Some questions for Amillennialists...

[MilitaryBrat2007]

Greetings!

Recently I have been looking into the doctrine of amillennialism. I understand that it means that the millennium of Christ's reign is symbolic and began with the Death and Resurrection of Christ. Currently, I subscribe to Puritan Postmillennialism, but this does not mean I am not considering amillennialism. With this, I have some questions on amillennialism that I will look at the answers to with intent.

Question 1: If Satan is bound (Revelation 20) then how is he still affecting the Church (1 Thessalonians 2:18)?

Question 2a: Does the Thousand Years represent the entire New Testament period as a whole?

Question 2b (if A was 'yes'): In Revelation 20, the thousand years end before Christ's second coming. How can the millennium represent the entire period?

Question 3: Satan's bondage will be reversed for a time; therefore what was done to bond Satan is reversible. It cannot be Christ's accomplishment on the cross because that is irreversible. So then what was it that bonded Satan?

 

[RamistThomist]

Greetings!

Recently I have been looking into the doctrine of amillennialism. I understand that it means that the millennium of Christ's reign is symbolic and began with the Death and Resurrection of Christ. Currently, I subscribe to Puritan Postmillennialism, but this does not mean I am not considering amillennialism. With this, I have some questions on amillennialism that I will look at the answers to with intent.

Question 1: If Satan is bound (Revelation 20) then how is he still affecting the Church (1 Thessalonians 2:18)?

Question 2a: Does the Thousand Years represent the entire New Testament period as a whole?

Question 2b (if A was 'yes'): In Revelation 20, the thousand years end before Christ's second coming. How can the millennium represent the entire period?

Question 3: Satan's bondage will be reversed for a time; therefore what was done to bond Satan is reversible. It cannot be Christ's accomplishment on the cross because that is irreversible. So then what was it that bonded Satan?

These questions, if true, also vitiate postmillennialism. I'm amil, but I will give my own slant to it:

1*) Satan is bound with reference to not leading the final assault on the Mount of Assembly (Har Mo'Ed) until the very end.
2*) Probably.
2b*) I don't think it was meant to be literal to the millisecond. In which case, I don't see it doesn't gut postmillennialism.
3*) Michael throwing him into the pit?

 

[John The Baptist]

Greetings!

Recently I have been looking into the doctrine of amillennialism. I understand that it means that the millennium of Christ's reign is symbolic and began with the Death and Resurrection of Christ. Currently, I subscribe to Puritan Postmillennialism, but this does not mean I am not considering amillennialism. With this, I have some questions on amillennialism that I will look at the answers to with intent.

Question 1: If Satan is bound (Revelation 20) then how is he still affecting the Church (1 Thessalonians 2:18)?

Question 2a: Does the Thousand Years represent the entire New Testament period as a whole?

Question 2b (if A was 'yes'): In Revelation 20, the thousand years end before Christ's second coming. How can the millennium represent the entire period?

Question 3: Satan's bondage will be reversed for a time; therefore what was done to bond Satan is reversible. It cannot be Christ's accomplishment on the cross because that is irreversible. So then what was it that bonded Satan?

1. Classic Amil answer is that he cannot lead the nations in the destruction of the Church.

2a: do you mean the Church age or the time the NT speaks of (Christ’s ministry, death, res., ascension, pre pentecost? If the former, yes. If the latter, I’m not sure exactly when the 1,000 began but I lean toward Christ’s ascension as that is when He was seated at the right hand of the Father.

2b: the thousand years represents a non literal period of time where Satan is bound and Christ is reigning with dead Christians. I don’t think the small amount of time between the two events (if there is any) matters because the build up to the last battle leads directly to the return of Christ. It’s like a 1-2 punch, one is related and leads to the other, with both being delayed until the end of the church age.

3: Satan is meant to be bound 1,000 years, so Christ’s work is not being undone, it’s exactly as it is meant to be. Christ’s defeat of Satan is not undone by Satan’s release, but rather finalized with Satan being thrown in the lake of fire.

Good questions, keep asking and searching.

 

[MChase]

Greetings!

Recently I have been looking into the doctrine of amillennialism. I understand that it means that the millennium of Christ's reign is symbolic and began with the Death and Resurrection of Christ. Currently, I subscribe to Puritan Postmillennialism, but this does not mean I am not considering amillennialism. With this, I have some questions on amillennialism that I will look at the answers to with intent.

Question 1: If Satan is bound (Revelation 20) then how is he still affecting the Church (1 Thessalonians 2:18)?

Question 2a: Does the Thousand Years represent the entire New Testament period as a whole?

Question 2b (if A was 'yes'): In Revelation 20, the thousand years end before Christ's second coming. How can the millennium represent the entire period?

Question 3: Satan's bondage will be reversed for a time; therefore what was done to bond Satan is reversible. It cannot be Christ's accomplishment on the cross because that is irreversible. So then what was it that bonded Satan?

1. Satan is bound with respect to a realm -- specifically the heavenly realm, though that is breaking its way into the earthly (Matt. 6:10).

2a. Yes -- sort of; 1,000 years represents completion and has implications for the current earthly situation.

2b. The 1,000 years and Satan's loosing are coordinate realities not a sequence of events; this is a minority report wrt the current amil landscape. Your question is a death knell to the current majority report amil view.

3. See previous. Satan is loosed with respect to the current earthly situation taken as a whole, but he is bound to certain aspects -- namely when the heavenly kingdom of Christ enters this world in the Church and in his saints (Luke 17:20-21).

People say Warfield was postmillennial; he was not. In my mind, he is the most consistent and helpful amil writer. It does not hurt that he is not a thoroughgoing pessimist like most amil writers today.

Warfield - The Millennium and the Apocalypse

 

[MChase]

These questions, if true, also vitiate postmillennialism.

No they don't, and I am amil with respect to Revelation 20. These are serious questions that far too many amil writers do not address.

Postmillennialism does not teach that Satan is bound -- unless you are talking about the modern bastardization of postmillennial thought that is basically a less rigorous defense of amillennialism that has tied itself to a pre-70 AD dating of Revelation. Historic Postmil writers do not believe the 1,000 years represents the entire church age nor do they think the 1,000 years is brought about by the resurrection of Christ (or his earthly ministry).

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

I think the lecture by Joel Beeke, "The Postmillennial Vision of the American Puritan by Joel Beeke," is helpful in navigating nuances about the Puritans and eschatology (and not necessarily a nice, tight, neat "postimillenialism". It can be downloaded in mp3 form as part of this set with the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (PCRT Conference) here: https://reformedresources.org/eschatology-in-church-history-pcrt-2010-seminars-mp3-download-set/ There are many resources on Eschatology at reformedresources.org (the Alliance's bookstore) almost all it seems to me are decidedly Amil (of course, not JM Boice as much as he is such a blessing).

Related to Rev 20, Satan is bound in the sense of not having the same kind of influence on the world while Christ now advances His kingdom and can't be stopped (Matthew 16:18). A dog on a chain is still dangerous, but his ability to destroy is no longer the same as when he has free range).

My go-to suggestion on the topic is Kim Riddlebarger's book, A Case for Amillennialism, which he also offers essentially in free lectures as well. See https://www.kimriddlebarger.com/amillennialism-audio-links-charts

Our four-part "mini series" through The Revelation years ago with Wednesday night lectures may be helpful, "More on the Millennium" on Rev. 20 may be helpful. First of them is here: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=51514038452

 

[MilitaryBrat2007]

No they don't, and I am amil with respect to Revelation 20. These are serious questions that far too many amil writers do not address.

Postmillennialism does not teach that Satan is bound -- unless you are talking about the modern bastardization of postmillennial thought that is basically a less rigorous defense of amillennialism that has tied itself to a pre-70 AD dating of Revelation. Historic Postmil writers do not believe the 1,000 years represents the entire church age nor do they think the 1,000 years is brought about by the resurrection of Christ (or his earthly ministry).

Right. Postmillennialism teaches that a 1,000 years will come where Christ reigns, though not physically (the Second Coming is after the millennium in Revelation 20). After this millennium Satan will come and rally an army against and then Christ comes.

 

[RamistThomist]

No they don't, and I am amil with respect to Revelation 20. These are serious questions that far too many amil writers do not address.

Postmillennialism does not teach that Satan is bound -- unless you are talking about the modern bastardization of postmillennial thought that is basically a less rigorous defense of amillennialism that has tied itself to a pre-70 AD dating of Revelation. Historic Postmil writers do not believe the 1,000 years represents the entire church age nor do they think the 1,000 years is brought about by the resurrection of Christ (or his earthly ministry).

I am talking about modern postmil. For whatever its virtues, historic postmil today doesn't produce volumes that have been engaged by the larger Reformed community.

 

[John The Baptist]

The 1,000 years and Satan's loosing are coordinate realities not a sequence of events; this is a minority report wrt the current amil landscape. Your question is a death knell to the current majority report amil view.

Can you explain what you mean?
Thanks

 

[MChase]

Can you explain what you mean?
Thanks

From the piece I linked by Warfield:

"What is described, or rather, to speak more exactly - for it is a course of events that is brought before us - what is narrated to us is the chaining of Satan "that he should deceive the nations no more"; the consequent security and glory of Christ's hitherto persecuted people; and the subsequent destruction of Satan. It is a description in the form of a narrative: the element of time and chronological succession belongs to the symbol, not to the thing symbolized. The "binding of Satan" is, therefore, in reality, not for a season, but with reference to a sphere; and his "loosing" again is not after a period but in another sphere: it is not subsequence but exteriority that is suggested. There is, indeed, no literal "binding of Satan" to be thought of at all: what happens, happens not to Satan but to the saints, and is only represented as happening to Satan for the purposes of the symbolical picture. What actually happens is that the saints described are removed from the sphere of Satan's assaults. The saints described are free from all access of Satan - he is bound with respect to them: outside of their charmed circle his horrid work goes on."

 

[MChase]

I am talking about modern postmil. For whatever its virtues, historic postmil today doesn't produce volumes that have been engaged by the larger Reformed community.

Fair enough; I do not understand what makes Doug Wilson or Ken Gentry 'postmillennial.' They agree almost entirely with Beale wrt Rev. 20. The millennial views ought to distinguish different exegetical conclusions regarding Rev. 20, not the relative amount of converts. A Spurgeon-esque could probably believe in as many conversions prior to Christ's return as a revivalist postmillennialist. The degree of optimism is not really the primary issue wrt the timing of the millennium.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Diego, Welcome to PB!

You said,

Question 1: If Satan is bound (Revelation 20) then how is he still affecting the Church (1 Thessalonians 2:18)?

#1, In 1 Thess 2:18, Satan is allowed by the Sovereign LORD to prevent Paul from going back to the Thessalonians, as He has work for him to do in Athens. So Paul sent Timothy instead. Here Satan is but an instrument for effecting the will of God.

Question 2a: Does the Thousand Years represent the entire New Testament period as a whole?

#2a, No.

A top Amil commentator, Dennis Johnson, puts it like this, "Amillennialists . . . see the thousand years as symbolizing the age from the exaltation of Jesus until just before his second coming. The binding of the dragon means that throughout this period, until just before the end, Satan cannot hold the nations in darkness, blinded to the gospel; specifically, he cannot assemble an organized, worldwide conspiracy to attack the church through violent persecution." [Emphases added] (Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation). After the "1,000 years" of Satan's being bound, when those thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison to gather the nations to attack the church.

Question 2b (if A was 'yes'): In Revelation 20, the thousand years end before Christ's second coming. How can the millennium represent the entire period?

#2b, Although answered in my #2a, let me let Johnson speak more on this: "What is the historical-chronological relationship between the physical second coming of Christ and the age designated the thousand years in John's vision? . . . In the context of the drama of Revelation, this purpose statement makes clear that the historical-chronological referent of 'the thousand years' in which the dragon is 'bound' must precede the battle that John just saw, in which the rider vanquished the beast, the false prophet, and all their followers (Rev 19:11-21). The millennium must occur before the second coming and the last battle for several reasons. . . . [emphasis added]

"Although it is true throughout history that Satan, the ancient serpent, "deceives the whole world" (Rev. 12:9), in this vision a specific deception to obtain a specific objective is in view. We see this objective when, at the end of the thousand years, the dragon is released and comes out 'to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war' (20:8). 'The war,' as we have seen, is a reference to 'the war of the great day of God, the Almighty,' for which the world's kings were gathered by three unclean spirits that proceed from the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet (16:13-16)." [emphasis added] (Dennis E. Johnson. Triumph of the Lamb.)

I think this is pretty clear. "The war" spoken of is Armageddon, when the gathered nations of the world attack the camp of the saints — the global church of Christ — so as to destroy them. It is in the midst of this attempt the Lord returns to save His people and execute vengeance on the marauders.

Question 3: Satan's bondage will be reversed for a time; therefore what was done to bond Satan is reversible. It cannot be Christ's accomplishment on the cross because that is irreversible. So then what was it that bonded Satan?

#3, Satan's "bondage" as you put it, that is, his chaining, pertains to being unable to gather the nations, as nations on a global basis, to attack and destroy the saints. This binding of Satan limits his influence to individuals within the nations of the world — he is certainly able to deceive them — but the unbinding of Satan allows him to deceive entire nations.

The quote above of Warfield, "The saints described are free from all access of Satan - he is bound with respect to them: outside of their charmed circle his horrid work goes on" is wanting. Satan can indeed attack the saints both while and after his binding — to wit, he can kill them, cause them suffering of various sorts. We are not "free from all access of Satan" — he is allowed to persecute us in the furnace of affliction. But we "overcome him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of our testimony; and we love not our lives even unto the death." (Rev 12:11)

I hope this answers your questions, Diego.

 

[Sam Jer]

The quote above of Warfield, "The saints described are free from all access of Satan - he is bound with respect to them: outside of their charmed circle his horrid work goes on" is wanting. Satan can indeed attack the saints both while and after his binding — to wit, he can kill them, cause them suffering of various sorts. We are not "free from all access of Satan" — he is allowed to persecute us in the furnace of affliction. But we "overcome him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of our testimony; and we love not our lives even unto the death." (Rev 12:11)

An image of the effect of Satan on the regenerated saint that I found helpful comes from John Calvin's institutes (book 4, chapter 15, section 9):

"The things which we have said, both of mortification and ablution, were adumbrated among the people of Israel, who, for that reason, are described by the apostle as having been baptised in the cloud and in the sea (1 Cor. 10:2). Mortification was figured when the Lord, vindicating them from the hand of Pharaoh and from cruel bondage, paved a way for them through the Red Sea, and drowned Pharaoh himself and their Egyptian foes, who were pressing close behind, and threatening them with destruction. For in this way also he promises us in baptism, and shows by a given sign that we are led by his might, and delivered from the captivity of Egypt, that is, from the bondage of sin, that our Pharaoh is drowned; in other words, the devil, although he ceases not to try and harass us. But as that Egyptian was not plunged into the depth of the sea, but cast out upon the shore, still alarmed the Israelites by the terror of his look, though he could not hurt them, so our enemy still threatens, shows his arms and is felt, but cannot conquer. The cloud was a symbol of purification (Num. 9:18). For as the Lord then covered them by an opposite cloud, and kept them cool, that they might not faint or pine away under the burning rays of the sun; so in baptism we perceive that we are covered and protected by the blood of Christ, lest the wrath of God, which is truly an intolerable flame, should lie upon us. Although the mystery was then obscure, and known to few, yet as there is no other method of obtaining salvation than in those two graces, God was pleased that the ancient fathers, whom he had adopted as heirs, should be furnished with both badges."

(See Exodus 14:30-31, 1 Corinthians 10:1-5)

 

[MChase]

The quote above of Warfield, "The saints described are free from all access of Satan - he is bound with respect to them: outside of their charmed circle his horrid work goes on" is wanting. Satan can indeed attack the saints both while and after his binding — to wit, he can kill them, cause them suffering of various sorts. We are not "free from all access of Satan" — he is allowed to persecute us in the furnace of affliction. But we "overcome him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of our testimony; and we love not our lives even unto the death." (Rev 12:11)

Warfield is extremely clear on this; Satan is bound with respect to a realm not a time period on earth. The saints which are in heaven are freed from all access of Satan and he is bound from touching them.

Here is Beale, who seems to be the current standard amil commentator.

Many commentators conclude that the metaphors of vv 1–3 refer to a complete cessation of the devil’s influence on earth, sometimes basing this on such texts as 2 Cor. 4:3–4; 11:14; Eph. 2:2; 2 Tim. 2:26; and 1 Pet. 5:8. But the “binding” (δέω) of Satan in Mark 3:27 (= Matt. 12:29) does not restrict all his activities but highlights the fact that Jesus is sovereign over him and his demonic forces. Therefore, context, and not the metaphor by itself, must determine what degree of restriction is intended. That Satan is “cast out” (ἐκβάλλω) by Christ’s death does not restrict Satan in every way. Rather, it keeps him from preventing “all people” throughout the earth being drawn to Jesus (John 12:31–32). “Sealing” may connote an absolute incarceration, but could just as well connote the general idea of “authority over,” which is its primary meaning also in Dan. 6:17 and Matt. 27:66 (though the context of the latter pertains to absolute confinement). God’s “seal” on Christians does not protect them in every sense but only in a spiritual, salvific manner, since they suffer from persecution in various physical ways (see on 7:3; 9:4). Conversely, God’s seal on Satan prevents him from harming the salvific security of the true church, though he can harm it physically.

G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1999), 985–986.

If Satan is cast out and bound by Christ's death, how is this reversible? Beale has shot himself in the foot here. Additionally, if Satan's binding means that he is merely prevented from deceiving 'all people' what does his subsequent loosing mean? The framework here makes Satan's binding absolutely meaningless; if Satan is just a dog on a leash after his binding, what exactly was he before and what will he be after? A dog roaming free? Seems rather inconsistent with Reformed principles.

You say that Satan's binding is respect to nations as a whole; right now he can deceive individuals but not nations. On the face of it, this is completely contrary to evidence; I'd reckon it the exception for a nation not to be deceived by Satan in our day. Thus you are left with 2 options regarding the millennium: 1) Warfield (and Milligan)-esque amillennialism or 2) historic postmillennialism.

 

[John The Baptist]

If Satan is cast out and bound by Christ's death, how is this reversible?

I guess I am having a hard time understanding the weight of this argument. If Christ’s work has a timeline on it, is ‘reversible’ the right way to describe it? Does Beale describe it that way?

It seems to have a defeatist mentality for a straw man-effect. Would Beale instead say that Christ’s death had a specific (and chronologically limited) effect when it comes to the binding of Satan?

Also,

You say that Satan's binding is respect to nations as a whole; right now he can deceive individuals but not nations. On the face of it, this is completely contrary to evidence; I'd reckon it the exception for a nation not to be deceived by Satan in our day.

How do you reckon with 20:3, where it says that he “might not deceive the nations any longer?” Who does that represent? What do you think that means?

And Satan deceiving the nations does not have to do with the godlessness of the nations but rather their inability to start Armageddon. So experience does not speak to this. Our experience as Christians (suffering) does not match the reality of the victory of Christ’s kingdom.

Thanks for the interaction.

 

[MChase]

I guess I am having a hard time understanding the weight of this argument. If Christ’s work has a timeline on it, is ‘reversible’ the right way to describe it? Does Beale describe it that way?

If the binding of Satan is an effect of the death of Christ, this what does it mean for Satan to be unbound. Put another way, if Christ's death secured all of his people for all time, what would it mean for one of his people to be lost? It would reverse the effects of the action thus open up questions about the action itself. Thankfully, it seems most are inconsistent on this point.

Here is Beale on this:

"Ladd contends that vv 1–3 cannot be concerned with the effects of Christ’s death and resurrection, saying that the victory Christ “won over Satan was won once and for all. Satan will never be loosed from bondage to Christ won by his death and resurrection.” But this misses the point. By his death and resurrection Christ purchased his church, a people for himself (1:5–6; 5:9–10). Throughout the time between Christ’s first and second comings, Satan will not be able to deceive any of “the full number” (6:11) of those purchased by Christ because they have been “sealed” (see on 7:1–8). When “the full number” has been gathered in, then the devil will be permitted to deceive the majority living at the end of history, causing them not only to be blinded to the truth of Christ but also to seek to annihilate Christ’s followers. Therefore, Satan is not released from his bondage to Christ: his very deception of people at the end of the age is a part of Christ’s sovereign plan; the δεῖ (“it is necessary”) at the end of v 3 expresses the certainty of the divine plan (so also 1:1; 4:1; 11:5; 13:10 [textual variant]; 17:10; 22:6). The devil fails in this final attempt to exterminate the church and meets his own final defeat and punishment. This final onslaught by Satan occurs precisely in the “short time” immediately after the end of the millennium (vv 3, 7) and directly before the final judgment."

G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 986-987.

When pushed on the issue, Beale basically resorts to the truth that by his death Christ secured the elect and Satan is bound from deceiving them at which point the binding of Satan basically becomes meaningless. Beale believes that Satan's binding is equivalent to his restraint throughout all time -- the millennium is not a distinct reality at all. Basically, what I am getting at is that the typical talking points of amillennialists today have to be walked back on one point or another. You can't believe both of these propositions simultaneously:

1) The millennium is an effect of the resurrection of Christ
2) The millennium will cease for a season prior to the return of Christ

How do you reckon with 20:3, where it says that he “might not deceive the nations any longer?” Who does that represent? What do you think that means?

Warfield is going to be better than I:

"What actually happens is that the saints described are removed from the sphere of Satan's assaults. The saints described are free from all access of Satan - he is bound with respect to them: outside of their charmed circle his horrid work goes on. This is indicated, indeed, in the very employment of the two symbols "a thousand years" and "a little time." A "thousand years" is the symbol of heavenly completeness and blessedness; the "little time" of earthly turmoil and evil. Those in the "thousand years" are safe from Satan's assaults: those outside the thousand years are still enduring his attacks. And therefore he, though with respect to those in the thousand years bound, is not destroyed; and the vision accordingly requires to close with an account of his complete destruction, and of course this also must needs be presented in the narrative form of a release of Satan, the gathering of his hosts and their destruction from above."

The millennium is a sphere not a timespan; it is a perfected reality which is enjoyed in perfection by the saints in heaven and is enjoyed in anticipation in an already-not-yet reality by Christ's people here on earth. Satan cannot touch the souls of God's people in heaven; they are entirely outside of his grasp. He can and does afflict us after the manner that he did Job because he is loosed with respect to the earth. The present reality is one of simultaneous binding and loosing of Satan. He is bound and loosed with respect to different realms; these are not sequential realities. This is consistent with the idealist reading of Revelation which does not see things in strict chronological order but according to spheres; the realities are simultaneous and show different perspectives.

 

[Afterthought]

1) The millennium is an effect of the resurrection of Christ
2) The millennium will cease for a season prior to the return of Christ

You say that Satan's binding is respect to nations as a whole; right now he can deceive individuals but not nations. On the face of it, this is completely contrary to evidence; I'd reckon it the exception for a nation not to be deceived by Satan in our day. Thus you are left with 2 options regarding the millennium: 1) Warfield (and Milligan)-esque amillennialism or 2) historic postmillennialism.

MW used to point this out on this board. Glad to see this point is being recognized by more.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Mason,

You said, "The saints which are in heaven are freed from all access of Satan and he is bound from touching them." Of course that is true. Do you think Warfield is referring to saints in heaven?

You said in post #14,

"If Satan is cast out and bound by Christ's death, how is this reversible? Beale has shot himself in the foot here. Additionally, if Satan's binding means that he is merely prevented from deceiving 'all people' what does his subsequent loosing mean? The framework here makes Satan's binding absolutely meaningless; if Satan is just a dog on a leash after his binding, what exactly was he before and what will he be after? A dog roaming free? Seems rather inconsistent with Reformed principles."​

Satan has been cast out from his rulership of the world (John 12:31) having the power of death (Heb 2:14,15) taken from him. That is not reversible. His binding is different than his being cast out. His binding is deliberately limited; he is allowed to deceive those not elected by God and sealed by the Holy Spirit; he is not allowed to deceive nations qua nations, as the power of the Gospel has swept across the earth, loosing multitudes from his thrall, their being translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col 1:13).

You further allege,

"You say that Satan's binding is respect to nations as a whole; right now he can deceive individuals but not nations. On the face of it, this is completely contrary to evidence; I'd reckon it the exception for a nation not to be deceived by Satan in our day. Thus you are left with 2 options regarding the millennium: 1) Warfield (and Milligan)-esque amillennialism or 2) historic postmillennialism."​

There is some truth is what you say here: "On the face of it, this is completely contrary to evidence; I'd reckon it the exception for a nation not to be deceived by Satan in our day."

For it appears that his loosing has already been effected by the Sovereign, and he has begun to gather the nations — the forces hostile to the camp of the saints — to the final battle (Rev 20:7,8,9). How long this may take I do not know. It may take a while.

"Warfield (and Milligan)-esque amillennialism" is defunct; contemporary modified / eclectic amillennialism is what stands strong today. Historic postmillennialism does not.

 

[MChase]

I appreciate your replies Steve, and I have profited much by your posts in the past, particularly on the issue of the text of scripture.

Hello Mason,

You said, "The saints which are in heaven are freed from all access of Satan and he is bound from touching them." Of course that is true. Do you think Warfield is referring to saints in heaven?

Yes, he explicitly says as much.

"The saints described are free from all access of Satan - he is bound with respect to them: outside of their charmed circle his horrid work goes on. This is indicated, indeed, in the very employment of the two symbols "a thousand years" and "a little time." A "thousand years" is the symbol of heavenly completeness and blessedness; the "little time" of earthly turmoil and evil."

"What now is this thousand-year peace? It is certainly not what we have come traditionally to understand by the "millennium," as is made evident by many considerations, and sufficiently so by this one: that those who participate in it are spoken of as mere "souls" (ver. 4) - "the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the Word of God." It is not disembodied souls who are to constitute the Church during its state of highest development on earth, when the knowledge of the glory of God covers the earth as the waters cover the sea. Neither is it disembodied souls who are thought of as constituting the kingdom which Christ is intending to set up in the earth after His advent, that they may rule with Him over the nations. And when we have said this, we are surely following hard on the pathway that leads to the true understanding of the vision. The vision, in one word, is a vision of the peace of those who have died in the Lord; and its message to us is embodied in the words of xiv. 13: "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth" - of which passage the present is indeed only an expansion.

The picture that is brought before us here is, in fine, the picture of the "intermediate state" - of the saints of God gathered in heaven away from the confused noise and garments bathed in blood that characterize the war upon earth, in order that they may securely await the end."

You say that his binding entails that

he is allowed to deceive those not elected by God and sealed by the Holy Spirit

When has that ever not been the case? Satan never could have deceived God's people; to link this with his binding is troublesome with your schema given you have a subsequent time in which Satan is unbound and thus able to deceive the elect.

he is not allowed to deceive nations qua nations, as the power of the Gospel has swept across the earth, loosing multitudes from his thrall, their being translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col 1:13).

If all that modern amillennial writers taught was what you just explained, then I would not have many problems with it; the differences would be minor -- mainly in relation to a final apostasy. However, I am afraid such is hardly ever the case given that most in our day are pessimistic about the spread of the gospel; if satan is bound -- or has been bound with respect to deceiving the nations here on earth -- then to be consistent with the pessimism, Satan's binding with respect to 'deceiving the nations' has to be taken more individually rather than corporately. It has to be individuals in the nations rather than the nations themselves. You say he is/was in the past bound in regard to the nations as nations; how? What does that mean? There has never been a time in which gospel light has penetrated through the world and uncovered the darkness of the nations as nations here on earth. Further, there is hardly a doctrine as clear as the future conversion of the Jews, and if we are past the millennium, then I fail to see how they are not forgotten.

I for one, think there will come a time in which the heavenly reality of the Father's will shall come to pass visibly on this earth and Satan's realm will be squashed even here, but that entails far more optimism than most are willing to tolerate. My concern here is not really the optimism or pessimism that one has; good men differ. My concern is that most amil folks never can mention the binding of Satan without mentioning the effects of the resurrection. That is dangerous.

"Warfield (and Milligan)-esque amillennialism" is defunct; contemporary modified / eclectic amillennialism is what stands strong today. Historic postmillennialism does not.

If you look on the outward state of the Church, Psalm singing, Sabbath keeping, and consistent Reformed teaching is defunct as well -- even in Reformed Churches. We live in perilous times. I respect many of my brethren who differ, but I do not really care where the Church of our day stands on any given issue. Let God be true though every man a liar.

 

[DanSSwing]

Question 2a: Does the Thousand Years represent the entire New Testament period as a whole?

I thought that only hyper-preterists believe this?

 

[RamistThomist]

I thought that only hyper-preterists believe this?

They do, but they also believe it goes on forever until the final heat death of the universe, after which their souls are still floating in some Gnostic paradise.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Mason, you say (back in post #14 again),

"You say that Satan's binding is respect to nations as a whole; right now he can deceive individuals but not nations. On the face of it, this is completely contrary to evidence; I'd reckon it the exception for a nation not to be deceived by Satan in our day. Thus you are left with 2 options regarding the millennium: 1) Warfield (and Milligan)-esque amillennialism or 2) historic postmillennialism."

A question I have is are you equating Warfield and Milligan as amil proponents, as distinct from / and in opposition to historic postmillennialism? If so, why are you using Warfield so much to support your views?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Mason,

There is a lot of misunderstanding going on here! Please let me repeat what I wrote earlier in post #18:

“Satan has been cast out from his rulership of the world (John 12:31) having the power of death Heb 2:14,15) taken from him. That is not reversible. His binding is different than his being cast out. His binding is deliberately limited; he is allowed to deceive those not elected by God and sealed by the Holy Spirit; he is not allowed to deceive nations qua nations, as the power of the Gospel has swept across the earth, loosing multitudes from his thrall, their being translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col 1:13).”

I will also repeat something I wrote in post #11 (quoting another major amil scholar on Revelation, Dennis E. Johnson) :

“Although it is true throughout history that Satan, the ancient serpent, ‘deceives the whole world’ (Rev 12:9), in this vision a specific deception to obtain a specific objective is in view. We see this objective when, at the end of the thousand years, the dragon is released and comes out ‘to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war’ (Rev 20:8). ‘The war,’ as we have seen, is a reference to ‘the war of the great day of God, the Almighty,’ for which the world’s kings were gathered by three unclean spirits that proceed from the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet Rev 16:13,14,16.” [emphases added] (Dennis E. Johnson. Triumph of the Lamb.)

You wrote in your post #16, Mason, following the error of Warfield – and Milligan, “The millennium is a sphere not a timespan; it is a perfected reality which is enjoyed in perfection by the saints in heaven and is enjoyed in anticipation in an already-not-yet reality by Christ’s people here on earth. . . . This is consistent with the idealist reading of Revelation which does not see things in strict chronological order but according to spheres; the realities are simultaneous and show different perspectives.” [emphasis added]

There are indeed souls of the departed-to-heaven redeemed reigning with Christ during the “thousand year millennium”; that is the heavenly sphere or realm. And there are souls on the earth during this millennium as well. This earthly aspect of the millennium has a timespan; the 1000 years is a symbol for a complete yet indefinite period of earthly time (cf. Psalm 50:10b, a thousand used that way), that being the period when Satan is bound as regards to deceiving the nations qua nations due to the wide reception of the Gospel. It is the successful proclamation of the Gospel that has bound Satan's power.

There is coming a time when the Gospel is outlawed – the saints silenced on pain of death – and the millennium is over. Satan has been loosed by decree of the LORD and is effecting his agenda.

Sadly, William Milligan has misled some with his full-blown idealism, yet his view nonetheless broke the spell of the historicist approach, a great good. It was the LORD’s providence he was given to do this. It remained for 20th and 21st century divines to bring the nuance of modified / eclectic idealism, allowing some historical events to ground the vision in earthly time. It is this modified idealism that informs the contemporary Amillennial school – Beale, D.E. Johnson, Wm. Hendriksen, etc.

The apostle Paul was clear that this is an “evil age” (Gal 1:4), and John’s testimony is the same, the “whole world lies in wickedness” (1 John 5:19b).

It is a great disservice to the people of God, this unscriptural dream of eventual peace, blessing, and righteousness among the nations and peoples of earth before our Lord’s return.

We are entering a terrible time, yet it is a furnace of affliction to purify the elect and separate the dross – of which there is much – from the pure.

 

[MChase]

Mason, you say (back in post #14 again),

"You say that Satan's binding is respect to nations as a whole; right now he can deceive individuals but not nations. On the face of it, this is completely contrary to evidence; I'd reckon it the exception for a nation not to be deceived by Satan in our day. Thus you are left with 2 options regarding the millennium: 1) Warfield (and Milligan)-esque amillennialism or 2) historic postmillennialism."

A question I have is are you equating Warfield and Milligan as amil proponents, as distinct from / and in opposition to historic postmillennialism? If so, why are you using Warfield so much to support your views?

As far as I can tell, Milligan and Warfield have the same view of Rev. 20; they believe the millennium is a sphere of perfection that is not time-bound. This is different from both the contemporary amil framework of Beale and the postmillennial historicism of Edwards.

From my point of view, Warfield is by far the most consistent; he has the best reading of Rev. 20 and he is optimistic regarding the spread of the gospel. These are two different issues, but from where I sit, Warfied is a rare and helpful breed of thinker (at least on this point).

 

[MChase]

Sadly, William Milligan has misled some with his full-blown idealism, yet his view nonetheless broke the spell of the historicist approach, a great good. It was the LORD’s providence he was given to do this. It remained for 20th and 21st century divines to bring the nuance of modified / eclectic idealism, allowing some historical events to ground the vision in earthly time. It is this modified idealism that informs the contemporary Amillennial school – Beale, D.E. Johnson, Wm. Hendriksen, etc.

The apostle Paul was clear that this is an “evil age” (Gal 1:4), and John’s testimony is the same, the “whole world lies in wickedness” (1 John 5:19b).

It is a great disservice to the people of God, this unscriptural dream of eventual peace, blessing, and righteousness among the nations and peoples of earth before our Lord’s return.

We are entering a terrible time, yet it is a furnace of affliction to purify the elect and separate the dross – of which there is much – from the pure.

You may think it a bit strange, but I respect the views of Edwards, Durham, etc. far more than that of Beale, Johnson, Hendriksen, etc. If you are going to hold a prophetic approach, then hold it consistently. It makes zero sense to hold an idealistic view of the prophecy for the entirety of the book and then abandon it for a historicist reading of Rev. 20.

Additionally, I have no idea how you can hold as simultaneous the facts that the whole world lies in wickedness yet believe that Satan is bound from deceiving the nations. These are contradictory in your schema. They are not in the schemas of Milligan/Warfield nor the historicist postmillennial schema.

Your pessimism is probably our biggest difference. I follow the apostle in believing that Christ will come once all his enemies are under his feet (1 Cor. 15:22-26); we do not see it yet, but the day will come when all nations shall flow to the Church and be blessed. This is not some unscriptural dream; it is the power of the gospel.

 

[DanSSwing]

They do, but they also believe it goes on forever until the final heat death of the universe, after which their souls are still floating in some Gnostic paradise.

But why would an amillenialist believe it? If the 1,000 years began AND ended in the New Testament period, then where are we now?

 

[DanSSwing]

Your pessimism is probably our biggest difference. I follow the apostle in believing that Christ will come once all his enemies are under his feet (1 Cor. 15:22-26); we do not see it yet, but the day will come when all nations shall flow to the Church and be blessed. This is not some unscriptural dream; it is the power of the gospel.

The zeal of the LORD of Hosts will accomplish this.

 

[RamistThomist]

But why would an amillenialist believe it? If the 1,000 years began AND ended in the New Testament period, then where are we now?

My apologies. I misread your post. I thought it said church age instead of NT period.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Good questions, keep asking and searching.

Good answers from @John The Baptist too.

For a doctrine, the details of which the Church has not yet confessed the one true interpretation of Revelation. Revelation is not been completely opened yet. You presented your answers with a humility I assume comes from Christ. There is way too much "You are wrong. I am right."
Funny, sometimes the same people that believe and teach the Westminster doctrine of the interpretation – [crude paraphrase, out of time]

Not all Scripture is equally perspicuous, so the rule of interpretation is to rely on clearer statements to help interpret the darker saying. Some of these same people give credence to their (not the Church's) interpretation and talk as if yours is the only true representation of the truth. One member wrote to me saying he taught the whole counsel of God, while I did not. I don't get in those arguments anymore. Its like arguing with the Judaizers before Acts 15.

I am fearful of limiting God in anything He promises to do. Psalm 78:41 KJV
He is NOT a tame Lion, but has told us the He will do immeasurably more than we can ask – or even THINK.
I can't wait to see what He does. Judges 13:19

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thank you for the clarity in your post #25, Mason.

You said,

". . . If you are going to hold a prophetic approach, then hold it consistently. It makes zero sense to hold an idealistic view of the prophecy for the entirety of the book and then abandon it for a historicist reading of Rev. 20."

Please note that I hold a modified idealist amil view for the entire book of Revelation. This means that there may be some historical (not historicist – big difference!) events referred to in the prophecies and visions. I had an extended discussion with MW on just this point some years ago. Those interested may see it argued in detail. The amil view has been disdained by many precisely because they think it an ahistorical sphere denying all actual prophecy, which is Milligan in the 1800s, but not contemporary amil. In other words, is Revelation an inspirational drama of poetic symbols, or a multi-genre prophecy?

You further stated, Mason:

"Additionally, I have no idea how you can hold as simultaneous the facts that the whole world lies in wickedness yet believe that Satan is bound from deceiving the nations. These are contradictory in your schema. They are not in the schemas of Milligan/Warfield nor the historicist postmillennial schema."

This is basic, and if not understood Revelation will be closed to you. Of course, Milligan, Warfield, and the historicists fall into this error – though it was Milligan's genius that extricated the book from the earlier historicist hold. His idealism needed further refinement.

In a nutshell: the world lies in wickedness throughout the church age, and will continue so until the Lord Jesus returns at His second coming. Yet this wickedness of Satan is partially restrained during the millennial period so that while he can deceive individuals in the world he cannot deceive the nations en masse and gather them for the final battle of Armageddon. The Sovereign is easily able to effect this. There is no contradiction here. If you have a mad dog on a chain it can rampage all it wants to, but cannot go past the length of the chain. Those beyond the reach of the chain can relax even in the presence of the raging animal.

When the millennial period – the symbolic 1,000 years – is over and Satan is loosed – the Gospel proclamation silenced – then he will be able to deceive and gather the nations to attack the saints.

You further state:

"Your pessimism is probably our biggest difference. I follow the apostle in believing that Christ will come once all his enemies are under his feet (1 Cor 15:22-26); we do not see it yet, but the day will come when all nations shall flow to the Church and be blessed. This is not some unscriptural dream; it is the power of the gospel."

I answer: many thought when our Lord was hung on the cross, crucified, died, and buried – it was all finished, their hopes shattered and in ruin. This was pessimism! Likewise, when people today see the church under attack, Christians killed, imprisioned, raped, hunted, despised – they look and judge according to appearance, not spiritual reality. For just as our Lord's triumph was in His mistreatment, scourging, and death – and resurrection! – even so we shall undergo the same, including our resurrection! The suffering church is glorious in the eyes of heaven and the angels, victorious as was our King.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us (Romans 8:35, 36, 37).​