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.