Ep. 45: Amillennialism: Satan—powerless against the nations, but active against individuals?

In this episode, Pastor Mike continues the discussion on amillennialism. Considering the recapitulation theory of the book of Revelation, we must acknowledge that the chapter divisions are not inspired. They were added by Wycliffe in the 14th century. Therefore the transition from chapter 19 to 20 verse 1 should be considered. Does it tell us this is a new section starting another recapitulation or does it lead the reader to believe the following events are sequential? As we consider the answers, it leads us to another point. Where does theology come from? If people in foreign lands only had the Bible, what would they think on this topic? What conclusions would they come to? If they need a systematic theology to enlighten them, is that a problem? Specifically in Revelation 20:1-3, we see that Satan will be bound for 1,000 years. In the amillennial position, this 1,000 years is symbolic for a long time which constitutes the church age. Is it intellectually honest to say Satan is bound in the current age? How do the amillenials deal with this text? Some suggest that when John writes Satan is bound, “so that he might not deceive the nations any longer…” (Rev 20:3), John literally means Satan cannot deceive nations in the church age. Peter, speaking about the current age, says Satan is roaming around like a lion looking for someone to devour. How do they bring these two thoughts together? What are some other exegetical issues with the idea that Satan is bound, or at least bound from only deceiving the nations in this current age? Look, our goal is to be exegetically consistent. If that makes us theological orphans, it’s ok. Our loyalty is to the text. Next week we will deal with some of the hurdles of premillennialism. Amillennialism has an issue with the resurrection of Revelation 20:4-6. For their theory of the case to make sense, this cannot be a reference to a physical bodily resurrection. However the Greek word in all contexts is used exclusively to speak about the bodily resurrection. They maintain that this is speaking of regeneration. How does that work? What are the arguments for it? What is the logic against taking that symbolic reading? Finally for the inquisition: How are there degrees of suffering in hell? Modern evangelical thought seems to teach people go to hell for the one sin of not accepting Jesus. Tune in today! We discuss these questions and more.