we both agree that that these ‘souls’ are absent their ‘earthly’ bodies, and since there is no specific mention of John’s vision taking place on ‘earth’, then why should I assume this to be so?
Rev 20:5 no mention is made of these ‘souls’ (absent their ‘earthly’ bodies) to be dwelling on earth. Why should I assume this is so when nothing of these ‘1000’ years has specifically mentioned anyone dwelling on earth. Actually, their has been no mention of ‘earth’ at all in relation to the ‘1000’ years.
Rev 20:6 still no mention specifically of anything having to do with ‘earth’. Why should I read this in to the passage?
Rev 20:7 Satan is ‘loosed’ at the end of the ‘1000’ years. Presumably, this would be from the ‘bottomless pit’. Still no mention of ‘earth’, thus no reason for me to presume ‘earth’ is the location in mind.
Rev 20:8 Here we find our first mention of an activities relating to the ‘1000’ years taking place on ‘earth’. Why should I presume that this necessitates all previous activities or even ~some~ of the previous activities associated with the ‘1000’ years as taking place on ‘earth’. That simply doesn’t follow! Could this not be the ~first~ time something specifically dealing with the ‘1000’ years takes place on earth? I should note that, according to Amillennialism, vs. 8 begins the sequence of specifically the 2nd Coming. Christ returns with his saints (1 Thess 3:17; 1 Thess 4:17; 1 Cor 15:52; Rev 19:14 –when the ‘souls’ shall be reunited with their ‘earthly’ glorified bodies.), the Resurrection on the last Day (John 5:29; John 6: 39,40,44,54; John 11:24) the simultaneous Judgment to Salvation and Condemnation (Matt 12:36; Matt 25:31-41; John 5:29; 1 John 4:17)
“At minimum you have to explain your chronology. For example, Rev 20:2 says Satan will be bound for 1000 years. When is that period?”
See below.
“And Rev 20:7 says that Satan shall be loosed when the 1000 years are expired followed by the Gog Magog attack in Rev 20:8. Or is that not chronological either?”
I have no problem with Rev 20 being chronological within itself. That certainly fits with other Scriptures. I just don’t know why ch. 19 ~necessarily~ chronologically precedes ch. 20 (especially with respect to the fact that the battle at the end of ch. 19 is drawn from the very same Ezekiel passage that the battle in the middle of ch. 20 is drawn from.). Does ch. 11 necessarily chronologically precede ch. 12? Does ch. 16 necessarily precede ch. 17?
"At the Marriage Supper of the Lamb is the Bride of Christ who are the Old and New Testament saints the Lord has brought home to Him and those martyred for Him during the Great Tribulation."
I have no problem with that. I just don’t know why this is ~necessarily~ a precursor to ch. 20’s events?
“Curious as to where are your chronology breaks in Rev 19-20?”
At 19:21 and 20:1.
For one thing, we have a battle at the end of 19 and at the end of 20. Descriptions of the events of both battles are drawn from the same Ezekiel 38,39 passage.
Revelation 16:14 foretells of only a singular battle. It is identified as ‘the battle of that great day of God’. You have identified the ‘day of the Lord’ (the same thing, I’d bet) as happening ~after~ the millennium (2 Peter 3).
Also note how Revelation 20:1 begins: “And I saw an angel come down from heaven…”
Very similar wordings are used in 2 other places in Revelation:
Revelation 10:1 “And I saw another might angel come down from heaven…”
Revelation 18:1 “And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven;…”
Each of these verses begins a new and distinct ‘vision’ sequence. Not necessarily unrelated to the prior chapter, but distinct in its specific topic.
In pre-millennial theology, 19:21 continues directly into 20:1 without a skip. In this light, the Pre-Millennial reading simply doesn’t follow the reading of the text.
(Interestingly, in Rev 10:1 and 18:1 the angel descends at a point in time which ~prior~ to Christ’s return and begins a vision sequence which ~concludes~ with the coming of Christ in final victory over his enemies. The same is true for ch. 20.)
Also, if we were to read 19 and 20 as a chronological sequence, we have a problem. In Revelation 19:11-21, especially verses 19-21, we are given a picture of Christ’s triumph over and destruction of the nations that are his enemies. It’s rather clear. All nations take up arms and said to fall without exception the power of God.
Now, if these enemies are utterly defeated 'without exception' in 19, where did they come from to do battle once again in ch. 20? Certainly not from the peaceful millennial rule of Christ on David's throne?!?
We also see both passages describe the enemies of Christ being tossed into the ‘Lake of Fire’. Now, the lake of fire is defined as the ‘second death! Just how can the ‘second’ death come before the 1st Resurrection????
See too, that both battles represent the final outpouring of God’s wrath.
Revelation 15:1 “And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
When the final angel concludes with the final bowl (Rev 16:17-21), the sequence for the battle in ch. 19 is commenced. Now, if the wrath is poured out with finality as this indicates, why the need for more wrath in ch. 20?
So, why do you think that 19 and 20 are continuous? Because you ~ASSUME~ so?
“And what’s your 1000 year period”
Allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, the ‘1000’ year period is not ~necessarily~ a literal 1000 years. (If the ‘bottomless pit’ in which a ‘Spiritual’ being is cast isn’t ~necessarily~ a literal/physical place; if the chains which bind Satan, a spiritual being aren’t ~necessarily~ literal physical chains; if the ‘lake of fire’ isn’t a literal lake (it’s defined as the 2nd death), then why is it insisted that ‘1000’ be a literal ‘1000’ years?) The ‘1000’ years begins with the binding of Satan:
Matthew 12:29
Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
Jesus is speaking specifically of Satan and specifically states that he would be unable to cast out Satan’s demons if Satan weren’t bound.
Mark 3:27
No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.
A parallel passage to the above Matt. Passage.
John 12:31
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
Jesus specifically declares that Satan (the prince of this world) is ‘cast out’ ’now’.
Now, I hear the common objection that if Satan is indeed bound, then why are all these bad things and wars and death and stuff still happening. (Interesting, isn’t it that sin and death ~still~ happen during the ‘millennium’ according to Pre-Millennial theory.) Where does Scripture tell us explicitly that the ‘binding’ of Satan will be the end of individuals being deceived/bad/sinful. Where does Scripture explicitly tell us that the binding of Satan will mean wars will cease? We both know that these ideals are inferred.
Scripture doesn’t explicitly state any such ‘ideal’ on the binding of Satan. That ~we~ might think this is the case is irrelevant. What does Scripture declare?
Well, Scripture does give us one (and only one) indication (‘ideal’) of what is the result of Satan’s binding: “And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled [literally: accomplished]…And when the thousand years are expired [again, literally: accomplished], Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out and deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth…
All Scripture tells us is that Satan is bound to ‘deceive the nations no more’ and his ‘loosing’ will result in his ‘deceiving the nations’ once again. No mention of wars, individual deception, relative peace….just that nations will no longer be deceived and that they again will be deceived.
So far, I have identified where Jesus has declared Satan to be bound. Thus, it would reason that the ‘1000’ years, which begin with the ‘binding’ of Satan, begins at the 1st Coming of Christ.
Notice how well this fits with the Great Commission: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations…” and the subsequent rapid spread of the gospel into all nations. Notice, as well, that this spreading of the Gospel into ‘all nations’ ~never~ occurred ~until~ Christ’s first coming. Until that time, the gospel was limited to being received by the ethnic Hebrew people.
Now, if you still have in your understanding that the world be at peace as a result of the binding of Satan, let me suggest that this is not a Scriptural concept. I contend that this is something you bring to the idea of the binding of Satan. Scripture certainly doesn’t declare it. (It simply and only says the ‘nations’ will no longer be deceived.) Now, you might object that if any being is bound, that he cannot do anything –he cannot deceive individuals. He cannot wreak havoc at all –he is bound. Well, that certainly is a sensible idea.
However, we must be careful not to speak where Scripture does not. On the contrary, Scripture already gives us an indication of just what it is for a spiritual being to be ‘bound’:
Look at Rev 9:
13 And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God,
14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.
16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.
Here we have an account earlier in Revelation which describes 4 angels which were bound. Notice that word ‘bound’ in Rev 9 is the identical Greek word found in Rev 20 [Strong’s 1210: deo]. Notice, as well, they were bound and ‘kept’ in a foreign location –the Euphrates River. Now, are we to ~presume~ that while these angels were ‘bound’, they were unable to do anything? (Perhaps they were allowed to play a few rounds of bridge? I don’t know –it just says ‘bound’.) I would think it’s safe to say that these angels were ‘bound’ for some time. I find it hard to believe that they were ‘bound’ for a mere hour or some other short time frame. Furthermore, we must also realize that these are ‘good’ angels. Why in the world are ‘good’ angels ‘bound’. Since we have no idea ‘how long’ they were ‘bound’ –we could just as well assume it was for a long long time. In any event, I find it difficult to imagine that these Angels of the Lord were prevented from doing ~anything~ for however long the time period was of which they were bound.
Furthermore, these angels are, then, said to be “loosed”. They have a specific objective to accomplish. Their objective is to ‘slay the third part of men’. My sense, then, is that the ‘binding’ of these 4 angels had an affect ~only~ on that goal of which they were ‘loosed’ for. So, while they were ‘bound’, they were not prevented from other activities. I imagine these ‘good’ angels would have really missed out on being able to show praise to their God if they were indeed prevented from doing anything. Therefore, I suggest that the ‘time frame’ for which they are bound is not really relevant to the point. The point of their binding and subsequent ‘loosing’ is for them to accomplish their objective of ‘slaying the third part of men’. Likewise, the ‘time frame’ and ‘conditions’ of Satan’s binding are not relevant except for the specific purpose for which Scripture states he was ‘bound’ and ‘loosed’ to accomplish. Scripture ~only~ declares that Satan was bound to ‘deceive the nations no more’ and he was ‘loosed’ ‘to deceive the nations’. No more, no less. To presume any other condition upon Satan’s binding is to force Scripture to say something of which it does not.
So, if we study, in depth, the traditional Pre-Millennial objections to the Amillennial position that Satan is currently bound, it falls flat on its face!
Now, I have also heard that Christ cannot be now reigning. Similar objections used with the binding of Satan are used to declare that Christ is not yet reigning. However, we both agree, I hope, that we need to let Scripture dictate if Christ ~is~ or ~is not~ reigning.
Check the following passages:
Matthew 28:18 “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, ‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”
It’s hard for me to understand Christ currently having all power, yet ~not~ be reigning.
1 Peter 3:21,22 “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ; Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject to him.
We are specifically and explicitly told by Scripture that ‘angels and authorities and powers’ are ‘made subject’ to Christ. Peter isn’t speaking of the future. Peter links this with the Resurrection! Again, I cannot imagine that angels, authorities and powers are made subject to Christ and that he ~not~ be reigning!
Eph 1:20-23 “Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.”
Quite frankly, it doesn’t get any better clearer than that. Our Lord Reigns! He accomplished victory on the cross. ‘It is finished’ [literally: ‘accomplished’] –he said!
I’m not terribly concerned if the reality of the ‘binding’ of Satan at the present meet ~your~ expectations or not. Likewise, I’m not terribly concerned if the reality of the ‘reigning’ of Christ at the present meet ~your~ expectations or not. I’m only concerned with what the Scriptures say!
Now, where does the ‘1000’ years end? Well, if the ‘1000’ years isn’t not ~necessarily~ a literal ‘1000’ year period, we can let Scripture inform us when the ‘1000’ years are complete. Quite clearly, the ‘1000’ years are complete when ‘Satan is loosed from the bottomless pit’. Again, Satan is loosed for the specific purpose of ‘deceiving the nations’. Notice how well this coincides with the ‘falling away’ –the ‘coming apostasy’ we see in 2 Thess 2:3 “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day (‘the coming of Christ’ –vs 1 and ‘the Day of Christ’ –vs 2) shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;” and as we see in Matt 24:23,24 describe the events during the Tribulation and just before Christ’s 2nd Coming: “Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect”
So, my position, which is demonstrated with Scripture, is that Satan was bound at Christ’s 1st Coming (as is stated by Jesus himself) and ends with the ‘loosing’ of Satan (as Rev 20: 7). The result of the loosing of Satan will be ‘to deceive the nations’ (Rev 20:8) in which one would expect a great ‘falling away’/apostasy (2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 4; Matt 24:23,24). After the falling away, Christ shall come (Matt 24:29, 2 Thess 2:1,2) and the subsequent Judgment and Resurrection (Rev 20:10-15; John 5:28,29). After the Resurrection/Resurrection, the New Heavens and the New Earth (which shall be the ‘restitution of all things’ –Acts 3: 21; Creation will be birthed anew –Romans 8: 19-23; ‘wherein will dwell righteousness’ –2 Peter 3) will be instituted.
It’s all pretty clear, just let Scripture be your guide and don’t bring any pre-conceived ideas to the text –allow the words to say what they say!
“Where do you get singular. He is only speaking of those, which the Father has given Him. See context:
I get ‘singular’ from:
vs 39: “…but should I raise it up again at the last day” ‘last’ denotes ‘final’ and ‘day’ is most assuredly singular. It doesn’t say “last dayS. (vs 40,44 and 50 follow suit)
What? Am I not to interpret the term “last day” literally? Are you suggesting that somehow this isn’t really the “last day”, but the “last day for believers”?
First of all, those being referred to in context are being physically resurrected. Thus, to suggest that this is the ‘last day’ for them would seem to be a bit redundant. They are being physically resurrected because they are dead. The ‘last day’ for them occurred on the day each of them died. Therefore, there are several different ‘last days’ for the different days on which believers died. So, to suggest that the term “last day” somehow is connected ~only~ to dead believers doesn’t really work. Rather, this term more properly gives reference to the last day of an ‘era’. To suggest that it is the ‘last day of the church era’ is putting words into Scripture, which aren’t there. To say that this is the ‘last day of the current dispensation’ again is to add words to the passage, which are not there. No, the passage simply says ‘the last day’. If we were to begin talking about the Apostles frequent use of the term “the last dayS”, I suppose it would seem logical that the ‘last day’ is the last day of ‘the last days’. And if you remember, the Apostles referred to the current ‘era’ as ‘the last days’.
Utilizing Scripture to interpret Scripture, we can easily see that many passages describe the heavens and earth passing away at Christ’s second coming (Matthew 24 and parallels; 2 Peter 3. We can also see that passages which speak of Christ’s 2nd Coming (Matt 24 and parallels; 1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4,5; 2 Peter 3) are soon to speak of the judgment (Matt 24 and parallels; 1 Thess 5:2,3; 2 Peter 3:13) and the resurrection (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:16). Thus, Biblically, the ‘last day’ more accurately describes the culmination of all Christ came to accomplish. The 2nd Coming/Resurrection Day/Judgment Day –the ‘Day of the Lord’ –that ‘Great Day’.
”The Greek word hora used for hour has the following possible meanings according to Strong’s:”
OK, let’s examine each one:
”1) a certain definite time or season fixed by natural law and returning with the revolving year “
Well, since we don’t expect the ‘resurrection hour’ to ‘return with the revolving year’, I don’t see how this option applies.
”1a) of the seasons of the year, spring, summer, autumn, winter”
Since we are not talking about ‘solar’ seasons, I don’t see how this option is possible.
“2) the daytime (bounded by the rising and setting of the sun), a day”
Certainly a possibility. All this ~could~ conceivably happen during the ‘daylight’ hours of a single day. God might be able to work really quickly (I’m not trying to be funny) or perhaps he could, as he has done in the past, ‘stop the sun’ so that however long a time he needs to accomplish the resurrection(s) can be done during ‘daylight’. However, I don’t think John’s intended point is that the resurrection(s) must be done while receiving light from the Sun. Perhaps ‘light from the Son’, but that is something different ;)
“3) a twelfth part of the day-time, an hour, (the twelve hours of the day are reckoned from the rising to the setting of the sun)”
Again, this is possible, assuming that God will or needs to work really fast. (I can’t imagine all this being done in a literal 60 minutes.) But I don’t think John is intending to tell us that all this will happen in 60 minutes and only 60 minutes –no more, no less.
“4) any definite time, point of time, moment “
This is certainly a possibility and a very common biblical use. This is not intended to denote ‘duration’, but the moment from which an event commenced. If, as I contend, the resurrection is an event, which happens at the same time for all men, then this is the most natural meaning of ‘an hour’. If, however, you are correct and the resurrections are multiple and happen 1000-1007 years apart, this could not possibly be the meaning.
“In the same chapter in John uses the same “hora’ to denote a time period or season not a singular hour. Jn 5:35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light”
Well, let’s compare Scripture with Scripture:
In Matthew 25:31-41 we see a coincident Judgment to Salvation and Condemnation: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory…then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another..” Again, these judgments to Salvation and Condemnation happen at the same time.
(Note: this passage ~specifically~ declares that at the Judgment he shall ‘sit upon the throne of his glory’. According to Pre-Millennial theory, this should have happened 1000 years earlier –not at the Judgment.)
In Rev 20:11-15 we see a coincident Judgment to Salvation and Condemnation: “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it…And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books…And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.” Again, we notice that the ‘books’ [of death] and the ‘book of life’ are opened at the same time (actually the ‘books’ [of death] are mentioned before the ‘book of life’) –i.e. Judgment to Salvation and Condemnation coincide.
Now, let’s go back to John 5:28,29 where you will note that the Judgment to ‘Life’ (Salvation) coincides with the Judgment to ‘Damnation’ (Condemnation). Notice, as well that these Judgments are ~specifically~ associated with Resurrection. In fact, not only does the resurrection of ‘~ALL~ in that are in the graves’ take place in the same ‘hour’, the passage also specifically identifies the ‘Judgment’ to Salvation as the ‘Resurrection of Life and the ‘Judgment’ to Condemnation as the ‘Resurrection of Death!
So, if other N.T. passages explicitly declare the Judgments of Salvation and Condemnation as coincident ~and~ if John 5:28,29, which also explicitly describes coincident Judgments of Salvation and Condemnation, ~specifically~ associates these Judgments with the Resurrection ~and~ if this John 5 passage specifically identifies the Resurrection/Resurrection as occurring at ‘an hour’, then why in the world should I interpret ‘an hour’ as being a ’season’?
Furthermore, if ‘an hour’ indeed denotes a ‘season’, then I would expect to see a ‘season’ of resurrections. In other words, if ‘an hour’ indeed denotes a ‘season’, then I would expect to see resurrections continuously occurring ~during~ the ~entire~ millennium. (Your passage above indicates that we will be ‘rejoicing’ continuously for the duration of the ‘season’.) However, it is clear that Pre-Millennial theory has (at least) two distinct time periods in which resurrections occur –that can hardly be considered a ‘season’! (Certainly your passage above does not intend to indicate that we will ‘rejoice’ ~only~ at the beginning of the ‘season’ and then cease ‘rejoicing’ for a period of time ‘during’ the season only to ‘rejoice’ again at the ~conclusion~ of the ‘season’. Therefore, I cannot possibly see how this could be the Pre-Millennial meaning of ‘an hour’.
I would think that the ‘Pre-Millennial’ interpretation would require ‘an hour’ to be defined as multiple (but few –no more than 7[?]) “definite time(s), point(s) of time, moment(s)” which occur at distinct, although not defined intervals over a longer ~period~ of time. I didn’t see this as one of the options you listed from Strongs. If you can give me an example of this type of usage of ‘an hour’ in Scripture, I’ll grant you your point.
Let’s not forget to look at the O.T. either.
Daniel 12:
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was before since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that same time thy people shall be delivered [‘ethnic’ Jews, btw], every one that should be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Is it little surprise that hardly a word can be found from the Scofield Reference Bible concerning this ‘Resurrection’? I don’t think they want people to know about it.
“He does not mention the events of the Great Tribulation either, it was not his purpose.”
Well, of course he doesn’t mention the Great Tribulation. He begins his question at the point of Christ’s 2nd Coming and just why it is that some scoff and mock our hope in the reality of that event. However, I cannot imagine that in his detailed and explicit description of the events beginning with the 2nd Coming and the subsequent ‘melting of the elements’/destruction/burning up/dissolving of the heavens and the earth and the subsequent institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth, he happened to ‘leave’ out the alleged ‘1000’ year temporary reign of Christ on earth which is supposed to happen ~after~ the second coming and ~before~ the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth. That’s a really really big event to leave out. I can understand ‘not starting’ with the Tribulation, but I can’t understand why he’d leave out the ‘millennium’ –unless, of course, it’s over and done with at Christ’s 2nd Coming.
That, as you say, was not his point. But once he started his chronological sequence with the 2nd Coming, the destruction of the old heavens and earth and the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth, how can you say he simply glossed over the ‘1000’ year temporary reign of Christ? His point was to tell all of Christ’s ~eventual~ return (the tribulation isn’t ‘part’ of his return, the ‘millennium’ is supposed to be) in the light of scoffers. The points about the destruction of the elements and the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth don’t really have much to do with his point of comforting us in the light of the scoffers who ridicule our hope. Peter could simply have told us in a very confident matter of the ‘eventuality’ of Christ’s return! The comments regarding the destruction of the elements and the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth aren’t really, as you say, his point. His point is to assure us of Christ’s ‘eventual’ return. The destruction of the elements and the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth have little to do with this.
Furthermore, Jesus himself describes the events ‘immediately after the Tribulation of those days’ (Matt 24). Now, I would gather that it ~was~ Jesus’ point to give us the description of the main events ‘after the tribulation’. Notice that Jesus mentions very similar events to what Peter describes: “…the sun [shall] be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:” (vs 29). This sounds strikingly similar to what Peter describes as the destruction of the elements. Notice Jesus also makes an important point that this is to take place “immediately after the tribulation”. I thought the 1000-year temporary reign of Christ was to be the event, which was to happen “immediately after the tribulation”? Somehow, in all his vivid description of the ‘end times’, Jesus fails to mention this ‘1000’ temporary reign of his anywhere in the Gospel Narratives. That’s a pretty big piece of the puzzle to leave out!
Your answer is wanting.
”Perhaps the NASB translation which is regarded by most as the most literally faithful to the original text will clarify..
Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time. (NASB)”
I’m afraid I don’t see how this helps your case at all. Isn’t the restoration/restitution of all things the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth?
“Furthermore, there is nothing in that text or 2nd Peter 3 which states or implies that Day of the Lord, is anything more than a God’s post-millennial day of vengeance against His final adversaries and Satan.”
Sure there is. Besides, the whole point of the passage being a re-assurance of Christ’s eventual return (I don’t know how you ignored that), we see in vs. 10 we see that the ‘Day of the Lord’ will “come as a thief in the night”. Now tell me what is characteristic about a ‘thief’s coming’ in the night? Secrecy? Nope. A well-armed, well-prepared thief needn’t be secret. Silence? Nope. A well-armed, well-prepared thief needn’t be silent. No, a thief comes by surprise! A homeowner who has been tipped off and prepared for the thief (in line with the teaching of the passage, btw), will more than likely be prepared to turn away the thief. A thief comes at night to take his plunder unexpectedly. (“seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless” –vs 14)
So, the ‘Day of the Lord’ will come by SURPRISE! Tell, me, just what will be unexpected when a thief comes, as predicted, 1000 years after he came the first time???? What is surprising about that?
You are correct, this passage does tell us that this ‘Day of the Lord’ will be an outpouring of wrath on his enemies. Satan will be thrown into the ‘lake of fire’ (we agree this is after the ‘1000’ years). But it is quite clear from 2 Peter 3 that Peter is assuring his audience that Christ is sure to return (“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying,Where is the promise of his coming… Why, if this is ‘post millennial’ (we agree) would it speak of Christ’s ‘coming’ if he were already there as Pre-Millennialism claims? This sets up the entire point of the Chapter –to assure the audience that Christ is indeed going to return, but that his return is being delayed so that ‘not anyone should perish, but that all might come to repentance.’ Then the ‘day of the Lord’ will be upon us!
I look forward to your response (good discussion, btw)
Soli Deo Gloria
Jean
You have identified the beginning of the 1000 year period as occurring at Jesus 1st coming but have not clearly defined the period’s end. From all you have written it seems fair to presume that you hold that the period has not ended. I will address that position particularly with respect to the context of Satan’s binding as an important benchmark.
So far, I have identified where Jesus has declared Satan to be bound. Thus, it would reason that the ‘1000’ years, which begin with the ‘binding’ of Satan, begins at the 1st Coming of Christ. …
Allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, the ‘1000’ year period is not ~necessarily~ a literal 1000 years. (If the ‘bottomless pit’ in which a ‘Spiritual’ being is cast isn’t ~necessarily~ a literal/physical place; if the chains which bind Satan, a spiritual being aren’t ~necessarily~ literal physical chains; if the ‘lake of fire’ isn’t a literal lake (it’s defined as the 2nd death), then why is it insisted that ‘1000’ be a literal ‘1000’ years?) The ‘1000’ years begins with the binding of Satan:
Your Underlying View
Your apparent view of Revelation 20:1-3, presents serious hermeneutical, exegetical and theological difficulties and this type approach usually sees seven sections of Revelation running parallel to each other chronologically is an unproven assumption and appears arbitrary.
You hold that the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 took place at Christ's first coming (Resurrection or Pentecost?) apparently partly relying on: "How can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man?" (Mt. 12:29) with 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). viewed as 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.
John 12:31-32,: "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." with the verb translated "cast out" derived from the same root as the word used in Revelation 20:3 when it says an angel "threw [ballo] him into the abyss."
This so-called binding of Satan is viewed as limiting his ability to deceive the nations during the present age, no longer able to deceive the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ However he is still active and able to do harm while on probation until the second coming, but no longer able to prevent the spread of the Gospel nor able to destroy the Church.
Also, 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.
Response
A claim that Revelation 20:1 takes us to the beginning of the New Testament era, is not warranted within the text..
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 you 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).
That John uses the formula "and I saw" at the beginning of Revelation 20:1 also gives some reason to believe that what he is describing is taking place in a chronological manner. 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. these eight uses of "and I saw" in this section, ,
A natural reading of the text indicates that the events of Revelation 20 follow the events of Revelation 19:11-21. To do otherwise is asking one to disregard the plain meaning of the text for an assumption that has no exegetical warrant.
Your view of the present limitations of Satan (unable to deceive the nations as he did before the first coming of Christ, but still active and able to do harm) 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, implying the complete cessation of his influence on earth rather than a curbing of his activities.
When Revelation 20 speaks of a shut and sealed pit you imply 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. This interpretation strains credulity. There are 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.
And Matthew 12:29 does not teach that Jesus bound Satan at the time of His first coming?. 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. 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. 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.
I will comment on two points and ask a further question.
Comment 1:
"Your apparent view of Revelation 20:1-3, presents serious hermeneutical, exegetical and theological difficulties and this type approach usually sees seven sections of Revelation running parallel to each other chronologically is an unproven assumption and appears arbitrary."
If it was true that this was an assumption of mine, then I could say that if you can ~assume~ the events depicted in Revelation are Chronological, then I can ~assume~ they are not. Your ~assumption~ is as good as mine.
Actually, I have developed detailed Biblical support as to why they are not chronological -I never mentioned anything about 7 parallel sections. In fact, that developement is not even worked out in my head. It might be true, but I'm certainly not bringing any such thoughts to the text. I certainly am not assuming it is incorrect, either. Again, I had presented a variety of Biblical support as to why 19 and 20 are not Chronological.
The statement that you suggest that I am ~assuming~ my view is, shall we say, interesting in the light of your admission that a strict Chronological order is your assumption.
Comment 2:
You claim that the phrase "and I saw" is used eight times in Revelation 19-22.
The phrase "and I saw" is used 24 times throughout the entire book of Revelation.
Your point really doesn't stand up.
Furthermore, we don't simply have the phrase "And I saw" in Rev 20:1. We have the phrase "And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven". That phrase is only used two other times in Revelation (10:1, 18:1). Each of those times it marks a new and distinct vision. Therefore, even according to your thinking, we have every bit the textual support to distinguish 19 from 20. (notice that this had not been my ~only~ reason for doing so.)
Question: I had asked this before and didn't get a response, so I will ask it again. Assuming your contention that ch. 19 and 20 are strictly chronological, I ask you:
Which of the '1000' years mentioned in Rev 20:1-6 is the supposed temporary reign of Christ on earth which is to happen ~after~ the second coming and ~before~ the institution of the New Heavens and the New Earth. There are more than one. Which one is it?
Again, I await your response.
Jean
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.
I would say from the above observations that the exegetical and hermeneutical errors are actually in your argument, not in the amillennial position.
You have inadvertently "proved too much" by your completely Scriptural observations. You have mistakenly insinuated that Satan is not bound in any evangelistically meaningful sense.
I honestly think your position is too close to the Manichean error. At a critical point in the discussion, you have, for your own argumentative reasons, failed to affirm that Satan is under God's control--and always has been. (This was the mistake of "proving too much.").
As a matter of fact, Jude flatly affirms that "the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitations, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness awaiting the Judgment of the Great Day."
Sounds like some kind of abyss for the binding of the demons right now, doesn't it?
Following your own hermeneutic, you would have to say that Jude is talking about Satan and his legions being presently bound in some other sense than the marauding deceptions you mentioned in your response to Jean Chauvin.
Fine. I would agree to that, as would Jean. But what is that special sense of the binding of the demons? And where do we go for the elucidation of the binding idea?
We amills would say that we have to go to Revelation 20 itself. Why? Because it explicitly defines the binding which John happens to be talking about.
This is hermeneutically necessary even if our presuppositions would tend to make us say "This can't be right!" My point is that a disciplined hermeneutic will show us what is right!
And Revelation 20 defines the binding as the situation of Satan being unable to deceive the nations any more.
Of course, the objections which you have already raised will surface again. Arguing from your objections, you would say that Satan is able to deceive the nations at this time.
You will say that his deceptions are so profound as to render the amillennial interpretation absurd. Ah, but his deceptions are more profound than you have realized--inasmuch as Satan has suckered you, I'm afraid.
Jude is telling you that you are going to have to make a much better confession of the fact that Satan is under God's control as respects the extent of the gospel!
In other words, you need to quit listening to Satan's blusterings to the effect that he most certainly can deceive the nations. The Truth is, is he is NOT able to deceive the nations at this time.
The point here is that Satan is not able to deceive the nations, per se, any more. He is merely able to deceive many (if not most of) the individuals in those nations. That's different.
You might be inclined to say that this distinction is artificial, but it's not artificial at all. It's precisely the point of the statement which John is making. (And we do run into this kind of odd distinction in the writings of the Greek-speaking authors of the New Testament. They handled ideas of groups and individuals differently from the mathematical way we Westerners do!)
My bottom-line concern is that your position is eisegetical, not exegetical. You are reading your objections into Revelation 20. And the way you are doing this involves the use of too broad a brush to paint the specific idea of deception which is being presented in Revelation 20. Revelation 20 is telling you to use a different brush (or better still, put your danged brush down!). Like it or not, Revelation 20 is narrowly defining the particular deception which is of interest to John.
In short, John is talking about the geographic and ethnic scope of the gospel--nothing more, nothing less. John is talking about the fact that the gospel is enabled, by God's demon-binding control in providence, as a gospel which now goes out to the Gentiles (i.e., the nations). John is not addressing the question of whether individuals within those nations can or will be deceived.
(The reason why John doesn't address the latter question is because it is a stupid question!)
***
And following another sound principle of hermeneutics, we can independently demonstrate this narrow meaning of the binding of Satan.
It is found in John 12:20-32.
Please look at it yourself.
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.