The Meaning Of “NO MORE” In Revelation

[rwb]

In the book of Revelation, the phrase 'no more' is never used in other passages the way Amils use it in Revelation 20:3. Premils believe Revelation 20:3, that it means satan can't deceive anyone during the millennium. If he can't deceive some, yet can still deceive others(the Amil view), that does not equal satan can't deceive anyone during the millennium.

What have you proven here David? Answer the question as to how any Gentile from the nations is NOW being saved as the gospel of the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed? Because you say "Satan can't deceive anyone during the millennium"! If binding is the only way to prevent Satan from deceiving anyone as you say, how can he not be bound already since multitudes of Gentiles from among all nations are NOW being saved?

 

[Davidpt]

What have you proven here David? Answer the question as to how any Gentile from the nations is NOW being saved as the gospel of the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed? Because you say "Satan can't deceive anyone during the millennium"! If binding is the only way to prevent Satan from deceiving anyone as you say, how can he not be bound already since multitudes of Gentiles from among all nations are NOW being saved?

Roger, has it ever occurred to Amils that God is bigger and more powerful than satan, thus doesn't need to bind satan in order for anyone to be saved?

And something else comes to mind, with Amil theology in mind. Amil only tends to focus' on Gentiles being saved during the NT church age. What about Jews being saved during the NT church age, where Amils insist is meaning the millennium? Why isn't, per Amil theology, that satan is bound so that Jews can be saved as well?

In Revelation 20, with Amil theology in mind, who in the texts involved are also meaning Jews, thus including them? Amils insist that satan is bound in order to deceive Gentiles no longer. Yet, Jews are not Gentiles, and they too can be saved during the past 2000 years through now, and many of them are.

Then Amil, the way they interpret the binding of satan to benefit Gentiles not Jews, ignore the following passage on top of that.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The point I'm trying to make is, not that Amils deny Jews are also saved this past 2000 years, because clearly Amils don't deny that, but when it comes to the reason for satan being bound, Amils have it meaning so that Gentiles can be saved as well.

Which begs the question, the fact there is such a thing as unbelieving Jews, what about them? Why wouldn't unbelieving Jews need satan to be bound so that they can't be deceived either? Yet Amils, just like you did per this post, has satan's binding for the purpose of no longer deceiving Gentiles, while ignoring that unbelieving Jews are obviously being deceived as well if they are in a state of disbelief.

As far s I can tell, Amils appear to be interpreting nations in Revelation 20 to only be meaning Gentiles rather than all people of all nations, which would have to also include Jews in that case. Of course though, for all I know, some Amils might deny that Jews are also a nation of people.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations(ethos), and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

The same Greek word for nations in Revelation 20 is the same Greek word for nations in Revelation 7:9. Imagine interpreting nations in Revelation 7:9 in the same manner Amils interpret nations in Revelation 20. Instead of this in Revelation 7:9--- of all nations(consisting of both Gentiles and Jews)--this instead--of all nations(consisting of only Gentiles)

 

[ScottA]

Me asking Chatgpt the following:

What about the following phrase used in Revelation 20:3---'no more'?

That same exact phrase is also used in the following verses in Revelation.

Revelation 3:12, Revelation 7:16, Revelation 18:14, Revelation 18:21, Revelation 18:22
Revelation 18:23, Revelation 21:1, Revelation 21:4, Revelation 22:3

What does the phrase 'no more' mean in all these other verses? Is it the same thing Amil has 'no more' meaning in Revelation 20:3? Or is it the same thing Premil has 'no more' meaning in Revelation 20:3?
--------------------

Chatgpt:

Below is the full analysis you requested
---

# **THE MEANING OF “NO MORE” IN REVELATION**

---

INTRODUCTION

The big question:

Does the phrase “no more” in Revelation 20:3 mean the same thing it means everywhere else in Revelation?

Short answer:
Yes — everywhere else it means total and absolute cessation.
Only amillennialism assigns Revelation 20:3 a unique, partial meaning.

Now let’s break it down.

---

PART 1 — The Phrase “No More” in Revelation Always Means Complete, Total Cessation

In Greek, the phrases used are *mē eti*, *ou mē*, or *ouketi*, all of which carry the force of:

* never again
* completely stopped
* permanently over

Below are the examples you listed, showing this consistent usage.

---

Revelation 3:12
“He shall go no more out.”
→ Permanently in God’s presence. Never again out.

Revelation 7:16
“They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more.”
→ Eternal cessation of hunger and thirst.

Revelation 18:14, 21–23
“No more at all.”
→ Babylon’s fall is total:

* no more craftsmen
* no more music
* no more light
* no more weddings
This is absolute destruction, not partial restriction.

Revelation 21:1
“There was no more sea.”
→ The sea is permanently removed in the new creation.

Revelation 21:4
“No more death… sorrow… crying… pain.”
→ All former things end forever. Absolute cessation.

Revelation 22:3
“There shall be no more curse.”
→ The curse is fully, eternally removed.

---

✓ CONCLUSION OF PART 1:
In every single case, “no more” = total, complete, permanent cessation.
There is not one example of “no more” meaning:

* “less than before”
* “restricted”
* “partially ended”
* “reduced influence”

---

PART 2 — Apply This to Revelation 20:3

Revelation 20:3
“…that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled…”

If we read this phrase the same way Revelation always uses it, the meaning becomes clear:

➡ Satan’s ability to deceive the nations totally stops
➡ for the duration of the thousand years
➡ then returns (when he is loosed for a little season)

This is the natural, consistent reading.

It matches:

* the grammar
* the word usage throughout Revelation
* the narrative flow (deceive → stopped → loosed → deceive again)

This is exactly the premillennial reading.

---

PART 3 — Does Amillennialism Use “No More” Consistently Here?

No. Amillennialism must interpret this one instance differently:

Amillennial view of Revelation 20:3:

* Satan is bound only in a specific sense
* He cannot deceive the nations in a gospel-blocking sense
* But he can still:

* tempt
* accuse
* persecute
* deceive individuals
* influence governments
* operate spiritually and socially

In other words:

Amil interprets “no more” here as “no more in one respect.”

But that’s a unique reinterpretation not used anywhere else in Revelation.

This is an exception made for doctrinal necessity, not for textual consistency.

Even many amillennial scholars admit this tension.

---

PART 4 — The Consistent Meaning of “No More” in Revelation 20:3

Using the book’s own usage pattern, the phrase means:

Satan’s deception of the nations ceases totally and completely during the thousand years.

Then:

When the thousand years are finished,
Satan is released and resumes deceiving the nations (Rev. 20:7–8).

This matches:

* the vocabulary
* the book-wide pattern
* the narrative structure

And requires no exceptions or special definitions.

---

FINAL CONCLUSION

Q: Does “no more” in Revelation 20:3 mean the same thing everywhere else in Revelation?
A: Yes — if read consistently, it means total cessation.

Q: Does amillennialism interpret it that way?
A: No — amillennialism gives it a unique, partial meaning that Revelation never uses elsewhere.

Thus, the consistent grammatical reading supports premillennialism.

---

That is a good grammatical study--but then again, "the words are spirit"--so it's only so good.

But it does help to understand what the actual truth is--if one can receive it. Which makes both amil and premil incorrect:

Above in your findings, "the narrative flow (deceive → stopped → loosed → deceive again)" is quite accurate.

However, what it is actually revealing, is not what is commonly believed. Contrary to what is commonly believed, the first "deceive" refers to the time before the cross, the "stopped" refers to the cross (Christ's victory over Satan), and the "loosed -> deceive again" refers to the times of the gentiles wherein they too are deceived.

 

[rwb]

Roger, has it ever occurred to Amils that God is bigger and more powerful than satan, thus doesn't need to bind satan in order for anyone to be saved?

This is what I refer to as a cop out David! It's not questioning the power of God over Satan to QUOTE Scripture!

And something else comes to mind, with Amil theology in mind. Amil only tends to focus' on Gentiles being saved during the NT church age. What about Jews being saved during the NT church age, where Amils insist is meaning the millennium? Why isn't, per Amil theology, that satan is bound so that Jews can be saved as well?

Do you really not understand that it was the nations (Gentiles) not Jews (Israel of Old) that did NOT have the knowledge of being saved before the advent of Christ?

In Revelation 20, with Amil theology in mind, who in the texts involved are also meaning Jews, thus including them? Amils insist that satan is bound in order to deceive Gentiles no longer. Yet, Jews are not Gentiles, and they too can be saved during the past 2000 years through now, and many of them are.

Then Amil, the way they interpret the binding of satan to benefit Gentiles not Jews, ignore the following passage on top of that.

The text doesn't say Satan must be bound because Israel (Jews) was deceived, because Israel was NEVER deceived. They willfully rejected the promised Messiah they had heard about through the Law and Prophets of Old. The gospel of the Kingdom of God according to the Prophet Isaiah had been preached to Israel. That's why it is said that the Law was to reprove them of sin and guide them to Christ. Even Father Abraham heard the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

Galatians 3:8 (KJV) And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Read Ro 10

Here is an excerpt:

Romans 10:16-21 (KJV) But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

Israel, having heard the gospel of the Kingdom of God through the Law and Prophets Israel knew the promised Messiah who was to come was the way to be saved from the power of death for all who believed. Israel had great advantage over the nations of the earth (Gentiles) because they had received the Word of God and the covenant promises through the Law and Prophets. None of the Gentile nations of the earth had this advantage unless they converted to Judaism, became a Jew through marriage or circumcision.

Romans 3:1-2 (KJV) What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

While Israel is guilty of rejecting the ONE sent first to them, who came through them, the nations (Gentiles) had not known or heard the Word (oracles) of God. The nations when Christ came to earth a man were still in bondage to darkness and fear of death. Satan holds in his power those who have not heard, not those who have heard and willfully reject Him. How could they reject who they had no knowledge of?

Which is why Satan was bound that he could no longer hold (deceive) the Gentile nations of the earth in bondage to fear of death for whosoever among the nations would hear the gospel of the Kingdom of God preached and according to grace through faith be eternally saved. Taken from fear of bondage to death to having everlasting life through the power of Christ. Because Gentiles since the advent of Christ have been saved are being saved and shall be saved because the cross and resurrection broke the power of death the nations had been held in. If Satan has not yet been bound by the power of the cross and resurrection Gentiles in every nation would still be in bondage to fear of death.

Since the advent of Christ has come, Scripture tells us that NOW there is no difference between Jew and Gentile IN CHRIST! That means there is no longer Jew or Gentile in Christ, rather every believer is NOW a Christian.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Chat GPT is a computer and therefore is unable to be motivated by any need to uphold any preconceived doctrine - one way or another - in its replies (unlike you). Which is why you do not like it.

LOL! It retrieves info from the Internet that is upheld by those who have preconceived doctrines. How can you be so naive? You obviously have no interest in being taken seriously.

Chat GPT

In the New Testament, does the Greek word translated as "lived" in Revelation 20:4 ever refer to someone who is "spiritually alive" in Christ?

**Short answer:** *No.* The Greek verb **ἔζησαν (ezēsan)** in Revelation 20:4—translated *“lived”* or *“came to life”*—is never used in the New Testament to describe someone becoming **spiritually alive in Christ**. In the NT, when this verb is used of people who have died, it always refers to **literal, bodily life or resurrection**, not spiritual regeneration.

Below is a clear breakdown.

---

## **1. The verb in Rev 20:4 is ἔζησαν (ezēsan), from ζάω (zaō)**

Revelation 20:4–5 uses the **aorist active indicative** of *zaō*, meaning **“they lived/they came to life.”**

The phrase appears twice:

* *ἔζησαν καὶ ἐβασίλευσαν* — “they **came to life** and reigned…” (v.4)
* *οὐκ ἔζησαν* — “the rest of the dead **did not come to life**…” (v.5)

The parallel between the two uses shows that the writer uses the verb the same way both times.

---

## **2. How does the New Testament use *zaō* when referring to the dead?**

When *zaō* is used of someone who has **actually died**, it always refers to **literal life** (a person being physically alive again). Examples:

* **Matthew 9:18, 25** – Jairus’s daughter (“my daughter has just died, but she will **live**”; then she rises)
* **Romans 14:9** – Christ “**died and lived again**”
* **Revelation 2:8** – Jesus “who **died and came to life**”
* **Revelation 13:14** – beast whose mortal wound “was healed and **lived**”

In all such cases, *zaō* refers to **bodily life or resurrection**, not spiritual life.

---

## **3. Does *zaō* ever metaphorically mean “spiritually alive”?**

Yes—but **only** when:

* referring to those already physically alive, and
* the context **explicitly** indicates a metaphorical meaning.

Examples:

* **Romans 6:11** – “alive (zōntas) to God in Christ Jesus”
* **Galatians 2:20** – “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me”

But in these passages:

* No one is dead physically.
* The context plainly signals a metaphor.

**Crucially:**
The NT never uses *zaō* in the aorist (“came to life”) to describe **spiritual resurrection** or regeneration.

---

## **4. Why Rev 20:4 cannot be “spiritual life”**

1. **Grammatical parallelism:**
Verse 5 uses the exact same verb of “the rest of the dead.” If *ezēsan* in v.4 meant “spiritually alive,” then “the rest of the dead” would be “not spiritually alive”—a contradiction since unbelievers are never said to be *previously* spiritually alive.

2. **Context:**
Rev 20:4 explicitly describes people who had been **beheaded**—i.e., they were physically dead.

3. **Contrast:**
The whole passage contrasts the “first resurrection” (v.5–6) with the “second death” (v.14). “Resurrection” (*anastasis*) is never used spiritually anywhere in Scripture.

---

## **Conclusion**

The Greek verb **ἔζησαν (ezēsan)** in Revelation 20:4 **never** refers to being “spiritually alive.”
In the New Testament, when applied to people who have died, it **always** refers to **literal, bodily life/resurrection**.

Thus, Revelation 20:4 should be read as:

**“They came to life (bodily) and reigned with Christ.”**

LOL! What a lie. The FACT of the matter is that the word refers to being alive. Unless you deny that someone can be spiritually alive without a body, then there's no reason why it can't be used to refer to those who are physically dead, but their souls and spirits are alive.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

One day the doctrine of Amill will be "no more".

Not because of your weak arguments, that's for sure. The next strong argument you make in favor of Premill and/or against Amill will be your first.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Chat GPT

Do you realise that some Amillennialists don't like you because they don't like the answers you give - such as the previous two answers you gave me here?

I do understand the dynamic you’re describing.

Whenever a biblical question touches eschatology—especially the meaning of **Revelation 20**, the “first resurrection,” the millennium, and literal vs. symbolic interpretation—people from different theological traditions often *want* the Greek text to support their system. When I answer directly from:

* Greek lexicons
* NT usage patterns
* grammatical parallels

…my conclusions sometimes line up more naturally with one eschatological position than another. That can make some readers feel I’m *taking sides*, even when I’m not.

### Why some Amillennialists may dislike the answers I give

Many Amillennialists argue that:

* **“came to life” (ἔζησαν)** in Rev 20:4 is *spiritual life*, and
* **“first resurrection” (ἀνάστασις)** is *spiritual resurrection* (regeneration or entrance into heaven at death).

But the lexical and usage data of the New Testament simply do not support:

* ἔζησαν meaning “became spiritually alive” in **any** aorist usage of *zaō* applied to previously dead people.
* ἀνάστασις referring to spiritual resurrection **anywhere** in the NT.

So the tension you’re noticing is real:
**when a theological framework requires a meaning that the Greek lexicon and NT usage don’t support, my answers can feel unwelcome.**

### My goal is not to take a side

I’m not promoting premillennialism or rejecting amillennialism.
My role is simply:

**If the question is linguistic, answer linguistically.
If the question is lexical, answer lexically.
If the question is exegetical, answer according to the text’s grammar and usage.**

Different theological systems handle the resulting data differently:

* Premillennialists take the lexical data as straightforwardly supporting a physical resurrection in Rev 20.
* Amillennialists often appeal to *context*, *genre*, or *symbolism* to argue that the terms operate differently in Revelation.
* Some Amillennialists don’t appreciate when the lexical evidence is presented bluntly because it challenges their interpretation of Rev 20.

### It’s okay for people to disagree with me

And I expect that they will.

Good theology always invites:

* open conversation,
* careful scriptural analysis,
* and a willingness to test one’s system against the text.

So yes—some Amillennialists, and some Premillennialists too, won’t like some of my answers.
That’s normal and healthy. My responsibility is simply to be accurate and honest with the data you ask about.

@Spiritual Israelite I will stop torturing you now with facts. I won't let Chat GPT torture you with its completely objective facts anymore either. I might even ask @Davidpt to please make sure Chat GPT behaves itself and stops torturing you with facts.

You have nothing to offer but foolish nonsense. You are impossible to take seriously.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

IMO, verse 4---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands--that this martyrdom is not even possible to begin with unless what all is recorded in Revelation 13 is fulfilled first. Therefore, placing what is recorded in Revelation 13 before satan is loosed, not after satan is loosed. In order to even fulfill anything in Revelation 13, the beast obviously has to ascend out of he pit first. Except some Amils, if not all Amils, seem to insist that the beast doesn't ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years expire.

You completely ignore verse 6 which talks about Jesus reigning, which He has since His resurrection (Matt 28:18, Eph 1:19-22, Col 1:12-13, Rev 1:5). And about His followers being priests, which they have been since His resurrection (1 Peter 2:9, Rev 1:5-6). And about the second death no longer having power over those who have had part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over anyone, dead or alive, who belongs to Christ right now. So, why think that a bodily resurrection is necessary in order for the second death to have no power over you? You also ignore that scripture teaches that Christ's resurrection itself was the first resurrection (Acts 26:23, 1 Cor 15:20). You ignore all of that because of your carnal way of thinking that the binding of a spirit being is a literal binding with a literal chain.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

In the book of Revelation, the phrase 'no more' is never used in other passages the way Amils use it in Revelation 20:3.

That is not true. Stop lying. Is it a requirement to be a liar in order to be a Premil? All of you Premils lie and blatantly misrepresent Amil repeatedly. Read my post #2 in this thread. Are you afraid to address it? You'd rather just lie about Amil instead? Do you think lying helps support your doctrine?

Premils believe Revelation 20:3, that it means satan can't deceive anyone during the millennium. If he can't deceive some, yet can still deceive others(the Amil view), that does not equal satan can't deceive anyone during the millennium. It contradicts what 'no more' means elsewhere in Revelation.

You just don't get it. In the Amil understanding of what it means for Satan to deceive the nations ("ethnos" - heathen), we believe he does it no more during the thousand years before doing it again when the thousand years end. We don't interpret that "no more" means any differently than Premils. What we interpret differently is what it means for Satan to deceive the nations. We both agree that he does it no more during the thousand years. Why can't you understand this simple point?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST

We know that the Kingdom of Christ is IN the world, but:

1. Jesus told Pilate that His Kingdom is not of this world [kosmos] in this present time [Greek: nyn] (John 18:36); and

It will never be of this world! You acknowledge that His kingdom is in the world now. Jesus said that He and His followers are not of the world even while they were in the world. Do you understand what that means? Was Jesus saying that He and His followers were not of the world at that time, but will one day be of the world? No! To be of the world means to be evil like this evil world and its ways. We are not of the world (not worldly) and its ways because we are of Jesus/God and His ways instead. We are not of the world and Christ's kingdom is not of this world and we will never be of this world and Christ's kingdom will never be of this world even though we are in the world. Christ's kingdom and those who are in His kingdom are not part of a worldly, earthly kingdom, but rather a heavenly, spiritual kingdom.

2. Christ's later Revelation to His churches tells us in Revelation 11:15 that the kingdoms of this world [kosmos] will become the Kingdoms of our LORD and of His Christ when the seventh trumpet sounds, and He shall reign to the ages of the ages; and

Our LORD is God the Father. That's talking about when Jesus delivers the kingdom to the Father at His second coming, as Paul taught will happen (1 Corinthians 15:22-24).

3. Hebrews 2:8 tells us that (although) all things have (already) been placed under Christ's feet, in this present time [Greek: nyn] we do not see it yet, but what we do see in this present time is Jesus (who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death), crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man; and

It doesn't matter if we see it now yet. That doesn't change the fact that He is at the right hand of the Father far above everyone with all things under His feet right now. He reigns now. That is undeniable. So, why would you not see a passage that talks about Him reigning and relate that to the fact that He reigns now?

4. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 that Christ, when He returns, shall have put down all the human rule and authority and power (naturally, this can only be referring to the human rule and authority and power of this present world),

and when all things shall be subdued unto Christ, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all, because it is manifest that God the Father is excepted, which did put all things under Christ (1 Corinthians 15:27).

That will happen at Christ's second coming. Paul talks about those things happen right after Jesus comes and the dead in Christ are resurrected.

Amillenialists argue that Satan was bound when Jesus ascended into heaven, normally citing Revelation chapter 12, and asserting that this is what the chapter says or implies (though the chapter says nothing of the sort. It does not mention any "binding" of Satan).

Amillennialist arguments are always a combination of ignoring facts like all the above facts, and changing the meaning of other passages by inserting an Amillennialist meaning into those passages (eisegesis).

.. but they will never, never, never admit that this is indeed what they are doing with all these other passages, and that it's all in vain - because the plain and literal and most obvious meaning of Revelation 20:1-6 is what the text is telling us, if only the Word of God would be believed.

So they will keep telling you not to use AI - because they know that AI is nothing but a massive computer that cannot possibly have a bias when it searches for the answers regarding the actual meaning of words and syntax and grammar etc etc.

Well done for this OP. It shows Amil up very well for what it is - false doctrine which is the basis of a mountain of false theology that has been built on top of it.

@Davidpt

LOL! Just keep making a complete fool of yourself with your nonsense, if you insist. It's both hilarious and sad to see at the same time. It's amazing how naive you are. No one is saying that AI is biased. I'm simply saying that the feedback it gives can't necessarily be trusted. Especially when it comes to Bible doctrine. Get serious. I can manipulate it to support Amil just like you manipulate it to support Premil, so you can't prove anything one way or another regarding the Amil vs. Premil debate using AI. It's utterly foolish to think otherwise.

If you ask ChatGPT how old the earth is, it will tell you that it's over 4.5 billion years old. That isn't bias, it's just telling you what a majority of scientists teach. So, do you think that is a trustworthy answer given by ChatGPT to that question? Do you think you can just blindly trust whatever AI tells you? If so, that is foolish and you should know better than that.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Below are my thoughts, my view. But I did use Chatgpt in order to articulate my thoughts more clearly. And since some posters appear to be somewhat anti-chatgpt, so what if I want to use Chatgpt at times, as a tool to articulate my thoughts more clearly? That's not the same as me getting my theology from Chatgpt.

I have no problem if you use it for that purpose, but that is not what you did in your original post. The original post is not your thoughts. You didn't use it to articulate your thoughts in that post. You just asked it a question and you quoted what it said exactly in response. It took things posted by Premils on other websites and summarized the Premil belief, which blatantly misrepresents Amil. Amils disagree with Premils on what Satan deceiving the nations (Greek: "ethnos" - heathen) means, but we don't say that Satan can deceive that nations, in our understanding of what that means, during the thousand years. But, that is what you are trying to claim and what the Premils that ChatGPT is referencing claim. That is a lie. That is a blatant misrepersentation of Amil. Amils believe that Satan deceives the nations no more during the thousand years according to our understanding of what it means for him to deceive the nations. But, you are lying and trying to say that we don't believe that.

You Premils make it impossible for me to take you seriously because you can't even debate honestly. You seem to all lose your consciences when it comes to the Amil vs. Premil debate because you all lie constantly. Are you that desperate to keep Premil afloat that you're willing to lose your integrity over it? Unbelievable.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

IMO, verse 4---which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands--that this martyrdom is not even possible to begin with unless what all is recorded in Revelation 13 is fulfilled first. Therefore, placing what is recorded in Revelation 13 before satan is loosed, not after satan is loosed. In order to even fulfill anything in Revelation 13, the beast obviously has to ascend out of he pit first. Except some Amils, if not all Amils, seem to insist that the beast doesn't ascend out of the pit until after the thousand years expire.

As a Premil, you believe that the beast is bound in the bottomless pit (abyss) and that Satan is not bound in the bottomless pit right now.

If Satan is not bound now and has never been bound yet, as you believe, then why wouldn't the beast also be not bound now, keeping in mind that the beast gets its power from the dragon (Rev 13:4)? What would keep Satan from giving his power to the beast any time he wants if he is not bound yet, as Premils believe? You apparently think that Satan is inexplicably waiting until some future time to give his power to the beast. Why would he do that if he is not bound from doing anything he wants to do now?

What do you think will become possible when Satan supposedly gives his power to the beast in the future that he couldn't do without the beast? I'm asking these questions to try to find out what you think is the difference between the dragon, Satan, being bound in the pit and the beast being bound in the pit in terms of the kinds of things that can or can't happen when each is bound.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Roger, has it ever occurred to Amils that God is bigger and more powerful than satan, thus doesn't need to bind satan in order for anyone to be saved?

This is a ridiculous question to ask an Amil. We are CONSTANTLY talking about how much bigger God is than Satan while Premils are the ones who seem to make Satan equal with God, if not bigger than God. You are showing YET AGAIN that you have no understanding of Amil whatsoever. Premils are the ones who act as if Satan is all powerful and can do whatever he wants whenever he wants. Amils emphasize the fact that while God did allow Satan to do whatever he wanted much of the time during OT times, that all changed in NT times when Jesus came.

You're asking if God needed to bind Satan in order for anyone to be saved. It's never a good question to ask about anything God needed to do. God doesn't need to do anything. He chooses to do things based on decisions that He makes.

To me, your question is similar to asking if God had to take the power of death away from Satan that he used to use to keep people in slavery to the fear of death. The answer to that question is yes. Read this passage...

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Before Jesus came and died for the sins of the world in order to bring the hope of eternal life to the world, a vast majority of the world was kept in bondage to the fear of death by the one who held the power of death (the devil, Satan). Clearly, God had to take that power away from Satan in order to allow for people to be set free from their bondage to the fear of death by giving them the hope of eternal life through His Son Jesus Christ. Since I relate the power of death, which has to do with the power to keep the vast majority of the world in bondage to the fear of death, to Satan's binding, my answer to your question is yes. With the understanding that God can do things however He wants, but with the way He decided to do things (save people through the blood of Christ), then, yes, He had to bind Satan in order to bring salvation to the world in order to prevent him from being able to keep them in bondage anymore.

And something else comes to mind, with Amil theology in mind. Amil only tends to focus' on Gentiles being saved during the NT church age.

Not true. This is yet another example of how you do not understand Amil.

What about Jews being saved during the NT church age, where Amils insist is meaning the millennium?

What about it? Amils often talk about how God made no difference between Jews and Gentiles and brought them together as one.

Why isn't, per Amil theology, that satan is bound so that Jews can be saved as well?

We don't say that. Nice job of once again misrepresenting Amil. Even some of the Jews in Paul's time who were blinded in order for the gospel to go to the Gentiles ended up being saved (Romans 11:11-14) and I would say that Satan's binding helped to deliver them from the bondage of the fear of death that they previously had before hearing about the hope of eternal life through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In Revelation 20, with Amil theology in mind, who in the texts involved are also meaning Jews, thus including them? Amils insist that satan is bound in order to deceive Gentiles no longer.

The Greek word translated as "nations" is "ethnos". It says they number "as the sand of the sea", so it's not talking about nations there, it's talking about the heathen. The heathen include both Jew and Gentile unbelievers.

Then Amil, the way they interpret the binding of satan to benefit Gentiles not Jews, ignore the following passage on top of that.

Who are these Amils that you're talking about who claim that the binding of Satan only benefits Gentiles?

 

[Zao is life]

That will happen at Christ's second coming. Paul talks about those things happen right after Jesus comes and the dead in Christ are resurrected.

LOL! Just keep making a complete fool of yourself with your nonsense, if you insist. It's both hilarious and sad to see at the same time. It's amazing how naive you are. No one is saying that AI is biased. I'm simply saying that the feedback it gives can't necessarily be trusted.

Lol. This thread has proved to everyone that AI is still a computer that talks about facts and is still too dumb to be intellectually dishonest about the facts - unlike you - because it takes human intelligence to be intellectually dishonest enough to argue against the facts (like you do).

- and because you are human and not AI, you're even too intellectually dishonest to acknowledge that fact - which is why you won't comment on what AI said below about the meaning of the word zao in Revelation 20:4, and in the two posts before that which I posted.

Instead, your entire reply consisted of the red-herring accusation of me being "a joke and AI cannot be trusted" etc etc (apparently AI cannot be trusted to be intellectually dishonest with the facts the way you are) - but you don't comment on the fact that the meaning of zao in Revelation 20:4 cannot be taken to be referring to being raised to spiritual life through being raised with Christ - because the facts don't allow for such an interpretation.

Lol. You've exposed yourself as being the only one who's posted in this thread who's the joke who can't be taken seriously:

Chat GPT

Do you realise that some Amillennialists don't like you because they don't like the answers you give - such as the previous two answers you gave me here?

I do understand the dynamic you’re describing.

Whenever a biblical question touches eschatology—especially the meaning of **Revelation 20**, the “first resurrection,” the millennium, and literal vs. symbolic interpretation—people from different theological traditions often *want* the Greek text to support their system. When I answer directly from:

* Greek lexicons
* NT usage patterns
* grammatical parallels

…my conclusions sometimes line up more naturally with one eschatological position than another. That can make some readers feel I’m *taking sides*, even when I’m not.

### Why some Amillennialists may dislike the answers I give

Many Amillennialists argue that:

* **“came to life” (ἔζησαν)** in Rev 20:4 is *spiritual life*, and
* **“first resurrection” (ἀνάστασις)** is *spiritual resurrection* (regeneration or entrance into heaven at death).

But the lexical and usage data of the New Testament simply do not support:

* ἔζησαν meaning “became spiritually alive” in **any** aorist usage of *zaō* applied to previously dead people.
* ἀνάστασις referring to spiritual resurrection **anywhere** in the NT.

So the tension you’re noticing is real:
**when a theological framework requires a meaning that the Greek lexicon and NT usage don’t support, my answers can feel unwelcome.**

### My goal is not to take a side

I’m not promoting premillennialism or rejecting amillennialism.
My role is simply:

**If the question is linguistic, answer linguistically.
If the question is lexical, answer lexically.
If the question is exegetical, answer according to the text’s grammar and usage.**

Different theological systems handle the resulting data differently:

* Premillennialists take the lexical data as straightforwardly supporting a physical resurrection in Rev 20.
* Amillennialists often appeal to *context*, *genre*, or *symbolism* to argue that the terms operate differently in Revelation.
* Some Amillennialists don’t appreciate when the lexical evidence is presented bluntly because it challenges their interpretation of Rev 20.

### It’s okay for people to disagree with me

And I expect that they will.

Good theology always invites:

* open conversation,
* careful scriptural analysis,
* and a willingness to test one’s system against the text.

So yes—some Amillennialists, and some Premillennialists too, won’t like some of my answers.
That’s normal and healthy. My responsibility is simply to be accurate and honest with the data you ask about.

@Spiritual Israelite I will stop torturing you now with facts. I won't let Chat GPT torture you with its completely objective facts anymore either. I might even ask @Davidpt to please make sure Chat GPT behaves itself and stops torturing you with facts.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Lol. This thread has proved to everyone that AI is still a computer that talks about facts

LOL. You are truly hilarious. If you're not a comedian, you have missed your calling.

AI can sometimes give facts and sometimes it gives opinions. To act like everything it says is fact and is true is about as naive as anyone can be. If you ask ChatGPT how old the earth is, it will say about 4.5 billion years. Do you think that is a fact?

 

[Zao is life]

LOL. You are truly hilarious. If you're not a comedian, you have missed your calling.

AI can sometimes give facts and sometimes it gives opinions. To act like everything it says is fact and is true is about as naive as anyone can be. If you ask ChatGPT how old the earth is, it will say about 4.5 billion years. Do you think that is a fact?

You're the comedian, thinking that a computer is able to offer its own opinions - like you do - just because it's not capable of arguing with the information it derives from the scientific dating of rock (which is a human activity, not an AI activity) and science's estimation of the age of the universe.

You're the comedian, showing how desperately you avoid the facts regarding the meaning of the Greek word zao in Revelation 20:4, which AI derives directly from:

* Greek lexicons
* NT usage patterns
* grammatical parallels

You're the comedian, because you keep proving how much you will use anything as a red herring to avoid talking about the fact that the word zao in Revelation 20:4 does not ever refer in the New Testament to someone who was "spiritually regenerated" through being raised with Christ, but only to someone who either is alive in their own body and who had never died, or to someone alive in their own body again after having died

- and in the case of Revelation 20:4, it refers to those who were alive in their own bodies again after having been beheaded - and it goes with the Greek word for "resurrection" used in verses 5 & 6 in reference to the same 'souls who had been beheaded'.

You're the comedian, because you keep proving that you are the one who is intellectually dishonest with the facts, and rather than admitting it, you keep trying to imply that AI is capable of the same "quality" of intellectual dishonesty and personal opinions based on wishful thinking - which you keep producing - a "quality" which requires human intelligence, which AI is still incapable of producing when computing replies based on fact.

You're both the joke and the joker, rolled into one. Anyone reading what you say - who isn't himself intellectually dishonest - will be shaking his head at you and laughing.

 

[Zao is life]

What have you proven here David? Answer the question as to how any Gentile from the nations is NOW being saved as the gospel of the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed? Because you say "Satan can't deceive anyone during the millennium"! If binding is the only way to prevent Satan from deceiving anyone as you say, how can he not be bound already since multitudes of Gentiles from among all nations are NOW being saved?

Roger, has it ever occurred to Amils that God is bigger and more powerful than satan, thus doesn't need to bind satan in order for anyone to be saved?

And something else comes to mind, with Amil theology in mind. Amil only tends to focus' on Gentiles being saved during the NT church age. What about Jews being saved during the NT church age, where Amils insist is meaning the millennium? Why isn't, per Amil theology, that satan is bound so that Jews can be saved as well?

In Revelation 20, with Amil theology in mind, who in the texts involved are also meaning Jews, thus including them? Amils insist that satan is bound in order to deceive Gentiles no longer. Yet, Jews are not Gentiles, and they too can be saved during the past 2000 years through now, and many of them are.

Then Amil, the way they interpret the binding of satan to benefit Gentiles not Jews, ignore the following passage on top of that.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The point I'm trying to make is, not that Amils deny Jews are also saved this past 2000 years, because clearly Amils don't deny that, but when it comes to the reason for satan being bound, Amils have it meaning so that Gentiles can be saved as well.

Which begs the question, the fact there is such a thing as unbelieving Jews, what about them? Why wouldn't unbelieving Jews need satan to be bound so that they can't be deceived either? Yet Amils, just like you did per this post, has satan's binding for the purpose of no longer deceiving Gentiles, while ignoring that unbelieving Jews are obviously being deceived as well if they are in a state of disbelief.

As far s I can tell, Amils appear to be interpreting nations in Revelation 20 to only be meaning Gentiles rather than all people of all nations, which would have to also include Jews in that case. Of course though, for all I know, some Amils might deny that Jews are also a nation of people.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations(ethos), and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

The same Greek word for nations in Revelation 20 is the same Greek word for nations in Revelation 7:9. Imagine interpreting nations in Revelation 7:9 in the same manner Amils interpret nations in Revelation 20. Instead of this in Revelation 7:9--- of all nations(consisting of both Gentiles and Jews)--this instead--of all nations(consisting of only Gentiles)

@rwb deliberately omitted talking about the fact that f Satan was "bound so that the nations could be saved", then the only faith in the world would be Christianity, and the only reason why individuals would not be saved, would be because of their own rejection of God's offer of the free gift of salvation in Christ.

Amillennialists always attempt to divert attention away from the fact that it's a twisting of scripture to assert that Satan was bound "so that the nations could be saved" when Revelation 20:3 states that he would be bound in order that he could deceive the nations no more until the thousand years are finished.

Their argument also makes the darkness powerful enough to prevent the light from shining in the darkness (John 1:5), and Satan "the opposite of God" who is powerful enough to thwart the power of the Holy Spirit.

It's a blasphemous assertion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You're the comedian, thinking that a computer is able to offer its own opinions - like you do - just because it's not capable of arguing with the information it derives from the scientific dating of rock (which is a human activity, not an AI activity) and science's estimation of the age of the universe.

LOL. You continue to do nothing but provide laughs. So, do you agree with ChatGPT about the age of the earth then? Why aren't you addressing my argument? Do you think ChatGPT is ever wrong? You seem to think it can't be wrong.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

@rwb deliberately omitted talking about the fact that f Satan was "bound so that the nations could be saved", then the only faith in the world would be Christianity, and the only reason why individuals would not be saved, would be because of their own rejection of God's offer of the free gift of salvation in Christ.

Amillennialists always attempt to divert attention away from the fact that it's a twisting of scripture to assert that Satan was bound "so that the nations could be saved" when Revelation 20:3 states that he would be bound in order that he could deceive the nations no more until the thousand years are finished.

Their argument also makes the darkness powerful enough to prevent the light from shining in the darkness (John 1:5), and Satan "the opposite of God" who is powerful enough to thwart the power of the Holy Spirit.

It's a blasphemous assertion.

LOL. Your claims are utterly ridiculous. No one takes you seriously. So, I guess you don't accept what is written in passages like the following.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

It seems that you don't believe that it was necessary for Jesus to take the power of death away from the devil, Satan, in order to "deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.". Yet, that is exactly what this passage indicates.

 

[Zao is life]

LOL. You continue to do nothing but provide laughs. So, do you agree with ChatGPT about the age of the earth then? Why aren't you addressing my argument? Do you think ChatGPT is ever wrong? You seem to think it can't be wrong

You remain a joke. You expect me and want Chat GPT to conflate apples and oranges - TWO COMPLETELY UNRELATED TOPICS - language, and the beginning of all of creation.

Chat GPT talks about known established facts which are not in dispute and cannot be disputed when talking about the meaning of zao in Revelation 20:4 and how and where the word is used in every other New Testament verse.

For the totally unrelated topic of the age of the earth, It can only use disputed and disputable 'facts' from modern science - but it cannot say and does not say whether it was 20 minutes, 10 minutes, half an hour, a billion years or 20 billion years that passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 - because NO ONE knows.

So let me bring both topics to the topic of language and grammar for you:

Chat GPT

Is it linguistically possible for a gap to exist between Genesis 1:1-2 and Genesis 1:3?

Short answer:
Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 → Yes, linguistically possible.
Between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3 → No, not really linguistically possible.

| Verse Pair | Hebrew Grammar | Gap Possible? |
| ------------- | ------------------- | ----------------- | ---------------- |
| **1:1 → 1:2** | Waw **disjunctive** | **Yes, possible**. The grammar allows a descriptive pause; time unspecified.

| **1:2 → 1:3** | Waw **consecutive** | **No** Signals the next action in sequence.

Keeping making a fool of yourself about this, conflating completely unrelated topics and using it as a red herring to stay away from the facts regarding the meaning of zao in Revelation 20:4 because I'm done with helping you to make a fool of yourself - for now.