I agree with you, I do look at the past aspect of scripture, but in these days, it seems we should be considering what God is saying to us today, not being concerned with what happened to alexander or some other dudes 2000 years ago. He speaks to every generation, so yesterday has relevance, today has importance.
HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT: Why I believe this about the timing of the NHNE
- Thread starter Zao is life
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Not sure i agree. Much could be said about all of scripture, but I tend to read scripture, first in the natural, then in the spiritual. I think if the answer is simple, then that's probably how God intended it.
The gospel is for even the simplest of us, Its the wise that can't see it.
So I just read it as it says.
I consider that "He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time."
means exactly what it says. Satan's bound, he locked away, its sealed over him, its to keep him from deceiving everyone, for a time.
Ie no influence, no power, no authority, until he is released for a period, after the 7th day, the 7000th year. Jesus is in charge for the 1000 years, I imagine He will sort it out.
The power Jesus gives to believers, who actually believe it. Unrelated to the 1000 year reign, in my view.
Yes, it was referring to where he goes from there, ie to a lake of burning sulphur.
But AFTER the thousand years.
I'm surprised at how many believers consider much of prophesy as history. I think it limits our ability to hear Gods warning to us, today.
Eg. Just to create some controversy (or discussion). I see Dan 2, Dan 7, Dan 8, Dan 11 all for now, sure it may have applied to history, but I wasn't there, dont know if the history is true, but overjoyed that He is telling us now, where this is all headed. Praise Him.
Well, what we're talking about is the Revelation of John, and... kind of what you're saying here but a bit differently... whether the visions/dreams given him are as relevant to us today as they were to his original hearers, and vice versa. And the answer, as you seem to agree here, is yes.
Hmmm, well, to this I guess I would say that the natural and the spiritual are not different things... I would submit that it's not a natural vs. spiritual issue. Maybe a good way to say it is to see the natural in a spiritual way... Too, everybody here would say, "I just read it as it says," right? <smile>
Yes, it does...
Ah, not everyone, but the nations...
Well, again, he is powerless to deceive the nations. As it says. It doesn't say "everyone." Among other things, it comes down to what you think is meant by "the nations," and what his former ability to deceive the nations was. And we can see this in various other parts of Scripture. By "everyone," you seem to infer that the nations refers to individuals, and I would submit to you that that's not the case.
Hm. Well, Jesus is "in charge" now. <smile> What His present reign looks like to us right now might not look the way we want it to, or how we think it ought to look, but... Who is your King, Wish-it? <smile>
Not sure what you're talking about here...
Yes, after the thousand years, certainly, and he is sent to... this place... upon Christ's return, prior to the final judgment... As for burning sulfur... well, I'll speak to that in a moment. Just after that the final judgment takes place, as you said. After that judgment, unbelievers depart to this "lake of fire," but I would submit to you that they enter into the "second death," which is to say they go away, and wherever that "away" is, they are there immersed in God's judgment forever and ever. And being under this judgment with no hope of escape is their torment, their worm that will not die, as Jesus puts it in Mark 9:48. And they are in this state of torment, which is internal... they will be in a state of absolute anguish "in this flame," as the rich man in Jesus's parable in Luke 16 ~ along with Satan ~ forever and ever, which is... frightening, to say the least.
Hm. I say it augments it, actually... And impresses upon us the urgency of spreading the Gospel...
For the most part, the prophecies of the Bible had an immediate fulfillment and will have an ultimate fulfillment. John's Revelation is a bit different in that it consists of seven different visions (Revelation 20 is the seventh), each one of the tribulation period ~ which generally speaking is from Jesus's life on earth and leading up to His return. This is a pattern of Scripture.
Grace and peace to you.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Matthew 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
Who do you think the strong man represents here? Do you think the binding of the strong man results in him being unable to do anything at all?
What do you think the house represents? The whole world? Or the demon-possessed man?
Was the devil bound from being able to deceive the the nations for a thousand years each time a demon-possessed man was delivered of his possession?
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
Did the devil's loosing again result in the deliverance from demon-possession being overturned for a little season each time demons were cast out of a person, so that the devil could deceive the nations again for a little season?
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
I believe the strong man represents Satan. Is that what you believe? Identifying the strong man is the key to understanding what the strong man's house represents. It was not Satan who possessed the man, but rather one (or more) of his demons. So, if the strong man represents Satan (also called "Beelzebub"), as I believe, then "his house" is not referring to the demon's house, which was the demon-possessed man where the demon resided, but rather to Satan's house. Let's look at the context.
Matthew 12:24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.” 25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 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.
So, the Pharisees were accusing Jesus of casting out demons, such as the one(s) he cast out of the demon-possessed man, by the power of Beelzebub (Satan). But, Jesus pointed out how illogical that was by saying "every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation" and "if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself" and therefore his kingdom could not stand. Jesus indicated that He cast out demons by the Spirit of God and that was evidence that the kingdom of God has come upon the people who had demons cast out of them. So, the overarching context here is in relation to Jesus making an impact against Satan's kingdom. One of the ways He does that is by casting demons out of people and He said He did that by the Spirit of God. His followers cast out demons by the Spirit of God as well.
But, in verse 29 Jesus is referring to one particular "strong man" and is not referring to the demon that He had just cast out of the blind and mute man. He cast out many demons besides just that one. The strong man is the one who rules over the demons. The one who is the ruler of the demons is the one the Pharisees called "Beelzebub" (see verse 24) and who is better known to us as "Satan". If you bind their leader then it affects all of them. So, Jesus was talking about binding the strong man, Satan, and "his house" is "his kingdom" that Jesus mentioned in verse 26. His goods refers to all demon possessed people, at least, but I believe that refers to all unbelievers in general since all unbelievers are considered to be children of the devil (1 John 3:10).
So, in order to plunder the strong man Satan's goods (unbelievers) from his house (his kingdom), Jesus had to bind Satan in the sense of delivering people who were Satan's children out of his grasp, so to speak. That included casting out demons, but would also include delivering people from Satan's kingdom of darkness by way of the preaching of the gospel of Christ that sheds light into the world.
So, what is your understanding of the strong man's "goods"? If "his house" refers only to the demon-possessed man then does that mean you think the strong man refers specifically to that demon who was in the demon possessed man? What would "his goods" represent in that case?
Nope. His binding is not just related to people being delivered from demon possession. The point I was making in the post you responded to was not to try to relate the casting out of demons directly to Revelation 20, but rather to show that the binding of the strong man, even if it only related to casting out demons, is not a case of completely incapacitating the strong man. So, with that being the case, I see no reason why anyone should assume that the binding of the dragon, Satan, has anything to do with completely incapacitating Satan.
I believe his binding relates to all of the different ways that Jesus and the kingdom of God has impacted Satan and his kingdom, which includes people being delivered from demon possession, but also relates to people being delivered from Satan's grasp in general, like the following passages talk about:
Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Yes.
If one or a number of anyone's servants are dwelling in that person's house, that does not make the house belong to the servants.
The strong man is Satan, not the servant - and therefore the goods are the strong man's goods - not his servants' goods.
Bear in mind that Jesus did not say that Satan's kingdom had been divided by Jesus's casting out of demons: He said that IF He had done that by the prince of the demons, THEN it would mean that Satan's kingdom would have become divided against itself (and a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand).
Firstly, in order for the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome Satan, did Satan need to be bound for any length of time? (whether symbolized by 1,000 years nor not)?
If so, how long did Satan need to be bound for in order for the power of the Holy Spirit - worked by Jesus - to overcome Satan in respect of demon-possessed people?
Besides that, the period mentioned in Revelation 20:1-3 will be reversed for a brief period.
The link you make to a period of time that would be reverse for a brief period and Revelation 20:1-3 is IMO faulty.
Secondly, what does all this have to do with the nations being deceived? What does what you say below have to do with the nations being deceived and a period of time that will be reversed for a brief period?:
The strong man is Satan, not the servant - and therefore the goods are the strong man's goods - not his servants' goods.
Bear in mind that Jesus did not say that Satan's kingdom had been divided by Jesus's casting out of demons: He said that IF He had done that by the prince of the demons, THEN it would mean that Satan's kingdom would have become divided against itself (and a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand).
Firstly, in order for the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome Satan, did Satan need to be bound for any length of time? (whether symbolized by 1,000 years nor not)?
If so, how long did Satan need to be bound for in order for the power of the Holy Spirit - worked by Jesus - to overcome Satan in respect of demon-possessed people?
Besides that, the period mentioned in Revelation 20:1-3 will be reversed for a brief period.
The link you make to a period of time that would be reverse for a brief period and Revelation 20:1-3 is IMO faulty.
Secondly, what does all this have to do with the nations being deceived? What does what you say below have to do with the nations being deceived and a period of time that will be reversed for a brief period?:
Is the passage saying that demons were cast out of individuals for a period of time symbolized by a thousand years - which will be reversed for a brief period at the close of that period, and as a result Satan's deception of the nations has been restricted,
Or is that you adding that meaning to scripture?
IMO the above is the point at which you indeed DO add to scripture (with regard to that passage), because the passage and context of the passage where we read about Jesus casting out demons (and being blasphemously falsely accused about the power by which He did so), has absolutely nothing to do with any length of time which would be reversed for a brief period OR with the nations being deceived
.. UNTIL you add that meaning to scripture.
Or is that you adding that meaning to scripture?
IMO the above is the point at which you indeed DO add to scripture (with regard to that passage), because the passage and context of the passage where we read about Jesus casting out demons (and being blasphemously falsely accused about the power by which He did so), has absolutely nothing to do with any length of time which would be reversed for a brief period OR with the nations being deceived
.. UNTIL you add that meaning to scripture.
If one or a number of anyone's servants are dwelling in that person's house, that does not make the house belong to the servants.
The strong man is Satan, not the servant - and therefore the goods are the strong man's not his servants' goods.
I'm sorry Spiritual - I know I shouldn't say this - but IMHO the arguments you bring up regarding this are really lame. Ridiculous. It makes me feel like my intelligence is being insulted because you assume that I'm dumb enough to believe such nonsense - which is used by yourself as your "reason" for adding a meaning to the scripture which is NOT there.
- and the only reason you use those arguments is to link the passage to Revelation 20:1-3, though the two passages have absolutely nothing to do with each other:
The strong man is Satan, not the servant - and therefore the goods are the strong man's not his servants' goods.
I'm sorry Spiritual - I know I shouldn't say this - but IMHO the arguments you bring up regarding this are really lame. Ridiculous. It makes me feel like my intelligence is being insulted because you assume that I'm dumb enough to believe such nonsense - which is used by yourself as your "reason" for adding a meaning to the scripture which is NOT there.
- and the only reason you use those arguments is to link the passage to Revelation 20:1-3, though the two passages have absolutely nothing to do with each other:
Satan's ability to possess that human being by having his servants residing in that "house" was completely incapacitated - otherwise Jesus would not have been able to cast out that demon / those demons. Was it only half of that demon / those demons that were cast out?
Besides the fact that IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY PERIOD OF TIME THAT WILL BE REVERSED FOR A BRIEF PERIOD - NOR WITH SATAN'S DECEPTION OF THE NATIONS, your entire argument in the post I'm replying to indeed and in truth IMPLIES that Satan's power over the nations needed to be restricted in order for the Holy Spirit to be rendered "powerful enough" for the gospel to spread.
In fact and indeed, this particular Amillennialiist argument is blasphemous and instead of rendering the Holy Spirit "powerful enough" for the gospel to spread "because of" or "through" "the restricting or "binding" of Satan (of his power over the nations), it renders yourself and all those who use this argument guilty of blasphemy each time you/they use it.
Your argument indeed and in truth implies that Satan's power needed to be "restricted" in order for God to be "powerful enough" for the gospel to spread - and the argument is used to assert that in this way Satan was "bound" so that he was unable to deceive the nations for a limited period of time, which Revelation 20:1-3 calls "a thousand years".
- and (though not this time, nor in this case) your argument is also one of the false arguments which are used (all too frequently) by Amillennialists as a red herring diverting attention away from scriptures which do not support Amillennialism - such as (for example) the fact that Revelation 20:4 identifies the souls it's talking about by the fact that they had not worshiped the beast, nor received his mark in their right hands or in their foreheads.
I'm going to leave this discussion about this point with you again at this point. Your argument is ridiculous and IMO blasphemous, and you will just continue to insult my intelligence by hanging onto your false doctrine concerning that passage anyway, using the false doctrine (and your addition to scripture expressed once again by yourself here) as though it renders support for what you believe regarding Revelation 20:1-3 and the binding of Satan (in terms of his ability to deceive the nations),
and we will never agree. Note: I'm not insulting YOU but the argument you use - and telling you that your argument is blasphemous.
I'm not responding to what any other Amillennialist (might) say in defense of this Amil argument and in response to this post, either. I've had enough of the dishonesty of these Amil arguments which Amillennialists in their self-indoctrinated brainwashed beliefs believe render "support" for Amilennialism.
Besides the fact that IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY PERIOD OF TIME THAT WILL BE REVERSED FOR A BRIEF PERIOD - NOR WITH SATAN'S DECEPTION OF THE NATIONS, your entire argument in the post I'm replying to indeed and in truth IMPLIES that Satan's power over the nations needed to be restricted in order for the Holy Spirit to be rendered "powerful enough" for the gospel to spread.
In fact and indeed, this particular Amillennialiist argument is blasphemous and instead of rendering the Holy Spirit "powerful enough" for the gospel to spread "because of" or "through" "the restricting or "binding" of Satan (of his power over the nations), it renders yourself and all those who use this argument guilty of blasphemy each time you/they use it.
Your argument indeed and in truth implies that Satan's power needed to be "restricted" in order for God to be "powerful enough" for the gospel to spread - and the argument is used to assert that in this way Satan was "bound" so that he was unable to deceive the nations for a limited period of time, which Revelation 20:1-3 calls "a thousand years".
- and (though not this time, nor in this case) your argument is also one of the false arguments which are used (all too frequently) by Amillennialists as a red herring diverting attention away from scriptures which do not support Amillennialism - such as (for example) the fact that Revelation 20:4 identifies the souls it's talking about by the fact that they had not worshiped the beast, nor received his mark in their right hands or in their foreheads.
I'm going to leave this discussion about this point with you again at this point. Your argument is ridiculous and IMO blasphemous, and you will just continue to insult my intelligence by hanging onto your false doctrine concerning that passage anyway, using the false doctrine (and your addition to scripture expressed once again by yourself here) as though it renders support for what you believe regarding Revelation 20:1-3 and the binding of Satan (in terms of his ability to deceive the nations),
and we will never agree. Note: I'm not insulting YOU but the argument you use - and telling you that your argument is blasphemous.
I'm not responding to what any other Amillennialist (might) say in defense of this Amil argument and in response to this post, either. I've had enough of the dishonesty of these Amil arguments which Amillennialists in their self-indoctrinated brainwashed beliefs believe render "support" for Amilennialism.
Last edited:
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
Of course. Jesus specifically referred to "the strong man's house", not the servants' house. I showed the context of what Jesus said where His reference to the strong man's house correlated with His reference to Satan's kingdom.
Right. Did you somehow think I said otherwise?
Right, but when he referred to the strong man, you agree he was referring to Satan, and the context is that the strong man's house then is Satan's house which is a figurative reference to his kingdom.
Why are you saying that? I can't really follow your logic here.
Did you not read that I said his binding "included casting out demons, but would also include delivering people from Satan's kingdom of darkness by way of the preaching of the gospel of Christ that sheds light into the world."? I am not saying Satan's binding only relates to the casting out of demons. So, I think you're making a strawman argument here.
The main point I was making in the first post that you responded to was just to show that Satan being bound does not have to be understood as him being completely incapacitated. In your understanding of the binding of the strong man, you do see it as a binding of Satan, right? You just don't relate it to the binding of Satan referenced in Revelation 20. But, my main point is that if Satan can be bound without having to be completely incapacitated such as in the case of the binding of the strong man, then why assume that his binding in Revelation 20 has to be a case of him being completely incapacitated?
You are definitely not getting my point here. I explained the main point I was intending to make by referencing Matthew 12:28-29 above. And I'm not saying that the casting out of demons is the only thing that Satan's binding is about.
You should know that I relate passages like the following to Satan's binding since I've told you this several times.
Hebrews 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
1 John 3:8 For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.
Acts 26:17 I will deliver you from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, 18 to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’
I believe the binding of Satan relates to the death and resurrection of Jesus and the preaching of the gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit bringing light into the world that was almost in complete spiritual darkness before that. Things in the world were such that the devil, Satan, had "the power of death" and was able to keep the world in spiritual bondage to the fear of death because of them having no hope and being without God in the world, as Paul said in relation to the Gentiles in Ephesians 2:11-12. But, the death and resurrection of Christ changed all that. Jesus took the power of death away from Satan. Many people in the world have been led "from the power of Satan to God" while gaining the hope of eternal life after previously being in bondage to the fear of death. Jesus had to spoil Satan's good and his house, "destroy the works of the devil" and "destroy him who had the power of death" by taking the power of death away from Satan. I see that as all being related to the binding of Satan. I'm not trying to say that Jesus casting out demons alone encompasses everything that the binding of Satan is about as you seem to think I was claiming.
You badly misunderstood. Again, I never made any claim that Jesus casting out demons alone is what the binding of Satan is all about. I think it's part of it, but there's more to it than that.
Spiritual Israelite
Well-Known Member
You wasted so much time with your strawman argument. It's sad. I NEVER said that Jesus casting out demons alone is what Revelation 20 is all about. You just ASSUMED that. I'm not adding anything to scripture. I'm saying that Jesus's power over Satan and his demons does relate to Satan's binding and Him casting out demons is PART of that, but there is more to it than that. And, again, the point I was making regarding the binding of the strong man was that it was a description of Satan being bound without him being completely incapacitated. So, the point then is even if you think that has no relation at all to Revelation 20, it still shows that Satan can be bound without having to be completely incapacitated.
You think they have nothing at all to do with each other, but why do you think that? Do you not think that Satan's binding in Revelation 20 has anything to do with Jesus's authority over him?
Okay, now we might be getting somewhere! Yes, I agree that his ability to do that was completely incapacitated, but not his ability to do anything at all. Right? That's my point about Revelation 20. Premils assume that his binding in Revelation 20 has to do with him being completely incapacitated. No. It has to do with him not being able to do a certain thing (deceive the "ethnos") and not anything to do with him being unable to do anything at all. But, we disagree on what it means for him to deceive the "ethnos" who, in Revelation 20:7-8 number as the sand of the sea. That's why I say "ethnos" instead of nations because nations don't number as the sand of the sea. A better translation of "ethnos" there would be "heathen". Anyway, I relate that to Satan's ability to hold the power of death like he did before Christ took that away and his ability keep people from seeing the light and being set free by the light of Christ and His gospel.
What in the world are you talking about here? I can't make any sense of what you're saying here. Try again and speak more clearly. I have no idea how you are coming to these conclusions. It's utterly RIDICULOUS AND FOOLISH to suggest that my argument is blasphemous. Are you kidding me? Get out of here with this nonsense!
You are being utterly foolish and ridiculous with these comments. You have no idea of what you're talking about at all. Not even close. You can't accuse me of making a blasphemous argument when you clearly don't even understand what I'm saying. Just admit that you don't understand Amillennialism instead of accusing it of being blasphemous. Stop your foolishness.
LOL. Good one, buddy. This is one of the more ridiculous things anyone has ever said. How can you think you're not insulting me when you are insulting what I'm saying? Hello? That's not how things work. You're not living in reality. If you say my argument is blasphemous then you are saying I'm being blasphemous. But I'm not. That is the most ridiculous accusation I've ever seen.
You are clueless. You clearly don't even understand Amillennialism, so you are not qualified to comment on it.
The world. Jesus speaks of the ruler of this world being cast out in John 12.
Satan is bound in the sense that he absolutely cannot prevent the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles, all nations and people-groups beyond Israel. Every Gentile believer today (as well as for the last 2,000-plus years, is evidence of this.
Grace and peace to all.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
"A thousand years" spiritually, is "forever." So, yes, there is no thousand year anything in the scriptures.
- and Revelation 20:3 rules out any possibility of the the thousand years being "forever".
.. UNTIL the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
There is no "forever" implied by the words "until" [G0891 achri] and "after" [G03326 meta].
G0891 ("achri") means "until".
G03326 ("meta") often means "with":
"And I turned to see the voice that spake with [G03326 meta] me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks" (Revelation 1:12).
And sometimes it means "after""
"And after [G03326 meta] they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel" (Matthew 1:12).
"Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter [G03326 meta] (Revelation 1:19).
"After [G03326 meta] this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter." (Revelation 4:1).
Last edited:
ScottA
Well-Known Member
Yes, I know what you are saying, it makes sense--but only for a time.
What did I just say? I have given you an example.
Did I say that what you said sounds right, but is wrong? Did I disagree with you? Or did I say that what you have said was and is true--only until time is no longer a factor? I said the latter...and the words you read and quoted, I did not disagree with, but what I am now telling you--is they were given like my own statement above, in such a way that it could be misunderstood. Which were true, but now are not--but what I said is true. Which is according to the fulfillment of "time no longer", as it is written and was to come, and has come. Which of course, no one saw coming--like what--like Christ coming as a baby? And yet, it is written:
Not that time would end--that is not what is written. But rather, that before the end of time--before the sounding of the seventh angel, when about to sound--while the clocks are still ticking--time-based words would no longer be the truth of scripture (except for history itself). For time is of this world--and the mystery of God that was to be finished as he declared to his servants the prophets--is not.
In other words, the Revelation 20:3 passage (without time being a factor), is simply saying: Until all is fulfilled...when eternity commences--and meanwhile, this is that little while.
If you can receive it--prophecy has been fulfilled.
Last edited:
Scripture teaches us that Satan set himself up in opposition to God. This does not mean that he is the opposite of God. God is Almighty, omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing) and omnipresent (present everywhere at every moment and at any moment in time). Satan is none of those things.
1. Jesus's analogy to binding the strong man before his house could be broken into and his goods could be plundered has nothing to do with:
(A) a thousand years, or
(B) Satan's deception of the nations.
* In Genesis chapter 3, we read of how Satan appeared in the Garden of Eden and deceived mankind.1. Jesus's analogy to binding the strong man before his house could be broken into and his goods could be plundered has nothing to do with:
(A) a thousand years, or
(B) Satan's deception of the nations.
* Revelation 12:9 calls Satan "the great dragon" and "the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world."
* The reason given for Satan being bound in Revelation 20:1-3 is that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years have expired.
If we look for statements in the New Testament implying that Satan was bound when Jesus died and rose again, all we will ever find is passages stating the opposite:
Jesus called Satan "the ruler of this world"; and the New Testament calls him "the prince of the power of the air who works in the sons of disobedience", who we are told will give the beast and false prophet his seat, power and great authority (Revelation Chapter 13).
The saints are warned to be weary of his wiles and to resist him, and to put on the full armor of God because "we do not wrestle against flesh and blood" (John 12:31; 1 Peter 5:8-9; Ephesians 6:11-12; Revelation 2:9-10 & Revelation 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; James 4:7 ).
Ephesians 2:2 tells us about Satan's influence over the societies of this world, this Age.
Revelation Chapters 12-13 portray this current status quo as spanning the entire present Age and culminating in the beast's war against the saints in Revelation Chapter 13 (see Revelation 13:7).
Christ destroying the works of Satan
Satan's works consist primarily in the death that became part of human experience, and the sin that leads to death. The destruction of Satan's works will not last only for a thousand years and be "reversed" for a short period at the close of the thousand years (as though Satan's works were merely "bound" for a thousand years).
"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), and deliver those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Hebrews 2:14-15.
"And they overcame him (the devil) because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony. And they did not love their soul to the death." Revelation 12:11.
The blood of the Lamb speaks of the death of Christ.
"He who practices sin is of the Devil, for the Devil sins from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was revealed, that He might undo the works of the Devil." 1 John 3:8
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Romans 8:3.
2. Jesus's analogy to binding the strong man before his house could be broken into and his goods could be plundered is not an "illustration" of the "binding Satan's ability to deceive the nations (Revelation 20:103) so that "the gospel could be spread" to the nations".
The Word of God was powerful enough to do so before Jesus delivered the man from demon possession: Abraham believed the Word of God, and God credited it to Abraham for righteousness. Noah believed the Word of God, and he built an ark as evidence of His faith in the Word of God.
Both men were called out from among the Gentiles.
Jesus had the power to deliver the man from demon-possession before He delivered the man.
To assert that Jesus' analogy and action was "an illustration" of Satan being "bound in terms of his ability to deceive the nations so that the gospel could be spread to the nations" is blasphemous
- because it implies that the Spirit of God would not have been "powerful enough" for the Word of God to be believed in the nations unless Satan's ability to deceive the nations (Revelation 20:-3) was removed for a limited period of time - a limited period of time which would be "reversed" for a brief period at the close of that period of time.
The Holy Spirit was powerful enough to deliver the man from demon-possession BEFORE the man was delivered and WITHOUT Satan's ability to deceive the nations (Revelation 20:1-3) needing to be removed from Satan for a thousand years.
"And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness has not mastered it." (John 1:5).
Those who imply (by their assertion regarding Jesus's illustration and the meaning of Jesus's illustration) that the Holy Spirit would not have been powerful enough, working in the hearts and minds of human beings, for the Word of God to be believed in the nations (and the gospel to be spread among the nations) without Satan being bound for a thousand years in terms of his ability to deceive the nations (Revelation 20:1-3) probably do not even realize how blasphemous that assertion of theirs is, because of its implication.
It's not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit like that of the Pharisees - who stated that the Holy Spirit's power was the power of Satan - but it is blasphemous nonetheless: Satan only has power to deceive any human being through that human being giving Satan that power through choosing to believe Satan's lies when the Word of God exposes his lies - and that has been the case since Adam believed Satan's lies in the Garden of Eden - because they contradicted the Word of God and were uttered in opposition to the Word of God.
Satan has never been powerful enough to prevent the works of God in any way, shape or form - and that is the only thing that is implied by the false assertion that Jesus's analogy regarding the strong man and Jesus's casting demons out of a man was "an illustration" of "the binding of Satan for a thousand years".
Last edited:
Similar threads
