Dee Dee Warren: article Yawn. Stretch. Oh yeah, that’s a good argument. Not!http://www.preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=372
Check out this article: middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/rom1620.htm - please go and read it completely without my interruption and then come back and read my commentary here.
In this verse believers have been given the wonderful promise that our war withLet’s look at the verse:
Satan will shortly come to a complete and final end, with Satan totally vanquished and with God’s saints sharing in the glorious victory. He’s the “God of peace” in the sense that He alone is able to bring an end to the war with Satan which will result in peace for the saints (”peace” in the sense of the end of war, freedom from conflict). Obviously God’s people enjoy God’s peace now (John 14:27), but in light of the promise in this verse, Paul was probably thinking of the ultimate peace that believers will gain through the defeat of Satan.
Romans 16:20 - The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
This author is suffering from some severe cognitive dissonance in claiming that the promise to believers “will shortly” come to pass when the promise was made thousands of years ago. Are God’s promises true? So with regards to the believers to whom the letter was originally written, did God (under this author’s argument) fulfill His promise? No. And further, the idea that God is the God of Peace is much more than the sense that He alone is able to bring an end to the war with Satan - He gives peace in the midst of war. Many martyrs died in complete peace. However, that statement is what call filler to make it seem like it bolsters his argument when it does nothing but state something about God that would be true in both the futurist and the preterist interpretations. What the author is doing is poisoning the well by implying that somehow the opposing argument robs God of His power of peace.
This promise is a direct reference to Genesis 3:15 where we are told that the seed of the woman (Christ) would bruise or crush the Serpent’s head (a fatal blow), and that Satan would bruise or crush Christ’s heel (Calvary’s cross).Meaning that satan was already crushed - yet still very active. So then obviously the “crushing of satan” does not require his utter demise each and every time it is referenced. Yes I do believe that will be the ultimate end of satan, but since there is already a proven verse that shows that satan was given the fatal blow at the cross but was still alive and kicking after the cross, we have Biblical warrant for noting that this does not necessarily have to refer to the eschatological consummation exclusively.
God will inflict a crushing blow upon the archenemy of our souls, and we will share in God’s victory over Satan.He already did, and we already are. Will there still be a final consummation? Yes. But that is not what that prophecy is referring to exclusively. How do I know? The passage says it was to be soon, and I believe it on its face. Is the idea of historical fulfillments and then greater consummative prophecies Biblical? Absolutely. Have some fun - the “virgin birth” prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day….. and then later in its consummation in Jesus. This author will not make any sense out of the New Testament unless he recognizes this. The Day of Consummation will be a day of typological recapitulation on a grand scale beyond our imaginations.
The ones who are “co-heirs” (Rom. 8:17) are also co-conquerors. He will be crushed “under your feet.” When the Israelites conquered enemy kings they would symbolize their great victory by putting their feet upon their necks (Joshua 10:24). God invites His saints to celebrate His victory over Satan. More filler that is true in any interpretation. How this is supposed to add anything at all to this dispute is beyond me. Does the author think that preterists would not agree with that statement?
When will this great defeat of Satan take place? It will happen “shortly, quickly, suddenly, soon.” Believers are encouraged by the fact that the battle, though difficult, will not be long. We can expect it to be soon. Satan’s time is short and his defeat is certain.Which is it? Soon or quickly? This author simply cannot escape the fact that it was temporally soon - to the original audience. There is nothing in the context to indicate that the event being spoken of is simply something that when it happens, it will span a short period of time, though it actually happening may not be until millennia have passed.
Prophetically we know that at the mid-point of the tribulation Satan will be cast out of the third heaven and execute his fury upon the earth, knowing that his time is short (Rev. 12:12). He knows his doom is impending. Three and a half years later he will be cast into the abyss at which time he will literally be “under the feet” of millennial saints. His final and ultimate doom is described in Revelation 20:10 (and compare Matthew 25:41).Ipse dixit. Satan was cast down in the earthly ministry of Christ (see John 12:30) and knew at that time his time was short to destroy the fledging Church. The early Church crushed his efforts, and the Gates of Hell did not prevail against them. It was the Church that assaulted satan, not the other way around, much to the surprise of satan.
When Paul wrote to the Romans, Satan, though defeated at Calvary, was still an active and formidable foe, as he still is today (1 Pet. 5:8-9; 1 John 4:4).Thank you Captain Obvious for proving my point. The defeat of satan does not require his complete disability. In fact, he was defeated before Calvary as Christ preached the Kingdom and bound the strong man - satan.
Believers of the first century, as well as believers today, are joyfully expecting the imminent return of Christ (Tit. 2:13; Rom. 13:11; 1 Cor. 1:7; etc.). We know that once this event takes place (which may be at any time), Satan’s defeat will soon follow. It is from the perspective of imminency that we may speak of Satan’s defeat as “soon.” Believers of any period of church history should be encouraged by the fact of Christ’s soon coming and Satan’s soon defeat!Orwell would be so proud. Let me once again quote one of my favourites:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a scornful tone, “it means just whatThe American Heritage Dictionary defines “imminence” as the quality or condition of being about to occur. Not could be about to occur. Not might be about to occur. But about to occur.
I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
I work in the legal profession as a legal assistant. Some of the cases I have worked on deal with the issue of insurance coverage for “collapse.” Florida Courts had defined collapse in the context of these particular insurance policies (other policies may differ) as substantial and material impairment of a building or any part thereof. What that means is that the building didn’t have to be in a heap of rubble in order for the collapse coverage to potentially apply (there were of course other issues and potential exclusions unique to each case). One of the big legal battles that kept getting waged was whether or not “imminence” was required, in other words, was the building about to fall down? Everyone understood what “about to” meant in that question. It didn’t mean “would the building fall down in two thousand years.” (if you are interested in how all that turned out, grab yourself a copy of Florida Southern 2nd and knock yourself out - or ask an attorney, which I am not) Many insurance policies changed their collapse coverage language to explicitly define collapse. I am sure that some futurist lawyer may find a way to poke a hole in it.
This Greek phrase “soon” or “shortly” is also found in Revelation 1:1 and 22:6—”the things which must shortly come to pass.”Yes, that same Chapter in Revelation in which the things were also “near” and “at hand.”
There are those today who believe that the tribulation period is not future butSilly us. We believe the timing statements, and don’t make “soon” mean “not soon” and “near” mean “far.” I know, its horrible.
has already been fulfilled in history at or around the time of the destruction
of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. They believe that most prophecy, including most of what
was predicted in the book of Revelation, was fulfilled at this time. Since it
says “these things must shortly come to pass” they reason that all these things
must have taken place in the first century.
But Romans 16:20 serves as an argument against such thinking. Obviously Satan is an active and dangerous foe today and he has not yet received his crushing and defeating blow, even though it has been nearly 2000 years since Paul promised that this would soon take place! And yet, from the perspective of believers both then and now, this event may be anticipated to take place “shortly.”This is a textbook example of circular reasoning. The author presumes his interpretation, offers little to nothing in the way of proof, and then gleefully points to his presumption as the proof. And does a remarkable leapfrog from John writing the apocalyptic book of Revelation to Paul writing the didactic book of Romans.
I wrote to, Gary DeMar, a very prominent author, anti-dispensationalist and defender of the view that says that most prophecies have been fulfilled in the past, in or around 70 A.D. I simply asked him when he believed Satan would be crushed in light of Romans 16:20. I also asked him if he thought this has already taken place in 70 A.D. Here is his response: The primary reference is the Roman Christians to whom Paul is writing (”your feet” not “their feet,” that is, not the feet of people who were not alive when Paul wrote his letter). The crushing is to take place “soon.” "Soon” means “soon.” Since nearly 2000 years have passed, whatever Paul was describing, it is history. Satan could refer to the apostate Jews who Revelation describes as a “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), the same ones that Jesus describes as being related to the Devil in John 8:44 (”ye are of your father the devil”). The Jews were the ones “who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out,” Paul writes. “They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved, with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost” (1 Thess. 2:14-16). This “wrath” might be Paul’s crushing mataphor. (5/21/01)Gary is absolutely correct and much more patient than he usually is. Then again, if he saw the silliness that was argued in the linked article, I doubt that patience would last in the face of such vapidity.
Ah, we move from the error of circularity to the error of poisoning the well. Let’s see if his argument implodes upon itself.Notice that DeMar, in seeking to understand “soon” literally, is forced to understand the verse in a very non-literal way. He says that “soon” means “soon” but then goes on to explain that Satan does not really mean Satan but it is merely a metaphor for the unbelieving Jews who will be crushed in 70 A.D. This is typical of the preterist position. By insisting that most prophecies find their fulfillment in the first century they are forced to understand most prophecies in a very non-literal way.
Notice that this author, in seeking to understand the “crushing” of satan in a literal way, is forced to understand the verse in a very non-literal way. He says that “satan” means “satan” but then goes on to explain that “soon” does not really mean “soon” but it is merely a metaphor for something that is certain. This is typical of the futurist position. By insisting that most prophecies are yet to be fulfilled, they are forced to understand God’s inspired timing statement for most prophecies in a very non-literal way.
Checkmate.
So does the Bible gives us warrant to interpret satan metaphorically?
Matthew 16:23 - But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Was Peter literally satan?
1 Thessalonians 2:18 - Therefore we wanted to come to you—even I, Paul, time and again—but Satan hindered us.
But who actually hindered them?
1 Thess 2:14 - “For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.”
Ezekiel 28:13-17 - You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: the sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created. You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. By the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within, and you sinned; therefore I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of God; and I destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the fiery stones. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, that they might gaze at you.
This is the King of Tyre, metaphorically represented as satan.
Ouch.
Next?
