One Reason to Reject Amill Doctrine

[Just The Facts]

Hi Sov

First, you do not fully quote what you are responding to. You just present the headings. That is not fair to the reader. Can you amend that? I always fully quote you so that the reader can judge whether I am being fair and accurate or not.

I wish that was true Sov. a few posts ago you posted one fragment of what I said and said see you admit you have no proff they were premill when the whole paragraph clearly stated I had posted proof more than once already.

As to being fair to the reader your post is literally a couple above and I am sure anyone who wants to read it can. I personally never just read what someone has quoted I find the original post and read the whole thing. When you quote a massive section it hides most of it anyway. However I do not want you to judge me as unfair so I will amend the post.

Second, it just seems like you are out to defend Premil at any cost, rather than let the evidence speak for itself. I do believe you are being objective here. My last post actually rebuts everything you have just said here, so it is pointless me repeating myself. I refer you back to it.

This was the exact point I was making at the end of my last post. I showed how you added meaning to everything you quoted and that was all very clear in to me. I then said I was equally sure that you would not see it as such and would say I did not refute anything you said. Which is what you have now Done.

I have shown dozens of verses that show that both of these Church Fathers believed that we did not receive our inheritance unti Jesus returns. You have presented nothing to show anything different. You have taken his words and added meaning to fit your belief meaning that is just not implied in either the text or the subject at hand which was strife over who had been elected Bishop at Corinth.

You claim Clement was amill please show me were he says the 1,000 years is not literal which is the actual meaning of the term Amillennial as I showed you. Amillenial does not mean you dod or do not see the 1,000 years as partially carnal in nature. It means that one believes the 1,000 years of revelation has begun. You did not present a single verse where Clement says the 1,000 years has begun.

Third, to keep alleging that a belief in a future manifestation of the kingdom is exclusively a Premil expectation is at very least naive, at worst deliberately misleading. If you want people to take you seriously, at least keep to the truth. Amils believe the kingdom Of God is coming soon in all its final, perfect and eternal glory.

I am sorry you are mistaken. Here is why you are seeing my words in light of your belief and thus you are assigning a series of understandings to them based on that belief. Amills believe the promise is fulfilled in two different steps one at baptism or death and the other after Judgement day when amills at least most amills I know believe there is a new heaven and a new earth.

You believe the first stage of the promise fulfillment is a spiritual life with Jesus in Heaven that is the 1,000 years..... which by the way early amills believed would end at about 1,000 AD because many early amills believed the 1,000 years was literal just not here on earth Including Pope Sylvester II. Others like Irenaeus predicted 500 AD based on that it was 6,000 years from creation. The 1,000 years is only meaning a long time was an adaption after the 1,000 years from Christ had passed. First most Scholars said well maybe it was 1,000 years after his death not his birth so 1033 AD. It was after this the 1,000 years is not being literal became a thing.

Now on the other hand I see the promise as fulfilled in the day of the Lord which I believe Peter says is 1,000 years long. I know you do not agree but that matters not since we are talking about what I said in my last post. I do not see a split in the fulfillment of the inheritance / Promise I see us only getting the inheritance at Jesus' return. I do not believe that fulfillment is part in heaven and then part after judgement of the wicked. I see the start of the day of the lord coming as a thief catching the vast majority of Christians by surprise. The Saints are raised, Satan is locked up so he can deceive the nations no more. So No More War. The main point here is I do not believe we get part of the promise before Jesus return as amills do. It is not a future manifestation of the kingdom that is exclusively premill it is that only certain variants of premill do not believe in the splitting of the promise part at baptism or death and the rest ie the glorious Kingdom after Judgement day. I simply do not believe scripture supports a straight to heaven doctrine of souls. Everyone is resurrected at Jesus' return which is the Day of the Lord The saved at the beginning and the lost at the end. When heaven and earth will be destroyed and there will be a new heaven and earth.

Fifth, I am still waiting for you to present one reference to a thousand years in Barnabas or Clement, or any mention of any of the Premil tenets. You have furnished me with nothing so far, as I predicted. Remember, it was you making the big claims. The burden of proof is with you. First principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must prove." So, the ball is in your court!

And I am still waiting for you to produce a verse from either Father that says the 1,000 years is not literal and that the Inheritance and the promise are split into two pieces.

You have not and can not because it does not exist. So you rely on trying to show other verses to back your point.

The reality is both of these men most likely never even read Revelation at the time they made these writings as they both were most likely written before Revelation was written. The whole 1,000 years is no where else in scripture. So you can not possibly show me a text that directly talks about this 1,000 year period from either of these church Fathers and neither can I. What Ican show is that they both believed Daniel was not fulfilled and that the inheritance only comes at Jesus' return.

Now unless it is your position that Jesus has already returned once and will return again then these Fathers could not have been amill.

 

[Timtofly]

Clement believed the Church is true Israel

1 Clement 29:1-3 –30:1

His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the lot of His inheritance. And in another place [the Scripture] saith, “Behold, the Lord taketh unto Himself a nation out of the midst of the nations, as a man takes the first-fruits of his threshing-floor; and from that nation shall come forth the Most Holy.” Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness.

Clement ascribes to the Church the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Clement was considered a Jew. You need more context to prove your point. Clement does not mention the church as part of this inherentence. Clement was pointing out the election of God. Not the theology that some hold which leads to amil eschatology.

You are missing Clement's point, and conflating extra man made doctrine into his writings. The point was living a holy life, not defining the doctrine of who the church is.

 

[Timtofly]

Suffering these things, they endured nobly. For what must we say, brethren? Was Daniel cast into the lions' den by them that fear God? Or were Ananias and Azarias and Misael shut up in the furnace of fire by them that professed the excellent and glorious worship of the Most High? Far be this from our thoughts. Who then were they that did these things? Abominable men and full of all wickedness were stirred up to such a pitch of wrath, as to bring cruel suffering upon them that served God in a holy and blameless purpose, not knowing that the Most High is the champion and protector of them that in a pure conscience serve His excellent Name: unto whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen. But they that endured patiently in confidence inherited glory and honour; they were exalted, and had their names recorded by God in their memorial for ever and ever. Amen.

Clement here divorces himself from the early Chiliast belief that the redeemed descended into hell to wait until the second coming of Christ after death

You do realize Clement was referring to an event 500 years prior to his own time. All the OT dead were allowed into Paradise at the Cross. This quote has nothing to do with the state of affairs you are claiming. Clement was waiting to enter Paradise along with his examples.

This body of Christ is who these soldiers are of whom Clement is calling the body of Christ. They are only soldiers while alive on earth. You are conflating the physical on earth, into something it is not in the spiritual.

Of course the OT waited in Abraham's bosom in sheol until the Cross. They certainly are not still waiting until the Second Coming. Clement was not addressing nor referencing Chiliast. This letter was written prior to any development of Revelation eschatology. Clement was addressing a conflict in Corinth, where the church was persecuting it's own membership. Seems some men filled with pride were bullying some of the better members, because of their personalities, not because of issues of faith.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You claim Clement was amill please show me were he says the 1,000 years is not literal which is the actual meaning of the term Amillennial as I showed you. Amillenial does not mean you dod or do not see the 1,000 years as partially carnal in nature. It means that one believes the 1,000 years of revelation has begun. You did not present a single verse where Clement says the 1,000 years has begun.

And I am still waiting for you to produce a verse from either Father that says the 1,000 years is not literal and that the Inheritance and the promise are split into two pieces.

You have not and can not because it does not exist. So you rely on trying to show other verses to back your point.

The reality is both of these men most likely never even read Revelation at the time they made these writings as they both were most likely written before Revelation was written. The whole 1,000 years is no where else in scripture. So you can not possibly show me a text that directly talks about this 1,000 year period from either of these church Fathers and neither can I. What Ican show is that they both believed Daniel was not fulfilled and that the inheritance only comes at Jesus' return.

Now unless it is your position that Jesus has already returned once and will return again then these Fathers could not have been amill.

It was me that said Barnabas and Clement never even mentioned or recognized a thousand years in their writings. Now you are now demanding I prove what does not exist. That is ridiculous! That is how bereft of credence your reasoning on this matter is. The reality is: the burden of proof is with you. First principle of evidence is: "he who alleges must prove." So, the ball is in your court!

It is you that made the claims re these 2 early writers being Premil and was not able to carry through and support your claims with the slightest of evidence. You brought nothing of evidential worth to the table - nothing. Claiming a mention of a future kingdom is proof of Premil is frankly ludicrous. I suspect you know that. No Premil nor Amil I know would take that reasoning serious. I certainly do not. It is Premils who are indeed fixated with these 1000 years. Amils believe the time between the 1st and second coming is an unspecified indefinite period. It is you that has nothing within the 1st 100 years after the cross apart from Papias, who never promoted any of the core Premil fundamentals: including, two future resurrection and judgement days separated by 1000 years, the suspension of Christ's kingly reign, sin, death, corruption, the wicked and Satan on a millennial earth, Israel’s restoration to a place of pre-eminence above the Gentiles nations, the restoration of the whole old covenant arrangement (including the return of animal sacrifices, the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and the return of the Old Testament priesthood), the casting down of Satan and his subsequent binding at the second coming, Satan being in the abyss for 1000 years after Christ's return, whereupon he will be released to win the affections of the countless millennial inhabitants as the sand of the sea. But the heretics taught many of these from the 1st century onward as I showed previously.

We should remind ourselves, the heart of Christianity started off in Israel, but through persecution it soon moved to Syria and Egypt. With this, the center of power and influence within Christendom shifted from Jerusalem (in Israel), to both Antioch (in Syria) and Alexandria (in Egypt). It was from here that Christianity spread throughout the world. Greece also became a notable focus of the New Testament as the Gospel quickly spread throughout that area.

When we search for Chiliast teaching between AD 30-AD 430 (which has been the gamut of my research), I cannot find one single shred of teaching on a future millennial kingdom from any of the early Church fathers based in Israel, Greece and Syria. What is more, I can only find one writer in the Egyptian church during those initial 400 years. That was Nepos (who ministered around AD 230-250). However, his influence was quickly and strongly suppressed when it became known. This is significant! There is no record of that doctrine arising again amongst the early fathers in Egypt. The doctrine seemed to die after that.

Think about this: there is one only one teacher of Chiliasm in the whole of Israel, Egypt, Syria and Greece - the very heartland of the early Church - between AD 30-AD 430.

The seat of power and influence within Christianity gradually moved over the early centuries from Antioch (in Syria) and Alexandria (in Egypt) to Rome (in Italy). Notably: the Italian church centered in Rome only possessed 2 Chiliast adherents in the first 400 years after the cross - Hippolytus (Rome, Italy, AD 170–236) and Gaudentius (Brescia, Italy, - AD 387-410).

We are looking here at 4 Chiliasts in the whole of Israel (including the Church in Jerusalem), Greece, Syria (including the Church in Antioch), Egypt (including the Church in Alexandrian) and Italy (including the Roman Church) during the first 400 years after Calvary, none of which, notably, held the Premillennial scheme that we have today. This totally destroys the widespread false Premillennial propaganda that the early Church was overwhelmingly Premillennial. The opposite was actually the truth.

The Chiliast view on the other hand originated and prospered in Asia Minor and Africa. It later moved to Europe.

Now on the other hand I see the promise as fulfilled in the day of the Lord which I believe Peter says is 1,000 years long. I know you do not agree but that matters not since we are talking about what I said in my last post. I do not see a split in the fulfillment of the inheritance / Promise I see us only getting the inheritance at Jesus' return. I do not believe that fulfillment is part in heaven and then part after judgement of the wicked. I see the start of the day of the lord coming as a thief catching the vast majority of Christians by surprise. The Saints are raised, Satan is locked up so he can deceive the nations no more. So No More War. The main point here is I do not believe we get part of the promise before Jesus return as amills do. It is not a future manifestation of the kingdom that is exclusively premill it is that only certain variants of premill do not believe in the splitting of the promise part at baptism or death and the rest ie the glorious Kingdom after Judgement day. I simply do not believe scripture supports a straight to heaven doctrine of souls. Everyone is resurrected at Jesus' return which is the Day of the Lord The saved at the beginning and the lost at the end. When heaven and earth will be destroyed and there will be a new heaven and earth.

You seem to be an expert at talking on behalf of Amillennialists, when in fact you show by your writings that you do not even understand the doctrine. I would encourage you to do a bit of research and find out what Amillennialists really believe. It would save us both time.

And I am still waiting for you to produce a verse from either Father that says the 1,000 years is not literal and that the Inheritance and the promise are split into two pieces.

You have not and can not because it does not exist. So you rely on trying to show other verses to back your point.

The reality is both of these men most likely never even read Revelation at the time they made these writings as they both were most likely written before Revelation was written. The whole 1,000 years is no where else in scripture. So you can not possibly show me a text that directly talks about this 1,000 year period from either of these church Fathers and neither can I. What Ican show is that they both believed Daniel was not fulfilled and that the inheritance only comes at Jesus' return.

Now unless it is your position that Jesus has already returned once and will return again then these Fathers could not have been amill.

You just succeeded in totally dismantling your whole argument here. You just proved my initial charge against your reasoning. I will take this as an admission that you have zero support for your theory re these ECFs being Premils.

 

[Timtofly]

Clement keeps referring to the consummation as coming suddenly. What is more, Scripture repeatedly speaks of Christ’s appearing as being “at hand.” Here, the writer warns the wicked that “your overthrow is at hand like a whirlwind.” This would suggest that the writer viewed the second coming as the end for sin and the sinner, dying and crying, Satan and his demons, rebellion and

Are you sure he was addressing the consummation? Adding more to what Clement wrote does not prove your point.

 

[keras]

Are you date-setting?

No.
What I said was that there will be about 10 years from the commencement of the end times events, namely: the Sixth Seal, until Jesus Returns.
The time gap of the Seventh Seal.
And that it could all start quite soon.

How can they be said to be mortal when the second death (being cast into the lake of fire - Rev 20:14-15) has no power over them?

I have already made that plain; Their names are Written in the Book of Life, therefore immortality is assured for them.

Your rude comments at each paragraph in #537, display a very unchristian attitude.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I have already made that plain; Their names are Written in the Book of Life, therefore immortality is assured for them.

Then why wait 1000+ years after Christ returns to give them their immortality?

Your rude comments at each paragraph in #537, display a very unchristian attitude.

You're not someone in a position to tell someone else they're being rude. You are sometimes one of the most rude people on this entire forum with you're "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" attitude.

Calling out another Christian for being prideful is not unChristian. Do you think you're not being prideful when you won't admit the obvious such as the fact that the number of times a term is used in Revelation does not determine if it's literal or not?

It's not unChristian to rebuke another Christian.

1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

 

[Douggg]

Beyond all that, explain to me how spirit beings like angels can be literally chained up? That's nonsense.

Chains represent those angels being imprisoned, from interacting with the rest of creation.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Chains represent those angels being imprisoned, from interacting with the rest of creation.

You said "chains represent...". So, are you telling me that you're actually acknowledging that the chains are symbolic and not literal? If so, can you explain how figurative chains keep angels literally imprisoned?

 

[Douggg]

You said "chains represent...". So, are you telling me that you're actually acknowledging that the chains are symbolic and not literal? If so, can you explain how figurative chains keep angels literally imprisoned?

I am saying whether the chains are literal or not is not something to argue about.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I am saying whether the chains are literal or not is not something to argue about.

Why not?

If they are figurative chains then it should not be understood as angels being literally chained up as if it makes them unable to go anywhere or do anything.

If they are literal chains then it could be understood as making them unable to do anything, but then you'd have to explain how spirit beings can be literally chained up.

So, it does matter whether they are literal chains or not. It's not surprising that you'd try to sweep that under the rug as if it's not an important distinction.

 

[Douggg]

Why not?

Because you and I cannot see those angels, where they are, and if they literally chained, what the chains look like, how the chains work, what the chains are made of, etc.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Because you and I cannot see those angels, where they are, and if they literally chained, what the chains look like, how the chains work, what the chains are made of, etc.

We don't need to. All fallen angels left their first estate (their former positions of authority in heaven), so the verse is referring to all fallen angels. It gives no indication at all that it's only referring to some fallen angels instead of all of them. It's not surprising that you would deny that since it doesn't fit your doctrine.

 

[keras]

Then why wait 1000+ years after Christ returns to give them their immortality?

Adam will have waited for 7000 years.
Everybody has to wait; they 'sleep' in death, until the Millennium is over.

the fact that the number of times a term is used in Revelation does not determine if it's literal or not?

The fact that 1000 years in Revelation 20 is quoted six times, IS proof that it is literal.
Why else would Jesus repeat it so often?

 

[Jamdoc]

Why not?

If they are figurative chains then it should not be understood as angels being literally chained up as if it makes them unable to go anywhere or do anything.

If they are literal chains then it could be understood as making them unable to do anything, but then you'd have to explain how spirit beings can be literally chained up.

So, it does matter whether they are literal chains or not. It's not surprising that you'd try to sweep that under the rug as if it's not an important distinction.

What's conveyed by being bound is being unable to act. Not prowling around like a roaring lion or being the god of this world.
whether the chains are physical or not the idea conveyed is one where they're unable to act, the chains aren't even the main thing to get the doctrines from, it's Revelation 20:3

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

You can argue that Satan no longer has a seat in heaven, and that is in itself debatable as to whether the war in heaven took place in the past, or is future. Because Ephesians 6:12 states that these forces of wickedness are still in heaven, whether that includes Satan himself or not, maybe you can claim Satan is not among these powers and principalities, but other rebel angels certainly are.

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Normally I do stick with the KJV, but in this case other Translations do show that "high places" are heaven
ESV translates it as "heavenly places" NIV translates it as "heavenly realm" NKJV translates it as "heavenly places", NLT translates it as "heavenly places", ASV translates it as "heavenly places" , NASB "heavenly places" you get the idea

The point is that not all rebellious angels are currently bound up in the bottomless pit held for the 5th trumpet. Some are, some act freely on earth, and others are actually given charge of earthly nations and act as powers and principalities of this current age, and have access to heaven.

Satan is however, for sure, free to act on Earth, hence 2 Corinthians 4:4 and 1 Peter 5:8. That is not the bottomless pit. That's not imprisonment. It could be said to be exile, if Satan no longer has access to heaven, but it is not imprisonment which Amillennialism basically relies on it being, otherwise the entire doctrine falls completely apart.

But the language of Revelation 20:3 suggests imprisonment and inability to act.
Not just reduced ability to act
Inability.
This is not probation or exile or Satan walking around with an ankle bracelet tracker
It's imprisonment, no freedom at all for Satan for 1000 years.
that's not "roaring lion" status or "god of this world status" that's prisoner status

What we have now, is at best, a Satan in exile on earth, and if that is true, then for the past 1900 years we've had "Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

apparently a short time is 1/3 of human history under that doctrine, but I digress
I'm more willing to accept a Satan currently in exile because I cannot prove that Satan is included among the rebel angels in Ephesians 6:12 through scripture, but what I won't accept, is the current status of being "god of this world" and roaming around as a "roaring lion" as being in any form of imprisonment.

If that's what God considers imprisonment of an evil criminal, just setting him loose in the community to wreak havoc all over the world, that's a disappointing god. I'd be worried about the whole "eternal life" thing if God's idea of fulfillment is hyperbole.

 

[Timtofly]

That is utterly false. You are the one who said there wouldn't be any sin during the millennium because of Satan's absence. I showed you scripture which says people can sin even without his influence. And, once again, you are too prideful to admit that you were wrong.

What verses claim people can sin when sin is not present in the world? You do think that God can remove sin and sinful natures, or is that impossible for God?

 

[Timtofly]

As to being fair to the reader your post is literally a couple above and I am sure anyone who wants to read it can. I personally never just read what someone has quoted I find the original post and read the whole thing. When you quote a massive section it hides most of it anyway. However I do not want you to judge me as unfair so I will amend the post.

Not to mention if it is too long, this forum will not let you reply, but there is a limit to the post size. You have to delete something or break it into different replies.

 

[Timtofly]

Why not?

If they are figurative chains then it should not be understood as angels being literally chained up as if it makes them unable to go anywhere or do anything.

If they are literal chains then it could be understood as making them unable to do anything, but then you'd have to explain how spirit beings can be literally chained up.

So, it does matter whether they are literal chains or not. It's not surprising that you'd try to sweep that under the rug as if it's not an important distinction.

We do not exist in a split personality reality. All of creation is equal in God's plan. If a being is chained, a being is chained. Thus the whole point of being chained.

Angels are not chained to prevent them from sitting down and having afternoon tea with you.

 

[jeffweedaman]

Adam will have waited for 7000 years.
Everybody has to wait; they 'sleep' in death, until the Millennium is over.

The fact that 1000 years in Revelation 20 is quoted six times, IS proof that it is literal.
Why else would Jesus repeat it so often?

Jesus speaks about his coming in the Gospels way more than 6 times and not once does he allude to an unfruitful future like a premill reign that goes bust.

 

[sovereigngrace]

What's conveyed by being bound is being unable to act. Not prowling around like a roaring lion or being the god of this world.
whether the chains are physical or not the idea conveyed is one where they're unable to act, the chains aren't even the main thing to get the doctrines from, it's Revelation 20:3



You can argue that Satan no longer has a seat in heaven, and that is in itself debatable as to whether the war in heaven took place in the past, or is future. Because Ephesians 6:12 states that these forces of wickedness are still in heaven, whether that includes Satan himself or not, maybe you can claim Satan is not among these powers and principalities, but other rebel angels certainly are.



Normally I do stick with the KJV, but in this case other Translations do show that "high places" are heaven
ESV translates it as "heavenly places" NIV translates it as "heavenly realm" NKJV translates it as "heavenly places", NLT translates it as "heavenly places", ASV translates it as "heavenly places" , NASB "heavenly places" you get the idea

The point is that not all rebellious angels are currently bound up in the bottomless pit held for the 5th trumpet. Some are, some act freely on earth, and others are actually given charge of earthly nations and act as powers and principalities of this current age, and have access to heaven.

Satan is however, for sure, free to act on Earth, hence 2 Corinthians 4:4 and 1 Peter 5:8. That is not the bottomless pit. That's not imprisonment. It could be said to be exile, if Satan no longer has access to heaven, but it is not imprisonment which Amillennialism basically relies on it being, otherwise the entire doctrine falls completely apart.

But the language of Revelation 20:3 suggests imprisonment and inability to act.
Not just reduced ability to act
Inability.
This is not probation or exile or Satan walking around with an ankle bracelet tracker
It's imprisonment, no freedom at all for Satan for 1000 years.
that's not "roaring lion" status or "god of this world status" that's prisoner status

What we have now, is at best, a Satan in exile on earth, and if that is true, then for the past 1900 years we've had "Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time."

apparently a short time is 1/3 of human history under that doctrine, but I digress
I'm more willing to accept a Satan currently in exile because I cannot prove that Satan is included among the rebel angels in Ephesians 6:12 through scripture, but what I won't accept, is the current status of being "god of this world" and roaming around as a "roaring lion" as being in any form of imprisonment.

If that's what God considers imprisonment of an evil criminal, just setting him loose in the community to wreak havoc all over the world, that's a disappointing god. I'd be worried about the whole "eternal life" thing if God's idea of fulfillment is hyperbole.

There is nothing in Ephesians 6:13 that would suggest Satan has access to the 3rd heaven any more. It simply says: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

I correlate John 12, Revelation 12 and Revelation 20.

After the cross Satan lost that position. He was now defeated. Sin and death were now defeated. He had lost all grounds to condemn the elect before the face of God. Satan was banished from heaven after Christ assumed the throne. Scripture shows the casting out of Satan with the resulting / accompanying enlightenment of the nations with salvation.

Satan cannot/will not be held physically in a physical hole somewhere on/in the earth. After all, Satan is a spirit that cannot be physically restrained. He is a spirit that roams within divine parameters doing damage to those who are it’s enough to get close to him, listen to him or act on what he says.

Ephesians 2:1-3, says he is “the prince of the power of the air.”

I believe Satan is called “the prince of the power of the air” because he is not physically earth-bound like physical human beings. Spirits do not move as humans do. Human beings are physically kept to the earth’s surface by gravity. Spirits are invisible beings that can manifest in a visible fashion but they float around the cosmos rather than walk like human beings. The title simply refers to the spiritual realm around us on earth.

We are dealing with a spirit that operates in the 1st heaven – what we see with the natural eye. The 2nd heaven is space and the 3rd heaven where God abides. He is not a physical being walking about this earth but a spirit floating about albeit restricted in what he can achieve and restricted to one place at a time.