"Living and reigning with Christ" - BEFORE Christ was born

[3 Resurrections]

Good question. Its hard to see how the redeemed could be reigning with him before the shedding of his blood.

I'm going to presume that SG intended to refer to the time before Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. The use of the term "Christ" in Revelation 20:4 doesn't necessarily mean that the crucifixion had to have been a past event for those saints to be reigning with Him, anymore than the references to the "SON" making the worlds meant that Jesus as God's incarnate Son was present when the worlds were made (Hebrews 1:2). The second person of the Trinity was there making the worlds from creation - the "Word" as in the gospel of John - but we know very well that the incarnation did not take place in real time until Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. Jesus was not actually a "SON" until His conception. Hebrews 1:2 just uses that term "SON" as being the creator of the worlds because, from the believers' perspective in time when Hebrews was being written, that was the term they associated with the second person of the Trinity. Same thing with the saints reigning with Christ. John used that term because that was the term those saints in those days associated with the second person of the Trinity.

To "live and reign with Christ" is the same as "reigning in life by one, Jesus Christ" in Romans 5:17. This has been the case for every one who becomes a child of faith sometime during their natural lifetime, from Adam forward in time. If God gives the "gift of righteousness"(Romans 5:17) to a person, that puts them in God's kingdom, and they share in the benefits of God's reign over mankind. They "reign with Him".

There are several passages in the Psalms where God's continual reign is emphasized. "Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth...The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice...The Lord reigneth; let the people tremble...The Lord shall reign forever, even thy God, O Zion, unto all generations...Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations...Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting...". Any saint in the OT was also sharing in that reign as a child of faith. This shared reign was not limited only to the Rev. 20 thousand-year period, and it was not limited only to the time after Christ had died and been resurrected.

 

[DavidPT]

Not so. The "First resurrection" takes place when the millennium years are "finished" in Rev. 20:5.

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

How exactly are you determining from this verse that the first resurrection is after the millennium? Have you tried reading it by removing the parenthetical portion, like such, below? The parenthetical portion meaning this---But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.


When reading it like this are you still concluding the first resurrection is after the millennium? If yes, how could you still be?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Are you asking about the time before the crucifixion and Christ's resurrection?

Yes.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I'm going to presume that SG intended to refer to the time before Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. The use of the term "Christ" in Revelation 20:4 doesn't necessarily mean that the crucifixion had to have been a past event for those saints to be reigning with Him, anymore than the references to the "SON" making the worlds meant that Jesus as God's incarnate Son was present when the worlds were made (Hebrews 1:2). The second person of the Trinity was there making the worlds from creation - the "Word" as in the gospel of John - but we know very well that the incarnation did not take place in real time until Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. Jesus was not actually a "SON" until His conception. Hebrews 1:2 just uses that term "SON" as being the creator of the worlds because, from the believers' perspective in time when Hebrews was being written, that was the term they associated with the second person of the Trinity. Same thing with the saints reigning with Christ. John used that term because that was the term those saints in those days associated with the second person of the Trinity.

To "live and reign with Christ" is the same as "reigning in life by one, Jesus Christ" in Romans 5:17. This has been the case for every one who becomes a child of faith sometime during their natural lifetime, from Adam forward in time. If God gives the "gift of righteousness"(Romans 5:17) to a person, that puts them in God's kingdom, and they share in the benefits of God's reign over mankind. They "reign with Him".

There are several passages in the Psalms where God's continual reign is emphasized. "Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth...The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice...The Lord reigneth; let the people tremble...The Lord shall reign forever, even thy God, O Zion, unto all generations...Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations...Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting...". Any saint in the OT was also sharing in that reign as a child of faith. This shared reign was not limited only to the Rev. 20 thousand-year period, and it was not limited only to the time after Christ had died and been resurrected.

Bro, I don't want to offend you in any way, but this is some of the biggest waffle I have ever read on this site since I came here. It makes no sense. Pretrib makes more sense (and that is saying something). I mean it.

You are butchering the text and have no corroboration for this. You are forcing your flawed theology on the sacred text.

For anyone knowledgeable in the Word it is hard to read.

What scholars have held to this apart from the Full Preterist heretics?

 

[3 Resurrections]

How exactly are you determining from this verse that the first resurrection is after the millennium? Have you tried reading it by removing the parenthetical portion, like such, below?

Yes, I have done so before, and it reads the same way, even with the variant part of the text removed.

Don't let the word "REST of the dead" throw you. The Greek word used is "loipoi", meaning a "REMNANT of the dead". This means it was speaking of a small fraction of the dead coming to life again, which John labeled as "the FIRST resurrection". This "FIRST resurrection" took place when the Matthew 27 saints were raised by Christ as He arose that day. Those Matthew 27 resurrected saints were only a small fraction - a "remnant" - of the total amount of saints who would ultimately be raised from the dead. They were only the "FIRST-fruits", (all 144,000 of them, plus Christ), and would be followed later on by a multitude of resurrected saints that could not be counted, since there were so many.

That is the symbolism portrayed by the THREE required harvest feast celebrations of Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. Each of those three harvest feast celebrations represented God "harvesting" the physical bodies of His saints out of the grave on three separate occasions - the "precious fruit of the earth", for which God the "husbandman" had "long patience".

The first "Passover" harvest of Israel's agricultural year had a sheaf handful of barley first-fruits grain offered in the Temple, along with a single He-lamb of the first year (which single He-lamb represented Christ, along with the small "remnant of the dead" that He raised at that time - the Matthew 27 saints).

The next "Pentecost" celebration in Israel took place when the wheat harvest came in (which represented the massive, Pentecost-day resurrection that took place in AD 70).

Since then, believers are now waiting for the fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles resurrection for us in our future at the end of fallen man's history in this world (represented by the symbolism of the "Feast of Ingathering" at the end of Israel's agricultural year). This will be the largest and most joyous celebration of all.

Truly, I am pinning ALL of this eschatological paradigm on the correct definition and timing of the "FIRST resurrection" in AD 33. If people cannot recognize the "FIRST resurrection" as being Christ the "FIRST-fruits" rising from the dead, and raising the "remnant of the dead", the 144,000 "FIRST-fruits", Matthew 27 saints along with Him (when the millennium was "finished"), then the interpretation of every bit of prophecy connected to that pivotal event in history goes askew.

By the way, this is NOT a Full Preterist paradigm. I have found that they usually avoid a discussion of the Matthew 27 bodily-resurrected saints as they would the plague, or they dismiss them outright, or they say that they simply died again (which contradicts Hebrews 9:27).

 

[sovereigngrace]

Yes, I have done so before, and it reads the same way, even with the variant part of the text removed.

Don't let the word "REST of the dead" throw you. The Greek word used is "loipoi", meaning a "REMNANT of the dead". This means it was speaking of a small fraction of the dead coming to life again, which John labeled as "the FIRST resurrection". This "FIRST resurrection" took place when the Matthew 27 saints were raised by Christ as He arose that day. Those Matthew 27 resurrected saints were only a small fraction - a "remnant" - of the total amount of saints who would ultimately be raised from the dead. They were only the "FIRST-fruits", (all 144,000 of them, plus Christ), and would be followed later on by a multitude of resurrected saints that could not be counted, since there were so many.

That is the symbolism portrayed by the THREE required harvest feast celebrations of Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. Each of those three harvest feast celebrations represented God "harvesting" the physical bodies of His saints out of the grave on three separate occasions - the "precious fruit of the earth", for which God the "husbandman" had "long patience".

The first "Passover" harvest of Israel's agricultural year had a sheaf handful of barley first-fruits grain offered in the Temple, along with a single He-lamb of the first year (which single He-lamb represented Christ, along with the small "remnant of the dead" that He raised at that time - the Matthew 27 saints).

The next "Pentecost" celebration in Israel took place when the wheat harvest came in (which represented the massive, Pentecost-day resurrection that took place in AD 70).

Since then, believers are now waiting for the fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles resurrection for us in our future at the end of fallen man's history in this world (represented by the symbolism of the "Feast of Ingathering" at the end of Israel's agricultural year). This will be the largest and most joyous celebration of all.

Truly, I am pinning ALL of this eschatological paradigm on the correct definition and timing of the "FIRST resurrection" in AD 33. If people cannot recognize the "FIRST resurrection" as being Christ the "FIRST-fruits" rising from the dead, and raising the "remnant of the dead", the 144,000 "FIRST-fruits", Matthew 27 saints along with Him (when the millennium was "finished"), then the interpretation of every bit of prophecy connected to that pivotal event in history goes askew.

By the way, this is NOT a Full Preterist paradigm. I have found that they usually avoid a discussion of the Matthew 27 bodily-resurrected saints as they would the plague, or they dismiss them outright, or they say that they simply died again (which contradicts Hebrews 9:27).

That is not so. Do you reject the fact that Jesus is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5)?

 

[3 Resurrections]

That is not so. Do you reject the fact that Jesus is "the first resurrection" (Acts 26:23 and Revelation 20:6), "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), "the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20), "first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5)?

Of course I do not reject that Jesus was the "FIRST resurrection". I'M PROVING IT. "Christ the First-fruits" was unique among the 144,000 "First-fruits" who shared that "FIRST resurrection" event with Him, in that He was the only one who could ever claim the titles of the "FIRST-born" and the "FIRST-begotten". No one else has ever or will ever be able to share those two titles. Christ was absolutely the first one of ANY resurrected saint to be brought near before the Ancient of Days in heaven while in a glorified, resurrected human body. THIS ASCENSION is what gave Christ the totally unique distinction of being the "FIRST-begotten" and the "FIRST-born".

"This day have I begotten thee", God told the Son on that morning when He had ascended to the Father and was brought near before the Ancient of Days. Birth order was vital, because Christ had to be the first to ascend to the Father and "open the matrix" for all His resurrected brethren to follow Him later on, when they could also stand before God in their glorified, incorruptible body forms.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Of course I do not reject that Jesus was the "FIRST resurrection". I'M PROVING IT. "Christ the First-fruits" was unique among the 144,000 "First-fruits" who shared that "FIRST resurrection" event with Him, in that He was the only one who could ever claim the titles of the "FIRST-born" and the "FIRST-begotten". No one else has ever or will ever be able to share those two titles. Christ was absolutely the first one of ANY resurrected saint to be brought near before the Ancient of Days in heaven while in a glorified, resurrected human body. THIS ASCENSION is what gave Christ the totally unique distinction of being the "FIRST-begotten" and the "FIRST-born".

"This day have I begotten thee", God told the Son on that morning when He had ascended to the Father and was brought near before the Ancient of Days. Birth order was vital, because Christ had to be the first to ascend to the Father and "open the matrix" for all His resurrected brethren to follow Him later on, when they could also stand before God in their glorified, incorruptible body forms.

The only way that the elect could conquer the grave and reign with Christ was after
sin, death (or the grave), Satan, Hades (or Abraham’s bosom) and eternal punishment were defeated by Jesus.

If the fall was the greatest tragedy that hit mankind, the cross was the biggest blessing. It confronted everything that was arrayed against us. Justice demanded:

· Christ had to defeat sin – the source of man’s enslavement.
· He had to defeat Satan the instrument used to tempt man to sin.
· He had to defeat death (or the grave) the penalty of sin.
· He had to defeat Hades (or Abraham’s bosom) the prison of the righteous dead.
· He had to defeat eternal punishment – the just reward for unrepentant sinners.

This meant that none of these had any power over God’s people.

Something happened 2000 years ago that you seem to be ignorant of: Jesus defeated sin, death, Hades and Satan. Hell had no more hold upon the redeemed. Revelation 20 shows the dead in Christ now populating heaven instead of Hades. Hades (Abraham's bosom) has been emptied of God’s elect since Christ conquered it. The dead were raised from Hades in spirit and are now reigning with Jesus. But the physical resurrection does not occur until Jesus comes to raise the living and the dead at His one final future climactic coming.

Jesus was the first to defeat sin, death, the grave and Hades. He is the first resurrection. After His glorious resurrection, He testified in Revelation 1:18: "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."

Death and Hades are now defeated. The grave has been conquered. God's people who die go now to be with Jesus.

Before the resurrection the redeemed dead were forced to stay in Hades awaiting the defeat of sin, death, Hades and Satan. The limitations that once held God's people from the presence of God now restrain Satan so that he cannot stop the enlightenment of the nations. Jesus opened heaven up to the elect (both living and dead) When he defeated sin, death, Satan and Hades. He consequently emptied Abraham's bosom and took the dead in Christ in heaven.

So, it was only after the first resurrection (when sin, death, Satan and hell were defeated) and the consequential binding of Satan that the dead in Christ could be released to enter the presence of the Lord in heaven. Christ emptied Hades and led captivity captive taking them to heaven to reign with Him until the physical resurrection at His coming. That is because the penalty for their sin has been paid in full. Justice has been met by the sinless life of Christ, His atoning death on our behalf and His victorious resurrection. The punishment is complete.

The dead in Christ are in glory today. They are reigning with Christ. Upon death, they go immediately into the presence of God to rule with him. So, those in Revelation who are reigning in Revelation 20 do so because Jesus defeated the grave and opened Hades 2000 years ago and led the redeemed dead into glory. They now reign with Him since the first resurrection. Revelation 20 is ongoing and will finish at the coming of Christ which sees the general resurrection, judgment and the regeneration of this current world.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Well, SG, it seems that for all you posted, you still don't know what to do with the resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints any more than the Full Preterists know what to do with them. The Matthew 27 resurrected saints were the example for all the believers to see in those days of what they could expect their own glorified, resurrected body forms to be. It was such an astounding event that Hymenaeus and Philetus mistakenly thought that those 144,000 Firstfruits saints were the only ones who would ever be resurrected. This was the source of the discouraging error those two were teaching that had blighted the faith of some of those in the church. Paul set the the record straight about that in I Thess. 4.

Satan was not bound at the cross. At Christ's first ascension to the Father that resurrection morning, Satan and his angels were actually kicked out of heaven down to the earth and the sea to wreak havoc on their inhabitants for a "short time". John in Revelation 12:12 said that Satan had already been loosed on earth for that "short time" as he was writing Revelation. This proves that the millennium had already expired by then, because the millennium was set to expire when Satan was released for a "little season" after the thousand years had run its course.

 

[RandyPNW]

This post is in response to DavidPT on another thread, where we were discussing the time limits of the millennium. My contention was that the literal, 1,000-year millennium is undoubtedly presented as a PAST fulfillment by the time Revelation was being written, and that it had ENDED in AD 33 with the "First resurrection" of Christ the "First-fruits" and the 144,000 remnant of the "First-fruits" that He raised from the dead in Matthew 27:52-53.

DavidPT's question was with regard to just how anyone in Revelation 20:4 could have "lived and reigned WITH Christ" in a millennium period which began before Christ was even born.
We use this writing technique all the time in speaking about someone by a term that is not necessarily true of them at the moment we are speaking, and scripture does the same thing here in Rev. 20:4. One example is in Acts 4:27 and following. "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together...And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that will all boldness they may speak thy word, By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus."

We know for certain that Jesus at that point in time was not a young child, but a full grown adult male in glorified, resurrected form in heaven. Yet the language is not contradictory, since we know exactly of whom the disciples were speaking - the man Christ Jesus who had once been a young child growing up in Nazareth.

The word used and translated as "child" is actually a reference to Christ being a *servant* of his Father in heaven. Though the word can indeed be translated as "child," in context that is not the meaning here. The reference is to a fully-grown adult who is willing to serve God. Children are also servants of their parents in a family, and that is why the word can be used for "child," as well.

With such a poor argument, your "proof" looks very weak. The fact is, passages must be translated *in context.* Otherwise, you may be applying how words are used differently in different contexts.

Another example is when scripture says that it was the "Son" of God who "made the worlds" (Hebrews 1:2). Yet we know that the second person of the Trinity who became flesh as the incarnate Son of God in Mary's womb was not yet in that incarnate form as God's "Son" before creation in Genesis. Yet there is no contradiction, because we know that this term, "the Son" was speaking of the "Word" which later became incarnate flesh, and dwelt among us.

Again, this is a completely different context, and may have nothing to do with how "Millennium" is used in Rev 20. Identifying a person who existed in another state is the context for Heb 1.2. This is certainly not what is taking place in Rev 20. The Millennium is *not* being identified as taking place in a different time period, unless you first assume it to be so.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Well, SG, it seems that for all you posted, you still don't know what to do with the resurrected Matthew 27:52-53 saints any more than the Full Preterists know what to do with them. The Matthew 27 resurrected saints were the example for all the believers to see in those days of what they could expect their own glorified, resurrected body forms to be. It was such an astounding event that Hymenaeus and Philetus mistakenly thought that those 144,000 Firstfruits saints were the only ones who would ever be resurrected. This was the source of the discouraging error those two were teaching that had blighted the faith of some of those in the church. Paul set the the record straight about that in I Thess. 4.

Satan was not bound at the cross. At Christ's first ascension to the Father that resurrection morning, Satan and his angels were actually kicked out of heaven down to the earth and the sea to wreak havoc on their inhabitants for a "short time". John in Revelation 12:12 said that Satan had already been loosed on earth for that "short time" as he was writing Revelation. This proves that the millennium had already expired by then, because the millennium was set to expire when Satan was released for a "little season" after the thousand years had run its course.

You are ducking around the issues and providing no evidence for your claims. Who was reigning with Christ and raised from the grave to reign for 1,000 years from 987/986 BC until until AD 33?

On what grounds did they defeat the grave before Jesus, when He was the firstfruits?

Also, you have still to tell me: who among the ECFs, solid theologians over the centuries, solid modern theologians believe as you, apart from the heretics?

 

[3 Resurrections]

You are ducking around the issues and providing no evidence for your claims. Who was reigning with Christ and raised from the grave to reign for 1,000 years from 987/986 BC until until AD 33?

The way you are phrasing your question leads me to think you are inserting some interpretive words into Revelation 20:4, as I used to do myself.

This Rev. 20:4 verse does not give a chronological sequence of the remnant "coming to life" and [THEN] "reigning with Christ for a thousand years". We can't insert the word "THEN" into this text. All this verse does is to state two actions that took place.

#1), That remnant of the dead "lived again when the thousand years was finished".
#2) They also "reigned with Christ the thousand years".

I maintain that their "reigning" for the thousand years preceded their coming to life again. You maintain that their "reigning" for the thousand years followed their coming to life again. If this passage is up for alternate interpretations, then we need to go elsewhere to confirm when the millennium ended. Which I have done so in a couple other posts, but I suppose I had better insert those proofs here also.

The ending of the millennium John said would occur simultaneously with two things as follows:

#1) Satan was loosed for a "little season" when the millennium expired (Rev. 20:3 and 7).

#2) The "FIRST resurrection" was the "remnant of the dead" coming to life again when the millennium was finished (Rev. 20:5).

For proof that the "little season" when Satan was loosed from his chain in #1) had already happened, John warned the believers in Revelation 12:12 that a wrathful Satan was already come down unto the earth and the sea, and that his "short time" to operate had already begun. That "short time" and the "little season" for Satan's release are speaking of the very same time period - which was happening in John's days.

For proof that the "FIRST resurrection" in Revelation 20:5 had already occurred by the time John was writing, one only needs to recognize that Christ was called the "FIRST-fruits of them that slept" in I Cor. 15:20 and 23. He was also called the "FIRST-born", and the "FIRST-begotten" out of that "FIRST-fruits" group that He raised from the dead that day in Matthew 27:52-53. All 144,000 of those "First-fruits".

That is a lot of "FIRSTS" to ignore, if one cannot recognize the pre-eminent significance of that "First resurrection" AD 33 event. And if that "First resurrection" in AD 33 was also a past event when John was writing, then the end of the millennium which preceded that "First resurrection" was also past when John was writing.

 

[DavidPT]

For proof that the "little season" when Satan was loosed from his chain in #1) had already happened, John warned the believers in Revelation 12:12 that a wrathful Satan was already come down unto the earth and the sea, and that his "short time" to operate had already begun. That "short time" and the "little season" for Satan's release are speaking of the very same time period - which was happening in John's days.

Here's one problem with some of this thinking, and I'm certain in return you could likely point out some problems with some of my thinking here as well, but that aside for now--- this would indicate that satan's binding coincides with when satan still had access to heaven in some sense. IOW, before the war in heaven. I don't see it making good sense that he is bound a thousand years in the pit when he still has access to heaven.

Revelation 20:1-3 tends to prove, the fact an angel has to come down from heaven first, grab hold of satan then cast him into the pit is because this is where satan is at the time, on the earth where the angel comes down to. How did satan end up on the earth? The war in heaven and that he was then cast unto the earth. His binding is not applicable unless he is on the earth first. But just like you basically pointed out, once satan is cast unto the earth, that doesn't describe a bound satan, that describes a loosed one. And since his initial binding can't fit prior to the war in heaven, nor after the war in heaven when he is initially cast unto the earth, what else is left? The end of this age, that's what. Meaning that is when he is bound a thousand years.

 

[3 Resurrections]

he word used and translated as "child" is actually a reference to Christ being a *servant* of his Father in heaven. Though the word can indeed be translated as "child," in context that is not the meaning here. The reference is to a fully-grown adult who is willing to serve God. Children are also servants of their parents in a family, and that is why the word can be used for "child," as well.

With such a poor argument, your "proof" looks very weak. The fact is, passages must be translated *in context.* Otherwise, you may be applying how words are used differently in different contexts.

There are plenty of other anachronisms found in scripture, where something is called by a particular name even before that something comes into being.

Some examples being, "Abram the Hebrew" title in Genesis 14:13, even before the Hebrew nation came into existence. Or the same text having Abraham pursue the Sodomite kings "unto DAN", when Dan the son of Jacob hadn't been born yet to have a location named after him. Or Hagar departing from Abraham and wandering in the wilderness of "Beersheba" in Genesis 21:14, when that place wouldn't even be given that title until Abraham later made an oath with Abimelech at that location, and then named it Beersheba in Genesis 21:31.

God often "calls things which be not as though they were", which is why He could say "I HAVE made thee a father of many nations, when Abraham and Sarah were yet without their promised son, let alone the nations that would proceed from that son. Which is why the saints in Revelation could be said to "reign with Christ" since 987 / 986 BC, even BEFORE Christ was born.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I don't see it making good sense that he is bound a thousand years in the pit when he still has access to heaven.

Heaven is a place. The "abyss" (abysson) is NOT a place per se, its a condition, as SG has also pointed out earlier. Satan's restricted condition of having his deception limited in no way affected his access to heaven's realm to accuse the brethren - that is, until he and his angels were cast out of heaven when Jesus ascended that day.

Did you ever wonder why it was MICHAEL who was fighting Satan and his angels? Why not GOD fighting Satan in heaven? I'm of the view that this "war in heaven" took place during the 3 days and 3 nights of Christ's body being in the tomb, and His spirit in Paradise. So Michael did battle in heaven until Christ with His blood arrived the morning after His resurrection, when He first ascended to the Father. With Christ's blood sacrifice applied to heaven's mercy seat, and accepted by the Father on our behalf, Satan had no more legal grounds to accuse the brethren from that point forward. So he and his angels were "thrown out of court", as it were, and cast down to the earth for just a "short time" and a "little season".

We remember that it was the "blood of the Lamb" that overcame Satan and his angels in that war in heaven. That indicates a post-crucifixion casting out of Satan and his angels down to the earth. Since Satan had lost access to heaven, he redoubled his efforts during that "little season" to deceive those on earth for his last desperate attempts to create ruin before he and his angels were destroyed. A "hail Mary pass", if you will.

 

[sovereigngrace]

The way you are phrasing your question leads me to think you are inserting some interpretive words into Revelation 20:4, as I used to do myself.

This Rev. 20:4 verse does not give a chronological sequence of the remnant "coming to life" and [THEN] "reigning with Christ for a thousand years". We can't insert the word "THEN" into this text. All this verse does is to state two actions that took place.

#1), That remnant of the dead "lived again when the thousand years was finished".
#2) They also "reigned with Christ the thousand years".

I maintain that their "reigning" for the thousand years preceded their coming to life again. You maintain that their "reigning" for the thousand years followed their coming to life again. If this passage is up for alternate interpretations, then we need to go elsewhere to confirm when the millennium ended. Which I have done so in a couple other posts, but I suppose I had better insert those proofs here also.

The ending of the millennium John said would occur simultaneously with two things as follows:

#1) Satan was loosed for a "little season" when the millennium expired (Rev. 20:3 and 7).

#2) The "FIRST resurrection" was the "remnant of the dead" coming to life again when the millennium was finished (Rev. 20:5).

For proof that the "little season" when Satan was loosed from his chain in #1) had already happened, John warned the believers in Revelation 12:12 that a wrathful Satan was already come down unto the earth and the sea, and that his "short time" to operate had already begun. That "short time" and the "little season" for Satan's release are speaking of the very same time period - which was happening in John's days.

For proof that the "FIRST resurrection" in Revelation 20:5 had already occurred by the time John was writing, one only needs to recognize that Christ was called the "FIRST-fruits of them that slept" in I Cor. 15:20 and 23. He was also called the "FIRST-born", and the "FIRST-begotten" out of that "FIRST-fruits" group that He raised from the dead that day in Matthew 27:52-53. All 144,000 of those "First-fruits".

That is a lot of "FIRSTS" to ignore, if one cannot recognize the pre-eminent significance of that "First resurrection" AD 33 event. And if that "First resurrection" in AD 33 was also a past event when John was writing, then the end of the millennium which preceded that "First resurrection" was also past when John was writing.

There are so many holes in your thesis i do not know where to start. You are actually rewriting the meaning of the text to support your doctrine. You are also skipping around some simple questions. This is a classic sign that someone is badly off base in their position. The fact you cannot identify any orthodox leader in history that taught your position is telling. That is because it was only held by the heretics.

Revelation 5, which is evidently located before the Second Advent, describes the kingly/priestly reign of the redeemed in heaven, saying, “they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast (aorist active indicative) redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made (aorist active indicative) us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign (future article) on the earth” (v. 9).

There is little doubt this scene is current and relates to a time-period preceding the second coming of the Lord. Moreover, no reasonable Bible student would surely deny that the reading relates to anything other than the redeemed situated in heaven. Here, the disembodied spirits of the elect in heaven are seen reigning as kings and priests now. Significantly, and like Revelation 20:4, the dead in Christ in heaven are described (in relation to their kingship and priesthood) as “hast made” – proving this is speaking of the current fulfillment of the same. The aorist active indicative demonstrates that this is ongoing in this intra-Advent period.

Revelation 20:4-5 says, “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they [Gr. zaō] lived (aorist active indicative) and reigned (aorist active indicative) with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.”

Revelation 20:4-5 shows the dead in Christ in a disembodied state now in heaven (until glorification). They do not receive new bodies upon death, but at the Coming of the Lord. It is important to note, the same word in the same tense is used to describe both the righteous and the wicked during the millennium. Both parties remain in their current state until the one final future climactic Coming of Christ. Then they will receive their eternal reward. The word zaō in the Greek simply means to live. It is rendered “lived” in the King James Version. It is active, meaning the subject continues to exist in the state indicated by the verb. This proves we are currently in the millennium.

That is speaking about the exclusion of the wicked from the presence of God until resurrection day. The righteous dead on the other hand are now in heaven reigning with Christ in spiritual authority.

 

[DavidPT]

Heaven is a place. The "abyss" (abysson) is NOT a place per se, its a condition, as SG has also pointed out earlier. Satan's restricted condition of having his deception limited in no way affected his access to heaven's realm to accuse the brethren - that is, until he and his angels were cast out of heaven when Jesus ascended that day.

Did you ever wonder why it was MICHAEL who was fighting Satan and his angels? Why not GOD fighting Satan in heaven? I'm of the view that this "war in heaven" took place during the 3 days and 3 nights of Christ's body being in the tomb, and His spirit in Paradise. So Michael did battle in heaven until Christ with His blood arrived the morning after His resurrection, when He first ascended to the Father. With Christ's blood sacrifice applied to heaven's mercy seat, and accepted by the Father on our behalf, Satan had no more legal grounds to accuse the brethren from that point forward. So he and his angels were "thrown out of court", as it were, and cast down to the earth for just a "short time" and a "little season".

We remember that it was the "blood of the Lamb" that overcame Satan and his angels in that war in heaven. That indicates a post-crucifixion casting out of Satan and his angels down to the earth. Since Satan had lost access to heaven, he redoubled his efforts during that "little season" to deceive those on earth for his last desperate attempts to create ruin before he and his angels were destroyed. A "hail Mary pass", if you will.

It shouldn't matter whether the pit is a real place or not. Your interpretation has satan being initially bound while he still had access to heaven, meaning before the war in heaven. You already have the beginning of the thousand years meaning 1000 years prior to 33 AD. It is at the beginning of the thousand years, that satan is bound, obviously.

And where do you have the war in heaven taking place? 1000 years later, meaning during Jesus' death, thus, that adds up to that you have satan in the pit when he still has access to heaven. That makes zero sense to me that he could be bound while still having access to heaven. It also makes zero sense to me that satan is bound immediately after the war in heaven when he is then cast unto the earth. You of course are not proposing the latter, yet other Amils apparently are since it would have to be when he is cast unto the earth that he is then bound, because before he is cast to the earth he still has access to heaven.

 

[3 Resurrections]

DavidPT, Satan's restricted condition was explained as having his deception of the nations shut down for that thousand years - not his ability to move about. This "chain" on his deception did not limit his moving from one place to another, from heaven to earth, round about and back again. Just as he did in Job's day, Satan loved to accuse the brethren before God in heaven. After the war in heaven (during Christ's entombment), at the time of Christ's ascension, Satan and his angels forever lost access to heaven's realm and were cast down to the earth and the sea (Jewish lands and Gentile nations) - released to freely deceive the nations once more.

This is why there are numerous references in the NT, cautioning the believers in those days to "be not deceived...let no man deceive you...many deceivers are gone out into the world...wicked men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived..." Satan was operating at his maximum level of deception in those days for that "little season" of his being loosed on earth. 2 Timothy 2:26 proves this when Paul said there were those being ensnared by Satan; those who had been "taken captive by him at his will". Definitely Satan was operating freely at that time with no restraining chain.

The "armor of God" was a vital defense against those Satanic, spiritual attacks on the church in the days of that "little season", but Paul promised the believers that "greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world." A loosed Satan was then "walking about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" during that time.

 

[RandyPNW]

There are plenty of other anachronisms found in scripture, where something is called by a particular name even before that something comes into being.

Some examples being, "Abram the Hebrew" title in Genesis 14:13, even before the Hebrew nation came into existence. Or the same text having Abraham pursue the Sodomite kings "unto DAN", when Dan the son of Jacob hadn't been born yet to have a location named after him. Or Hagar departing from Abraham and wandering in the wilderness of "Beersheba" in Genesis 21:14, when that place wouldn't even be given that title until Abraham later made an oath with Abimelech at that location, and then named it Beersheba in Genesis 21:31.

God often "calls things which be not as though they were", which is why He could say "I HAVE made thee a father of many nations, when Abraham and Sarah were yet without their promised son, let alone the nations that would proceed from that son. Which is why the saints in Revelation could be said to "reign with Christ" since 987 / 986 BC, even BEFORE Christ was born.

I fully understand you're speaking of the flexibility of language, describing places and persons in other circumstances where they are not known as such. But my point was that you need to see things in the context of the particular passage you're trying to interpret.

What you're doing is using examples of language use that *may not apply* in Rev 20. Therefore, you cannot use other Scriptures to explain Rev 20 unless the context in Rev 20 itself allows it. And nothing in Rev 20 suggests remotely what you're claiming.

 

[3 Resurrections]

But my point was that you need to see things in the context of the particular passage you're trying to interpret.

What you're doing is using examples of language use that *may not apply* in Rev 20. Therefore, you cannot use other Scriptures to explain Rev 20 unless the context in Rev 20 itself allows it. And nothing in Rev 20 suggests remotely what you're claiming.

Consider this part of the Rev. 20 context; the thrones in verse 4 with those sitting upon them with judgment given unto them. Where else in scripture do we read about thrones, with God giving those on the thrones power to pass judgment? It was Christ giving the 12 disciples those 12 thrones to sit on after the regeneration, when He sat on the throne of His glory after He had ascended.

In Matthew 19:28, Jesus said, "...Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." The 12 Apostles were the ones given the task of oversight in the early Jerusalem church after Christ had finally ascended in Acts 1, confirming Christ's doctrine, and settling practical matters such as care of widows, selection of deacons, the decision about circumcision, laying hands on those being sent on evangelistic endeavors, etc.. The New Jerusalem had those 12 Apostles of the Lamb as its 12 foundations, along with Christ the chief cornerstone.

This early church context of the twelve thrones with the twelve Apostles on them sets the stage for that Rev. 20:4 verse, centered on those first-century affairs. The Matthew 27:52-53 "remnant of the dead" coming to life again at the end of the millennium years in AD 33 was in that very same temporal setting - with just a few weeks of time separating those events. It fits the context precisely.