Question for Amillennialists

[Spiritual Jew]

Shouldn't that prove to you, if concluding that, that satan's little season can't be meaning before Christ returns? What is it that precedes the 2nd coming? Is it not the 42 month reign of the beast? Wouldn't the logic be this then? Assuming satan's little season precedes the 2nd coming, this would indicate that satan's little season and the 42 month reign of the beast, these are one and the same since it would be ludicrous that if satan's little season precedes the 2nd coming, and so does the 42 month reign of the beast, that these are not one and the same. At least meaning that they both take place during the same era of time, making them one and the same in the regards if nothing else.

And what is one thing that Revelation 13 undeniably shows takes place during the beast's 42 month reign? Is it not the persecution and martyring of saints?

You misunderstood. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, though. What I was questioning was the idea that they kill everyone "in the camp of the saints" and not saying that they don't kill any of them. In terms of the belief of the person I was talking to, everyone in the camp of the saints" consisted of a grand total of two people (the two witnesses). It doesn't specifically say that anyone in the camp of the saints is killed, but it also doesn't specifically say that none of them are killed. I was just questioning the idea that it indicates it kills all of them (even if all of them in his view is only 2 people).

As for your claim that the 42 months would have to be the same as Satan's little season if Satan's little season precedes the second coming. Have you once again forgotten our past discussions? We have been over this. Persecution has been occurring from the beginning of the New Testament time period. Paul wrote that "all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Timothy 3:12). Why is it that you don't take all of scripture into account when interpreting the book of Revelation? That is a huge mistake. If the 42 months represents the time period during which believers are persecuted, then guess what? That time started a long time ago already and the 42 months are not meant to be interpreted as a literal 42 months.

So, keeping the fact that all believers are persecuted in mind, you can't act as if persecution is a sign of a short period of time before the second coming of Christ when it has already been going on for the past almost 2,000 years. If the 42 months represented a short period of time before the second coming (which I disagree with) then there would have to be something besides persecution that is different about that time period compared to the past almost 2,000 years. So, what would that be exactly?

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Obviously, it is during the 42 months when they are killed because of these things. Per your view then, would anyone in the camp of the saints after the thousand years be including anyone that is killed in regards to what verse 15 is involving? If yes, how can you then conclude no saints are killed during satan's little season?

That isn't what I meant to say. I should've been more clear with what I was meaning to say. It caused you to waste a good amount of your time refuting something that I didn't even mean to say. Sorry about that. I'm normally more careful about trying to be clear.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I agree that the strong man was bound so his house could be plundered (Matthew 12, acts 26), and that Satan’s works were destroyed (1 John 3), and that Satan no longer has the power over death (Hebrews 2). Although, 2 Thessalonians 2 makes no mention of Satan being bound in abyss, so not sure what you are talking about there . BUT these are completely irrelevant to my argument.

There is no point in continuing the discussion much longer if you find those passages to be irrelevant to the binding of Satan. Our views are just too far apart to be able to understand each other and have a good discussion about this. I don't understand your interpretation of Revelation 20 much at all and you don't understand mine even after all the time we've discussed it. What's the point of discussing it much further when I can't get you to even understand my view and you can't get me to understand yours?

Revelation literally states that when Satan is loosed, he deceives the nations TO GATHER THEM FOR BATTLE (revelation 20:7-9). so if you provide any gospel or epistolic evidence that Satan is now bound from warring against the church, that would greatly help the “traditional” amil side.

The idea is that he is able to unite unbelievers behind his cause of trying to destroy the church because he is unrestrained any longer. It's not talking about his efforts to war against the church in general. Obviously, he was doing that from the beginning. If that is what he was supposed to be bound from doing, then his binding could not yet have occurred. But, you say it did. How was he bound exactly and for how long? It seems that you've never been able to answer those questions.

It's talking about Satan no longer having anything stand in his way, such as the preaching of the gospel around the world through the power of the Holy Spirit. Because of the mass falling away that Paul talked about in 2 Thess 2:3 as occurring before the future second coming of Christ, the power of the gospel will be greatly reduced during that time while wickedness increases due to Satan no longer having any restraints.

The idea that Satan is bound in the abyss for a “thousand years” from deceiving the nations from warring against the the church until some to future time when he is released is found nowhere in the gospels, epistles, nor book of acts.

I agree. But, that is a misrepresentation of the nature of his binding, in my opinion. I don't believe it is saying he is bound from warring against the church at all. Your view seems to be similar to premils in that you seem to think of his binding as a case of him being completely incapacitated. So, in your view, if he is doing what he does to any extent at all, then he is not bound. Whereas, in my view, it has to with him being restrained to an extent and nothing to do with him being incapacitated.

Therefore, I simply take revelation 20 to be a metaphorical and apocalyptic story that contains the gospel truths: Christs resurrection and victory, the realized promise to the saints, and the persecution of the church by Satan which is ultimately vindicated by God. I don’t believe there is any literal thousand 1,000 years or literal long period where Satan is bound from warring against the nations because this idea is not found in the gospels and epistles.

But, the fact of the matter is that Revelation 20 talks about the thousand years as expiring at some point and then being followed by a little season of time. With that being the case, how can it not reference a time period that has a beginning and an end at all?

so back to Peter, no, I have not ignored 1 Peter 5:9. It does not say “Satan is now bound, so you can now resist him.”

You know, if you're looking for explicit text like that you won't find it. But, since when is that the way we should interpret scripture? Is it your view that nothing can ever be implied in scripture and you can only believe something in scripture if it is explicitly spelled out for us?

Instead it says “Satan is prowling and looking to devour. Resist him.” So, while I believe peters exhortation is completely applicable to the saints in revelation 20, is it your position that 1 Peter 5:9 is completely irrelevant to the saints to whom Satan is warring against in revelation 20?

In my view Satan was restrained from being able to basically devour people at will like he was in Old Testament times (because of the power of death he held back then - Hebrews 2:14-15) because in New Testament times people have been able to resist him through the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in them which was not the case in Old Testament times.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The scripture in Revelation 20:1-8 speaks directly that Satan's binding is from "deceiving the nation's to battle" as you have been clearly shown several times to your complete disregard

I don't disregard that at all. I interpret what that means differently than you do. I don't take a hyper-literal approach to scripture that doesn't require any spiritual discernment the way you do. I think your approach to interpreting scripture is unwise. There is a lot of scripture that is not literal, especially in a book like Revelation, and that is undeniable. Yet, you still approach every verse as if it must be interpreted as literally as possible unless something explicitly states that you shouldn't.

 

[Timtofly]

This is why the Jewish people (as well as Christians) to this day do not understand that God NEVER promised them a Physical Kingdom in the Physical nation of Israel, even though superficial reading of the Old Testament may lead some (even today) to believe this? He never promised them a worldly Kingdom and Messiah to rule in the physical city in the middle east anymore than He promised every physical stone in the city would be thrown down. They, like you, look to the worldly/Physical interpretation, while God speaks of the Spiritual. As it is written

This may or may not be why you are Amil, but it is the whole point.

There was supposed to be an earthly reign and kingdom of one family. Adam blew His chance.

It would seem that even Noah blew his responsibility of being a responsible nation. It was when God called out Abraham, that there would be an earthly kingdom through Isaac, and Jacob. The physical kingdom would always lead the other nations to spiritual truth and blessings. But Jacob as an earthly nation did not replace those spiritually redeemed out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh.

While the heavenly kingdom was not of this earth, Israel as a nation was supposed to be the physical representation as a nation on earth to the rest of Adam's dead corruptible flesh. That is what the Day of the Lord is for. Jesus as a descendant of Judah and Israel will be the king of this earthly nation for 1,000 years. That is why being hyper symbolic can also be just as bad as hyper literal.

The heavenly kingdom has nothing to do with an earthly kingdom. But both are full fledged kingdoms.

 

[JulieB67]

He was bound FOR THE ELECTS SAKE

Revelation 20:3 "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."

How will he deceive the nations? By pretending to the savior to the world. That's his complete MO. As Paul states he's disguised as an angel of light. And as I've said on other threads, you don't don a disguise unless eyes are on you. That's the true deception, that's the snare that will happen sometime in the future. Both Christ and Paul give out strict warnings on this very thing and the only way someone won't fall away is if they have the full gospel armour on to be able to stand in that "evil day" -not everyday as many Christians think that's what the full gospel armour is for.

When the true Christ returns many will be in for quite the shock (thief in the night scenario...) because they will have bought into that fake peace, but bam, the true Christ returns.

 

[claninja]

There is no point in continuing the discussion much longer if you find those passages to be irrelevant to the binding of Satan. Our views are just too far apart to be able to understand each other and have a good discussion about this. I don't understand your interpretation of Revelation 20 much at all and you don't understand mine even after all the time we've discussed it. What's the point of discussing it much further when I can't get you to even understand my view and you can't get me to understand yours?


The idea is that he is able to unite unbelievers behind his cause of trying to destroy the church because he is unrestrained any longer. It's not talking about his efforts to war against the church in general. Obviously, he was doing that from the beginning. If that is what he was supposed to be bound from doing, then his binding could not yet have occurred. But, you say it did. How was he bound exactly and for how long? It seems that you've never been able to answer those questions.

It's talking about Satan no longer having anything stand in his way, such as the preaching of the gospel around the world through the power of the Holy Spirit. Because of the mass falling away that Paul talked about in 2 Thess 2:3 as occurring before the future second coming of Christ, the power of the gospel will be greatly reduced during that time while wickedness increases due to Satan no longer having any restraints.


I agree. But, that is a misrepresentation of the nature of his binding, in my opinion. I don't believe it is saying he is bound from warring against the church at all. Your view seems to be similar to premils in that you seem to think of his binding as a case of him being completely incapacitated. So, in your view, if he is doing what he does to any extent at all, then he is not bound. Whereas, in my view, it has to with him being restrained to an extent and nothing to do with him being incapacitated.


But, the fact of the matter is that Revelation 20 talks about the thousand years as expiring at some point and then being followed by a little season of time. With that being the case, how can it not reference a time period that has a beginning and an end at all?


You know, if you're looking for explicit text like that you won't find it. But, since when is that the way we should interpret scripture? Is it your view that nothing can ever be implied in scripture and you can only believe something in scripture if it is explicitly spelled out for us?


In my view Satan was restrained from being able to basically devour people at will like he was in Old Testament times (because of the power of death he held back then - Hebrews 2:14-15) because in New Testament times people have been able to resist him through the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in them which was not the case in Old Testament times.

The nature of the binding, ACCORDING TO REVELATION 20, is to lock Satan in the abyss in order to prevent him from deceiving the nations to gather them for battle against the church. Then after the 1,000 years of being locked up, he is freed from the abyss to deceive the nations to battle the saints. It’s a pretty clear and straightforward story within the context of the vision.

The problem is then twofold: 1.) no interpretation is provided for this apocalyptic vision and 2.) you won’t find any of this taught in the gospels nor epistles. There is zero mention of Satan being locked in the abyss to prevent him from warring against the church, then only to be freed 1,000 years (or a long time) later for a little season of deceiving the nations into battling the saints.

Therefore, if revelation 20 is brand new information to be taken literally, then using scripture to interpret scripture is irrelevant, as Jesus nor the apostles taught about this event. This basically becomes a new addition to the gospel that the apostles and Jesus already taught.

However, if this is not new information, but a symbolic/apocalyptic vision, about events that were “to occur quickly for the time is near”, containing what was already taught by Jesus and the disciples, then we can use scripture to interpret scripture. And again, if this is in the style of apocalyptic literature, chronology is not really important.

So what do the gospels and epistles have to say about Satan when trying to understand revelation 20:

1.) Satan was to be cast out (John 12:31), to be bound so that his house could be plundered (mark 3:27), and to have his works and power over death annulled (Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8) at Christs ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension.

**another difference between Satan in the OT and NT is his heavenly position.

2.) then, after Christ’s ascension and satan’s casting out from his heavenly position, he was prowling like a lion looking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), deceiving as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), working through the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2), leading believers astray (1 Timothy 5:15), blinding the minds of unbelievers ( 2 Corinthians 4:4), hindering the gospel going to the nations (1 Thessalonians 2:18), and even throwing the saints into prison and killing some of them as well (revelation 2:10,13).

**2 Thessalonians 2 makes zero mention of Satan being bound or locked in the abyss nor being released from it. It does mention lawless already being at work. It does mention the revealing of the man of sin being restrained. It does mention the presence of the man of sin existing (present tense verb) by works of Satan. Again, zero mention of Satan being bound or restrained.

3.) BUT the coming the Lord had drawn near (James 5:8-9), the coming of the Lord would occur in a little while and without delay (Hebrews 10:37), that the end of all things had draw near ( 1 Peter 4:7), that it was the last hour (1 John 2:18-19), and that Satan would quickly be crushed under their feet (Romans 16:20).

The gospel and epistolic narrative of Satan does not follow the chronology of the vision in revelation 20, no matter how hard you try to pound that square peg into the round hole. That’s why i simply view it as an apocalyptic story, not to be taken as a chronological understanding of the church’s timeline, but rather just a good ole story that contains the truths of the gospel and victory over evil for the church.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The nature of the binding, ACCORDING TO REVELATION 20, is to lock Satan in the abyss in order to prevent him from deceiving the nations to gather them for battle against the church. Then after the 1,000 years of being locked up, he is freed from the abyss to deceive the nations to battle the saints. It’s a pretty clear and straightforward story within the context of the vision.

The problem is then twofold: 1.) no interpretation is provided for this apocalyptic vision and 2.) you won’t find any of this taught in the gospels nor epistles. There is zero mention of Satan being locked in the abyss to prevent him from warring against the church, then only to be freed 1,000 years (or a long time) later for a little season of deceiving the nations into battling the saints.

Therefore, if revelation 20 is brand new information to be taken literally, then using scripture to interpret scripture is irrelevant, as Jesus nor the apostles taught about this event. This basically becomes a new addition to the gospel that the apostles and Jesus already taught.

However, if this is not new information, but a symbolic/apocalyptic vision, about events that were “to occur quickly for the time is near”, containing what was already taught by Jesus and the disciples, then we can use scripture to interpret scripture. And again, if this is in the style of apocalyptic literature, chronology is not really important.

So what do the gospels and epistles have to say about Satan when trying to understand revelation 20:

1.) Satan was to be cast out (John 12:31), to be bound so that his house could be plundered (mark 3:27), and to have his works and power over death annulled (Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8) at Christs ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension.

**another difference between Satan in the OT and NT is his heavenly position.

2.) then, after Christ’s ascension and satan’s casting out from his heavenly position, he was prowling like a lion looking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), deceiving as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), working through the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2), leading believers astray (1 Timothy 5:15), blinding the minds of unbelievers ( 2 Corinthians 4:4), hindering the gospel going to the nations (1 Thessalonians 2:18), and even throwing the saints into prison and killing some of them as well (revelation 2:10,13).

**2 Thessalonians 2 makes zero mention of Satan being bound or locked in the abyss nor being released from it. It does mention lawless already being at work. It does mention the revealing of the man of sin being restrained. It does mention the presence of the man of sin existing (present tense verb) by works of Satan. Again, zero mention of Satan being bound or restrained.

3.) BUT the coming the Lord had drawn near (James 5:8-9), the coming of the Lord would occur in a little while and without delay (Hebrews 10:37), that the end of all things had draw near ( 1 Peter 4:7), that it was the last hour (1 John 2:18-19), and that Satan would quickly be crushed under their feet (Romans 16:20).

The gospel and epistolic narrative of Satan does not follow the chronology of the vision in revelation 20, no matter how hard you try to pound that square peg into the round hole. That’s why i simply view it as an apocalyptic story, not to be taken as a chronological understanding of the church’s timeline, but rather just a good ole story that contains the truths of the gospel and victory over evil for the church.

I was already aware of how you understand his binding. It would've been nice if you had addressed my points specifically, but I guess you have no interest in that. So be it. I'm not going to be the only one in this discussion to specifically address what the other person is saying.

I'll just say this. Up to this point, in all the times we've discussed this, you have never given an explanation for how the thousand years can just be part of "an apocalyptic story" when it specifically indicates that the thousand years will end and be followed by a little season of time.

In your view, the thousand years doesn't even exist in reality at all. But, how can a non-existent time period have an ending and be followed by "a little season" of time during which a real being named Satan does things on the earth as described in Revelation 20:7-9? As far as I can tell, you have no explanation for that whatsoever.

 

[DavidPT]

The nature of the binding, ACCORDING TO REVELATION 20, is to lock Satan in the abyss in order to prevent him from deceiving the nations to gather them for battle against the church. Then after the 1,000 years of being locked up, he is freed from the abyss to deceive the nations to battle the saints. It’s a pretty clear and straightforward story within the context of the vision.

The problem is then twofold: 1.) no interpretation is provided for this apocalyptic vision and 2.) you won’t find any of this taught in the gospels nor epistles. There is zero mention of Satan being locked in the abyss to prevent him from warring against the church, then only to be freed 1,000 years (or a long time) later for a little season of deceiving the nations into battling the saints.

Therefore, if revelation 20 is brand new information to be taken literally, then using scripture to interpret scripture is irrelevant, as Jesus nor the apostles taught about this event. This basically becomes a new addition to the gospel that the apostles and Jesus already taught.

However, if this is not new information, but a symbolic/apocalyptic vision, about events that were “to occur quickly for the time is near”, containing what was already taught by Jesus and the disciples, then we can use scripture to interpret scripture. And again, if this is in the style of apocalyptic literature, chronology is not really important.

So what do the gospels and epistles have to say about Satan when trying to understand revelation 20:

1.) Satan was to be cast out (John 12:31), to be bound so that his house could be plundered (mark 3:27), and to have his works and power over death annulled (Hebrews 2:14, 1 John 3:8) at Christs ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension.

**another difference between Satan in the OT and NT is his heavenly position.

2.) then, after Christ’s ascension and satan’s casting out from his heavenly position, he was prowling like a lion looking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), deceiving as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), working through the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2), leading believers astray (1 Timothy 5:15), blinding the minds of unbelievers ( 2 Corinthians 4:4), hindering the gospel going to the nations (1 Thessalonians 2:18), and even throwing the saints into prison and killing some of them as well (revelation 2:10,13).

**2 Thessalonians 2 makes zero mention of Satan being bound or locked in the abyss nor being released from it. It does mention lawless already being at work. It does mention the revealing of the man of sin being restrained. It does mention the presence of the man of sin existing (present tense verb) by works of Satan. Again, zero mention of Satan being bound or restrained.

3.) BUT the coming the Lord had drawn near (James 5:8-9), the coming of the Lord would occur in a little while and without delay (Hebrews 10:37), that the end of all things had draw near ( 1 Peter 4:7), that it was the last hour (1 John 2:18-19), and that Satan would quickly be crushed under their feet (Romans 16:20).

The gospel and epistolic narrative of Satan does not follow the chronology of the vision in revelation 20, no matter how hard you try to pound that square peg into the round hole. That’s why i simply view it as an apocalyptic story, not to be taken as a chronological understanding of the church’s timeline, but rather just a good ole story that contains the truths of the gospel and victory over evil for the church.

It's real simple, IMO. According to Revelation 20, when is satan bound?

3 options.

1) he is bound prior to the thousand years.

2) he is bound during the thousand years.

3) he is bound after the thousand years.

Only one of these options can be correct. Obviously, it is 2) that is correct, since 1), 2), and 3) can't all be correct. In order for 2) to be correct though, it obviously requires that there has to be a beginning and an ending for the thousand years, otherwise, how is it even remotely reasonable that 2) can be correct?


How can satan be bound a thousand years unless there is a beginning to it, and an ending to it?

Premil is the only view that makes sense of the thousand years. Your view certainly doesn't, nor does the view that @Spiritual Jew holds makes sense of it. Obviously, satan has not been bound in any sense during the past 2000 years if the following is pertaining to these same past 2000 years.

Revelation 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.


What precedes the persecution of the woman in verse 13? Is it not this, that he still had access to heaven in some sense, whether that be a literal sense, or some other sense? Is it reasonable that while he still had access to heaven before he is cast to the earth, that this is when he is bound a thousand years? Of course not.

for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Is it reasonable that this short time meant here, that it is during this same short time that satan is also bound a thousand years? Of course not. And that presents a major problem if this short time meant, began 2000 years ago, and that someone, such as @Spiritual Jew, insists these same past 2000 years are meaning the thousand years recorded in Revelation 20:1-6. Which then means, a short time(Revelation 12:12) is meaning the same thing as Revelation 20:1-6.

Why would the dragon be seen persecuting anyone once he is cast to the earth if Revelation 20:1-6 depicts him bound in a pit for a thousand years? And that these are allegedly involving the same time period? How does that make good sense? It doesn't. Nor does it make good sense that he is bound a thousand years before he is cast out of heaven to the earth, either.

Therefore, the only option remaining, he is bound sometime after the past 2000 years have come and gone. Not during the past 2000 years, nor prior to the past 2000 years.

As if it makes good sense, that while he is depicted bound in the pit, the following fits it to a T---having great wrath(Revelation 12:12)


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(Revelation 20:3)---does that sound like it is also describing this---having great wrath(Revelation 12:12)?

Of course not. Therefore, if the short time per Revelation 12:12 began 2000 years ago, one then can't insist these same 2000 years are also meaning Revelation 20:1-6, then expect some of the rest of us to take that interpretation serious.

Therefore, how can interpreters, such as @Spiritual Jew, possibly be correct about when the thousand years are meaning when they have a short time, great wrath(Revelation 12:12), involving the same time period Revelation 20:1-6 is involving? Which then means interpreters such as this, have satan having great wrath while he is depicted bound in a pit, rather than having satan only having great wrath when he is not in the pit. Obviously, only the latter makes any sense, the former certainly doesn't.

 

[claninja]

I was already aware of how you understand his binding. It would've been nice if you had addressed my points specifically, but I guess you have no interest in that. So be it. I'm not going to be the only one in this discussion to specifically address what the other person is saying.

I'll just say this. Up to this point, in all the times we've discussed this, you have never given an explanation for how the thousand years can just be part of "an apocalyptic story" when it specifically indicates that the thousand years will end and be followed by a little season of time.

In your view, the thousand years doesn't even exist in reality at all. But, how can a non-existent time period have an ending and be followed by "a little season" of time during which a real being named Satan does things on the earth as described in Revelation 20:7-9? As far as I can tell, you have no explanation for that whatsoever.

Ok. And you didn’t respond to all my points either………Anyways…….

As to the 1,000 years, or long unknown period of time in your case, in which Satan is bound and locked In the abyss: it is no where found in the gospels, epistles, nor book of acts. So yes, the 1,000 years of Satan being locked in the abyss don’t exist in reality because neither The gospels, book of acts, nor epistles teach it, and so I’m not attempting to fit into reality, chronologically, something that isn’t taught in clear language in the first place.

The gospels and epistles teach that the strongman was bound so his house could be plundered, and that Satan’s power and works were annulled WHILE AT THE SAME TIME teaching he was deceiving, prowling, hindering the gospel, blinding the minds of unbelievers, throwing the saints in prison, and even killing them, BUT the coming of the lord was near and Satan would be quickly crushed.

Therefore, since I don’t view revelation 20 as new information, then I simply believe it is a parable, about the gospel truths, that doesn’t need to be understood in strict literal chronological.

Of course, in the story, the 1,000 years are part of the narrative of the parable. The idea of Satan’s “little season” is that the persecution and warring is only a short suffering compared to inheritance through the first resurrection, and ultimately through the vindication of church by God. Apocalyptic literature is often symbolic imagery of the church under persecution that provides hope. It only makes sense then to call Satan’s season “little” for the hope of the church.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I believe that satan is not just bound during the 1000 years, but he is also put into a bottomless pit and also a seal put on him. Amillennialist miss the part that he is put in a bottomless pit, so like a prison, and then a seal is put on him too. So, it is pretty clear that during this time, he will not be having an active part in the world.
But this does not mean that there will not be evil. For man's heart is evil and so even without satan doing his work during this time, we could still choose not to obey Christ.

I know you have said that he is only bound, but if he is put in a bottomless pit as well as being bound and sealed, I fail to see how he is like a roaring lion that may devour. One that is bound and put into a pit that has no bottom is definitely not walking about.

I do not mind if the bottomless pit is a figurative place, a spiritual place or a literal place, but it is a place where satan is bound and out of the way. Remember it is a bottomless pit. What is important to note is that he is currently very active right now. We have Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and many other false religions. Not to mention many other evil things going on. Look at the stuff Isis did. It seems as though satan is pretty free right now. This seems pretty much the same as before Christ assentation. I do not see him being restrained at all.


Just because it came first does not mean it is correct. Revelation is named Revelation for a reason. It is to be revealed. The Greek word apokalypsis translated, denotes “an uncovering” or “a disclosure”. Knowing this, there is good chance that the first understanding is probably going to be an incorrect understanding as the true understanding had not been uncovered.
It is quite possible that an understanding of these scriptures had not been revealed at that time. Thus, we have amillennialism.

I agree with this too as I have stated just above. Christ can reign in a literal sense for 1000 years, but people will still have their own evil desires.

You will find that other viewpoints also look at the whole Bible. They just don't put as many mystical meanings to make their theories fit. Such as 1000 years is actually 2000 years. Also, even though in the 1000 years, satan has been taken away and put in a bottomless pit, he still seems pretty free right now. He is only bound a little.

#1. Satan is still working in the world. (Correct. Definitely not bound and put into a pit and sealed. You have just made a big hole in your proof. In a court of law, you would lose with such evidence.)
#2. Yet still, Satan was somehow restrained. (Correct. But you forgot, cast into a bottomless pit and sealed. Another big hole in your proof. (NOTE: You said that amillennialisist look at the whole bible, but you choose to miss the pit and sealed.))
#3. After a while, that restraint would be removed (Agreed. After the literal 1000 years, he will be set free for a short time)
#4. And The wickedness of Satan revealed (Agreed)
#5. And then Christ will come and destroy Him (Agreed)

Not just bound. Please read the whole scripture. Not just parts of the bible. He was also put into a bottomless pit and sealed. I don't know of anyone who could climb out of a bottomless pit especially when he is bound and then walk about like a roaring lion.

I am not sure what your issue is.

Imprisonment and chains are constantly used in Scripture to describe spiritual restraint. This is seen in how the Holy Spirit depicts the wicked. For example, Satan is presented in Scripture as imprisoning his followers and refusing to release them from his spiritual prison.

Psalms 79:10-11 declares, “Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is their God? let him be known among the heathen in our sight by the revenging of the blood of thy servants which is shed. Let the sighing of the prisoner come before thee; according to the greatness of thy power preserve thou those that are appointed to die.”

Were all the heathen literal prisoners? Of course not!

Did this indicate they were immobile? Did this mean they could not kill, steal and destroy? Of course not!

Do you believe Satan and his minions are physical beings?
Is the dragon in Revelation 20:2 a literal physical dragon?
Is the serpent in Revelation 20:2 a literal physical serpent?
Is the key mentioned in Revelation 20:1 a literal metal door key?
Is the chain mentioned in Revelation 20:1 a literal metal chain?
Is the prison mentioned in Revelation 20:7 a literal brick prison?
Do you believe demons need to be detained in a literal physical prison with literal metal chains in order to be restrained?
Can a prisoner in a prison have great wrath while in chains?
Does imprisonment mean immobility?
Does it mean a prisoner cannot do harm?
Can a dog on a chain walk or roam about?
Can a prisoner in a prison walk or roam about?
Does a prisoner have the ability to kill, steal, destroy, rape and embezzle in prison?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Ok. And you didn’t respond to all my points either………Anyways…….

As to the 1,000 years, or long unknown period of time in your case, in which Satan is bound and locked In the abyss: it is no where found in the gospels, epistles, nor book of acts. So yes, the 1,000 years of Satan being locked in the abyss don’t exist in reality because neither The gospels, book of acts, nor epistles teach it, and so I’m not attempting to fit into reality, chronologically, something that isn’t taught in clear language in the first place.

The gospels and epistles teach that the strongman was bound so his house could be plundered, and that Satan’s power and works were annulled WHILE AT THE SAME TIME teaching he was deceiving, prowling, hindering the gospel, blinding the minds of unbelievers, throwing the saints in prison, and even killing them, BUT the coming of the lord was near and Satan would be quickly crushed.

Therefore, since I don’t view revelation 20 as new information, then I simply believe it is a parable, about the gospel truths, that doesn’t need to be understood in strict literal chronological.

Of course, in the story, the 1,000 years are part of the narrative of the parable. The idea of Satan’s “little season” is that the persecution and warring is only a short suffering compared to inheritance through the first resurrection, and ultimately through the vindication of church by God. Apocalyptic literature is often symbolic imagery of the church under persecution that provides hope. It only makes sense then to call Satan’s season “little” for the hope of the church.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Premil makes more sense than this, and that is saying something.

 

[sovereigngrace]

It's real simple, IMO. According to Revelation 20, when is satan bound?

3 options.

1) he is bound prior to the thousand years.

2) he is bound during the thousand years.

3) he is bound after the thousand years.

Only one of these options can be correct. Obviously, it is 2) that is correct, since 1), 2), and 3) can't all be correct. In order for 2) to be correct though, it obviously requires that there has to be a beginning and an ending for the thousand years, otherwise, how is it even remotely reasonable that 2) can be correct?


How can satan be bound a thousand years unless there is a beginning to it, and an ending to it?

Premil is the only view that makes sense of the thousand years. Your view certainly doesn't, nor does the view that @Spiritual Jew holds makes sense of it. Obviously, satan has not been bound in any sense during the past 2000 years if the following is pertaining to these same past 2000 years.

Revelation 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.


What precedes the persecution of the woman in verse 13? Is it not this, that he still had access to heaven in some sense, whether that be a literal sense, or some other sense? Is it reasonable that while he still had access to heaven before he is cast to the earth, that this is when he is bound a thousand years? Of course not.

for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Is it reasonable that this short time meant here, that it is during this same short time that satan is also bound a thousand years? Of course not. And that presents a major problem if this short time meant, began 2000 years ago, and that someone, such as @Spiritual Jew, insists these same past 2000 years are meaning the thousand years recorded in Revelation 20:1-6. Which then means, a short time(Revelation 12:12) is meaning the same thing as Revelation 20:1-6.

Why would the dragon be seen persecuting anyone once he is cast to the earth if Revelation 20:1-6 depicts him bound in a pit for a thousand years? And that these are allegedly involving the same time period? How does that make good sense? It doesn't. Nor does it make good sense that he is bound a thousand years before he is cast out of heaven to the earth, either.

Therefore, the only option remaining, he is bound sometime after the past 2000 years have come and gone. Not during the past 2000 years, nor prior to the past 2000 years.

As if it makes good sense, that while he is depicted bound in the pit, the following fits it to a T---having great wrath(Revelation 12:12)


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(Revelation 20:3)---does that sound like it is also describing this---having great wrath(Revelation 12:12)?

Of course not. Therefore, if the short time per Revelation 12:12 began 2000 years ago, one then can't insist these same 2000 years are also meaning Revelation 20:1-6, then expect some of the rest of us to take that interpretation serious.

Therefore, how can interpreters, such as @Spiritual Jew, possibly be correct about when the thousand years are meaning when they have a short time, great wrath(Revelation 12:12), involving the same time period Revelation 20:1-6 is involving? Which then means interpreters such as this, have satan having great wrath while he is depicted bound in a pit, rather than having satan only having great wrath when he is not in the pit. Obviously, only the latter makes any sense, the former certainly doesn't.

Premil has zero corroboration. It contradicts multiple Scripture. Matthew 12:22-29, Mark 3:11, 23-27, Luke 10:18-19, Luke 11:20-22, John 12:31-33 Colossians 2:13-15, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:8, Revelation 9:1-11, Revelation 12:7-9 and Revelation 20:2 prove Satan was cast out, bound, defeated, incapacitated, divested of power, disarmed, brought to naught, undone, stripped and spiritually imprisoned through Christ's sinless life, atoning death and triumphant resurrection. Colossians 2:15 tells us: “having spoiled (or divested or disarmed) principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” Satan has not been rendered immobile or inoperative but is limited in his power, kingship and influence by being defeated on the cross. He is like a dog on a chain. He is shackled.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Revelation 20:3 "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."

How will he deceive the nations? By pretending to the savior to the world. That's his complete MO. As Paul states he's disguised as an angel of light. And as I've said on other threads, you don't don a disguise unless eyes are on you. That's the true deception, that's the snare that will happen sometime in the future. Both Christ and Paul give out strict warnings on this very thing and the only way someone won't fall away is if they have the full gospel armour on to be able to stand in that "evil day" -not everyday as many Christians think that's what the full gospel armour is for.

When the true Christ returns many will be in for quite the shock (thief in the night scenario...) because they will have bought into that fake peace, but bam, the true Christ returns.

It doesn't say that. You are forcing your personal opinion upon that.

 

[1Tonne]

Psalms 79:10-11 declares, “Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is their God? let him be known among the heathen in our sight by the revenging of the blood of thy servants which is shed. Let the sighing of the prisoner come before thee; according to the greatness of thy power preserve thou those that are appointed to die.”

Were all the heathen literal prisoners? Of course not!

This verse may be speaking about the prisoner for their faith. So, a believer in Christ who is actually in prison. God will preserve those of whom He loves until the end. So, not a spiritual meaning.

 

[sovereigngrace]

This verse may be speaking about the prisoner for their faith. So, a believer in Christ who is actually in prison. God will preserve those of whom He loves until the end. So, not a spiritual meaning.

Totally disagree. It is talking about Satan's own - those who are enslaved by chains of sin . It is the wicked alone that need rescued from "the snare of the devil" because they "are taken captive by him at his will."

Do you accept that the wicked are held by real spiritual invisible spiritual chains in a real spiritual invisible prison?

 

[claninja]

This makes no sense whatsoever. Premil makes more sense than this, and that is saying something.

This is kind of generic….

it doesn’t make sense that apostles believed Satan was prowling, deceiving, blinding minds, working through the sons of disobedience, throwing saints in prison, and even killing them?

It doesn’t make sense that the strong man was bound in order for his house to be plundered or that Satan’s works and power over death were annulled?

It doesn’t make sense that revelation is symbolic, apocalyptic literature used to give Christians hope during times of extreme suffering?

It doesn’t make sense to claim that the gospels, epistles, or book of acts make zero mention of Satan being bound in the abyss for a long period of time then to be released?


…..you gotta give me something more to work on……

 

[DavidPT]

Of course, in the story, the 1,000 years are part of the narrative of the parable. The idea of Satan’s “little season” is that the persecution and warring is only a short suffering compared to inheritance through the first resurrection, and ultimately through the vindication of church by God. Apocalyptic literature is often symbolic imagery of the church under persecution that provides hope. It only makes sense then to call Satan’s season “little” for the hope of the church.

Revelation 20:3 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.


and after that he must be loosed a little season. How does one make sense of that if an actual measurable period of time is not meant by the thousand years?

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.


But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. How do you propose that they don't live again until the thousand years are finished if there is literally not even a thousand year era to finish? Does that mean they never actually live again and that John lied to us here, keeping in mind, he clearly said, until the thousand years are finished first, the rest of the dead don't get to live again in the meantime? That alone should be plenty of proof that this thousand years has to be taken in a literal sense, that it is involving a literal era of time that has a beginning and an ending, whether that be in this age or an age following this one.

Revelation 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,


How can satan be loosed from his prison if there is not even a thousand years when he is in his prison?

Assuming your understanding of some of these things is correct, why is the text spouting nonsense, such as, the thousand years have a beginning, and they have an ending?

These thousand years have to represent a time unlike before this thousand years, and unlike after this thousand years, wouldn't you think? How is that possible unless the thousand years actually represent a literal era of time that has a beginning and has an ending? Whether that be in this age or in an age following this one. Either way, this thousand years has to be unlike what it was like before the thousand years, and unlike what it will be like after the thousand years, meaning during satan's little season in this case.

 

[sovereigngrace]

This is kind of generic….

it doesn’t make sense that apostles believed Satan was prowling, deceiving, blinding minds, working through the sons of disobedience, throwing saints in prison, and even killing them?

It doesn’t make sense that the strong man was bound in order for his house to be plundered or that Satan’s works and power over death were annulled?

It doesn’t make sense that revelation is symbolic, apocalyptic literature used to give Christians hope during times of extreme suffering?

It doesn’t make sense to claim that the gospels, epistles, or book of acts make zero mention of Satan being bound in the abyss for a long period of time then to be released?


…..you gotta give me something more to work on……

It doesn't make sense to you, but that does not negate its existence. The problem is not with Scripture, it is your understanding of it that forces you to reject its teaching and the reality of a millennial period. Not wise!

 

[claninja]

It doesn't make sense to you, but that does not negate its existence. The problem is not with Scripture, it is your understanding of it that forces you to reject its teaching and the reality of a millennial period. Not wise!

ok so from this response it seems you disagree that:

Satan was bound so his house plundered, and his works and power over death annulled

Satan was prowling, deceiving, hindering, killing, blinding, and leading astray

Revelation is symbolic apocalyptic literature meant to give hope to believers

The gospels and epistles are silent on Satan being bound in the pit for a long time only to be released.

Do I have that correct? since you continue to give vague and generic drive by responses

 

[sovereigngrace]

ok so from this response it seems you disagree that:

Satan was bound so his house plundered, and his works and power over death annulled

Satan was prowling, deceiving, hindering, killing, blinding, and leading astray

Revelation is symbolic apocalyptic literature meant to give hope to believers

The gospels and epistles are silent on Satan being bound in the pit for a long time only to be released.

Do I have that correct? since you continue to give vague and generic drive by responses

I agree with everything the Scriptures teach. The binding relates to the binding of Satan through the earthly ministry of Christ so that the ethnos (or Gentiles) would be enlightened. That is an easy reality to grasp for the unindoctrinated. Satan prowling about like a roaring lion means nothing as he can only harm those who get close to him. He has no power over the internal Church from all nations. The loosing of Satan happens before the literal physical visible return of Christ in the future where Satan has his last throw.