Why the great chain?

[rwb]

Ezekiel 28:11-19​

Ezekiel chapters 25 to 32 are also prophecies against pagan nations. Chapters 26 to 28 are specifically against Tyre, a major city, important port and wealthy commercial centre at that time, under its ruler Ethbaal III (c.590 - c.573). Ezekiel described Tyre’s trading with other nations (27:12-25), and gave dramatic oracles about the ships and sailors of Tarshish wailing over the fall of Tyre (27:25-36).

The king of Tyre is described as, “the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” (28:12). Many say only Satan could be this, not a king or a city. However, elsewhere in these same oracles against Tyre, Tyre claimed this for itself: "O Tyre, you have said, 'I am perfect in beauty'" (27:3), “Your heart is proud and you have said, ‘I am a god’” (28:2). The prince of Tyre's wisdom, trade and great wealth are described in (28:4-5). The prince of Tyre compared his mind with the mind of a god (28:6). The Hebrew here is 'elohim', which can either mean 'God', or pagan gods (plural), so translations vary. Ezekiel also prophesies that “the most terrible of the nations shall draw their swords against the beauty of your splendour” (28:7).

He was, “in Eden, the garden of God” (28:13). This probably does not refer to Satan's presence in the garden of Eden in the account of the fall in Genesis 3, as Eden is often used poetically in the scriptures to depict a fertile place of great plenty. Elsewhere in Ezekiel, Egypt was likened to a cedar of Lebanon: “the cedars in the garden of God could not rival it ... the envy of all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God” (Ezek 31:8-9). Ezekiel also predicts that when Israel is restored, people will say, “This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden.” (Ezek 36:35). Joel said this about the locust swarm, “Before them the land is like the garden of Eden and after them a desolate wilderness” (Joel 2:3), and in Genesis, “Lot ... saw that the plain of Jordan was well watered like the garden of the Lord” (Gen 13:10).

The description continues by saying that, “every precious stone was your covering” (28:13). This does not have to be a description of Satan, as throughout history kings have worn richly decorated garments. There is also a similarity with the list of precious stones on the breastplate of the high priest (Ex 28:17ff).

God says that, “With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you” (28:14). The NRSV has a footnote saying that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. The KJV has: “Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so”. A cherub (plural - cherubim) is one of the four living creatures described in Ezekiel chapter 1 and Revelation chapter 4, whose job it is to guard the throne of God and to worship God. They are associated with God's glory and judgement. Other than this passage in the KJV, Satan is never described as a cherub in the Bible, neither are the archangels Michael or Gabriel, so this verse cannot be used to claim that Satan was once an angelic being.

The king of Tyre's judgement and fall were due to the abundance of its trade filling them with violence (28:16). Tyre was renowned around the ancient Near East as a important port and commercial centre.

One common argument used to support the view that Satan is a fallen angel says that Ezekiel 28 distinguishes between the prince of Tyre (v2), who they say was the physical ruler of Tyre, and the king of Tyre (v12), who they say is Satan. However, a study of Ezekiel's use of the words 'king' and 'prince' shows that they are used interchangeably. For example, David is called king in 37:29, but prince in 34:24 and 37:25. Jehoiakim is called king in 1:2, but chapter 19 is a lamentation for the princes of Israel, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, all of whom were kings. In 7:27 king and prince are used in the parallelism: "the king shall mourn, the prince shall be wrapped in despair".

What do we know about the origin of Satan?​

A simple answer is that we don't know, and probably are not meant to know. God does not reveal everything, and it is important not to speculate on what God chooses not to reveal to us, or to make additions to the Biblical revelation. We have to be satisfied with what information we have. In the end, does it matter? We know Satan exists and that he is a deceiver and liar; that is enough. We also know he is defeated by Jesus' death on the cross and his resurrection (Col 2:15, 1 John 3:8b). We also can be certain of his destiny of eternal torment in the lake of fire and sulphur (Rev 20:10). I'm sure that Satan enjoys people being taught about his glorious past, so that people think that he was some glamorous figure, rather than the liar, deceiver, adversary, accuser, condemner, that he really is. The Bible has nothing positive to say about him at all.

There are only two clues about his origin in the Bible. Jesus told the Pharisees, “You are from your father the devil ... He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth” (Jn 8:44). 'From the beginning' probably means for all the time he has existed. Also in John’s first letter, “Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning” (1 John 3:8). These passages would indicate that the devil has always been a sinner and a murderer, and that he has no great and beautiful past.

Even though it causes philosophical problems, on a practical level there is very little difference between something that was created evil and something that was created good and became evil. The significant matter is that Satan exists and is evil now. Again, this is a question that is not answered in the Bible. God either created Satan as an adversary, or Satan later became an adversary, the end result is the same. One of the reasons for Satan's existence is so that humans as God's created beings should endure some testing. It is never God's will that we sin, but it is God's will that we are tested and tempted. Consistently through the New Testament it is taught that testing is part of the Christian walk (eg. James 1:2-4), so that we learn patience, our faith is strengthened, our love for God proven. Our love for God has to be a positive response and choice. In order to choose to love God, it is necessary to have opposite influence to choose to reject.

continued

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why can't they instead refer to the saved that fall away?

They are included, but it's talking about all unbelievers, whether they had fallen away or not. All unbelievers are children of the devil (1 John 3:10).

Makes better sense at least. It's not like apostacy won't be rampant during the 42 month reign of the beast which also involves much of 2 Thessalonians 2. It's not like NOSAS is not Biblical. But Amil wants these in Revelation 20:8 to be meaning unsaved Gentiles. Who would already be deceived during Amil's proposed millennium to begin with, the fact they are not saved during it. So satan then needs to deceive them even more. As if they are not condemned enough already, the fact they are in a lost state during Amil's proposed millennium, not a saved state. Really makes a lot of sense, not.

Revelation 20 is not talking about Satan's general ability to deceive, it's talking about his ability to deceive people in the sense of uniting them against the church (the camp of the saints). If you look at Revelation 20:7-9 which describes what he does when he is loosed, it doesn't talk about him going out and deceiving in general, it talks about him deceiving people throughout the earth to convince them to unite in opposition to the camp of the saints, which is the church. It's not talking about him deceiving people who are already deceived. It's talking about him convincing all of his people (all unbelievers) to actively oppose the church. But, the gates of hell will not prevail against the church and they will all be destroyed by fire (2 Thess 1:7-8, 2 Peter 3:10-12, Rev 20:9).

 

[rwb]

What the commentaries and Bible handbooks say​

I have yet to find a commentary which, by looking at the whole book and the relevant passages in context, teaches with any degree of certainty that either Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28 describe the fall of Satan. However, there are plenty of topical books on spiritual warfare that quote these passages, saying that they definitely describe Satan's fall.

In the Keil-Delitzsch commentary, the fall of Satan mentioned and rejected in Is 14, and not mentioned in Ezek 28. Matthew Henry makes no mention of Satan in either Is 14, or Ezek 28. In the Expositors Bible Commentary, Geoffrey Grogan writing on Isaiah 14 says it points to Satan indirectly as working through world rulers, but not describing the fall of Satan. Also in the Expositors Bible Commentary, Ralph Alexander writing on Ezekiel says it is difficult to understand this passage as describing the fall of Satan. He says that Satan was the force behind the King of Tyre (as he is behind all anti-Christian governments), but that there is no scriptural backing for using this as a description of Satan's fall.

In an older edition of the one volume New Bible Commentary, Derek Kidner sees the similarity between Isaiah 14 and the pride and downfall of Satan in Lk 10:18, but sees the biblical descriptions of Satan's fall as the break-up and destruction of his kingdom, not his fall from grace. In the same volume, when commenting on Ezekiel chapter 28, G.R. Beasley-Murray makes no mention of Satan. In the one volume International Bible Commentary, David Payne writing on Isaiah says that it is inappropriate that Lucifer is a name for Satan, and F.F. Bruce writing on Ezekiel says that this passage contributed some details to the traditional picture of the fall of Satan, but makes no other comment.

In his commentary on Isaiah, Calvin makes some strong statements. He says that saying Lucifer refers to Satan, “has arisen out of ignorance, as the context clearly must be understood in reference to the King of Babylon.” He continues by saying, "But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the prophet (Isaiah) gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables."

In his three volume commentary on Isaiah, Edward Young dismisses any idea of Satan being mentioned in Is 14. He sees this passage describing the downfall and removal of a tyrannical king (Babylon), rather than Satan falling from heaven.

John N. Oswalt commenting on Isaiah 14 mentions that certain of the church fathers taught that this passage taught the fall of Satan, but that the reformers dismissed this when the book is studied in context. He says this passage describes human pride, rather than angelic pride, and says that the day star (Lucifer) is the planet Venus.

Barry Webb tries to seek a balance when he wrote this about Is 14:3-23: “The cosmic sweep of the poem led some early interpreters, and many since then, to see here a symbolic description of the fall of Satan. But if this reads too much into the text (and I think it does), it is equally misguided to reduce it to a description of the fall of a particular earthly monarch. The King of Babylon here, like Babylon itself in ch 13, is a representative figure, the embodiment of that worldly arrogance that defies God and tramples on others in its lust for power.”

Alec Motyer notes that in chapter 14, Isaiah is alluding to a Canaanite myth of Helal or Ishtar who attempted a heavenly coup but failed. However, he makes no mention of this being a description of Satan.

In his two volume commentary on Ezekiel, Daniel I. Block makes this comment: “Since the time of Origen many conservative Christians in particular have equated the king of Tyre with Lucifer (= Satan) ... Accordingly, Ezekiel’s prophecy is thought to recount the circumstances of the original fall of Satan, who had previously been one of the cherubim attending the throne of God. But those who interpret the oracle historically reject this approach. Ezekiel’s prophecy is indeed couched in extravagant terms, but the primary referent within the context is clearly the human king of Tyre. In any case, for this prophet and his professional colleagues, as well as for the Hebrew historiographic narrators, human rebellion is problem enough. A detailed treatment of the origin of the demonic is not to be expected from the Old Testament.” In a footnote he also gives a list of books which use this passage in Ezekiel to teach the fall of Satan.

In his commentary on Ezekiel 28, John Taylor makes no mention of Satan. In both Halley’s Bible handbook, and the Lion handbook of the Bible, no mention of Satan is made when comment is made on either Isaiah 14, or Ezekiel 28. It is only the Hodder Bible Handbook, which is published as Unger’s Bible Handbook in USA, which says that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 give revelation of the fall of Satan, but no justification is given for this opinion.

conclusion below

 

[rwb]

Conclusions​

Taking these two passages in their literary and historical contexts, it is a very questionable interpretation to claim they are describing the fall of Satan. This teaching is very popular, but was rejected by the Reformers and by most evangelical scholars in modern commentaries. The Bible appears to give little or no information about the origin of Satan or of evil, but very clearly describes the defeat of Satan through the death and resurrection of Jesus, and predicts his final judgement with great certainty.

It is not necessary for teaching on spiritual warfare to include an explanation of the origin of Satan. Spiritual warfare is real, and it is important to develop a biblical understanding of it. The existence of evil beings is assumed in the Bible, and their work consistently mentioned, particularly in the New Testament. Christians are given the assurance of Jesus’ victory over the powers of darkness, even though they are still active in this world until the time of the final judgement.

Note​

Bible quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), unless otherwise noted.

Abbreviations
GNB Good News Bible
KJV King James Version
NEB New English Bible
NIV New International Version
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
RSV Revised Standard Version
RV Revised Version

Bibliography
Alexander, D & P. The Lion Handbook to the Bible. Lion Tring 1973.
Bruce, F.F., ed. New International Bible Commentary. IVP Leicester1986.
Gaebelein, F., ed. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations and Ezekiel. Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Zondervan Grand Rapids 1986.
Halley, H.H. Halley’s Bible Handbook. Zondervan Grand Rapids 1965.
Keil-Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Hendrickson 1989.
Motyer, A. Isaiah. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. IVP Leicester 1999.
Oswalt, J.N. The Book of Isaiah, chapters 1-39. The International Commentary on the Old Testament. Eerdmans Grand Rapids 1986.
Taylor, J.B. Ezekiel. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. IVP Leicester 1969.
Unger, M.F. & Larson, G.N. The Hodder Bible Handbook. Hodder 1984.
Webb, B. The Message of Isaiah. The Bible Speaks Today. IVP Leicester 1996.
Wheaton, D.H, Lucifer, in The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (volume 2). IVP Leicester 1980.
Young, E. The Book of Isaiah (3 volumes). Eerdmans Grand Rapids 1992.

Web-sites
Calvin's commentary on Isaiah Work info: Commentary on Isaiah - Volume 1 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Latin Vulgate Translation Vulgate: Isaiah: Isaiah Chapter 14 | Internet Sacred Text Archive
Matthew Henry's commentary Work info: Commentary on the Whole Bible Volume IV (Isaiah to Malachi) - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Milton. Paradise Lost Paradise Lost and Regained: Paradise Lost: Book 1 | Internet Sacred Text Archive
Origen. De Principis Philip Schaff: ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Origen. Against Celsus Philip Schaff: ANF04. Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Tertullian. Against Marcion Philip Schaff: ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Wyclif’s translation http://sbible.boom.ru/wyc/isa14.htm

 

[TribulationSigns]

The answer to question 1 is simple.

Simple? Like...

he is released after the thousand years are finished.

Is that really all you take from the text—that Satan is released after a literal 1,000 years? That shallow reading is exactly the problem.


The Lord was not giving a stopwatch timeline.


Revelation 20:3 trips people up because they insist on wooden literalism where the text itself forbids it. Christ—the Messenger from heaven—bound Satan. But the chain is not literal. The key is not literal. The bottomless pit is not literal. Yet suddenly the “thousand years” must be literal? That’s inconsistent and driven by church tradition, not Scripture.


If the chain is symbolic, the key is symbolic, and the pit is symbolic, then the thousand years must also be symbolic. Otherwise, you’re picking and choosing based on inherited theology.


The Greek word chílioi (χίλιοι) is plural and is regularly used to denote an indefinite, complete, God-determined period, not a precise calendar count. Scripture is clear: God is not interested in revealing the exact duration of Satan’s binding. The emphasis is on purpose, not arithmetic.


The purpose is stated plainly: Satan is restrained so that he cannot deceive the nations—until the fullness of God’s time. That began at the Cross. To deny that is to deny Christ’s victory.


The “thousand years” signifies the entire gospel age—until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, until the last of the Elect are secured. Then—and only then—Satan is loosed for a short season.


That is why Scripture says people will be eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage—unaware. The mystery is not the length of time; the mystery is that Satan is even loosed at all.


So no—the idea that Christ returns to start a future, literal 1,000-year reign after binding Satan again is unbiblical. It collapses under its own inconsistency and relies on tradition rather than sound exegesis.


Symbolic text demands symbolic understanding. Anything else is theology imposed on Scripture, not drawn from it.

Satan was bound until the fullness of the Gentiles be coming, until the last Elect are secured, THEN he will be loosened. This is the purpose of "thousand year."

So the idea of Christ's coming back and have bind in bottomless pit for the next 1,000 literal years is false.

Why is he released? That is the question Amils have no good answer for.

I do have an answer—and it’s straight from Scripture, not speculation.
Satan was bound at the Cross for a very specific purpose which is that he could no longer deceive the nations while Christ redeems His people through the preaching of the Gospel.

That is not debated by the text. That is explicit in Revelation 20.

But Satan is not bound forever. He is released after something is finished—not after a clock runs out, but after God’s redemptive purpose is complete.

When the last Elect is sealed (a number known only to God), Satan is loosed and allowed to deceive the nations again.

Why?

Because salvation is finished.

No more gathering.
No more adding to the Kingdom.
No more harvest.

Revelation 9 explains exactly what that short season looks like:

Rev 9:2-6
(2) And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
(3) And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
(4) And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
(5) And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
(6) And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

This is not people wanting physical death. This is people seeking death in Christ—seeking salvation—and not finding it.

Why?

Because God has already sealed all of His Elect. It’s too late. That is exactly why Christ warned:

Mat 24:19-21
(19) And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
(20) But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
(21) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Winter means the summer harvest of soul is over. The Sabbath means no man can work in the Kingdom to win souls anymore. No labor. No soul-winning. No additions to the Kingdom. That is the Great Tribulation—NOT for the world, but for the Church.

It is God’s judgment on the unfaithful church, where people will seek salvation and will not find it, because the door has already been shut. Selah!

This is the short season of Satan’s release.

However, God will cut it short—not to save more people—but so that some of the Elect who are "alive and remain," will be caught up when Christ returns at the Last Trump. That is why Satan is released. That is why deception returns. And that is why your claim that Amillennialism has “no answer” collapses, as far as I am concerned.

The answer is there—if you’re willing to read the text instead of forcing tradition onto it.

 

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker, the disagreement here is not over whether Gentiles can be saved. Scripture is settled on that. The disagreement is over what Revelation 20 actually says the binding accomplishes.

I know that very well. And that’s what I have been speaking to.

Revelation does not say Satan is bound…

Okay, but it also does not say he is not bound. <smile>. I think you’re reading it with… maybe, according to what you have said… an entirely wrong mindset. That’s what I’ve been saying to you.

It says he is bound “that he should deceive the nations no more” ~Revelation 20:3.

I know what it says; I read at least as well as you do… <smile>

…not an individual outcome.

Not JUST individual outcomes. Individual and corporate. All of God’s Israel. And every single one who is of God’s Israel.

…and it does not describe the present age.

Yes it does… <smile>

it does not describe the present age.

Yes it does. Revelation is written by John AS IF he traveled into the future and was shown all these things and has come back and is speaking to himself as a young man. As such, we can all place ourselves in John’s shoes and “see” these things as he did. And in this way, as John says in Revelation 1:3, we can all, upon reading it and keeping it, be blessed. God is in control. He is “the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “Who is and Who was and Who is to come, the Almighty.”

Right now, John states without qualification that “the whole world lieth in wickedness” ~1 John 5:19. Paul says Satan is actively “the god of this world” who “blinds the minds of them which believe not” ~2 Corinthians 4:4. Peter warns believers that the devil “walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” ~1 Peter 5:8. Those statements describe active, ongoing deception of the world, not a restrained deceiver who can no longer deceive the nations.

Well absolutely, but you conflate the “ongoing deception of the world” with Satan’s “deceiving the nations.” The concept of the world ~ so, people, either corporately or individually ~ being deceived, which is a very present reality, is not the same thing as Satan’s deceiving the nations, which was only true before Jesus’s coming, after which he was absolutely restricted from doing. And again, he will, when he is “loosed,” attempt to “deceive the nations” again… and actually be successful but only in the sense that there will be no one else of any nation born again of the Spirit, as the number of God’s Israel will be complete… and this is all ~ all ~ according to to immutable will of God.

Appealing to Matthew 12 does not resolve this.

To you. Yes, I know. But it is what it is. <smile>

Jesus binding the strong man explains His authority to plunder individuals from Satan’s domain…

Right, which is a result of Jesus’s coming and overcoming Satan’s previous ability to… rendering him completely unable to… prevent the spread of the Gospel to nations outside of God’s Israel. Right. And so, as I said above, Jesus’s Great Commission, as we call it, in Matthew 28:19-20.

It does not redefine Revelation 20’s stated result. Revelation 20 is explicit about what the binding produces.

Agreed. <smile>

The text does not say Satan is bound in one sense but free in another.

<face palm>

<smile>

It says the binding prevents deception of the nations. That has never existed yet.

It is a present reality.

The Great Commission itself proves the point.

Well now there’s some irony for ya… Mine, yes. <smile>.

The issue is letting Revelation define its own outcome.

Well no, because it does regardless of anything, as it is God’s Word. Which we agree on, right?

The result described in Revelation 20 has not happened yet. Scripture, taken as a whole, testifies to that plainly.

Yes it has… (Revelation 20:1-3, specifically) and is in the process of becoming so… (Revelation 20:4-6 specifically). <smile>. See above. If Satan we’re not restricted from “deceiving the nations,” we would not be able to make disciples of all nations, as Jesus would not have been able to commission us to do so… or at least that his commission would have been empty.

Jesus commands the gospel to be preached to all nations precisely because the nations are deceived…

Well, yes, but also because He has made it so that our preaching and making disciples can now be successful… and because of the coming of His Spirit and His being with us to the end of the age will be.

Gentile salvation proves God’s power, not Satan’s restraint.

Both. <smile>

The gospel advances despite satanic opposition, not because Satan is neutralized.

Hmmm… well not completely neutralized… but is absolutely incapable of deceiving the nations.

Paul preached while Satan actively resisted him ~1 Thessalonians 2:18. That is not a bound adversary in the Revelation 20 sense.

Again, a conflation.

Romans 11 does not reinterpret Revelation 20.

Right, it doesn’t… <shaking my head>

It explains God’s saving purpose during an age where Israel is partially hardened and the nations are still deceived.

Agreed, but not entirely anymore, since Jesus’s first coming and becoming less so as time passes. Because Satan can do nothing to stop it.

When Revelation 20’s binding occurs…

And it has…

. it produces a worldwide condition Scripture elsewhere describes as peace, knowledge of the Lord filling the earth, and nations no longer deceived ~Isaiah 11:9, ~Isaiah 2:2–4.

Right… and this is… despite how it may seem to us… becoming the case.

The issue is not futurism versus non-futurism.

Not… completely… <smile>

Grace and peace are not preserved by redefining the text.

Nobody is redefining anything. But there are definitely some misconceptions going on here, and yours is not the only one… <smile>

The Word of God settles this…

Absolutely.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Marty fox]

So when an Amil says dragon = symbolic, serpent = symbolic = a real being, but bottomless pit = symbolic = therefore unreal---they’ve added an extra step that doesn’t follow. No Amil says heaven can’t be measured, therefore heaven doesn’t exist. Right? The point being. The bottomless pit, likewise, can't be measured, but that doesnt have to = doesn't exist.

These locusts I brought up in an earlier post, where are the locusts now? If they exist, are imprisoned according to the texts, are released at a specific time according to the texts, are commanded by a king (Apollyon) according to the texts, then the abyss is clearly functioning as a holding place. Real restraint, real imprisonment, real release.

Here’s the irony. Amils are happy to say dragon = satan (symbolic image, real being). serpent = satan (symbolic image, real being). But then out of the other side of their mouth, Abyss = symbolic image does not = a literal place. But if symbolic language can refer to a real personal being, obviously it can also refer to a real location involving literal imprisonment.

No I believe that the bottomless pit is real but not a real place it is a spiritual force just like in the verses below

Acts 2

Paul’s Vision of the Man of Macedonia​

6 Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7 When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. 8 So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. 9 During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10 After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

Love is a real thing to but not a literal thing

 

[rwb]

Look at the way you are reasoning things. It is the spreading of the gospel that leads to the salvation of both Jew and Gentile, not the binding of satan. Imagine that, unless satan is bound the spreading of the gospel might be hindered, might be stopped altogether. Then you bring up Matthew 16:18 which proves my point not your point. It clearly says the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Keeping in mind satan is not bound until he is cast into the LOF, he is loosed after he is bound, then cast into the LOF. Which would then mean if Amil is true, that when satan is loosed it would then = this--- the gates of hell shall prevail against it. Keeping in mind that Amil apparently insists it's because satan is bound being the reason the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

But guess what? When satan is loosed this clearly means he is no longer bound. Amil can't have it both ways. Amil can't insist that because satan is bound the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. And when he is loosed the gates of hell still won't prevail against the church. The latter clearly proving binding satan has zero to do with the gates of hell not prevailing against the church. Otherwise, the exact opposite would be true once satan is no longer bound and is loosed.

The gospel of the Kingdom of God is the message about the life, death and resurrection of the promised Messiah, Christ Jesus our Lord. If Satan has not been bound through the advent of Christ's cross and resurrection, there would be NO gospel of the Kingdom of God to proclaim unto all people. Satan is bound so the Church, which is the representative of the Kingdom of God during this age of time, would be built as people of all nations hear the gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ is proclaimed and people of all nations become eternally saved. This, my friend is happening NOW, and the gospel of the Kingdom of God that is spiritually building the Church has been proclaimed without interruption since the cross and resurrection and will end when the last/seventh trumpet begins to sound.

This message of the gospel of the Kingdom of God through Christ has been heard by all who are ordained unto eternal life from the beginning of man, even Adam was promised that a seed of the woman would crush the seed of the serpent, and that is the message heard and believed both before and after the advent of Christ come to earth a man.

 

[rwb]

The answer to question 1 is simple. he is released after the thousand years are finished. Why is he released?

Satan is released when the seventh trumpet sounds that time shall be no longer. That shall be AFTER the Kingdom of God in heaven is complete and there are no others to be eternally saved. That's why John writes that Satan shall be loosed only when the thousand years have expired. Since the Kingdom of God shall be complete, Satan is loosed for the purpose of gathering together all who still remain alive on earth who are deceived desiring for them to destroy what is left of the faithful Church (saints) on earth who are still alive during his "little season." When Satan appears to have surrounded the last of the saints of God on earth, the saints will hear "a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither." Then fire out of heaven from God will come down to utterly burn up all that remains alive upon this earth.

 

[PinSeeker]

You are no longer submitting to Scripture. You are reshaping it.

In… your opinion. Yeah, I get it… <smile> But no…

The text does not say the angel is Jesus.

Not explicitly, no. But maybe you didn’t read the rest of what I said there…

That is your assertion, not John’s. Scripture repeatedly identifies Christ plainly when He appears. Revelation 20 does not.

Hmmm… either this is a misunderstanding of what I said or…. Meh. Whatever. But to your assertion here…. Well, I’ll say this; We “see” Christ’s first coming in Revelation 20:1, and His second coming in Revelation 20:9.

Adding “You-Know-Who” where the Bible is silent is not insight. It is eisegesis.

<smile>. Big words…

Matthew 12 does not cancel Revelation 20.

Of course not. The two are intimately connected.

Jesus binding the strong man explains rescue of individuals from Satan’s grip.

Sure; exactly what I said. And In Matthew 12 terms, His "plundering" of Satan's "house." And, in the Person of the Holy Spirit, this is happening now... And this is the same thing as what we "see" with John in Revelation 20:4-6... "They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years... This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years."

You keep asking why I say it is future. Because Scripture says the world is still deceived.

Well, and because, as you say, the world is still deceived because Satan is not bound. But I would say all of creation became "deceived" when Adam partook of the forbidden tree... And then God chose to... "undeceive" it... starting with... one individual... <smile> ...and has been multiplying as such ever since. And you seem to think that "undeceiving" will happen all at once at some point in the future, which, if that's true, would make you a futurist, at least in that respect.

“The whole world lieth in wickedness” ~1 John 5:19.

All of creation is still fallen, yes. But this will one day ~ I think we agree on this ~ one day no longer be the case. And even now, not all are still "dwelling in sin," dead in their trespasses, no longer children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

When Scripture defines a condition and the present world does not match it, the honest response is not reinterpretation but humility.

Well I agree... <smile> ...but we disagree on the world not matching it. Nobody is "re-interpreting" anything. And yes, He has shown us what is good... to walk humbly with our God (and do justice and love mercy, of course; Micah 6:8).

At this point, you are defending a conclusion rather than obeying the text.

Again, in your opinion. I can say the same about you, David.

The Word of God does not need rescuing. It needs believing.

Right...

I have answered from Scripture.

Well, yes, but not... correctly... <smile> Not accurately. And you can call that my opinion... I have no problem with that. <smile>

I will not argue past that.

Neither will I. <smile> Yeah, I mean, in the words of Martin Luther over 500 years ago, "Here I stand; I can do no other."

You know, we disagree on some important things, David, but that's okay. It really is okay. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Marty fox]

I’m not interested in chasing labels. If your view of “binding” is different than what I described, then state it from the text. The issue is not what amils call it. The issue is what John wrote.

John does not describe a partial restraint. He describes an angel laying hold of Satan, binding him, casting him into the abyss, shutting him in, and sealing it, “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” ~Revelation 20:1–3. That is confinement with a stated purpose and a stated time limit.

Now your question. Why bind him for a thousand years if many rebel when he is released?

Because the thousand years are not about proving how good man is. Scripture already settled that. “There is none righteous, no, not one” ~Romans 3:10, and “the heart is deceitful above all things” ~Jeremiah 17:9. Even with Satan restrained, the flesh does not turn into holiness. Men still love darkness unless God gives life and repentance. “Men loved darkness rather than light” ~John 3:19.

The purpose of the binding is explicitly stated: “that he should deceive the nations no more” for that period ~Revelation 20:3. In other words, God stops Satan’s global deceiving campaign for a defined season, and Christ’s reign and judgment move forward exactly as God decreed. When the thousand years are finished, Satan is released and he “shall go out to deceive the nations” again ~Revelation 20:7–8. That release does not mean everyone flips. It means he successfully gathers a massive revolt from “the four quarters of the earth” ~Revelation 20:8. A great number can rebel without it being “all.”

And that final revolt serves a second purpose that Revelation itself shows: it brings evil to its appointed end in open daylight, and then God crushes it decisively. Fire comes down, the devil is thrown into the lake of fire, and the great white throne judgment follows ~Revelation 20:9–15. Nobody gets to say, “God didn’t give man a fair run.” Even after a long season with Satan restrained, the unregenerate still choose rebellion when given the chance. That exposes the real problem as the sinner’s heart, not merely the tempter’s influence.

So the answer is right in the passage. Binding is for a defined restraint of Satan’s deception of the nations for that period ~Revelation 20:3. Release is for a short, final deception that ends in final judgment ~Revelation 20:7–15. That does not embarrass the text. It fulfills it.

If you think “binding” in Revelation 20 means something other than what the verbs and the stated purpose say, then put your definition on the table using Scripture words, not a label.

It is a total binding if we use the great chain the truth of the gospel. Satan is as good as sealed in the abyss if we choose use it.

John 8
31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 14
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Its the truth of the gospel that binds satan from deceiving us with his lies

Mathew 18
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

You see hell is a real place and the chains of darkness is the spiritual condition

2 Peter 2
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of darkness, reserved for judgment;

 

[ewq1938]

So when an Amil says dragon = symbolic, serpent = symbolic = a real being, but bottomless pit = symbolic = therefore unreal---they’ve added an extra step that doesn’t follow. No Amil says heaven can’t be measured, therefore heaven doesn’t exist. Right? The point being. The bottomless pit, likewise, can't be measured, but that doesnt have to = doesn't exist.

These locusts I brought up in an earlier post, where are the locusts now? If they exist, are imprisoned according to the texts, are released at a specific time according to the texts, are commanded by a king (Apollyon) according to the texts, then the abyss is clearly functioning as a holding place. Real restraint, real imprisonment, real release.

Here’s the irony. Amils are happy to say dragon = satan (symbolic image, real being). serpent = satan (symbolic image, real being). But then out of the other side of their mouth, Abyss = symbolic image does not = a literal place. But if symbolic language can refer to a real personal being, obviously it can also refer to a real location involving literal imprisonment.

That's becausd4 Amill believes the whole world is the pit so it isn't an other place where satan is imprisoned which is why when speaking of his being bound, they almost never mention being locked in a pit because it doesn't match very well with their theology. So, they attack the concept of a pit to destroy it's real meaning: a prison satan is put into and locked within.

 

[ewq1938]

I am not stating Satan is paralyzed when bound. Revelation does not say that.

It does say that when you realize the binding means he is wrapped by the chain in a similar concept of a straight jacket. It's a personal method of control that incapacitates him and a second method of control is being locked inside of the prison.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's becausd4 Amill believes the whole world is the pit so it isn't an other place where satan is imprisoned which is why when speaking of his being bound, they almost never mention being locked in a pit because it doesn't match very well with their theology. So, they attack the concept of a pit to destroy it's real meaning: a prison satan is put into and locked within.

What is the Premill explanation for the purpose of the great chain? That is what this thread is about and no Premill seems to be able to answer that question. If the purpose of the binding of Satan is to prevent him from deceiving anyone or doing anything at all on the earth, wouldn't him being literally locked within the supposed literal pit/prison away from earth accomplish that? Why the need for him to also be literally chained up when him being literally locked within the prison would already serve the purpose of preventing him from deceiving anyone? Premill makes the great chain completely meaningless and unnecessary.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It does say that when you realize the binding means he is wrapped by the chain in a similar concept of a straight jacket. It's a personal method of control that incapacitates him and a second method of control is being locked inside of the prison.

According to Premill, the prison itself is already locked, so why would Satan need to be bound with a chain like that if he is already locked within the prison? That makes no sense. That would be overkill for no reason. According to Premill, the purpose of Satan's binding is to prevent him from deceiving anyone in any way, shape or form, so him being locked within the prison would accomplish that with no need for him to be literally bound with a chain.

 

[Douggg]

So, you think Satan, a spirit being, will have his arms and legs (do spirit beings have arms and legs?) chained up? That's quite a stretch. Why would you take that text so literally when it's contained within the most highly symbolic book in the entire Bible? Explain how that makes any sense.

Satan is an angel that rebelled against God. Do angels have legs and hands ? Yes, read Revelation 10:2, Revelation 10:5, and Revelation 10:10.

 

[Davidpt]

You know full well that we don't think the binding is what you are saying the binding is here

What are you talking about? I guess I need to translate what I meant in that post since some of you obviously have reading comprehension in regards to it. Especially including @Spiritual Israelite Here's the entire post again, but this time with translation.

------------------

Let's break the first 3 verses down like such. = my opinion on one way to approach this, not Amil's opinion.

A) an angel comes down from heaven

B) having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

C) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan

D) and bound him a thousand years,

E) And cast him into the bottomless pit

F) and shut him up

G) and set a seal upon him

H) that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled

I) and after that he must be loosed a little season

--------------------------------
Does not the great chain in his hand accomplish D)? Isn't that what a chain typically does? Binds something? (= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
-------------------------------

------------------------
And what about A) and C)? In order to accomplish C), doesn't A) have to be fulfilled first? In order to lay hold on and cast into, doesn't this require that what is being laid hold of is dwelling where the one meant in A) is coming down to? Where is the one in A) coming down to? The earth, obviously. Already the scene is not heaven, it is the earth. Since it is absurd that to come down from heaven does not mean to come down to the earth. But that it means to come down from heaven to heaven. (= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
------------------------------


---------------------------------
Which then raises the question. Why would satan be dwelling on the earth and when did he initially start doing so? Doesn't the following tell us exactly that?

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
12 ¶Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. (= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
----------------------------------

----------------------------
When Revelation 20:1-3 is initially meaning, it has to be meaning after verses 7-12 have been fulfilled first since this clearly has satan dwelling upon the earth. (= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
---------------------------


----------------------------
Yet look what happens next.

Revelation 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

Notice what the text says--when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth. Obviously meaning right after he is cast unto the earth since it would be absurd that he doesn't notice he was cast unto the earth until sometime much later, rather than at that time.

Then notice what happens once he sees he has been cast unto the earth--- And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ


Seriously, does any of that even remotely sound like anything recorded in Revelation 20:1-3? (= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
----------------------------


If you think it does, then point out the similarities.

--------------------------------
Keep in mind, before satan is cast unto the earth, before the war in heaven, satan was doing this at the time, for one--


Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Does any of that sound like anything in Revelation 20:1-3, that the thousand years involved the days of Job? The point I'm trying to bring out is this. There are only 2 places satan's binding can fit. Either before the war in heaven before he is cast unto the earth. Or after the war in heaven when he is cast unto the earth. As to the latter there are 2 options, actually. (= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
------------------------------
-------------------------
Option 1) Revelation 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.


Option 2) Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

As to option 1, meaning at that time.

As to option 2, meaning after this war is fulfilled first, the same war Revelation 13:7 is involving.(= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
-----------------------

Therefore, = some Amils have reading comprehension at times since I never one single time said that any of this was Amil's position. So quit falsely accusing me of doing things I'm not remotely doing. The problem is not me. The problem is some of you not having good reading comprehension at times. But don't take that out on me, though. You probably need to repent of falsely bearing witness against someone. But not for my sake, but for your sake.

 

[PinSeeker]

…. Amill believes the whole world is the pit…

They do??? I mean, dude. I’m definitely an “Amill,” and any kind of assertion that the world is the “bottomless pit” of Revelation 20 is absolutely absurd. Goodness gracious. No “Amill” worth his salt or anywhere close to it thinks that.

so it isn't an other place…

It’s not an actual place at all. Everything in Revelation 20:1-3 is meant for us to understand that Satan is rendered absolutely restricted from and incapable of preventing or even hindering the advance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all the peoples of the world. The “great chain” that he is bound by and that he is “sealed” in a “bottomless pit” are word pictures that convey to us his absolute powerlessness to do that, and should move us to quickly remember Jesus’s words…

• …to Peter that “on this Rock…” (which is He Himself as the Rock of our salvation and the confession that He is the Christ as Peter had just confessed) He “will build…” ~ and is now building ~ “His church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it” (Matthew 16).
• …to some Jews that His sheep hear His voice and follow Him and no one is able to snatch them from His hand, that the Father has given them to Him and is greater than all and no one can snatch them from His hand, and He and the Father are one (John 10).

…and Paul’s words…

• …to the Romans that “nothing in all creation can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8)
• …to the Philippians that “He Who began a good work in us will bring it to completion at the day of Christ” (Philippians 1)

…and Peter’s words…

• …to Gentiles that “God… according to His great mercy, has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for us, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:3-5).

…and even David’s words…

• …that “the LORD is our shepherd; we shall not want. He makes us lie down in green pastures. He leads us beside still waters. He restores our souls. He leads us in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. Even though we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we fear no evil, for He is with us; His rod and His staff, they comfort us. He prepares a table before us in the presence of our enemies; He anoints our heads with oil; our cups overflow. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow us all the days of our lives, and we shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever” (Psalm 23).

And there ya go. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

What are you talking about? I guess I need to translate what I meant in that post since some of you obviously have reading comprehension in regards to it. Especially including @Spiritual Israelite Here's the entire post again, but this time with translation.

------------------

Let's break the first 3 verses down like such. = my opinion on one way to approach this, not Amil's opinion.

A) an angel comes down from heaven

B) having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

C) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan

D) and bound him a thousand years,

E) And cast him into the bottomless pit

F) and shut him up

G) and set a seal upon him

H) that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled

I) and after that he must be loosed a little season

--------------------------------
Does not the great chain in his hand accomplish D)? Isn't that what a chain typically does? Binds something? (= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
-------------------------------

------------------------
And what about A) and C)? In order to accomplish C), doesn't A) have to be fulfilled first? In order to lay hold on and cast into, doesn't this require that what is being laid hold of is dwelling where the one meant in A) is coming down to? Where is the one in A) coming down to? The earth, obviously. Already the scene is not heaven, it is the earth. Since it is absurd that to come down from heaven does not mean to come down to the earth. But that it means to come down from heaven to heaven. (= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
------------------------------


---------------------------------
Which then raises the question. Why would satan be dwelling on the earth and when did he initially start doing so? Doesn't the following tell us exactly that?

Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
12 ¶Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. (= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
----------------------------------

----------------------------
When Revelation 20:1-3 is initially meaning, it has to be meaning after verses 7-12 have been fulfilled first since this clearly has satan dwelling upon the earth. (= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
---------------------------


----------------------------
Yet look what happens next.

Revelation 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

Notice what the text says--when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth. Obviously meaning right after he is cast unto the earth since it would be absurd that he doesn't notice he was cast unto the earth until sometime much later, rather than at that time.

Then notice what happens once he sees he has been cast unto the earth--- And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.

And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ


Seriously, does any of that even remotely sound like anything recorded in Revelation 20:1-3? (= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
----------------------------


If you think it does, then point out the similarities.

--------------------------------
Keep in mind, before satan is cast unto the earth, before the war in heaven, satan was doing this at the time, for one--


Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Does any of that sound like anything in Revelation 20:1-3, that the thousand years involved the days of Job? The point I'm trying to bring out is this. There are only 2 places satan's binding can fit. Either before the war in heaven before he is cast unto the earth. Or after the war in heaven when he is cast unto the earth. As to the latter there are 2 options, actually. (= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
------------------------------
-------------------------
Option 1) Revelation 12:13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.


Option 2) Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

As to option 1, meaning at that time.

As to option 2, meaning after this war is fulfilled first, the same war Revelation 13:7 is involving.(= my opinion between these dashed lines how the texts in question should be understood and reasoned. Not Amil's opinion on how the text in question should be understood and reasoned)
-----------------------

Therefore, = some Amils have reading comprehension at times since I never one single time said that any of this was Amil's position. So quit falsely accusing me of doing things I'm not remotely doing. The problem is not me. The problem is some of you not having good reading comprehension at times. But don't take that out on me, though. You probably need to repent of falsely bearing witness against someone. But not for my sake, but for your sake.

Says the guy with a huge reading comprehension problem. Look in the mirror. You were talking to Marty and you posted verses from Revelation 12 and asked him if any of it sounded like what is written in Revelation 20:1-3. I assume his response to you has to do with the fact that we don't interpret Satan's binding the way you do, which is that it results in him being completely incapacitated, so your question wasn't a valid question to ask an Amil. Why ask an Amil a question like that in relation to your understanding of Satan's binding that you know we disagree with instead of asking it in relation to an Amil's understanding of his binding?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

They do??? I mean, dude. I’m definitely an “Amill,” and any kind of assertion that the world is the “bottomless pit” of Revelation 20 is absolutely absurd. Goodness gracious. No “Amill” worth his salt or anywhere close to it thinks that.

No kidding, dude. What is he even thinking when making that kind of ridiculous claim? Most Premils here have very little to no understanding of Amill and make very little to no effort to understand it and that's why they misrepresent Amill constantly. If the bottomless pit was the world, then that would mean Satan being loosed from the pit would result in him leaving the world, which is obviously ludicrous. And it would mean the demonic locusts coming out of the bottomless pit in Revelation 9 would go to some place away from this world for no apparent reason.