Is Revelation 20:1-6 really a recap?

[ScottA]

That's not what I said. Lying about what I said doesn't help your case at all. What I called foolishness was you denying the bodily future coming of Christ.


What did you mean by this?

My presentation and witness to you--my position is that what you apparently believe is bodily and fleshly, is not, but is spiritual. You called that "foolishness." No "lie."

And because you have made your own position so vehemently--making accusations--against me, you have done it against the Spirit by whom I have made my presentation to you..."there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

And that is about all the repeating I am going to do. This has gone on long enough, and what you have said is perfectly clear..

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

My presentation and witness to you--my position is that what you apparently believe is bodily and fleshly, is not, but is spiritual. You called that "foolishness." No "lie."

I don't call spiritual things foolishness, which is how you are deceptively trying to portray this. I explicitly stated what I believe is foolish about what you have said. I am calling your denial of a future bodily second coming of Jesus Christ foolishness.

And because you have made your own position so vehemently--making accusations--against me, you have done it against the Spirit by whom I have made my presentation to you..."there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Don't foolishly equate yourself with the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, what you say about me will end up applying to yourself.

 

[ScottA]

Of course because that is what Scripture tells us we shall physically see when Christ comes again. It will be as it was when He departed from this world and the disciples saw Him ascending up into heaven until the clouds obscured their vision. If Christ does not return in bodily form as He said how will every eye see His appearing? Seeing in the following verse speaks of physical sight.

Revelation 1:7 (KJVSL) Behold ἰδού, he cometh ἔρχομαι with μετά clouds νεφέλη; and καί every πᾶς eye ὀφθαλμός shall see ὀπτάνομαι him αὐτός, and καί they also which ὅστις pierced ἐκκεντέω him αὐτός: and καί all πᾶς kindreds φυλή of the earth γῆ shall wail κόπτω because ἐπί of him αὐτός. Even so ναί, Amen ἀμήν.

That is a misunderstanding of what Revelation 1:7 actually says. Sorry, but it is most common, and yet incorrect.

His coming "with clouds" refers to coming in the spirit--meaning every eye [therefore] will see also in the spirit. Which is to say, "that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." As He went to be One (again) with the Father, the Father being spirit--that is the meaning of how "He is." Which Jesus confirmed, saying, “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also." Which He clarified saying also, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing" (as not ὠφελέω ōpheléō; to be [considered] useful).

 

[ScottA]

I don't call spiritual things foolishness, which is how you are deceptively trying to portray this. I explicitly stated what I believe is foolish about what you have said. I am calling your denial of a future bodily second coming of Jesus Christ foolishness.

Every thing I have said is a case for and by the Spirit, as opposed to your insistence on these many passages we have covered, as if they pertained to the flesh and physical. I have been clear.

And now you are repeating it as confirmation. Therefore, so shall it be written of you.

 

[ScottA]

Don't foolishly equate yourself with the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, what you say about me will end up applying to yourself.

You misunderstand-- I have not equated myself to any, except those sent, but speak not, for it is the Spirit who speaks--by the order of Christ--just as it is written. Of which I have been very clear.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Every thing I have said is a case for and by the Spirit, as opposed to your insistence on these many passages we have covered, as if they pertained to the flesh and physical. I have been clear.

And now you are repeating it as confirmation. Therefore, so shall it be written of you.

Can you confirm for all to see that you do not believe that Jesus Christ will return physically and bodily from heaven in the future? Once you do that, I won't say any more about it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You misunderstand-- I have not equated myself to any, except those sent, but speak not, for it is the Spirit who speaks--by the order of Christ--just as it is written. Of which I have been very clear.

He doesn't speak through you, that's for sure. The Holy Spirit would never deny the future bodily return of Christ as you do.

 

[ScottA]

Can you confirm for all to see that you do not believe that Jesus Christ will return physically and bodily from heaven in the future? Once you do that, I won't say any more about it.

No, I won't entertain you in your error. I will however tell you what is actually true:

The "bodily" return of Christ is not how you imagine it (or perhaps have been taught), but is as He himself as much as said--as did Paul: "Take, eat; this is My body." In other word, He gave His body of flesh to those who make up His body--the Church. "Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. " "For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." "By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world."​

He has come in my flesh, which is now His flesh--By the Spirit, that is my confession. Has He come in yours?

 

[ScottA]

He doesn't speak through you, that's for sure. The Holy Spirit would never deny the future bodily return of Christ as you do.

We--every eye--shall see.

 

[rwb]

I, of course, don't deny that we are spiritually in the kingdom of God now and that we worship God now in spirit and in truth and so on, but that isn't what Jesus was talking about in Luke 20:34-36.

That is exactly the resurrection Christ is speaking of! You say you believe we are in the spiritual Kingdom of God now, but how can you believe that since you deny we are eternally saved? You and whosoever denies eternal security can't seem to grasp the fact that none can belong to the eternal Kingdom of God without possessing eternal/everlasting life through the Spirit of Christ within us! That's why you will not believe belonging to the eternal Kingdom of God is to have spiritually entered into the age Christ said was coming with the resurrection that would not be before His cross and resurrection to life again. It could not be an eternal Kingdom of God if one could be there today then decided they don't really belong there through unbelief. Christ makes it abundantly clear that when a man is born again of the Spirit of Christ they are spiritually ETERNALLY SAVED, because they have partaken of Christ, Who is THE RESURRECTION that man must partake of to overcome the second death

 

[Davidpt]

That is exactly the resurrection Christ is speaking of! You say you believe we are in the spiritual Kingdom of God now, but how can you believe that since you deny we are eternally saved? You and whosoever denies eternal security can't seem to grasp the fact that none can belong to the eternal Kingdom of God without possessing eternal/everlasting life through the Spirit of Christ within us! That's why you will not believe belonging to the eternal Kingdom of God is to have spiritually entered into the age Christ said was coming with the resurrection that would not be before His cross and resurrection to life again. It could not be an eternal Kingdom of God if one could be there today then decided they don't really belong there through unbelief. Christ makes it abundantly clear that when a man is born again of the Spirit of Christ they are spiritually ETERNALLY SAVED, because they have partaken of Christ, Who is THE RESURRECTION that man must partake of to overcome the second death

I've said it before. Only OSAS and Amil make sense. NOSAS and Amil certaintly doesn't. Not even remotely. Thus why I can't be Amil if if I wanted to be. No way am I going to abandon that NOSAS is also Biblical in order to be Amil. So the problem is this. NOSAS is also Biblical. Therefore, though OSAS and Amil make sense, it is not Biblical, the fact NOSAS has to fit as well. But it can't fit Amil, though. Nor can---only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't---fit any view---including Amil, Premil, etc. Yet--- OSAS is Biblical and so is NOSAS--can fit Premil but it can't fit Amil as well. And the reason why is simple. If one falls away, they fall away before the time of the first resurrection. Therefore, they never have part in the first resurrection to begin with. Which means absurd nonsense can't happen to them like the next paragraph below demonstrates.

OTOH, Amil plus NOSAS means they have part in the first resurrection first. Then if they fall away they lose part in the first resurrection. Totally absurd that one can be blessed and holy one minute by having part in the first resurrection, then the next minute they lose part in the first resurrection and now are no longer blessed and holy because they fell away. Or, one minute the 2nd death has no power over them because they have part in the first resurrection. Then the next minute the 2nd death once again regains power over them because they fell away. Or, one minute they are reigning with Christ a thousand years. The next minute they are no longer reigning with Christ 1K years because they fell away. But I thought Amil 100% insists that when one who has part in the first resurrection dies, they then continue reigning a thousand years with Christ in a disembodied state in heaven? But how is that supposed to logically work if they fell away before they died--thus NOSAS, Total unbelievable nonsense is what all of this in this paragraph adds up to.

How in the world Amils think NOSAS is compatible with Amil is beyond me? How can Amil be true if NOSAS is also Biblical? How can Amil be true if it is not true that only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't? Therefore, no matter how you look at it Amil can't be true, because it contradicts something no matter what. It contradicts Revelation 20:6 if NOSAS is also Biblical. It contradicts that only OSAS is Biblical but NOSAS isn't, if NOSAS is also Biblical.

And so what if @Spiritual Israelite thinks my argument is lame, that no way in a million years can both Amil and NOSAS be true? And equally, no way in a million years can Amil be true if NOSAS is also Biblical, rather than only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't. Therefore, Amil isn't true to begin with. But if it was somehow true, like maybe if meaning in the Twilight Zone, not reality, it's crystal clear NOSAS would contradict it even then.

In this case I'm being intellectually honest @Spiritual Israelite isn't. Nor are any Amils that insist only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't, and that Amil is still true, regardless.

 

[rwb]

I've said it before. Only OSAS and Amil make sense. NOSAS and Amil certaintly doesn't. Not even remotely. Thus why I can't be Amil if if I wanted to be.

Salvation is not a matter of being Amil or not! Salvation unto man comes by God's grace through faith! To be saved one MUST believe that Christ gives eternal life to whosoever believes on Him! If you cannot believe the life we receive through Christ is ETERNAL and can never be lost, it is imperative that you examine your own heart! We either believe Christ when He says the life we receive through Him is ETERNAL and can never be lost or we remain in doubt tossed to and fro with every new wind of doctrine, never coming to peace that surpasses understanding!

But you are correct in saying there is NOT compatibility between Amillennialism and Premillennialism! Both can be wrong, however there is only ONE that can be proven true through the abundance of Scripture without forcing contradiction and confusion into the Word of God, and it is NOT Premillennialism.

 

[rwb]

In this case I'm being intellectually honest @Spiritual Israelite isn't. Nor are any Amils that insist only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't, and that Amil is still true, regardless.

In this I also agree! One claiming to be Amil then argues that eternal life in Christ can be lost, has not rightly divided the Word of God!

 

[WPM]

I've said it before. Only OSAS and Amil make sense. NOSAS and Amil certaintly doesn't. Not even remotely. Thus why I can't be Amil if if I wanted to be. No way am I going to abandon that NOSAS is also Biblical in order to be Amil. So the problem is this. NOSAS is also Biblical. Therefore, though OSAS and Amil make sense, it is not Biblical, the fact NOSAS has to fit as well. But it can't fit Amil, though. Nor can---only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't---fit any view---including Amil, Premil, etc. Yet--- OSAS is Biblical and so is NOSAS--can fit Premil but it can't fit Amil as well. And the reason why is simple. If one falls away, they fall away before the time of the first resurrection. Therefore, they never have part in the first resurrection to begin with. Which means absurd nonsense can't happen to them like the next paragraph below demonstrates.

OTOH, Amil plus NOSAS means they have part in the first resurrection first. Then if they fall away they lose part in the first resurrection. Totally absurd that one can be blessed and holy one minute by having part in the first resurrection, then the next minute they lose part in the first resurrection and now are no longer blessed and holy because they fell away. Or, one minute the 2nd death has no power over them because they have part in the first resurrection. Then the next minute the 2nd death once again regains power over them because they fell away. Or, one minute they are reigning with Christ a thousand years. The next minute they are no longer reigning with Christ 1K years because they fell away. But I thought Amil 100% insists that when one who has part in the first resurrection dies, they then continue reigning a thousand years with Christ in a disembodied state in heaven? But how is that supposed to logically work if they fell away before they died--thus NOSAS, Total unbelievable nonsense is what all of this in this paragraph adds up to.

How in the world Amils think NOSAS is compatible with Amil is beyond me? How can Amil be true if NOSAS is also Biblical? How can Amil be true if it is not true that only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't? Therefore, no matter how you look at it Amil can't be true, because it contradicts something no matter what. It contradicts Revelation 20:6 if NOSAS is also Biblical. It contradicts that only OSAS is Biblical but NOSAS isn't, if NOSAS is also Biblical.

And so what if @Spiritual Israelite thinks my argument is lame, that no way in a million years can both Amil and NOSAS be true? And equally, no way in a million years can Amil be true if NOSAS is also Biblical, rather than only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't. Therefore, Amil isn't true to begin with. But if it was somehow true, like maybe if meaning in the Twilight Zone, not reality, it's crystal clear NOSAS would contradict it even then.

In this case I'm being intellectually honest @Spiritual Israelite isn't. Nor are any Amils that insist only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't, and that Amil is still true, regardless.

Your battle is with the Word, that is why you cannot see Amil and the fact that salvation is forever. Your prejudices and bias prevent you from receiving what Scripture teaches. Notwithstanding, many Amils are also Arminianists.

 

[Davidpt]

Salvation is not a matter of being Amil or not!

Exactly. And I'm not arguing otherwise. Yet only per Premil can OSAS and NOSAS both be Biblical and not contradict Revelation 20:6.

The point is, one can be both an Amil and a Premil and still be saved. That's not the issue, not even remotely, since it would be absurd to argue that only Amils can be saved, or only Premils can be saved. No, the issue is this, assuming one of these is Biblical, meaning Amil and Premil, only one of them can be Biblical since they both can't be. And that both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical helps us determine which of these 2 views is true, because OSAS and NOSAS is Biblical can only work with one of these views, not both of them. And that it really makes sense that the view this combo can't work with, it it the view that is true. But the view this combo can work with, it is the view that is untrue. Which then equals the reversal of reality since no one would reason other unrelated things in this same manner.

 

[WPM]

Exactly. And I'm not arguing otherwise. Yet only per Premil can OSAS and NOSAS both be Biblical and not contradict Revelation 20:6.

The point is, one can be both an Amil and a Premil and still be saved. That's not the issue, not even remotely, since it would be absurd to argue that only Amils can be saved, or only Premils can be saved. No, the issue is this, assuming one of these is Biblical, meaning Amil and Premil, only one of them can be Biblical since they both can't be. And that both OSAS and NOSAS are Biblical helps us determine which of these 2 views is true, because OSAS and NOSAS is Biblical can only work with one of these views, not both of them. And that it really makes sense that the view this combo can't work with, it it the view that is true. But the view this combo can work with, it is the view that is untrue. Which then equals the reversal of reality since no one would reason other unrelated things in this same manner.

It is a matter of one's interpretation of Scripture. Premil Arminianists are doubly wrong. Amil Arminianists are partially right. But (I believe) Scripture teaches Amil and the doctrines of grace.

I think your motive is to try and divide Amils. You like to stir the pot.

 

[rwb]

Yet only per Premil can OSAS and NOSAS both be Biblical and not contradict Revelation 20:6.

To arrive at the conclusion that both eternal security and falling away through unbelief is affirmed by Rev 20:6 is convincing proof that you have not rightly understood this verse.

Since both of these groups reign with Christ a thousand years, vs. 6 affirms that there shall be other saints/living souls who remain faithful during this time a thousand years even though they are not numbered with those martyred for remaining faithful unto death.

Revelation 20:6 (KJV) 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.

Revelation 20:4 (KJV) 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.

Do you believe there will be two periods of one thousand literal years for man to be saved?

 

[Davidpt]

Your battle is with the Word, that is why you cannot see Amil and the fact that salvation is forever. Your prejudices and bias prevent you from receiving what Scripture teaches. Notwithstanding, many Amils are also Arminianists.

He who alleges must prove--one of your favorite quotes. Except, in your mind, this probably means anyone but you must prove what you allege.

But here's an idea, regardless. Keeping in mind readers can see what you are avoiding or not avoiding. So the challenge is then this. Prove what you allege by using the following to prove it. Prove that only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't. Then prove that Amil and NOSAS does not contradict Revelation 20:6 while you are at it.

Romans 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Prove that to be graffed into the good olive tree does not mean to be saved. Prove, that if a Gentile that is cut off from the good olive tree after having been graffed in means this Gentile was never saved to begin with or that this Gentile remains saved, regardless. If your position is the latter then you need to prove that when the unbelieving Jews were cut off for disbelief this still equals they are among the saved, regardless. If your view is the former, then you need to prove how any Gentile can get graffed into the good olive tree to begin with without that involving them being saved first.

Are you going to accept the challenge and prove what you allege? Or are you going to deflect instead and maybe attempt to prove it another way rather than this way? Or perhaps keep on insisting you are correct without bothering to prove what you allege? If what you allege is true, you would then be able to convincingly prove it via the passage above, obviously. If you won't take the challenge it undeniably proves you are being intellectually dishonest, no doubt. The reason why is because you know this passage debunks what you allege, otherwise you shouldn't be afraid of this passage disproving what you allege. This passage would be supporting it if what you allege is true, that only OSAS is Biblical NOSAS isn't.

 

[rwb]

Man can be wrong regarding understanding of Biblical doctrine. But can a man be saved who denies Christ came to give ETERNAL life to whosoever believes on Him?

 

[soberxp]

The Amil reading, as far as I can tell. Revelation 19:1-21--future still. Thus no recap. Revelation 20:1-6---the present---thus a recap. Revelation 20:7-15--future still. Thus no recap. If Revelation 20:1-6 is a recap, where before 20 ch does it support it?



Except my opinion is, there is nowhere prior to Revelation 20 that clearly supports a recap of 20:1–6. The Amil reading asserts a recap, but the text never signals one, and the surrounding chapters appear to resist it.

A recap should revisit the same period, from a different angle, with clear literary signals. Instead, the Amil position requires Revelation 19 to be looking forward, Revelation 20:1-6 to be looking backward, and Revelation 20:7-15 to be looking forward again, with no textual cue that a rewind happened.


Where before chapter 20 does the text support a recap of 20:1–6? Nowhere. And here’s why.
Again, my opinion.

A) No prior passage describes satan being bound before Revelation 20.

B) satan is active (Revelation 12–13). he empowers the beast (Revelation 13:2) he deceives the whole world (Revelation 12:9) he gathers the nations for war (Revelation 16:13–14)

C) There is no vision of satan being restrained, satan being unable to deceive the nations, satan being removed from the world, So what exactly is Revelation 20:1–6 recapping? Nothing. LOL

D) No prior passage describes saints reigning for a thousand years

E) Revelation earlier describes suffering saints, martyrs crying out, perseverance under persecution. But never a defined reign, a defined duration, nor a resurrection followed by reign.

F) Revelation 20:1-6 introduces new content, which recapitulation cannot explain. Recaps repeat---they don’t invent.

G) No prior passage describes a resurrection split into stages. Revelation 20--first resurrection---second resurrection---resurrection tied to reign


The claim that Revelation 20:1–6 recapitulates the present age lacks any textual anchor. There is no prior passage in Revelation that depicts satan bound, unable to deceive the nations, or saints reigning for a defined period following resurrection. Instead, satan is portrayed as actively deceiving and empowering the beast up through chapter 19. Recapitulation explains repetition, but Revelation 20:1–6 introduces new events, new conditions, and new temporal markers. A recap without a referent is not a recap at all.

Revelation 12 depicts satan cast down from heaven to earth, not bound, imprisoned, or prevented from deceiving the nations. In fact, the passage says he deceives the whole world and persecutes the saints with great wrath. That is the opposite of Revelation 20:1-6.


If Revelation 20:1–6 is a recap, the burden lies on the interpreter to identify the earlier passage it recapitulates. Without such a passage, the claim remains an unsupported assertion rather than an exegetical conclusion.

Is it possible that Satan was only sealed for one day, and that day was equivalent to a thousand years? During that one day, there was no his deception or temptation, and the world was peaceful and happy.