My elusive Premil friend Matthew Waymeyer, one of many TMS FIDE-O-ITES, has recently challenged my eschatology again. Which reminded me that I had a little book of his somewhere on my shelf… oh, there it is next to my books on Revelation. It has a lovely cover designed by Paul Lewis (see left). His book comes recommended by renown Dispensationalist Dr. Thomas Ice as “an outstanding defense of premillennial understanding.” Wow, nice endorsement. Of course, Dr. Ice believes the same as Dr. MacArthur that CT is Replacement Theology (see Dr. Ice’s testimony here about that). Sadly, both men begin their polemic on this false basis and thus never come to a proper understanding of what is actually being debated (or either they choose to ignore it though all of church history stands in opposition to their assertions).
Anyways, back to Matt.
Question from page 20 in your book:
Why do you think it is hermeneutically okay to ignore the purpose clause in Revelation 20:3? You say in your book:
“In the case of the binding of Satan in Revelation 20, then, the degree of Satan’s restriction is determined not by the purpose clause but by the language of the text itself, which — as demonstrated above — indicates absolute confinement.”
The “demonstrated above” was a reference to many passages other than Revelation 20. Are you using some type of Scripture-interprets-Scripture hermeneutic here rather than your so-called literal hermeneutic. If so, what in the text itself gave you permission to deviate from the clear and normal meaning of the text?
It is clear that “the language itself” is in fact a purpose clause that limits the binding of Satan during the New Covenant reign of Christ to his inability to effectually deceive the nations. Such an interpretation, which is literal in the most literary sense, is most consistent with the rest of the Bible and specifically with the Great Commission of the New Covenant.
Your conclusion on page 31 is: “Satan still ‘prowls about like a roaring lion…” thus “the millennium of Revelation 20 has not yet begun.” But, Matt, such a conclusion is inconsistent with your entire chapter since you duly noted that neither Postmils nor Amils believe that Satan is not still active.
I contend that in order for you to truly defend your Premil view of Revelation 20:3, you need to honestly deal with the actual purpose clause of the verse. And then actually prove the Postmil and Amil view wrong by showing how that Gentile nations have continued to be deceived on the scale that they were prior to Pentecost and the New Covenant dispensation (to use your word). Prove to us all how the Great Commission has not continually been more effective and has not continually expanded, reaching further and further towards “the uttermost parts of the earth.”
More questions to come… By the way, this is meant to be a healthy debate/discussion among friends. Friendly sarcasm is allowed but not unchristian remarks that do not reflect brotherly kindness.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
You say “It is clear that ‘the language itself’ is in fact a purpose clause that limits the binding of Satan during the New Covenant reign of Christ to his inability to effectually deceive the nations…And then actually prove the Postmil and Amil view wrong by showing how that Gentile nations have continued to be deceived on the scale that they were prior to Pentecost and the New Covenant dispensation (to use your word). Prove to us all how the Great Commission has not continually been more effective and has not continually expanded, reaching further and further towards “the uttermost parts of the earth.”
It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you to show that Satan has not deceived any (i.e none) during this period. The text does not seem to say that he is limited in how much he can deceive during this 1000 years but that he cannot deceive at all. It certainly seems like many nations have been and continue now to be deceived by Satan.
Jason,
I’m not sure what I said or did to get your attention, but big-time thank you for reviewing my book, or at least part of it. I have been hoping it would fill the massive void that was left after the “Left Behind” series ended (it did finally end, didn’t it?), and I think this publicity just might bump me into that No. 1 spot. Unfortunately, after reading your post, I realize that someone who has not read my book may fail to understand my argument regarding the binding of Satan, and so I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify a few things.
I suppose the first clarification is simply that, in contrast to what you seem to imply in your post, I do indeed take the purpose clause in verse 3 seriously. I wholeheartedly believe that Satan will be unable to deceive the nations during the thousand-year period when he is locked in the abyss, and I wholeheartedly believe that preventing this deception is the primary purpose of Satan’s incarceration. Neither of these presents any problem whatsoever for my premillennial eschatology. I can’t imagine that you would disagree.
In contrast, the purpose clause in verse 3 presents a significant difficulty for amillennialism. Because the amillennialist believes the thousand-year period of Revelation 20 is taking place now in the present age, he is forced to say that Satan is currently unable to deceive unbelievers (Rev 20:3) even though the NT says that he is currently active in doing just that (2 Cor 4:4).
Some amillennialists try to escape this dilemma by saying that the incarceration of Satan in Revelation 20 makes Satan less effective at deceiving the nations in the present age than he was prior to the first coming of Christ. This is what you seem to imply, Jason, when you say that verse 3 indicates that Satan is unable to deceive the nations “on the scale that they were prior to Pentecost” (although I may be reading too much into your words “on the scale”).
This same approach is taken by William Hendriksen who says that the binding of Satan is simply a matter of degree: “If during the present N.T. era the devil ‘blinds the minds of unbelievers,’ II Cor. 4:4, that was true even more emphatically during the old dispensation.” The difficulty with this explanation is that Revelation 20:2-3 teaches not that Satan’s ability to deceive was limited, but rather that it was eliminated. In other words, the text does not say that Satan will deceive the nations less effectively than he did in the past—it says that he will deceive the nations “no longer.”
Some questions for you:
1. Is Satan able to deceive unbelievers in the present age?
2. What exactly does it mean that Satan is no longer able to deceive the nations during the thousand years? I know you touched on this in your original post, but could you come out and state your position clearly? I’d like to gain a better understanding of where you are coming from.
(To be continued)
(Continued)
The second clarification concerns my hermeneutical approach to Revelation 20. You asked if I am using some type of Scripture-interprets-Scripture hermeneutic rather than the grammatical historical method, and the answer is no, I’m not. As you may know, part of the grammatical historical method involves determining the meaning of key words in the passage you are studying. This is often referred to as lexical analysis. One of the most important words in this passage is the word “abyss,” because this is the location where Satan is incarcerated during the thousand-year period. If I’m going to understand what it means that Satan is imprisoned in the abyss, I need to know what the abyss is and what it means to be imprisoned there.
Part of lexical analysis involves consulting how the word in question is used elsewhere in Scripture. The “many other passages other than Revelation 20” which I referred to were those verses which also use the word “abyss,” and I consulted these verses not as a way to “deviate from the clear and normal meaning of the text” (as you said), but as a way to help me understand the clear and normal meaning of a key word in the text—the word “abyss.” In consulting these other passages, I discovered that the word translated “abyss” has two possible nuances of meaning. It can refer either to the realm of the dead (as it does in Romans 10:7) or a spirit prison (as it does in Luke 8:31; Rev 9:1-2, 11, 11:7; and 17:8). The context of Revelation 20:1-3—along with the reference to “his prison” in Revelation 20:7—confirms that the word “abyss” has this second meaning in Revelation 20.
In continuing my lexical analysis, I then look more closely at those passages where it refers to a prison for evil spirits, and I come to a significant conclusion: Confinement in the abyss in these other passages (especially see Luke 8:31 and Rev 9) means to be totally cut off from any activity or influence upon the earth. Therefore, when Satan is bound and incarcerated in the abyss during the thousand years according to Revelation 20:1-3, this means he will be totally cut off from any activity or influence upon the earth. In other words, his activity and influence will be eliminated, not merely limited as the amillennialist says. Since the clear and consistent testimony of the NT indicates that Satan is extremely active during the present age (Matt 13:19; Luke 8:12; 22:3, 31; John 8:44; 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; 1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 4:4; 11:3, 14; 12:7; Eph 2:2; 6:11-12; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Tim 2:26; 1 Pet 5:8; 1 John 3:8-10; 5:19), this means the thousand years in Revelation 20 must be future.
At this point in my book, on page 20, I briefly addressed an objection. According to some amillennialists, because Revelation 20 says that Satan is bound in one respect and one respect only—“so that he should not deceive the nations any longer” (v. 3)—he must therefore be free to partake in other activities here on earth. For this reason, according to the amillennialist, the list of Scripture references detailing Satan’s activity in the present age is largely irrelevant. It was in this context in my book that I wrote the following in response:
“The use of a purpose clause, however, does not preclude the possibility of other purposes or results of the action of the verb. To illustrate, ‘if a warden says that he is putting a prisoner in solitary confinement in order that he will no longer kill any more prisoners, this does not mean the prisoner is free to steal and do other such activities’ (Powell 2001: 3). In the case of the binding of Satan in Revelation 20, then, the degree of Satan’s restriction is determined not by the purpose clause but by the language of the text itself, which—as demonstrated above—indicates absolute confinement.”
As you can see from the greater context of what I wrote, the words “as demonstrated above” refer to my lexical analysis of the word “abyss” and the implications it has for a right understanding of Revelation 20:1-3, not to some kind of Scripture-interprets-Scripture hermeneutic which I abused to import my theology into Revelation 20:1-3. The language of the text itself (“he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him”) indicates that Satan’s activity on earth will be completely eliminated during this time, and the purpose clause (“so that he should not deceive the nations any longer”) indicates the primary purpose of this incarceration. But as I wrote above, this does not preclude the possibility of other purposes or results of the action of the verb. You can fight this on theological grounds (i.e., this doesn’t fit with your amillennialism), but not on grammatical grounds.
(To be continued)
(Continued)
Sorry about the length of the comments. I know they are difficult on the eyes. But I didn’t think that your post did justice to the overall context of my quotation from page 20, or my argument as a whole. Hopefully this will fill in some of the gaps for your readers.
I’m not sure what you have planned for the future, but if you were thinking of a multi-part series on this, the timing isn’t the best from my perspective. Because of my schedule, I have been planning to fast from the blogosphere starting next week and continuing through the end of the summer. That doesn’t mean you can’t continue without me; just means you will need to do a better job at representing my views!
By the way, Jason, in your opening paragraph you seem to say that all of church history disproves the notion that Covenant Theology is replacement theology. I don’t have the time or interest to address this right now, but I would be really curious to know if you truly believe this, and if so, what exactly you mean by it—oh, and how you know it.
Have a great Fourth of July if I don’t stop back in.
Matt, I hate to hear that you plan to soon fast from the blogosphere. Is that “soon” as it is used literally in Revelations or symbolically in Premil’s interpretation of Revelations. Is there any gap in your sooness? Because I hope that we are able to continue to have a good discussion about Revelation 20, now that you have posted the rest of your chapter into the comments section.
Now, here is the my response, which I will keep brief so that we will not lose focus on the scope of the questions at hand. I wish to invite anyone else who would like to brave this discussion (except for those who cannot display brotherly kindness when debating… I will not mention any names… your comments will be ignored and deleted).
Matt, it seems to me that you have cherry picked certain verses in an attempt to give a grammatical defense of your theological presupposition. You in affect are wanting use Scripture to interpret Scripture but are not willing to deal with all the Scriptures.
For example, John 12:31-32 deal explicitly with the effect of the Cross on the power of Satan. The language is parallel to language in Revelation 20:3 (i.e. casting). Not only that, it is the very same human author in both passages. Furthermore notice the reference to “all men” in John 12 and compare it to “nations” in Rev. 20. Interesting is it not. Such things cannot and must not be ignored.
To clarify even a step further, if you do not believe that Satan was literally “cast out” into a literal abyss and tied with a literal chain when Jesus died on the Cross then why do you force such literalness in Revelation? Especially why would a person do such a thing as take John’s Gospel as symbolic and John’s Revelation as literal. Does not the literary genre require the opposite? In my grammatical-historical hermeneutic, it does.
John actually repeats this theology in ANOTHER of his writings. This would make three of John’s writings repeating the same theology that Satan’s power was enormously effected by the first advent of Jesus. I am here referring to 1 John 3:8b, “The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” Wow! “Destroy” that is a very strong word. But doesn’t John himself describe the works of the Devil as continuing? How can both of these truths be true? The answer is not that difficult when all the Scripture is used to interpret these theological statements. When taken as a whole it becomes obvious that at first advent of Jesus, with the coming of the New Covenant in fulfillment of the OT prophecies, the Christ of Heaven now reigns as King of kings and Lord of lords. The Devil is active but powerless in respect to the authority of Christ and his Church. Men of all nationalities, “all men,” are being drawn to Christ via the gospel. The Israel of God has been loosed from her bondage and grace abounds.
In addition, Matthew 12:28-29 Satan is “bound” by Jesus. That is the same word as is used in Revelation 20. But premillenialist affirm with the rest of us that Satan is active today. “Active” yet “bound?” Yes, his binding apparently makes him ineffective against the kingdom. Christ is able to go into the kingdom of the world and plunder it. And we of the Reformed eschatology believe that because of the Cross and its effects as seen in Rev. 20, the gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church. (And no we do not believe that the Devil is actually carrying the literal gates around either. Our interpretation of the Bible is not only just literal but also respect literary devices.) So, Satan, the Strong Man, is bound by Christ at the Cross according to Christ himself, but we all affirm that that binding is not literal. Furthermore, we all affirm that that binding did not mean that Satan is now completely inactive. Yet, the premil-hermeneutic rules seem to change when it comes to Revelation 20.
In addition, (and this is still brief comparatively) Colossians 2:15 speaks of Satan being disarmed at the Cross. Hebrews 2:14-15 even so boldly declares Satan now “powerless.”
Indeed, if the premil theological interpretation is true, then the Cross did not have any effect upon the Devil and all of those passages that say that it did are wrong.
(whew, enough with the long comments. Lets try to be more focused. I must be ADHD!)
Jason,
Thanks for the interaction on this topic. Perhaps you will deal with this in a future post, but if the power of the cross is what bound Satan (cf. John 12), then when Rev 20:7 speaks of Satan being released, in what sense is he released? I’ve always wondered how the amill answers this, is the finished cross work of Christ somehow undone or reversed? It seems to me that if the cross binds Satan, then the release of Satan must mean the undoing of the cross. Does that make sense? How would you respond?
massimo, welcome to the discussion. Glad you are here and brought such a good question. Lets look at your question detail by detail; you asked:
I’ve always wondered how the amill answers this, is the finished cross work of Christ somehow undone or reversed?
That would be an impossibility, right? We would all agree on that. The only time that you can get into theology that seemingly reverses the work of the Cross is when you get into Dispensationalism. There you have a no New Covenant kingdom coming with Christ’s advent as was promised in the OT. You have a reinstitution of the Old Covenant in its full form for 1007 years (give or take a few years). You have a glorified Christ coming in battle rather than the already victoriously enthroned Christ. You have glorified saints roaming about in a cursed world for 1000 years. Etc, etc. I have written numerous posts on the adverse affects Dispy theology has on the orthodox understanding of the “Finished work of Calvary.”
So, the answer to your question is an emphatic “no.”
You then said: It seems to me that if the cross binds Satan, then the release of Satan must mean the undoing of the cross. Does that make sense?
I think you may suffering from a common problem when learning Reformed perspective of Ecclesiology and Eschatology: namely, you are trying to understand Reformed theology through a Dispy lense. When doing so it gets very confusing because Dispy definitions frequently do not fit well in Reformed theology.
Let me clarify, as mentioned above the Reformed view of Satan’s “binding” prior to the Second Advent of Christ is that it is a binding in relation to the Great Commission of the New Covenant. He is still active and roaming and deceiving, but his power has been rendered “powerless” in comparison to the power of the Church.
And both premils and postmil/Amils agree that John’s Revelation warns us that right before the Second Advent of Christ Satan will be given permission to intensify his activities. This is not an undoing of Calvary’s work. In fact, it is consistent with the fact that Satan is controlled by Christ the King and can only do that which ultimately enhances the Kingdom of Christ. In particular, the intensity of the Devil’s work immediately before the Second Advent will prepare the world for Christ’s return. The satanic persecution will purify the church and draw out the rebellious in the world, preparing them for the Judgment that will come when Christ returns.
Ask yourself these questions: Is Satan a defeated foe or not?
Should we fear him so that we are paralyzed in our missions?
Or should we recognize that he has been neutered and is rendered powerless in the presence of the Church?
As William Carey said, we should therefore attempt great things for God and expect great things from God. And never should we expect that our endeavors not be met with persecution. Indeed, such persecutions may intensify as we near the Second Advent. But persecutions only make us stronger according to God’s sovereign providence.
Jason,
I definitely agree with your emphatic no that the work of Christ cannot be undone. I would even agree that Christ’s death and resurrection do render Satan powerless in that we who believe have died to sin and are free from the power of sin in our lives. However, I would not agree that the work of Christ on the cross “bound” Satan in the sense in which that word is used in Revelation 20. As I understand your response, you do believe that the binding in Revelation 20 does refer to the work of Christ. Assuming that is true and that the work of Christ on the cross cannot be undone, how could Satan be unbound? I don’t feel that your earlier response addressed this question.
I feel that in your response you equate powerless to less powerful. Satan is not powerless today. He just happens to be less powerful than the gospel. In fact Paul in 2 Corinthians talks about him blinding unbelievers to the truth of the gospel. You may counter that the gospel is able to break people’s blindness. And it is! But I think we all know people who are still blinded to the truth of the gospel no matter how many times they have heard it. Are you contending that their blindness has nothing to do with Satan’s deceiving them and that they deceive themselves? Has Satan been bound such that he can and is no longer deceiving the nations (i.e. unbelievers)? I don’t think that he is. Nor do I think that the Bible would support believing that he is not actively deceiving the nations right now.
As a side question, have you ever studied the Prewrath view of the End Times? I’d be interested to hear what you think about it. The best online resource I have found for this viewpoint is http://www.prewrathrapture.com.
Hampton, You are making the same mistake of reading my comments through Dispensational lenses.
I used Biblical texts to interpret what the Cross did to Satan. You then compare that to a Dispensational definition of “binding Satan” and there is where everything gets confusing. You then ask me to reconcile the problem. That is asking me to do something based on a false premise.
So, I ask you to go back and read all the passages that describe what happened to Satan’s power because of the Cross. Then read Revelation as describing a fulfillment of Jesus’ prophesies in Matthew 24 and Luke 21. You will find then no difficulties in understanding that John’s Revelation 20 is consistent with the rest of the New Testament.
Furthermore you will not be inconsistent then as you were in your comments above when you questioned how I believe that Satan’s power can be bound and yet people are still blinded. You asked me: Are you contending that their blindness has nothing to do with Satan’s deceiving them and that they deceive themselves? Has Satan been bound such that he can and is no longer deceiving the nations (i.e. unbelievers)? I don’t think that he is. Nor do I think that the Bible would support believing that he is not actively deceiving the nations right now.
But Dispensationalism requires you to believe exactly that too. For in the Millennium according to Dispensationalism the Devil is bound for 1000 years and yet whole nations are blind, rebellious, and rejectors of Christ. Indeed Satan is loosed eventually to organize all of his blind nations who are filled with spiritually rebellious people who are blind to the gospel and who have rejected a bodily visible glorified Christ who is on the earth for 1000 years surrounded by a posse of all of the saints from heaven who are now living again in this cursed world as Christ’s governors. These blinded nations will so reject this glorified exalted Christ who has been on earth for this 1000 perfect years that they will want to organize into an army and kill this victoriously exalted Christ and kill all of these heavenly saints.
In other words, according to Dispensationalism for 1000 years glorified people live without sickness, weakness, or death among unresurrected men and women who, though they live longer life spans, still get sick and die. And incredibly, these unresurrected mortals attempt to attack these 1000 year old, immortal people!
Yep, Hampton, I studied the Prewrath view and found it seriously lacking biblical continuity. It denies the New Covenant, it denies the kingdom of God, it denies the glory of the exalted enthroned Christ, it denies the Book of Hebrews, it denies the Gospel of John, it denies the Book of Romans, it denies the sermons of Peter in Acts, and it completely interprets Revelation wrongly for it doesn’t even understand that the “wrath” described in Revelation is a covenantal wrath against the covenant breakers of old Israel and was poured out upon it in the first century just as Jesus promised.
Rather than prewrath, I believe that what Augustine, Louis Berkhof, John Calvin, John Dagg, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, James White, Cornelius Van Til, Eusebius, Matin Luther, Iain Murray, and Warfield believed. What I believe is what Council of Ephesus (AD 431), the Confession of the Evangelical Free Church of Geneva (1848), The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), The London Baptist Confession (1689), The New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833), The Confession of the Free-Will Baptist (1834), and The Augsburg Confession all affirm.
I believe that although he cannot prevail against the Church, Satan still goes about as a roaring lion tempting, defying, deceiving, until Christ shall put him down finally at His Second Coming. I believe that good and evil will exist side by side until the harvest, which Jesus said will be the end of the world (Matt. 13:39). I believe that Satan will be allowed to mount one final climactic antichrist rebellion and apostasy just before the Second Coming (Revelation 16:14; 20:7,8). I believe in only one first resurrection and only one last trump.
I believe the Second Coming of Christ to be a literal, visible, bodily coming. I believe that at the Second Coming all the saints, living and dead, will be raptured to meet the Lord in the air, given new spiritual bodies, and then escort their King to the earth. I believe that the millennium will end with the Second Coming of Christ followed by the judgments of the living and the dead, saved and lost (Matt. 13:24-30; 47-53) and the creation of a new heaven and earth. I view the Second Coming as the consummation of the Redemption story prior to everlasting glory on the New Earth.
Jason,
I think that you make a mistake in assuming that any question asked against what you believe is based upon a dispy interpretation of the Bible. I myself am not a dispy. I do, however, believe that amill is inconsistent with the Bible. Furthermore, you seem to be linking covenant theology and amill eschatology as the same. Both in my estimation are wrong because they are based must assume many things that are not stated in the Bible and then build their theology upon those assumptions. Personally I hold to New Covenant Theology. My favorite reference for this is Reisinger’s “Abraham’s Four Seeds.”
I can definitely go back and review those passages of Scripture that deal with Christ’s work on the cross and his triumph over sin and the devil. Always a profitable thing to do. I think you should do the same thing. Where else in the New Testament does it say that Christ’s work on the cross binds Satan to keep him from deceiving unbelievers? I would again assert that only in Rev 20 does this happen, and that it happens after Christ has returned to earth as victor, his second coming, not his first.
As regards men, not blinded by Satan rejecting a risen and glorious Christ that they see with their own eyes, what could be further from the truth. Why would sinful man ever accept and love Christ?
Hampton, my sincere apologies. What did you believe before believing NCT?
Concerning your question: “Where else in the New Testament does it say that Christ’s work on the cross binds Satan to keep him from deceiving unbelievers?”
The word “else” throws me. It seems you have misrepresented my position. I have not contended that the Bible teaches that the Devil does not deceive believers; indeed I have contended for the very opposite numerous times in my comments above. You must being getting that confused with the fact that I we have discussed the fact that Satan is now bound from deceiving the “nations.” That, my friend, is not the same as “unbelievers.” And this is why I perceived a possible “Dispy lense.”
The reference to “nations” is a eschatological reference not a anthropological reference. In other words, this is about the New Covenant ministry spreading to the Gentiles as opposed to the Jews only (see Romans). I gave in the comments above several passages that spoke to this theology with reference to the Devil’s incapacity to stop the Church’s expansion.
And finally, I still cringe when I read statements like “that it happens after Christ has returned to earth as victor, his second coming, not his first.” Was not Christ victorious in His first advent? If not then what was the Resurrection all about? What was His ascension to the Throne over His kingdom all about? Is He not currently King of kings and Lord of lords? And if so, then why would a person think that when Jesus returns again He will have to make war and establish a 1000 year perfect kingdom on earth that is really not effective either since whole nations are rejecting him and go to war with Him again. Is not this the kind of stuff that the disciples probably heard from the zealots who tried to crown Jesus the first time!
I went back and looked at the passages you use as parallels to Revelation 20. They aren’t very convincing parallels for making the argument that the binding of Satan and his influence spoken of in Revelation 20 has already happened. Paul references Satan’s ability to still blind and deceive in his epistles too many times to allow the conclusion you are drawing (1 Cor 1:18 and 2 Cor 4:3-4). The power of the cross is that it unbinds those who are bound by their sin, or put another way that is destroys the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), not that it binds Satan. Jesus never would have had to come and die in order to bind Satan and remove him and his influence from this world.
I would agree that Satan is incapable of effectually standing against the gospel where God is working to redeem the elect. When I read Rev 20 I see a time where the truth of the gospel is made known to all men without Satan being able to deceive and deny its truth, and that since man is still sinful there are those who hate God and refuse to serve him despite seeing Him. To me is serves as the ultimate example of the doctrine of grace – that no one can come to God, even if he sees Him, unless God draws him.
Now, getting Christ coming as victor vs. being victorious. I want to be very clear on what I’m saying. Christ accomplished everything He set out to do in His first advent. Therefore He was victorious; however, He did not come as victor, as King of kings, or as Lord of lords. I am not saying that He was not those things, rather that He did not come as them. That is how He will come in His second advent. The word “then” in Rev 20:1 tells us that after Christ comes as victor that they devil is bound and thrown into the abyss. I agree with your questions that you ask above about Christ being King of kings and Lord of lords. That is the reality of who He is. However, Rev 19-20 speaks of the revealing of that reality and what happens when Christ is revealed and returns as victor.
As more of a side note, the context of “nations” in Rev 20 (Psalm 2 could also be reference) is contrasted to the “camp of the saints.” It would appear that the nations are indeed unbelievers because (1) they are deceived by Satan and (2) they are destroyed by God. Their actions of opposing Christ give testimony against them that they are unbelievers.
Hampton,
Let me ask you again, What did you believe before believing NCT?
You affirm that the Cross destroys the work of the Devil but then you claim that it had no effect on the workings of the Devil? This is one of those inconsistencies I was talking about, brother. How can the Cross effect the results but not the causer or his works?
Furthermore, do you remember the “Dispy-lense” I spoke of? Your comment exemplifies it again even though you say you are NCT. Let me explain by asking you to clarify your thoughts:
What do believe is the nature of the “destruction” of the Devil’s works? Is this spiritual or physical destruction? Is this destruction theological/spiritual or literal in nature?
Then answer me this question: Is the Devil bound in a literal chain in Revelation 20? Is the pit literally bottomless? If so why would it need a lid?
I’m not trying to be funny, even though I do find myself laughing as I type. These are important questions, believe it or not, because the Dispy-lense is a bi-focal lense that goes back and forth from literal to symbolic willy-nilly in efforts to defend an eschatological system.
But when one’s eschatology drives one’s ecclessiology and soteriology then I think one’s system of theology is broken. Is is like a car that can only go in reverse! That is a problem because the seats are facing the wrong way and the headlights are worthless.
Such is the problem with DT and NCT.
Furthermore, my brother, you affirm that Satan is incapable of effectually standing against the gospel where God is working to redeem the elect. Good, very Calvinist of you, brother. What changes in your view when the Devil is bound in a literal chain and completely removed by an angel and thrown in pit for 1000 years? Are the unelect now able to get saved? Does the odds increase for a person to get saved? Do all of the rebellious nations in your Millennial-view blind themselves?
You said, “To me is serves as the ultimate example of the doctrine of grace – that no one can come to God, even if he sees Him, unless God draws him.” I actually remember years ago preaching that very same proposition. But is it really true? Is this what Revelation 20 is teaching? For what reason then is the Devil even used by God now? Why will he be released after a 1000 years? These questions and many more begin to cause serious problems with the proposition. The proposition simply because a “good preaching” proposition but a poor theological proposition.
No disrespect — I was once guilty of it myself. But in those days I was engulfed in Premil theology. No one every really taught me the other systems of theology — in fact, they only mentioned them long enough to say that they were heretical.
Nevertheless, I never defended Dispensationalism. And Premil theology has a bad “smell” but I didn’t know why. I only saw great inconsistencies with what the Apostles spoke of the Church and what preachers today spoke of the Church.
Through my studies of Church history and Reformed theology I became biblically convinced of Covenant Theology. I believe the Baptist are right about the sacrament of baptism and the Presbys are right about the Lord’s Supper! So I am Baptist, Calvinist, Covenant, Reformed, and several other labels. In fact, I have been called a few things I can’t even repeat on FIDE-O. But most of all, I love God’s people and His Word. Debates and discussions are only as good as they are edifying to the body.
Peace and grace to you, brother.
I’m not really sure what you would call what I believed before I heard about NCT. I had heard about dispensationalism, but somehow people being saved differently under different dispensations never really sat well with me.
Yes, I do affirm that the Cross destroyed the work of the devil. Interestingly my pastor is preaching through 1 John and he just preached a great sermon on 1 John 3:8. As I’m sure you are well aware purpose of Jesus’ first advent has both a positive and negative aspect. The positive is that He came to save people. The negative is that He came to destroy the works of the devil. Basically two sides of the same coin. The earlier part of the verse tells us what the works of the devil equal. They equal sin. Jesus destroyed sin when He died on the cross (Col 2:14). Because He became sin for us and died for us, thus destroying the works of the devil, He can now save us.
For the believer the Cross destroys the work of the devil and renders Satan powerless. For the unbeliever Christ has still destroyed the work of the devil, but they still lie within the domain and power of the devil. The nations are still being actively deceived by the devil (2 Cor 4:3-4). The Cross has never put an end to the devil’s deception, it just breaks through that deception to save us. Everyone who is a believer is an example of the gospel’s power to save.
If the entire NT affirms that Satan is still actively deceiving the nations, then the binding spoken of in Rev 20 must still be a future event. Even John 12:31 speaks of the ruler of this world being cast out in a future tense. To argue otherwise is to allow your eschatology to drive your greater theology.
Now to the easier stuff. In response the nature of the destruction of the devil’s works, I would say that the destruction is spiritual. Although that spiritual should flow over in the physical world. After all, we are saved not to continue in sin, but to do good works.
Just for a laugh I’m sure you would agree that God could create a bottomless pit much in the same way that He could make a square peg fit into a round hole. It’s simply within His power. However, a more plausible explanation would be that the pit may not be a pit in the way we would typically think of it. If perhaps the pit were the center of the earth, it would be both bottomless, and I’m told that were we to fall into it that we would still have the sensation of continuing to fall despite being at “the bottom” or center of the earth. All pure speculation since we don’t have the ability to get there. As for the lid, well, we wouldn’t want anyone to accidentally fall in
).
It’s an interesting, but speculative, question to ask about what changes when the devil is taken out of the scene. What I know to be true is that man has his own sin nature. He cannot love God through his own ability. He cannot repent through his own ability. He cannot make himself trust God. He is utterly dead in his sins whether the devil is present or not. How does the devil not being present affect him? I would speculate to say that outward temptation will be less of a driving force to sin. Inward temptation will always remain. Since man cannot save himself his odds of getting saved will not increase. Just as in any age, unless God restores a man’s sight, he will remain blind.
As for your question of why does God even use the devil now and why will he be released after the millennium, the only answer I can give you is that God is using him to glorify Himself.
I always find it interesting the amillers insist that the church encompasses all believers from before and after the Cross. The gospels are quite clear that Jesus says that He will build His church upon the confession that He is the Messiah (Matt 16:18). It doesn’t every say that He has been building the church. It refers to it as a future event. Now, that isn’t to say that OT saints were saved differently than we are today, we are all saved by trusting God. I’m simple saying that the church began after Jesus died and rose again.
It seems to me that the interesting thing about DT and CT is that both systems allow their system of theology to drive their interpretation of Scripture. Since I know that you agree with me about DT I’ll refrain from giving any examples. However, regarding CT, one of its pillars upon which its system of theology is based is the “Covenant of Works” it says existed between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden. What works did Adam need to do in order to fulfill this covenant? He already had physical and spiritual life. God came down to walk with him in the cool of the day. Where is that covenant mentioned in the Bible? It isn’t mentioned. It must be read into the Bible in order to allow CT to work.
I’m sorry that you became biblically convinced of CT despite at least one of its foundations being extrabiblical. To me, to accept CT would be wrong. It simply doesn’t have strong enough scriptural support from which I can build a biblical theology. It requires me to come to the Bible already presupposing beliefs that are not real.
As always I’ve enjoyed your postings and discussions. They always make me think about what I believe and why I believe it. This was a good time for me to have you post these columns since I have a little bit of free time. I’m sorry to say that I won’t be able to continue responding as often over the next several weeks. As should be so, I’ll leave the last word to you.
Hampton,
First let me commend you for braving this discussion in a public forum. You have been a gentleman and a good sport. May God bless you and you study and grow in grace and truth.
Now I hate to debunk your lengthy efforts with one statement but I do have just one that seems to negate your point — at least from my perspective. I do not mean that disrepectively, not even in the slightest. It just happens to be one point that is that important.
You said, If the entire NT affirms that Satan is still actively deceiving the nations… You seem to define nations as actual places on a map. Nations in our discussion is much better understood in the contexts for which we are dealing with as “Gentiles.” And friend, the Ephesians 2 proves that the Devil has already lost that war, the “nations” are no longer “without hope,” “separated from the common wealth of Isreal,” or “aliens of the Covenants of Promise.” We who once were “far off” have been brough “near.” And now we are one New Man, a New Nation in fact! Consider Satan a LOSER!
Hampton, one more thing. You said: I always find it interesting the amillers insist that the church encompasses all believers from before and after the Cross. The gospels are quite clear that Jesus says that He will build His church upon the confession that He is the Messiah (Matt 16:18). It doesn’t every say that He has been building the church. It refers to it as a future event. Now, that isn’t to say that OT saints were saved differently than we are today, we are all saved by trusting God. I’m simple saying that the church began after Jesus died and rose again.
Hampton, I’m sorry but it is not just Amillers in particular that believe that the Church encompasses all believers, pre and post Cross.
The Southern Baptist Faith and Message affirms this: Article VI — The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.
Hampton you are arguing against what the Church has always taught and believed. Such is even found in the doctrinal statement of the SBC, even though many SBC’ers are Dispensational due to the influence of Dallas Seminary in the 1900′s.
For a good study on the Covenant of Works (Adamic Covenant) which you think doesn’t exists, go here to a wonderful study by Ligon Duncan.
Jason, I can’t help but notice how you think everyone else is confused about theology if they disagree with you.
I looked at Ligon Duncan’s work and didn’t see any scripture references to the Covenant of Works. For all of our sake can you post them so we can be good stewards and examine them ourselves?
Who’s asking?
Did you follow the link?
Where did I say that “everyone else is confused” if they don’t agree with me?
Are you confused? I’m not. And I post my thoughts publicly. Do you? Are you willing to have them publicly challenged, critiqued, mocked, scorned? I am. I am, because I think it helps mostly those who read both sides and are able to search the Scriptures and make up their own mind.
Is that bad?
Should I be silent?
Should I cower because someone dislikes my views?
Should I say that we are all right and just forget studying the Scriptures?
How has your theological knowledge grown over the years?
Have you ever been wrong? I have confessed and explained my theological journey many times publicly on FIDE-O.
I have been challenged by liberals, emergents, atheist, Catholics, Arminians, theological pacifist, and worse.
Do I care? No, not really.
Have I won any over to my point of view? Yes, a few that I know of.
But mostly I meet people who say, “Man I never comment but I read and learn everyday.”
So I let guys like you say anything you want, and I hope that helps the readers… whether it is wisdom or foolishness that they discern.
Grace and peace, whomeveryouare.
Wasn’t me asking the questions. I’d post my name.
I did follow the link you gave and did not find any scriptures that spoke of a Covenant of Works. Can’t you just post them since you seem to have seen them?
As for the confusing comment, I thought I saw in some of your other threads how you were saying something like “you are confused by…” or “here is your confusion” (not actual quotes).
Jason said,
“I studied the Prewrath view and found it seriously lacking biblical continuity. It denies the New Covenant, it denies the kingdom of God, it denies the glory of the exalted enthroned Christ, it denies the Book of Hebrews, it denies the Gospel of John, it denies the Book of Romans, it denies the sermons of Peter in Acts, and it completely interprets Revelation wrongly for it doesn’t even understand that the “wrath” described in Revelation is a covenantal wrath against the covenant breakers of old Israel and was poured out upon it in the first century just as Jesus promised.”
I’m sorry but this is just absurd. Just say that you do not agree with the Prewrath interpretation of texts.
When will amills quit responding to the premill, pretrib kookie guys and start responding to serious Premill literature? Heaven only knows. *Alan sighs…
Hey Jason.
Thanks for your site. I am one of those guys who reads some of your stuff, learns, and doesn’t comment.
If I could suggest a book for some of the others like me out there discovering Amil? I have found Kim Riddlebarger’s “A Case for Amillenialism” to be a big help.
Thanks again,
Doug in AZ
I plan to do a post on my book recommendations soon. Please check back.
Hey gang, I didn’t read all of the posts, so this may have been said already. Sorry if I duplicate.
There is a huge, gigantic piece of evidence that I believe can help to clear up the degree of Satan’s binding and what he is doing in the world right now. It is a piece of evidence that I believe can be an aid in interpreting all the various scriptures mentioned here. And, it is evidence that you don’t need to be a theologian or bible scholar to easily see if you will allow yourself to do so.
It is the last 2000 year history of western nations calling themselves Christian, amassing armies and war materiel and destroying each other by attacking each other or defending themselves from attack. The leaders of these Christian nations have been attending their churches spread all over their lands, praising their Lord and making all kinds of Christian-sounding proclamations and declarations while at the same time fighting each other and destroying each others’ families, making wretched and miserable the people until they get so tired of it they stop for a while. And after a few years rest they start it up all over again. These nations, my friends, are deceived. Their citizens are brainwashed into believing that because they wear the name “Christian “they are justified to make war whenever there is enough criteria in a situation to create a “just war.” Let me say that again. These nations are deceived. That includes the United States, England, Germany, all the western nations, and also the not-so-Christian nations that do warfare now and have been for the past 2000 years. I respectfully suggest that if you think the nations have not been being deceived for that past 2000 years you are in denial of Satan’s work in world history which any child could look at and understand.
Jesus many times used actual, real events in the environment he dwelt in to show the true corrupt conditions of his times and places. We can do the same thing here. The nations–not, by the way, individuals and many specific leaders who have heard and live by the word of our Savior–but the nations in general have all been deceived century after century since Jesus first coming. They claim Jesus Christ: they slaughter each other or others in war. They claim Jesus Christ: they slaughter each other or others in war. They claim Jesus Christ: they slaughter each other or others in war. They are deceived.
This important piece of evidence known to everyone shows the great extent of Satan’s doings here: Christians warring against other Christians or non-Christians for 2000 years. Combine these realities of deceived nations with the 100′s of bible prophecies that describe conditions that can only exist with Satan’s total incapacitation, such as nations going up to the mountain of the Lord to learn how not to make war, and seeing children play with formerly wild and ferocious man-attacking animals, makes pretty clear that the time of ultimate peace we all desire will never happen without our gracious and loving Savior here on the earth with us to guide along His way.
Wake up, y’all.
Charles