If satan is a spirit, one can't bind it with a chain. We talked about him being thrown out of heaven but roaming in the earth and the sea. The Church can be protected in the wilderness (Rev 12).
Couldn't one argue as well, if satan is a spirit, one can't literally cast him into an actual place, the lake of fire in this case, and expect that he can stay confined in it for forever in order to be tormented the same amount of time?
Speaking of the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them
was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
This says he was cast into. Should we take this literally or in some other sense? Should we take it to literally mean he is cast into a literal place?
To remain consistent, depending on how one reasons the above, let's now look at Revelation 20:2-3 and see if one reasons that in the same manner they do in regards to Revelation 20:10.
Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3
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: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
Verse 3 also has him cast into somewhere. Should we take this literally or in some other sense? Should we take it to literally mean he is cast into a literal place?
When he is cast into the lake of fire, what is the purpose for that? So that he can be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
When he is cast into the bottomless pit, what is the purpose for that? To shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled
When he is cast into the former, the confinement is for forever. When he is cast into the latter, the confinement is for a thousand years. As to the former, this for ever, should that be taken to literally mean for forever? To remain consistent, how ever one takes that, literal or in some other sense, one should take this thousand years in the latter in the same manner.
But revelation talks about antichrists both before and after the Millennium!!
As to the 42 months in Revelation 13 though, that can only fit in one place. Either it fits before the thousand years, or it fits after the thousand years.
Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.
There is not a single mention of saints being martyred here. It's nowhere in this text. Clearly, in Revelation 13, there are saints being martyred during that time. Clearly, in Revelation 20:4 there is the mentioning of martyrs by this same beast in Revelation 13. This should also tell us that the events of Revelation 13 can't occur after the thousand years if they already occurred before the thousand years. The fact, before the thousand years this results in martyred saints, and after the thousand years it doesn't.
And if the 2nd coming follows the fulfillment of the 42 month reign of the beast in Revelation 13, like many Amils conclude, how could Amil be plausible per that version of Amil?