Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

Zao is life · Nov 7, 2020

Timtofly said:
The only sense is that God has one angel tasked to be a gate keeper, and that is all they do for 8000 years. They show up twice:

Once to open the pit so all on earth can look into this pit.

Second to shut the pit and lock Satan inside before doing so.

Really simple, one angel, one job, only needed 2 times, but two very important times.

I was showing how ridiculous the claim is that Satan is already in the pit and has been bound up in it since Calvary.

BABerean2 · Nov 7, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
I was showing how ridiculous the claim is that Satan is already in the pit and has been bound up in it since Calvary.

Did Jesus talk about "binding" Satan below?

Mat 12:26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?
Mat 12:27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.
Mat 12:28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 12:29 Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

You may have missed it, but the enemy was defeated at the cross.

Col 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Col 2:15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

.

Zao is life · Nov 7, 2020

DavidPT said:
That's exactly what is happening in the sheep and goats judgment.

Let's start with Matthew 7, then.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Would or would it not be a ludicrous conclusion to conclude verse 21 is also meaning atheists, for example? As if atheists would be saying Lord, Lord, to begin with. Or how about unbelieving Jews that reject Christ? Can we fit them into this verse as well?

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Can we fit atheists and unbelieving Jews into this verse as well?

Next let's consider the following as well.

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

All of the above, including what I submitted from Matthew 7, makes it crystal clear as to why the goats are cast into the LOF rather than inherit the kingdom instead. That's what that judgment is about, those in the body of Christ who are worthy to inherit the kingdom, and those in the body of Christ that are not. For Amils to then think the goats represent all of the lost in general, is to ignore context.

Why does verse 14 even ask the question it does---though a man say he hath faith, and have not works, can faith save him?

Why does verse 24 then say----Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

As to the sheep and goats judgment, didn't the works that the sheep did, justify them? As to verse 15 and 16 above in James 2, what does Matthew 25 indicate the sheep did or did not do in a case like that? What does Matthew 25 indicate the goats did or did not do in a case like that? In the sheep and goats judgment, both the sheep and goats address Jesus as Lord, yet Matthew 7:21 indicates---Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Which of these two groups did the will of the Father, assuming a scenario such as verse 15 and 16 in James 2?

But instead of interpreting these things in context, and how they relate to other Scriptures, a lot of Amils, so maybe not all Amils, would rather use the sheep and goats judgment to wrongly prove there are no mortal survivors remaining after this judgment, therefore Premil is debunked. Because, instead of seeing that the goats don't represent all of the lost in general, but only reprersent the lost in the church, they feel they have debunked Premil on this alone. So just forget about Zechariah 14:16-19, assuming Amils are correct that the goats represent all of the lost since the beginning of time, therefore Zechariah must have lied to us in those verses when he indicated there would be unsaved survivors from the nations which came against Jerusalem.

The following is an example of someone else on the same page with me about the sheep and goats judgment. This at least proves this is not a private interpretation on my part.
-----------------------------------

Who are the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25?

EZekiel 20:33 appears to be the parallel account in the Hebrew Bible to this passage in Matthew, when the Lord God will one day regather his people from the nations of the world in order to be their king. That is, this regathering will be a mix of the righteous (believers) and the apparent-righteous (unbelievers). Thus he will judge his people in the "wilderness of the peoples" (Ezek 20:35). The comparison here is to the wilderness of the land of Egypt (Ezek 20:36), where the Lord had "purged" his people in order to prevent "rebels and transgressors" from entering the Promised Land. Thus the scope of judgment is limited to the declared followers of the Lord. As the shepherd he will make his people "pass under the rod" (Ezek 20:37). In this context, the goats will undergo the following.

Matthew 7:21-23(NASB) 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’”

At the end of Matthew 25:31-46 the announcement is made: “These (goats) will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous (sheep) into eternal life.” That is, the sheep are the righteous (believers) and the goats are the unrighteous (unbelievers) notwithstanding that both groups were the ostensible and therefore self-declared followers of the Lord.

The idea here is that those "believers" who love other "believers" through both their words and deeds are indeed the sheep (cf. Ja 2:15-17 and 1 Jn 3:18), whereas the remainder (the goats) are those whose spiritual gifts (which were prophesying, healing, miracles) were of no use or benefit to the sheep (hunger, thirst, nakedness, sickness, and their loneliness in incarceration) and therefore the goats were never "known" by the Lord.

Who are the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25?
----------------------------

BTW, this post here should adequetly address my discussions with both you and SpiritualJew, in regards to this subject. I'm not saying either one of you might agree with anything I submitted, but I'm guessing SpiritualJew likely wont since Amils typically use the sheep and goats judgment to allegedly prove there are no unsaved mortals remaining after the 2nd coming, therefore Premil is debunked on this alone.

I appreciate your detailed and careful reply. Thank you. I fully understand why, if these are sheep and goats, it would reconfirm James 2:14-20; as well as Matthew 7:21-23 - and it's based on John 13:34 .

The reason why I wanted to hear what you wrote in your post above, is because the way Matthew 25:31-46 is worded could give the impression (which Amills obviously have, judging by their use of this passage without looking at context) that verses Mat 25:31-46 are talking about Christ's judgment of the nations following His gathering of His elect (following the resurrection/rapture which we read about in Matthew 24:29-31) (and Amills had me briefly confused because of their interpretation of this passage).

So once Amills had me confused by their interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46, I wondered IF (and following the resurrection/rapture of the saints) IF these who are being judged in these verses in Mat 25:31-46 are therefore the (now previously) unbelievers among the nations who are still on earth, (who have obviously been "left behind" following the resurrection/rapture of the saints). I wondered if they would have seen the Lord appear in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory, and would have witnessed the resurrection of the saints, and would have changed their minds about Jesus (repented), and began calling Jesus "Lord", and I wondered if the criteria by which they are being judged, and either receive mercy and go into the millennial reign of Christ (His Kingdom), or go away to everlasting punishment, is how they treated the saints.

I agree though with what you say - it reconfirms what Matthew 24:40-51 is saying. The goats will be "left behind" when the resurrection/rapture comes:

Matthew 24

44 Therefore you also be ready, for in that hour you think not, the Son of man comes.
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord has made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season?
46 Blessed is that servant whom his lord shall find him doing so when he comes.
47 Truly I say to you that he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delays his coming,
49 and shall begin to strike his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken,
50 the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he does not look for him, and in an hour which he does not know.
51 And he shall cut him apart and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

So yes, thank you for your reply on that. The context of Matthew 25:31-46 is definitely not talking about the unbelieving nations at all, but is a continuation of the Lord's warning to His sheep regarding what will happen to the goats who call themselves "Christians", and who call Jesus "Lord". It also once again kills OSAS.

Zao is life · Nov 7, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Did Jesus talk about "binding" Satan below?

Mat 12:26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?
Mat 12:27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.
Mat 12:28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 12:29 Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

You may have missed it, but the enemy was defeated at the cross.

Col 2:14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Col 2:15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

.

You missed the fact that the enemy was defeated by the cross in terms of His ability to accuse the brethren before God. This is all Revelation 12:7-11 is saying, before Amills add to it.

You missed the fact that God has always been more powerful than Satan, and has never needed to overcome Him or defeat Him.

You missed the fact that just as Satan was defeated by the cross in terms of His ability to accuse the brethren before God, so his power over death was destroyed:

Heb 2:14 Since then the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise partook of the same; that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death (that is, the Devil).

You missed the fact that Satan has not been destroyed by being thrown into into the lake of fire yet - and though he is defeated and his power over death destroyed, neither Satan nor death and hades are in the lake of fire yet:

1 Cor 15:25-26
for it is right for Him to reign until He has put all the enemies under His feet. The last enemy made to cease is death.

Revelation 20:10 & 14
And the Devil who deceived them was cast into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet were. And he will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.

You miss a lot of facts. The greatest of which is that God has always been more powerful than Satan, and has never needed to overcome Him or defeat Him.

Jesus was condescending to answer the total lack of logic that the Pharisees displayed in their preposterous false accusation that Christ had cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub.

Why did the Pharisees do that? It was because they were desperate to be 'proved right'. They did not care about whether Jesus' claims were true or not. They did not care about whether or not the fact that He was casting out demons showed that He received this power from God. They did not care about the truth. All they wanted was to be 'proved right', and as a result, they had become blinded to the truth.

In the process, not only did the Pharisees display a total lack of logic, they did something that was far, far worse - they blasphemed the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was only condescending to answer the total lack of logic that the Pharisees displayed in their preposterous and blasphemous false accusation that Christ was casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub - there are other instances in the gospels where the mere presence of Christ caused the demons to screech and tremble in fear. He did not have to first overpower or bind Satan. He was only condescending to the total lack of logic that the Pharisees displayed.

Matthew 8:28-32
28 And when He had come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, two demon-possessed ones met Him, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one might pass by that way.
29 And behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with You, Jesus, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?
30 And there was a good way off from them a herd of many swine, feeding.
31 And the demons begged Him, saying, If You cast us out, allow us to go away into the herd of swine.
32 And He said to them, Go! And when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea and perished in the waters.

That's all Jesus had to say was "Go!", because God has always been more powerful than Satan, and has never needed to overcome Him or defeat Him, or bind him.

God could have, had He wanted to, destroyed Satan before Satan even approached Eve in the Garden of Eden. He could have bound Satan and locked him in the abyss for all eternity before Satan approached Eve, had God wanted to.

He could have bound Satan and thrown him into the abyss after the flood, or destroyed him after the flood, or after God delivered His people from Egypt, or after they had taken possession of their promised land, but He did not do so.

Only Revelation 20 tells us that Satan will be bound and shut up in the abyss for a thousand years - the binding of Satan and shutting him up in the abyss is not mentioned anywhere else in scripture - and the reason why God will do so, is implicit in what is said in Revelation 20 - that after the destruction of the beast and false prophet in the lake of fire, for a thousand years Satan will be unable to deceive the nations again.

Zao is life · Nov 7, 2020

ewq1938 said:
Amill doesn't understand what Revelation 20's first resurrection is so believing there is a long gap of time doesn't apply properly. In Revelation 20 there is a group of the dead that come back to life, and the rest of the dead do not come to life with them but have to wait a thousand years before they can "live again".

Amills seem to always claim that "the first resurrection" written about in Rev 20 refers to (what they call) the "spiritual" resurrection that those in Christ experience at the time of the new birth.

YET a proper and thorough study of all the scriptures talking about resurrection, shows the following:-

(i) There is a very long (very long) list of scriptures referring to the resurrection - and there isn't even one that is NOT referring to the resurrection of the body.

(II) Looking at the words of Jesus, we should notice that after saying, “That which is born (Greek: gennao) of the flesh is flesh", Jesus did not say,

"and that which is ~~spiritually resurrected from death~~ is spirit.”

What Jesus said was,

"That which is born (γεννάω gennáō) of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born (γεννάω gennáō) of the Spirit ( πνεῦμα [pneûma] ) is spirit".

And then He said,

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born (γεννάω gennáō] from above (Greek: ἄνωθεν ánōthen)." (John 3:7)

Adam had a body and a soul:

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed [ nâphach ] into his nostrils the breath [ neshâmâh ] of life; and man became a living soul [nephesh]."

When Adam sinned, he died, spiritually. He lost his connection to the Spirit of God, and we are told that he was prevented from eating from "the tree of life" and therefore would not live forever - but man (Adam) still had a body and a soul.We can compare this fact with Jesus words:

John 3:7
"That which is born (γεννάω [gennáō]) of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born (γεννάω gennáō) of the Spirit ( πνεῦμα [pneûma] ) is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born (Greek: γεννάω [gennáō]) from above (Greek: ἄνωθεν [ánōthen]). "

THE RESURRECTION

ALL references to the resurrection in the New Testament are references to the resurrection of the body (Greek: σῶμα sōma) from the dead, without exception.

(The noun): ἀνάστασις (anástasis) It's found in many passages (for example):-

Matthew 22:23 & 28 & 30 & 31; Matthew 27:53; Mark 12:18, 23; Luke 2:34; Luke 14:14; Luke 20:27 & 33 & 35 & 36; John 5:29; John 11:24 & 25; Acts 1:22; Acts 2:31; Acts 4:2; Acts 4:33; Acts 17:18 & 32; Acts 23:6 & 8; Acts 24:15 & 21; Acts 26:23; Romans 1:4; Romans 6:5; 1 Corinthians 15:12, 13, 21, 42; Philippians 3:10, 11; 2 Tim 2:18; Hebrews 6:2; Hebrews 11:35; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 Peter 3:21; Revelation 20:5 & 6.

VERBS frequently used in reference to the resurrection:-

(i) ἐγείρω (egeírō)
probably akin to the base of G58 (through the idea of collecting one's faculties); to waken (transitively or intransitively), i.e. rouse (literally, from sleep, from sitting or lying, from disease, from death; or figuratively, from obscurity, inactivity, ruins, nonexistence):--awake, lift (up), raise (again, up), rear up, (a-)rise (again, up), stand, take up.

There is a very long list of New Testament verses which use the word ἐγείρω (egeírō) in reference to the resurrection, and in each and every case, the verse is a reference to the resurrection of the body from the dead (not to spiritual birth).

(ii) ἀνίστημι anístēmi
to stand up (literal or figurative, transitive or intransitive):--arise, lift up, raise up (again), rise (again), stand up(-right)

Again, whenever the word ἀνίστημι anístēmi is found in reference to the resurrection, the verse is a reference to the resurrection of the body from the dead.

EXAMPLES

An example where the verb [ ἀνίστημι (anístēmi) ] and the noun (ἀνάστασις anástasis) are both found in the same passage, where the context is the resurrection of the body from the dead:

John 11:23-26
"Jesus said to her, Your brother shall rise again [ἀνίστημι anístēmi]. Martha said to Him, I know that he shall rise again [ἀνίστημι anístēmi] in the resurrection [ἀνάστασις anastasis] at the last day. Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection [ἀνάστασις anastasis] and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Remember: Those who who are born from above by the Spirit of Christ are spiritually alive in Christ. This is not the same as the resurrection of the body.

Examples where the verb [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] and the noun (ἀνάστασις anástasis) are both found in the same passage, where the context is the resurrection of the body from the dead:-

1 Cor 15:12-15
"Now if Christ be preached that he rose [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection [ ἀνάστασις (anastasis) ] of the dead?

But if there be no resurrection [ ἀνάστασις (anastasis) ] of the dead, then is Christ not risen [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ].

And if Christ be not risen [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ], then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] Christ: whom he raised [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] not up, if so be that the dead rise [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] not."

1 Corinthians 12:20-23
“But now is Christ risen [ ἐγείρω (egeirō) ] from the dead, and become the fristfruits [ ἀπαρχή (aparchē) ] of them that slept (koimaō)

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection (anastasis) of the dead.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive [ ζωοποιέω, ( zōopoieō) ].

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits (aparchē); afterward (epeita) they that are Christ’s at his coming (perousia).”

PAUL'S TEACHING ON THE RESURRECTION:

1. NOT A "SPIRITUAL" RESURRECTION, BUT THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY.

2. NOT THE SAME AS THE NEW BIRTH

In the passage below, the New Testament teaches us very clearly and unambiguously that it is the body (σῶμα sōma) that will be raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) a spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós) body (σῶμα sōma).

1 Corinthians 15:35-38 & 42-57
"But someone will say, How are the dead (νεκρός nekrós) raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) up, and with what body (σῶμα sōma) do they come? Foolish one! What you sow is not made alive (ζωοποιέω zōopoiéō) unless it dies..

.. And what you sow, you do not sow the body (σῶμα sōma) that is going to be, but a bare grain (perhaps of wheat or of some of the rest)..

..And God gives it a body (σῶμα sōma) as it has pleased Him, and to each of the seeds its own body (σῶμα sōma)."

"So also the resurrection (ἀνάστασις anástasis) of the dead (νεκρός nekrós)..

..It is sown in corruption, it is raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) in power;..

..it is sown a natural (ψυχικός psychikós) body (σῶμα sōma), it is raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) a spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós) body (σῶμα sōma).

There is a natural (ψυχικός psychikós) body (σῶμα sōma), and there is a spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós) body (σῶμα sōma).

And so it is written, "The first man, Adam, was made a living (ζάω dzah'-o) soul (ψυχή psychḗ)," the last Adam was a life-giving (ζωοποιέω zōopoiéō) Spirit (πνεῦμα pneûma)..

..But not the spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós) first, but the natural (ψυχικός psychikós); afterward the spiritual (πνευματικός pneumatikós).

The first man was out of earth, earthy; the second Man was the Lord from Heaven. Such the earthy man, such also the earthy ones. And such the heavenly Man, such also the heavenly ones..

..And according as we bore the image of the earthy man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man..

..And I say this, brothers, that flesh (σάρξ sárx) and blood (αἷμα haîma) cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed; in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet..

..For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead (νεκρός nekrós) shall be raised (ἐγείρω egeírō) incorruptible, and we shall all be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality..

..But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and when this mortal shall put on immortality, then will take place the word that is written, "Death (νεκρός nekrós) is swallowed up in victory.

O death (νεκρός nekrós), where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?"

The sting of death (νεκρός nekrós) is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Risen with Christ (Greek) συνεγείρω synegeírō

When syn appears prefixed to egeírō (synegeírō), it shows that the resurrection of the individual believer in Christ is something which occurs with Christ's resurrection. It's the same prefix we get with words like synthesis and synchronize.

Colossians 3:1
"If ye then be risen with [συνεγείρω synegeírō] Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God."

Compare this with Romans 6:5:
"For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:"

This is also why Jesus' resurrection is called the first resurrection:

First (Greek) πρῶτον prōton:-

Acts 26:23
"That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first (πρῶτον prōton) that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles."

Revelation 20:6
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first (πρῶτον prōton) 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."

1. Christ is the first (πρῶτον prōton) to have risen from the dead; and

2. those who have been birthed (γεννάω gennáō) by the Spirit [πνεῦμα pneûma] from above (ἄνωθεν ánōthen), are

3. spiritually in Christ, and have therefore risen with (συνεγείρω synegeírō) Him; and

4. He is therefore the firstborn (πρωτότοκος prōtótokos) from the dead; and

5. the firstborn (πρωτότοκος prōtótokos) among many brothers; and

6. the first-fruits (ἀπαρχή aparchḗ') of the resurrection, which is a resurrection from death.

The word resurrection implies that something had died - as the apostle Paul stated:

Romans 8:10-11
"And if Christ is in you, indeed the body [σῶμα sōma] is dead because of sin, but the Spirit [πνεῦμα pneûma] is life because of (Christ's) righteousness

- but if the Spirit [πνεῦμα pneûma] of the One who raised up [ἐγείρω egeírō] Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the One who raised up [ἐγείρω egeírō] Christ from the dead shall also vitalize [ζωοποιέωby zōopoiéō] your mortal [θνητός thnētós] bodies [σῶμα sōma] by His Spirit [πνεῦμα pneûma] who dwells in you."

Adam had become a living soul when the Spirit of God breathed spiritual life into him, but he died spiritually when he sinned - yet he still had a body and a soul. Jesus is the last Adam and the Son of man - meaning that He, like Adam, represents all of us before God - because just as we are born of the flesh into the first Adam, so we are born of the Spirit into the last Adam, if we believe in Him and yield to Him:

1 Corinthians 15:45
"And so it is written, "The first man, Adam, was made a living soul," the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit."

There is 100% consistency in the teaching of the New Testament regarding this: The apostle Peter wrote about God "begetting us again" through the resurrection of Jesus:

1 Peter 1:3
"Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the abundance of His kindness did beget (Greek: ἀναγεννάω anagennáō) us again to a living hope, through the resurrection (Greek: ἀνάστασις anástasis) of Jesus Christ out of the dead."

The word anagennáō (ἀναγεννάω) and the word gennáō (γεννάω) are quite clearly related, and here Peter's words refer to birth, not resurrection. This is why Jesus is also called the "firstborn (Greek: πρωτότοκος prōtótokos] among many brethren":

Romans 8:29
"because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be firstborn (Greek: πρωτότοκος prōtótokos] among many brethren"

Revelation 1:5
"And from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn (Greek: πρωτότοκος prōtótokos) out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe us from our sins in his blood"

It is clear that because Christ is the first to have risen from the dead, and is therefore the first-fruits of the resurrection and the firstborn from the dead, that those who are in Christ by virtue of having been born from above by the Spirit of Christ, are risen with Him, and we wait in hope of the resurrection, the adoption, to wit, of our own mortal bodies from death:

Romans 8:23
"And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."

1 Corinthians 15:20
"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits (Greek: ἀπαρχή aparchḗ) of those who slept."

Ephesians 5:14
"Wherefore he saith, Awake [ἐγείρω egeírō] thou that sleepest, and arise [ἀνίστημι anístēmi] from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."

There is only one death, until now - Adam's death, which came to all mankind. Christ IS the resurrection from death. Adam's death is the first death, and there is only one resurrection - and it's in Christ. There is no 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc resurrection.

The second death can only take place after the first resurrection - and "resurrection" in the entire New Testament always and only refers to the resurrection of the body - there is no such thing as a "spiritual" resurrection in scripture. It's an Amil invention. There is only a spiritual birth from above.

claninja · Nov 7, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
Yes. But, first, I have to point out that I believe it's possible that he has already been loosed. But not necessarily. I know that what I just said is confusing on the surface, but if you read the following it should become more clear what I mean. I have discussed this topic for many years on forums like this one (I just came here a month ago or whatever it was because the other forum I post on is very unstable with server issues and such). However, I believe forum user "sovereigngrace" explains it better than I can and I agree 100% with his view of the binding of Satan.

So, I'm going to copy and paste things he has said in the past in debates with premils about it for you to read and consider. Here they are:

Here is a study that I have written and which explains what specifically the binding is referring to. I can't improve on it, but it may shed some light on the matter.

I do agree with a lot of what sovereign grace says in regards to the binding. He has some great insights.

However, when reading through the quotes you provided, there is no mention of the "loosing".

Spiritual Jew said:
In light of the understanding of the binding of Satan that I posted in my previous post, I believe the following passages refer to it as well:

Hebrews 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

1 John 3:8 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.

Absolutely agreed.

Spiritual Jew said:
Another thing I will add is that I believe we can see what Satan is bound from doing by looking at what he will do when he is loosed:

Rev 20:7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

He is currently bound from doing what is described in the passage above. Would you agree? The hard part is determining what that means exactly, but I think the explanation above does a good job of that.

No, I would not agree that satan is bound from deceiving and gathering those against the saints, as the gospel and epistles paint a different picture.

The gospels and Epistles are clear that Satan was already doing this in the first century:

a.) John 14:30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming, and he has no claim on Me

b.) Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you used to walk when you conformed to the ways of this world and of the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the sons of disobedience.

c.) 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

d.) 1 thessalonians 2:16-18 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!
But since we were torn away from you, brothers, for a short time, in person not in heart, we endeavored the more eagerly and with great desire to see you face to face, because we wanted to come to you—I, Paul, again and again—but Satan hindered us.

e.) Revelation 2:13 “‘I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

f.) 1 John 2:18-19 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us

g.) 1 peter 5:8 Be sober-minded and alert. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

h.) 1 timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

Spiritual Jew said:
The final thing I will add is that I believe 2 Thessalonians 2 describes the time period that he is bound and what will happen to indicate that he has been loosed. I won't quote it here to save a little space. But, it speaks of wickedness/iniquity occurring already back then (verse 7), but being restrained to an extent. But, it indicates that it will not be restrained any longer at some point in the future (which could have already started for all I know) as evidenced by a falling away from the faith (mass rebellion - verse 2) and overall increase in wickedness.

The falling away is a sign leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70ad.

Matthew 24:10-12 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.

According to John, the falling away was already occurring in the 1st century, that is how they knew it was the "last hour"

1 John 2:18-19 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us

The man of sin was actively being restrained in the 1st century. The man of sin was to sit in the temple of God. The temple is gone, and mortal sinful men do not live 2,000 years. Thus I would argue both fulfilled. (I realize that some interpret this temple to mean the body of Christ. I'm not so dogmatic that this could not be true. It only seems less likely, IMHO, as the body of Christ is spiritual, and not brick and mortar. The true church is always the true remnant of believers, so I don't know how a sinful person, claiming to be God, could become the head of the remnant of true believers. I could, however, understand many of the first century church falling away, back to the obsolete old covenant, against Christ, under a religious authority in the physical temple building, as such did happen in the first century, leading to their destruction in 66-70ad.)

2 thessalonians 2:4-6 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.

Paul was expecting God to soon crush satan under their feet, when he wrote Romans, not for satan to be released from his "chain".

Romans 16:20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Spiritual Jew said:
Yes, I would disagree if you mean by "cast out" that he was loosed at that time. I refer you to the explanation above of how I understand his binding and being loosed

These passages prove that Satan has been active since the first coming (or since Christ's ascension to be more precise). But, in my view, they do not prove that he was loosed back then. As I pointed out before, I don't believe his binding has to do with him being completely unable to do anything as if he was physically tied down but rather that he is bound with a very long leash (chain) that does not prevent him from doing anything at all, but rather prevents him from doing certain things, namely keeping the Gentiles (nations) from having the light of the gospel and God's word from shining on them.

The purpose of the deceiving is for gathering the nations to war against the saints.

revelation 20:7-8 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle.

When the devil is cast out of heaven at the ascension of Christ, he goes off to make war against the children of the woman, who keep the commands of God and testimony of Jesus. Thus I believe these are parallel.

Revelation 12:12-17 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!” And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 15The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with a flood. 16But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river that the dragon had poured from his mouth. 17Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stoodc on the sand of the sea.

Do you believe satan was warring against the body of Christ in the first century?

Spiritual Jew said:
I agree with all of that. These show he was bound long ago. But, what confuses me about your view is that you apparently think his binding only lasted a very short time. Also, I thought you indicated that you believe the thousand years is literal and began in David's time? But, doesn't his binding occur at the beginning of the thousand years? Please clarify this.

No, the 1,000 years is not the time period between David and Jesus. IMHO, the 1,000 years are symbolic of Christ's fulfillment of the Davidic covenant at his first advent, and not necessarily a time span. This resulted in satan being bound and cast out, and the first resurrection.

Spiritual Jew said:
First of all, the word is not always used in relation to time. Here's one example:

Matt 22:14 For many are invited (called), but few (Greek: oligos) are chosen.

Now, is this saying that a literal small number of people are chosen? No, right? We know at least millions of people have been chosen. It's used in the sense of there being relatively few or a limited number of people being chosen. This shows that the word can be used to refer to a relatively small or limited number rather than a literally small number. I see no reason to think that can't be the case when it's used in relation to time.

Here is a verse where it is used in relation to time:

James 4:14 Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while (oligos) and then vanishes.

There can be a sense where you could see the human life span as being a literally small amount of time, but I don't believe that's what James was saying here. People used to live up to over 900 years and in modern times up to 120 years or so. I believe the point James is making is that our time is limited (our life spans vary, but we all die, so we all have limited life spans).

oligos always mean few, little, short, in regards to what it is describing. It never means long time. Your example in james 4:14 is in regards to mist. Mist literally vanished quickly. As such, in the context of all creation 1 life is here for only a short time.

Spiritual Jew said:
Here is another verse where the word is used:

Acts 14:26 From Attalia they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been committed to the grace of God for the work they had now completed. 27 On arriving there, they gathered the church together and reported all that God had done through them and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. 28 And they stayed there a long (oligos) time with the disciples.

Here, the word is translated as "long" in relation to time rather than "short"! And, again, I believe it's referring to an undefined and limited amount of time without giving any indication of the actual duration being literally short or long.

In acts 14:28, oligos is being modified by the adverb "no (ouk)". it is literally read "NO little time". Oligos still means little, short, few in this passage.

acts 14:28 And they remained no (ouk) little (oligos) time with the disciples.

Spiritual Jew said:
I take this as you saying that you allow for the possibility of a future bodily coming but you don't currently believe that will happen. Is that correct? If you're not allowed to answer that because of forum rules, I understand.

I believe in another advent of Christ. The coming of Christ in judgment on Israel in 66-70ad does not preclude this. I am a partial preterist, not full.

BABerean2 · Nov 7, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Only Revelation 20 tells us that Satan will be bound and shut up in the abyss for a thousand years - the binding of Satan and shutting him up in the abyss is not mentioned anywhere else in scripture - and the reason why God will do so, is implicit in what is said in Revelation 20 - that for a thousand years Satan will be unable to deceive the nations again after the destruction of the beast and false prophet in the lake of fire.

Once again, you are assuming the Book of Revelation is in chronological order.
It is a simple matter to prove the book is not in chronological order.

We have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why an angel comes down from heaven with a key and unlocks the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2, if it was not locked before that time.

Paul reveals the timing of Revelation 20 because the fire comes at the end of Revelation 20, as foretold by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.
Paul also said Christ judges both the living and the dead at His appearing in 2 Timothy 4:1, and the judgment of the dead occurs in Revelation 11:18, and also at the end of chapter 20.

.

ewq1938 · Nov 7, 2020

Spiritual Jew said:
You acknowledged that the sword is symbolic. So, now you're saying it's literal? Please make up your mind.

I have never said it is literal. Why do you keep making that false accusation?

Zao is life · Nov 7, 2020

BABerean2 said:
Once again, you are assuming the Book of Revelation is in chronological order.
It is a simple matter to prove the book is not in chronological order.

We have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why an angel comes down from heaven with a key and unlocks the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2, if it was not locked before that time.

Paul reveals the timing of Revelation 20 because the fire comes at the end of Revelation 20, as foretold by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.
Paul also said Christ judges both the living and the dead at His appearing in 2 Timothy 4:1, and the judgment of the dead occurs in Revelation 11:18, and also at the end of chapter 20.

.

Once again, you have repeated your (false) assumption that Revelation 19 and 20 are not in chronological order.

What's new?

You're re-hashing the same, old tired arguments that you fed into the thread earlier, and over and over again, that were corrected by a Premil or by Premills (plural) and though they came out the other side nice and neat and placed in order, you simply insert the same faulty arguments again, hoping they will miraculously come out the other side just as faulty as when you inserted them.

Have a great Sunday, brother BaBerean2 Please forgive me if I don't respond to your feed of the same faulty arguments into this thread that you've already fed into it multiple times.

Spiritual Jew · Nov 7, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
I was showing how ridiculous the claim is that Satan is already in the pit and has been bound up in it since Calvary.

Is it ridiculous to claim that the fallen angels, which would include Satan, are "bound with everlasting chains" reserved for judgment? Has that kept them from doing anything at all?

Jude 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment.

This is strong evidence to show that fallen angels, like Satan, being bound with chains does not mean what you think it means.

Spiritual Jew · Nov 7, 2020

ewq1938 said:
I have never said it is literal. Why do you keep making that false accusation?

What was your point in showing the verse that talks about people being slain with His sword then? Please don't just quote a verse without any commentary next time. That just leaves me to guess what you're intending to say.

Spiritual Jew · Nov 7, 2020

claninja said:
I do agree with a lot of what sovereign grace says in regards to the binding. He has some great insights.

However, when reading through the quotes you provided, there is no mention of the "loosing".

I personally equate the loosing with the time Paul talks about in 2 Thess 2 when a mass falling away from the faith occurs and wickedness that was previously restrained (to an extent) will no longer be restrained.

No, I would not agree that satan is bound from deceiving and gathering those against the saints, as the gospel and epistles paint a different picture.

Like premils, you seem to think the binding of Satan has to do with him being completely unable to deceive or do anything. I just do not agree that is what the binding of Satan means. I believe it has to do with how he was able to keep the Gentiles in almost complete spiritual darkness in OT times and then that changed in NT times while the gospel has spread throughout the world.

The falling away is a sign leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70ad.

Matthew 24:10-12 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.

According to John, the falling away was already occurring in the 1st century, that is how they knew it was the "last hour"

1 John 2:18-19 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us

The man of sin was actively being restrained in the 1st century. The man of sin was to sit in the temple of God. The temple is gone, and mortal sinful men do not live 2,000 years. Thus I would argue both fulfilled. (I realize that some interpret this temple to mean the body of Christ. I'm not so dogmatic that this could not be true. It only seems less likely, IMHO, as the body of Christ is spiritual, and not brick and mortar. The true church is always the true remnant of believers, so I don't know how a sinful person, claiming to be God, could become the head of the remnant of true believers. I could, however, understand many of the first century church falling away, back to the obsolete old covenant, against Christ, under a religious authority in the physical temple building, as such did happen in the first century, leading to their destruction in 66-70ad.)

2 thessalonians 2:4-6 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time.

I completely disagree with you on this. That temple was no longer "the temple of God" once Christ died on the cross. Paul would never have referred to that temple as the temple of God at the time he wrote 2 Thessalonians. He only referred to the bodies of believers and the corporate body of Christ as being the temple of God.

Do you know why God split the temple veil/curtain in two when Christ died? To show that it was no longer the temple of God because of Jesus being rejected by the Jews (for the most part). God would no longer be meeting with man at a physical temple but would instead be dwelling in the hearts of those who believed in His Son. Jesus Himself is the chief cornerstone of the temple of God, which is the church.

One other thing. What about what Paul said here:

2 Thess 2:1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

How does this have anything to do with what happened around 70 AD? In what way were any believers gathered to Christ at that time?

I believe verse 1 is clearly referring to what Paul had previously written to them about in 1 Thess 4:13-5:6. Do you also believe that 1 Thess 4:13-5:6 was fulfilled in 70 AD? If so, how can that be true?

The purpose of the deceiving is for gathering the nations to war against the saints.

revelation 20:7-8 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle.

When the devil is cast out of heaven at the ascension of Christ, he goes off to make war against the children of the woman, who keep the commands of God and testimony of Jesus. Thus I believe these are parallel.

Revelation 12:12-17 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!” And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 15The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with a flood. 16But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river that the dragon had poured from his mouth. 17Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stoodc on the sand of the sea.

Do you believe satan was warring against the body of Christ in the first century?

Of course, but what I believe is that he was bound from preventing the gospel from spreading throughout the world and bound from uniting unbelievers together as a whole against the body of Christ in a unified effort to the destroy the church.

No, the 1,000 years is not the time period between David and Jesus. IMHO, the 1,000 years are symbolic of Christ's fulfillment of the Davidic covenant at his first advent, and not necessarily a time span. This resulted in satan being bound and cast out, and the first resurrection.

I'm sorry, but I don't find that to be reasonable. While I don't believe the 1,000 years is literally 1,000 years, I can't go along with the idea that it's not an actual time period at all.

oligos always mean few, little, short, in regards to what it is describing. It never means long time. Your example in james 4:14 is in regards to mist. Mist literally vanished quickly. As such, in the context of all creation 1 life is here for only a short time.

Our lives don't literally vanish quickly, though. The average life span used to be hundreds of years, then 120. Now it's around 75 or so. So, my point is that it's a term used in a relative sense, not literal. And James 4:14 fits that idea.

You saw that it was used when Jesus said many are called but few (oligos) are chosen, right? And that is in relation to salvation, wouldn't you agree? Surely, millions of people have been chosen for salvation, wouldn't you agree? Are millions a small number?

So, I stick by my assertion that the word refers to a relatively small and limited number, but not necessarily a literally small number just as in the case of "few" being chosen. That is how I see it used in scripture.

I believe in another advent of Christ. The coming of Christ in judgment on Israel in 66-70ad does not preclude this. I am a partial preterist, not full.

Good to know. Our disagreement is not something to make a huge deal about since we agree on the most important things.

BABerean2 · Nov 7, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Once again, you have repeated your (false) assumption that Revelation 19 and 20 are not in chronological order.

What's new?

You're re-hashing the same, old tired arguments that you fed into the thread earlier, and over and over again, that were corrected by a Premil or by Premills (plural) and though they came out the other side nice and neat and placed in order, you simply insert the same faulty arguments again, hoping they will miraculously come out the other side just as faulty as when you inserted them.

Have a great Sunday, brother BaBerean2 Please forgive me if I don't respond to your feed of the same faulty arguments into this thread that you've already fed into it multiple times.

Where is the guy that showed a great deal of humility and also admitted he could be wrong, that posted on this forum just a few days ago?

I really liked that guy. It was a real pleasure interacting with him, even though we have different viewpoints of Revelation 20.

Hopefully, he will be back on Monday.

.

DavidPT · Nov 7, 2020

BABerean2 said:
We have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why an angel comes down from heaven with a key and unlocks the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2, if it was not locked before that time.

In what way is this a problem for Premils to begin with? Let's assume for a moment Revelation 20:1 is meaning chronologically before Revelation 9:1. What is the status of the pit at that time? Is the pit already opened, thus the angel only has the key in order to lock it, and not to unlock it first, then lock it back up once satan is cast into it? Assuming the key is to unlock the pit in order to cast satan into it then lock the pit back up, how and when did the pit get locked up in the first place, and who initially locked it up?

Assuming the key is only used to lock the pit up once satan is cast into it, thus the pit is already opened at the time, how did the pit get opened to begin with, who initially opened it? In this scenario this is easily explained per Revelation 9:1, the fact we see someone opening the pit, yet we never see anyone locking it back up until Revelation 20:1. Per this scenario, this would tend to prove Premil not Amil, the fact this would indicate Revelation 9:1 chronologically precedes Revelation 20:1.

Spiritual Jew · Nov 7, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Once again, you have repeated your (false) assumption that Revelation 19 and 20 are not in chronological order.

What's new?

You're re-hashing the same, old tired arguments that you fed into the thread earlier, and over and over again, that were corrected by a Premil or by Premills (plural) and though they came out the other side nice and neat and placed in order, you simply insert the same faulty arguments again, hoping they will miraculously come out the other side just as faulty as when you inserted them.

Have a great Sunday, brother BaBerean2 Please forgive me if I don't respond to your feed of the same faulty arguments into this thread that you've already fed into it multiple times.

You're such an angry person. Why? You acknowledged before that you see parallels within the book. So, why do you get so upset when someone sees a parallel between Rev 19 and 20? If you disagree, fine. But why the hostility?

DavidPT · Nov 7, 2020

Here's a question or two for Amils, since Amils give the impression they have a better understanding of the pit than Premils do. When did the pit first come into existence, and who was the first one or ones to get cast into it, and when did that initially happen? Assuming Amils argue that the pit is not literal, it still doesn't matter, because at some point there still had to be a need for this pit, thus it has to come into existence at some point even if a literal pit were not meant.

I tend to think the pit is literal, but I already know what kind of argument that leads to---if I take the pit as literal, do I also take the key and chain as literal? If I take the pit as literal but not the key and chain as well, Amils will then argue that I'm not being consistent, then. As if they have room to talk, the fact they take one resurrection in Revelation 20 not to be meaning the same type of resurrection as the other resurrection mentioned in ch 20, thus they are not being consistent either.

If someone said that it's raining cats and dogs outside, and that I don't take the cats and dogs part in the literal sense, but that I take the rain and outside in the literal sense, does this indicate I'm being inconsistent here as well?

sovereigngrace · Nov 7, 2020

DavidPT said:
In what way is this a problem for Premils to begin with? Let's assume for a moment Revelation 20:1 is meaning chronologically before Revelation 9:1. What is the status of the pit at that time? Is the pit already opened, thus the angel only has the key in order to lock it, and not to unlock it first, then lock it back up once satan is cast into it? Assuming the key is to unlock the pit in order to cast satan into it then lock the pit back up, how and when did the pit get locked up in the first place, and who initially locked it up?

Assuming the key is only used to lock the pit up once satan is cast into it, thus the pit is already opened at the time, how did the pit get opened to begin with, who initially opened it? In this scenario this is easily explained per Revelation 9:1, the fact we see someone opening the pit, yet we never see anyone locking it back up until Revelation 20:1. Per this scenario, this would tend to prove Premil not Amil, the fact this would indicate Revelation 9:1 chronologically precedes Revelation 20:1.

Some good Bible commentators have taken this star/angel as a fallen angel. This may be in some way influenced by the use of the word “fall” in the KJV to describe the descent of the angel from heaven.

The question is: is it a fallen angel or is it an elect angel? This word pipto (Strong’s 4098) interpreted “fall” carries the idea of alighting or descending. It is derived from the Greek word petomai (Strong’s 4072) meaning ‘to fly’. This would certainly support the idea that we are looking at an angel. The Greek word pipto itself carries several meanings; the first of which we encounter is ‘to descend from a higher place to a lower’. All these interpretations are consistent with the picture of an angel descending from heaven to earth.

Revelation 9 proves that the abyss is the invisible spiritual restrained domain where demons operate now upon "earth."

Let us first establish that John is actually looking at "a star" in Revelation 9:1. That is what he identifies. He is seeing a symbolic vision. Whilst it is likely the star represents an angel the vision relates to an actual star. Because a star is inanimate, it is described as falling. Basically stars “fall” (Revelation 8.10; 9.1). Good angels on the other hand are said to “come down” (Revelation 10.1; 20.1). Whilst the same picture is been painted in both, one relates to a symbol (representing an angel) the other to a literal angel.

It is worth noting, Revelation 8:10-11 uses similar language to Revelation 9:1, saying, “there pipto (or) fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.”

This star/angel that descended from heaven seemed to be on a heavenly assignment to open-up the bottomless pit before the second coming. It would clearly be wrong to view this as a demonic being.

In both Revelation 9 and Revelation 20 demons are released for a short season to (1) deceive the minds of the wicked and in order to (2) fight the righteous (Rev 9:15-16 and Rev 20:9). The final battle that results is shown to be between the righteous and the wicked.

Revelation 9 shows the abyss being opened and the demonic locust/scorpion-type creatures being released to torment the unregenerate just before the second coming. The timescale identified is very short – being described here as “five months.” This corresponds with Satan’s little season in Revelation 20:3.

Revelation 20:3 says of the king of the kingdom of darkness (and representative of the whole dark spiritual realm): “he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.”

If Revelation 9 is referring to a period just prior to the end (before the last trumpet) then this star couldn’t be Satan or any of his fallen angels. After all, they are already locked up in the abyss. They are powerless to let themselves loose. It must be a divine act and a heavenly agent. The assignment of this descending angel is actually to release the fallen angels just before the end. Obviously they cannot release themselves. This must therefore be a high ranking angelic representative of Christ, as he had already kicked the rebellious spirits out of heaven after His ascension a long time ago.

What is more, the wicked spirits can no longer access heaven. They have been eternally banished through the victorious work of Christ.

sovereigngrace · Nov 7, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
Once again, you have repeated your (false) assumption that Revelation 19 and 20 are not in chronological order.

What's new?

You're re-hashing the same, old tired arguments that you fed into the thread earlier, and over and over again, that were corrected by a Premil or by Premills (plural) and though they came out the other side nice and neat and placed in order, you simply insert the same faulty arguments again, hoping they will miraculously come out the other side just as faulty as when you inserted them.

Have a great Sunday, brother BaBerean2 Please forgive me if I don't respond to your feed of the same faulty arguments into this thread that you've already fed into it multiple times.

How about actually addressing his arguments instead of your usual nastiness?

DavidPT · Nov 7, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
It also once again kills OSAS.

Speaking of that, there are some Amils in the OSAS camp, and some Amils in the NOSAS camp. As to the latter, that is a contradiction, Amil and NOSAS are not compatible. Amils in the past who are of the OSAS camp even agreed with me when I mentioned that NOSAS and Amil is a contradiction, thus both can't be true, only one or the other can be true, or that neither is true, but certainly both can't be true.

Per Premil it doesn't matter which camp one is in, because one's salvation is already determined before they are resurrected. The ones that are saved, they rise first. The ones that are not saved, they rise last.

Spiritual Jew · Nov 7, 2020

DavidPT said:
In what way is this a problem for Premils to begin with? Let's assume for a moment Revelation 20:1 is meaning chronologically before Revelation 9:1. What is the status of the pit at that time? Is the pit already opened, thus the angel only has the key in order to lock it, and not to unlock it first, then lock it back up once satan is cast into it? Assuming the key is to unlock the pit in order to cast satan into it then lock the pit back up, how and when did the pit get locked up in the first place, and who initially locked it up?

Assuming the key is only used to lock the pit up once satan is cast into it, thus the pit is already opened at the time, how did the pit get opened to begin with, who initially opened it? In this scenario this is easily explained per Revelation 9:1, the fact we see someone opening the pit, yet we never see anyone locking it back up until Revelation 20:1. Per this scenario, this would tend to prove Premil not Amil, the fact this would indicate Revelation 9:1 chronologically precedes Revelation 20:1.

The text in Revelation 9 tells us that the pit was shut at that point and is opened, but it does not tell us one way or another if the pit is shut back up after that. So, we can only speculate on that which doesn't get us anywhere.

So, why not think about it like this. The first thing we need to do, as it relates to Revelation 9, is to identify who the locusts represent. And that isn't hard to do. Their king is the angel of the abyss/pit (verse 11). It's only logical to conclude that the locusts symbolically represent fallen angels if their king is an angel, right? I believe so.

So, let's think about this. What this means is that the fallen angels had previously been cast into the abyss at some point before the fifth trumpet sounds. Even if we assume that Satan isn't among them ( though I see no reason to assume that), doesn't this mean that the fallen angels are in the abyss now, assuming that the fifth trumpet hasn't sounded yet? If so, does that mean they are not able to do anything at all?

If you try to say that the locusts don't represent all of the fallen angels, then that would mean the abyss/pit would need to be shut after letting those locusts (fallen angels) out in order to keep the rest of the locusts (fallen angels) or whoever else is in the abyss from getting out. In that case, the premil view that the pit has already been opened (at the fifth trumpet) when Satan is cast in would not be true.

So, with all of this in mind, please tell me your understanding of who the locusts represent and whether you think all of them (or all of whoever is in the abyss at the time) are loosed at the fifth trumpet or just some of them.

Another thing I'd like to discuss with you is the identity of the king of the abyss/pit, whose name is Abaddon in Hebrew and Apollyon in Greek. But, let's take it one thing at a time.

Is the thousand years of Revelation chapter 20 symbolic?

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

I love you three.

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Amillennialist

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Amillennialist

Similar threads