Satan bound, 1000 years

[spitndirt]

Hi,

I posted this an another thread but received no answers. Could an orthodox preterist please explain?

Paul instructed the 'Church' to expel the immoral brother.....or, hand him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh.....so that he might be saved in the end. BUT....if Satan is in fact 'bound' at the present time, then of what use would it be to continue this practice seeing that there are none left to desroy the sinners 'flesh'? And....is this one, then, left to just die in his sins???

This is one of the stumbling blocks for me if I am to accept the OP's position. The most logical conclusion would be that Satan is not yet bound, implying that the 'millenium' is yet to come.

Any thoughts.......?

[ross3421]

Hi,


This is one of the stumbling blocks for me if I am to accept the OP's position. The most logical conclusion would be that Satan is not yet bound, implying that the 'millenium' is yet to come.

Any thoughts.......?

Is it possible that Satan whom is not bound today to be bound at some point prior to Christ return? I believe the following verse supports this thought....

Re 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition:

Clearly we see the "beast" arising out of the pit, so he must have been thrown into the pit at some point. We know that this beast is Satan because he is the one with 7 heads and 7 horns as mentioned in verse 7 and chapters 12 & 13. Study chapter 12 and we will see Satan in heaven, then cast out into hell (woe unto them in the sea) and then chapter 13 we see him arising out up from the sea.

Thus the beast that thou sawest was ( where did John see him? heaven), and is not (why is he not? because he was thrown out of heaven and into hell) and yet is ( as he ascends out of the pit for 3.5 years).


So again, Satan is not bound today but will be bound and released prior to the coming of Christ. The misunderstanding is that people are quick to state that if one does not belive Satan is bound during a 1000 years then he must be bound today......

I am not preterist, but believe that 1000 year a metaphorical term.

Mark.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Hi,

I posted this an another thread but received no answers. Could an orthodox preterist please explain?

Paul instructed the 'Church' to expel the immoral brother.....or, hand him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh.....so that he might be saved in the end. BUT....if Satan is in fact 'bound' at the present time, then of what use would it be to continue this practice seeing that there are none left to desroy the sinners 'flesh'? And....is this one, then, left to just die in his sins???

This is one of the stumbling blocks for me if I am to accept the OP's position. The most logical conclusion would be that Satan is not yet bound, implying that the 'millenium' is yet to come.

Any thoughts.......?

Well, Orthodox Preterism is far from monolithic. So you will not get the same answer from every OP. But my understanding of that passage is fairly common (maybe even the majority report) among OP who are also postmill.

First, let's look at the passage:

1Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

To understand the nature of the binding in verses 1-2, we need to see what verse 3 says is the result of said binding.

The result of the binding is that Saton will no longer be able to deceive the nations any longer

So apparantly, deceiveing the nations is something that Satan was/is doing but as a result of the binding, he will no longer be able to do.

How does this fit in an OP framework?

For thousands of years, the worship of Jehovah was almost excusively performed by the Jewish nation (and nations referred to people groups in scripture not just geographic regions, so the diaspora Jews are included in this group). No other nation and/or people group really accepted the worship of the One True God.

We know from Daniel that there were "Demonic Princes" that ruled over other nations (even most Dispies interpret Daniel that way) that the archangel Michael had to struggle to defeat.

However, with the advent of Christ, that changed. Gentile nations were now accepting the Truth of the Gospel and worshiping God (and still are today).

So Satan was able to decieve the vast majority of all the nations of the earth (except the Jewish nation) prior to the incarnation, but afterwards, his power to deceive on a wholesale level was taken away.

Hope that helps.

[A Cup of No]

:thumb:

[drachronicler]

Hi,

I posted this an another thread but received no answers. Could an orthodox preterist please explain?

Paul instructed the 'Church' to expel the immoral brother.....or, hand him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh.....so that he might be saved in the end. BUT....if Satan is in fact 'bound' at the present time, then of what use would it be to continue this practice seeing that there are none left to desroy the sinners 'flesh'? And....is this one, then, left to just die in his sins???

This is one of the stumbling blocks for me if I am to accept the OP's position. The most logical conclusion would be that Satan is not yet bound, implying that the 'millenium' is yet to come.

Any thoughts.......?
Cup,
That is an important bit of evidence that suggests to me that Paul was a greater Christian than I imagined, and that he clearly based his understanding of the true nature of Satan on the Old Testament scriptures Jesus endorsed as the word of God, and not pagan Greek and Zoroastrian mythology like most of the other New Testament writers.

Of course Paul knew Satan was not "bound". The Revelation Scripture of a "bound Satan" is pagan blasphemy stolen directly from Persian Zoroastrian mythology that Paul, being a scholarly Jew (unlike so many Gentile new Testament writers), knew this nonsense was not the word of God.. In the original myth, written hundreds of years earlier, the dragon's name is Ahriman, and Ahura Mazda binds him and casts him into the abyss for 1000 years, after which he would be released unrepentent, and wage war against Ahura again, and be cast into a lake of fire. Hmmmmmm, doesn't that sound familiar? How can any real Christian believe "Revelations" can be the word of God when this material was simply copied from Pagan Persian fairy tales? Simply because a Roman Pope told us to believe it? A pope who attempted to destroy dozens and dozens of other ancient Christian Scriptures, including other Apocolypse books that WERE NOT directly copied out of pagan myths by a religion that claimed the Creator God of the Bible was a terrible dragon and the brother to Ahriman?

Paul didn't believe Satan was "bound" because he, being a scholarly Jew, and not a naive pagan convert, completely understood that Satan was an obedient servant of God, as the Holy Book of Job, emphatically states. This does not make him any nicer however. Paul also understood that Satan was never a fallen angel, for the "Lucifer Myth" would not be invented much later by the church in Rome. He understood that Satan was a Seraph-dragon that devoured the souls of the wicked. This is what the Bible says.

The "Revelations" writer did not understand the Old Testament, and along with other pagan converts, filled the New Testament with pagan dualistic ideas that Satan was an opposer of God and responsible for the Evil in the world, ideas which contradict the Old Testament, word of God, which Jesus endorsed.

It is no wonder Christianity is in such a terrible state, with Catholics and Protestants murdering each other by the millions, and Christian nations responsible for the worst atrocities in human history. This is not the Christianity Jesus preached. Nor is it the "devil's fault" for the real Satan is an obedient servant of God as the Old Testament states. No, it is because Christianity took the wrong path, and turned the only true monotheism into an outrageously blaphemous, dualistic imitation of a cursed pagan religion spawned in Babylon. In fairness, not every Christian recognizes the zoroastrian "Devil" which the Old Testament Satan was transformed into, or the authenticity of Revelations of which completes passages were stolen verbatim from that pagan religion, but is is apparent many confused Christians unfortunately do -- hence the chaotic state of the world today in which supposedly "Christian" nations wreak terrible, ungodly cruelties on others. This pagan Zoroastrian dualism given a "Christian" label by a "Roman" Pope is not the Christianity Jesus taught. And as you can see, Paul understood this.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Of course Paul knew Satan was not "bound". The Revelation Scripture of a "bound Satan" is pagan blasphemy stolen directly from Persian Zoroastrian mythology that Paul, being a scholarly Jew (unlike so many Gentile new Testament writers), knew this nonsense was not the word of God.. In the original myth, written hundreds of years earlier, the dragon's name is Ahriman, and Ahura Mazda binds him and casts him into the abyss for 1000 years, after which he would be released unrepentent, and wage war against Ahura again, and be cast into a lake of fire. Hmmmmmm, doesn't that sound familiar? How can any real Christian believe "Revelations" can be the word of God when this material was simply copied from Pagan Persian fairy tales? Simply because a Roman Pope told us to believe it? A pope who attempted to destroy dozens and dozens of other ancient Christian Scriptures, including other Apocolypse books that WERE NOT directly copied out of pagan myths by a religion that claimed the Creator God of the Bible was a terrible dragon and the brother to Ahriman?

I am no expert on Zorastrianism, but I know a little about this myth. I am not familiar with any text that says that Ahriman was "bound for 1000 years" (yes he was in a swoon state for 3000 years, but that is not the same thing).

I am not saying that there is no text that says this, but that I am unfamiliar with it. Can you provide a link to the relevant Zorastrian text that you base this on?

The "Revelations" writer did not understand the Old Testament, and along with other pagan converts, filled the New Testament with pagan dualistic ideas that Satan was an opposer of God and responsible for the Evil in the world, ideas which contradict the Old Testament, word of God, which Jesus endorsed.

That is a pretty bold statement. Do you have anything substantive to back it up?

Specifically, the writer of Revelation made more allusions to the Old Tetsatment than any other NT writer. Also, although the text was written in Greek, the syntax suggest that the writer thought in Aramaic.

What evidence do you have that the writer of Revelation was a pagan convert????

It is no wonder Christianity is in such a terrible state, with Catholics and Protestants murdering each other by the millions, and Christian nations responsible for the worst atrocities in human history. This is not the Christianity Jesus preached. Nor is it the "devil's fault" for the real Satan is an obedient servant of God as the Old Testament states. No, it is because Christianity took the wrong path, and turned the only true monotheism into an outrageously blaphemous, dualistic imitation of a cursed pagan religion spawned in Babylon.

Wow!!!! Poisoning the well and strawman in the same paragarph. :thumb:

First, everyone from atheist to zoroastrians blame the atrocities in the West on some error in Christianity. The truth is that they can be blamed on sin, pure and simple. Using them to support your pet theory (whatever that theroy may be) is weak argumentation IMO.

Second, the orthodox Christian concept of Satan is hardly "dualistic" in the same sense as Babylonian mythology. Satan is clearly a creature, and clearly inferior in power to Jehovah. Not the equal but evil equivalent to Him.

In fairness, not every Christian recognizes the zoroastrian "Devil" which the Old Testament Satan was transformed into, or the authenticity of Revelations of which completes passages were stolen verbatim from that pagan religion, but is is apparent many confused Christians unfortunately do -- hence the chaotic state of the world today in which supposedly "Christian" nations wreak terrible, ungodly cruelties on others. This pagan Zoroastrian dualism given a "Christian" label by a "Roman" Pope is not the Christianity Jesus taught. And as you can see, Paul understood this.


Oh yeah, I can see Paul understood this:


Romans 16:20The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

1 Corinthians 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

2 Corinthians 2:11 so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

2 Corinthians 12:7 So to keep me from being too elated by the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.
1 Thessalonians 2:18 because we wanted to come to you--I, Paul, again and again--but Satan hindered us.

2 Thessalonians 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders,

1 Timothy 1:20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Timothy 5:15 For some have already strayed after Satan.

Not to mention Paul's instruction on spiritual warfare:

2in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience--

10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

So this non-dualistic, non-zoroastrian concept of Satan and evil spirits as described by orthodox Christians everywhere is the Christianity that Jesus taught. And, as you can see, Paul understood this.

[Ted]

To understand the nature of the binding in verses 1-2, we need to see what verse 3 says is the result of said binding.

The result of the binding is that Saton will no longer be able to deceive the nations any longer

So apparantly, deceiveing the nations is something that Satan was/is doing but as a result of the binding, he will no longer be able to do.

How does this fit in an OP framework?

For thousands of years, the worship of Jehovah was almost excusively performed by the Jewish nation (and nations referred to people groups in scripture not just geographic regions, so the diaspora Jews are included in this group). No other nation and/or people group really accepted the worship of the One True God.

We know from Daniel that there were "Demonic Princes" that ruled over other nations (even most Dispies interpret Daniel that way) that the archangel Michael had to struggle to defeat.

However, with the advent of Christ, that changed. Gentile nations were now accepting the Truth of the Gospel and worshiping God (and still are today).

So Satan was able to decieve the vast majority of all the nations of the earth (except the Jewish nation) prior to the incarnation, but afterwards, his power to deceive on a wholesale level was taken away.
I fear my good friend Faramir has missed an important point. “The nations” is a common OT term for the wicked peoples surrounding “Israel.” The root meaning is thus illustrated: “the faithful.” In the apostolic era, this root meaning was clarified at length by Paul. “Israel” is the church. Thus, “the nations” is no longer a geographic term, but is a religious term, and applies to all the wicked. Therefore, Rev 20:1-3 describes a situation in which Satan is no longer able to deceive the wicked. No Preterist I am aware of has adequately dealt with this. Curiously, they are the ones who rightly define “Israel” in opposition to the Dispy ethnic error.

Chronicler,
The fact that there are similarities between pagan and Christian literature doesn’t mean that Christian literature borrowed from pagan. For example, the lake of fire is an image of the death sentence for the adulterous daughter of a priest in Lev 21:9. You ought to be looking into the possibility that the pagan literature is really a perversion of truly divinely inspired literature. Further, the idea that Satan is a servant of God in Job is total nonsense. Satan had access to heaven until the cross, when he was thrown out (Rev 12).

Ted

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

I fear my good friend Faramir has missed an important point. “The nations” is a common OT term for the wicked peoples surrounding “Israel.” The root meaning is thus illustrated: “the faithful.” In the apostolic era, this root meaning was clarified at length by Paul. “Israel” is the church. Thus, “the nations” is no longer a geographic term, but is a religious term, and applies to all the wicked. Therefore, Rev 20:1-3 describes a situation in which Satan is no longer able to deceive the wicked. No Preterist I am aware of has adequately dealt with this. Curiously, they are the ones who rightly define “Israel” in opposition to the Dispy ethnic error.

Ted. Did you not see my parentetical:

(and nations referred to people groups in scripture not just geographic regions, so the diaspora Jews are included in this group)

I am well aware that nations is not geographic. However, I am not familiar with the arguments that claim that "the nations" now applies to all the wicked. Can you expound on this?


Plus, it is true that rightly defined "Israel" was never based only on ethnicity. However, the vast majority of true "Israel" was ethnically Jewish prior to the first advent.

[drachronicler]

I fear my good friend Faramir has missed an important point. “The nations” is a common OT term for the wicked peoples surrounding “Israel.” The root meaning is thus illustrated: “the faithful.” In the apostolic era, this root meaning was clarified at length by Paul. “Israel” is the church. Thus, “the nations” is no longer a geographic term, but is a religious term, and applies to all the wicked. Therefore, Rev 20:1-3 describes a situation in which Satan is no longer able to deceive the wicked. No Preterist I am aware of has adequately dealt with this. Curiously, they are the ones who rightly define “Israel” in opposition to the Dispy ethnic error.

Chronicler,
The fact that there are similarities between pagan and Christian literature doesn’t mean that Christian literature borrowed from pagan. For example, the lake of fire is an image of the death sentence for the adulterous daughter of a priest in Lev 21:9. You ought to be looking into the possibility that the pagan literature is really a perversion of truly divinely inspired literature. Further, the idea that Satan is a servant of God in Job is total nonsense. Satan had access to heaven until the cross, when he was thrown out (Rev 12).

Ted

Ted,
The problem with that idea, is that, how can Ahuramazda's binding of the the evil dragon, casting it into the abyss, where it remains unrepentant, then when released, forments rebellion again and ultimately burns, possibly be based on St. John's "revelation" when THIS "original" Zoroastrian version was written down hundreds of years earlier? And why would God reveal this to the pagan Persians before the good Christian John, for these same Persians also claim that the Creator-God of the Bible is just another evil dragon, in fact the brother of their own nasty dragon, to be overcome by their god, Ahuramazda?

Draconic-Chronicler

[Ted]

Chronicler,

I am not an expert on ancient mythology. But in my reading of those who are I have seen a repeated pattern where the pagan myths recapitulate biblical stories in corrupted way. The Flood story is a classic, repeated in hundreds of primitive cultures to this day. The best-known ancient version is the Gilgamesh epic. Also, the AhuraMazda stories include corruptions of several biblical stories from long before the AhuraMazda mythology. So, while I cannot argue in specific, as I study, I have found that when I dig into any of these stories, good, credible explanations of biblical precedence and pagan corruption are found. Thus, I find your arguments to be unlikely and probably inaccurate.

Faramir,

I did not notice your parenthetical. But you go on to argue that Gentile nations were now accepting the Truth of the Gospel and worshiping God (and still are today).
Since this is an ethnic and geographic argument, I don’t see how your parenthetical affects it.

However, I am not familiar with the arguments that claim that "the nations" now applies to all the wicked. Can you expound on this?
I think you will agree that Revelation presents many arguments in the context of opposites. For example, in Rev 11, the Temple is presented as the place of true worshipers, while the court outside is given to the “Nations,” who will tread it under foot for 42 months (11:1-2). Thus, the “Nations” are the opposite of worshipers, i.e. they are the wicked.

Before I leave this imagery, I am aware that Gentry and Chilton have tried to make this into an AD70 description. Put bluntly, that is lame. If the imagery is to have any meaning in an AD70 context, the 42 months of trampling have to be GENTILE. But the trampling before the destruction of Jerusalem was by the Zealots, who were JEWS.

Let’s go on to verse 18. There we see that the time to “destroy those who destroy the earth” and to reward the prophets and saints. In this same verse we discover that “the nations were enraged.” If “the nations” is based on ethnicity or ordinary geography, they will consist of a mix of saints and wicked. There is no way that “the nations” would be enraged. But, if “the nations” describes only the wicked (the opposite of true “Israel”), then it is only natural that they would become angry when their destruction is announced.

No, the NT doesn’t go to the same length to explicitly declare that “the nations” are the wicked as it does to explain that true “Israel” is the church. There are, in fact, some places where the term is used in an ordinary geographic sense. But when we look in a redemptive sense, particularly in Revelation (the local context of Rev 20), we can see that the proper understanding is that the term refers to the wicked. It is simply a natural extension of the OT language in a NT context.

We could continue with 14:8, 16:9, 17:15, 18:3, 23, and 19:15. Each of these is a reasonably clear usage of the term in the way I have described. Now, I will not try to make it a technical term. The language in 10:11, 12:5, and so on is not sufficiently clear in isolation to demand the definition above. Thus, the usage is contextual, not technical.

Plus, it is true that rightly defined "Israel" was never based only on ethnicity. However, the vast majority of true "Israel" was ethnically Jewish prior to the first advent.
Agreed.

Ted

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir,

I did not notice your parenthetical. But you go on to argue that
Since this is an ethnic and geographic argument, I don’t see how your parenthetical affects it.


I think you will agree that Revelation presents many arguments in the context of opposites. For example, in Rev 11, the Temple is presented as the place of true worshipers, while the court outside is given to the “Nations,” who will tread it under foot for 42 months (11:1-2). Thus, the “Nations” are the opposite of worshipers, i.e. they are the wicked.

Before I leave this imagery, I am aware that Gentry and Chilton have tried to make this into an AD70 description. Put bluntly, that is lame. If the imagery is to have any meaning in an AD70 context, the 42 months of trampling have to be GENTILE. But the trampling before the destruction of Jerusalem was by the Zealots, who were JEWS.

Let’s go on to verse 18. There we see that the time to “destroy those who destroy the earth” and to reward the prophets and saints. In this same verse we discover that “the nations were enraged.” If “the nations” is based on ethnicity or ordinary geography, they will consist of a mix of saints and wicked. There is no way that “the nations” would be enraged. But, if “the nations” describes only the wicked (the opposite of true “Israel”), then it is only natural that they would become angry when their destruction is announced.

No, the NT doesn’t go to the same length to explicitly declare that “the nations” are the wicked as it does to explain that true “Israel” is the church. There are, in fact, some places where the term is used in an ordinary geographic sense. But when we look in a redemptive sense, particularly in Revelation (the local context of Rev 20), we can see that the proper understanding is that the term refers to the wicked. It is simply a natural extension of the OT language in a NT context.

We could continue with 14:8, 16:9, 17:15, 18:3, 23, and 19:15. Each of these is a reasonably clear usage of the term in the way I have described. Now, I will not try to make it a technical term. The language in 10:11, 12:5, and so on is not sufficiently clear in isolation to demand the definition above. Thus, the usage is contextual, not technical.


Ted

Well, I happen to agree with Chilton (have not read Gentry on this that I recall). Specifically I see most, if not all, of Revelation as sort of a "covenantal" divorce decree to ethnic Israel (the harlot) and an announcement of the Covenant being passed along to the Church (the Bride).

In this context, there is at the time of writing (assuming an early date) very little (if any) distinction between "nation" and "wicked". The church is still largely Jewish and considered a sect within Judaism.

However, even if I didn't and assumed that in some context nations mean "the wicked" it seems that in the specific context of this passage (Rev. 20) it seems to me that that use of the word is a bit redundant.

and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the wicked any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.



If Satan can’t deceive, presumably there are no more wicked. In other words, the way I understand your interpretation (and I could be way off so let me know if I am), you are saying that v. 3 says that Satan will no longer be able to deceive those that he has deceived. Seems somewhat self contradictory to me. So the context would suggest a different understanding of nation here.



To make a long post short. We both bring a lot of presuppositions to this post as to the overall theme of Revelation (and eschatology in general). Unfortunately, I do not have the time to regress layer by layer to give a detailed explanation for the foundational reasons I hold my particular view of v. 3.



With that said, I would LOVE to hear what you have to say, and try to respond as best I can. But understand that I may not have the time to engage in an equal exchange with you .





Your friend,



:sig:



Faramir