Binding of Satan

[Littlejoe]

Unless Revelation is achronological on top of being symbolic, then this doesn't explain what the binding is. It happens at the beginning of the Millenium, after the Tribulation. Acts is supposed to be written before Revelation as well IIRC.

Yes, I agree you are correct about the timing. Depends on the dating of both books (obviously). Acts could not have been written before the early to mid 60's since it ends with Paul still in Prison. Coincidentally, the early dating for Revelation, held to by Preterists (and which is obviously in dispute by most Futurists who date it in the A.D. 90's) ranges from A.D. 51 to ~A.D. 68. So, it's conceivable that they were written at the same time (though certainly not proven).

Oh, and it doesn't seem to be different from before Jesus' resurrection when He sent out the disciples. Given the significance given to the binding of Satan in Revelation, I would expect at minimum a significant difference in spiritual warfare.

I disagree with you here. Comparing the spiritual warfare of 70+ disciples to the estimated 2.2 billion Christians is IMO significant! Looking at the Gospels, we see that Israel during this time was massively oppressed and possessed of demonic activity. Jesus cast out many, many demons and healed many people "...oppressed by the devil" as Peter said to Cornelius in Acts. I don't think we see near as much demonic activity now as they did then...IMO that is. In the Partial Preterist view (PP) From the time of A.D. 70 and the nail in the coffin of the Old Covenant with the destruction of the Temple, we see that Jerusalem becomes inhabited with a majority Christian population...and coincidentally, flourishing under Muslim rule after 637, is relatively peaceful until 1 thousand years later in 1071 when again ironically it's set ablaze by Christians during the Crusades. I think most PP's would agree that Revelation is mostly about the end of the O.T. and the end of Jerusalem as the "seat of God" with the Jewish people in charge of it...so to speak.

The wording in Revelation seems to be about as explicit as you can get for a total binding*. It doesn't seem to make much sense to bind only Satan, and not other demonic forces. The False Prophet and Beast are said to already be in the lake of fire, so they are taken care of that way.

*Chains, a pit, and the pit itself being sealed up. That's pretty extensive binding.

OBP's point that Satan being bound does not necessarily entail all the demons that were under him are bound is something that cannot be summarily dismissed. I'm not sure why you think it makes no sense to imprison the leader and not the followers. I would submit that we aren't privy to that information, so your reasoning, though sound, is not the only reasoning that is sound. Think about Germany, every single Nazi was not imprisoned or executed. Many of the soldiers were allowed to return home to their families, only the ringleaders were punished. At best I think both sides have a legitimate argument based on their view, but it's an argument from silence.

James says: "When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." -James 1:13-15
In this passage, James points to the fact that neither God nor the devil are necessarily the source of the temptation or the evil that follows. IOW, man himself is quite capable of evil even if Satan were bound.

Do you agree or disagree that Jesus defeated Satan at the cross/resurrection? (I say yes he did!) How about conquered him? (Again I say yes he did!) But, did not bind him? (once more I say, yes he did)
Jesus said that he did in Matt 12:22-29 (as well as Mk 3 and Luke 11) in talking about casting out demons, that if he "...cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has come..." He goes on to say: " 29 Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house." Then in 31 he says that Therefore I tell you every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people..." It seems logical to me that Christ says the He came and bound the strong man (Satan) in order to destroy his kingdom and his works and to establish the Kingdom of God.

[Cerebrum123]

Yes, I agree you are correct about the timing. Depends on the dating of both books (obviously). Acts could not have been written before the early to mid 60's since it ends with Paul still in Prison. Coincidentally, the early dating for Revelation, held to by Preterists (and which is obviously in dispute by most Futurists who date it in the A.D. 90's) ranges from A.D. 51 to ~A.D. 68. So, it's conceivable that they were written at the same time (though certainly not proven).

Even if the works were written in the same time frame, the events they speak of aren't. 70 A.D. would or after would be when the binding spoken of takes place under a Preterist scenario. I think there would be a rather significant difference between what we see in Acts, and what we see after 70ish A.D

I disagree with you here. Comparing the spiritual warfare of 70+ disciples to the estimated 2.2 billion Christians is IMO significant! Looking at the Gospels, we see that Israel during this time was massively oppressed and possessed of demonic activity. Jesus cast out many, many demons and healed many people "...oppressed by the devil" as Peter said to Cornelius in Acts. I don't think we see near as much demonic activity now as they did then...IMO that is. In the Partial Preterist view (PP) From the time of A.D. 70 and the nail in the coffin of the Old Covenant with the destruction of the Temple, we see that Jerusalem becomes inhabited with a majority Christian population...and coincidentally, flourishing under Muslim rule after 637, is relatively peaceful until 1 thousand years later in 1071 when again ironically it's set ablaze by Christians during the Crusades. I think most PP's would agree that Revelation is mostly about the end of the O.T. and the end of Jerusalem as the "seat of God" with the Jewish people in charge of it...so to speak.

Many of the 2.2 billion don't even seem to know there is spiritual warfare is going on. Some just don't seem to think it could happen to them, and others, like my uncle, think that demons just don't exist. Of those that do know about it many don't know what to do with anything more obviously demonic.

Satan doesn't usually come with horns and a pitchfork, but masquerading as an angel of light.

OBP's point that Satan being bound does not necessarily entail all the demons that were under him are bound is something that cannot be summarily dismissed. I'm not sure why you think it makes no sense to imprison the leader and not the followers. I would submit that we aren't privy to that information, so your reasoning, though sound, is not the only reasoning that is sound. Think about Germany, every single Nazi was not imprisoned or executed. Many of the soldiers were allowed to return home to their families, only the ringleaders were punished. At best I think both sides have a legitimate argument based on their view, but it's an argument from silence.

I don't think the comparison is valid when human wars are so different. In more recent history people mostly keep to themselves unless they are in a war. When the war is over they just want to go back to the lives they had before. With the demons it is different. They know they have lost, but each and every one of them is out to do as much harm as they can. Even one "lesser" demon has massive power. They are also under no illusion that if they just behave they will be spared. They have no incentive to "live and let live".

James says: "When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." -James 1:13-15
In this passage, James points to the fact that neither God nor the devil are necessarily the source of the temptation or the evil that follows. IOW, man himself is quite capable of evil even if Satan were bound.

I agree that mankind can be bad enough on its own. Much of what I've seen and learned about doesn't seem to fit with just mankind's own inherent tendency to sin. There is far more going on out there.

Do you agree or disagree that Jesus defeated Satan at the cross/resurrection? (I say yes he did!) How about conquered him? (Again I say yes he did!) But, did not bind him? (once more I say, yes he did)
Jesus said that he did in Matt 12:22-29 (as well as Mk 3 and Luke 11) in talking about casting out demons, that if he "...cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has come..." He goes on to say: " 29 Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house." Then in 31 he says that Therefore I tell you every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people..." It seems logical to me that Christ says the He came and bound the strong man (Satan) in order to destroy his kingdom and his works and to establish the Kingdom of God.

I would say yes to the first two, but only in a sense. The "war" might be over, but there are many battles still being wages in the process of cleaning up. The battles seem to be just as fierce regardless of location or time.

[Littlejoe]

Even if the works were written in the same time frame, the events they speak of aren't. 70 A.D. would or after would be when the binding spoken of takes place under a Preterist scenario. I think there would be a rather significant difference between what we see in Acts, and what we see after 70ish A.D

Why do you say the events they speak of are not the same time frame? OP's would say that's not entirely correct. Revelation would be a much broader picture though. For instance, there are OP's that see Revelation 11 to be recounting the ministry of Christ, his death, burial and resurrection and the ascension seen in Acts 1:6-9 and Revelation 12 as the birth of the Church. Christ ascends to heaven in 11 and in 12 we see that his arrival in heaven results in Satan being banished from heaven and thrown down to earth.

Many of the 2.2 billion don't even seem to know there is spiritual warfare is going on. Some just don't seem to think it could happen to them, and others, like my uncle, think that demons just don't exist. Of those that do know about it many don't know what to do with anything more obviously demonic.

Well that's true of many, but many is by no means all, and the ones who do recognize it are much more than the 70 disciples sent out by Christ wouldn't you agree? I have read where the spiritual warfare view is widely held in many African and Asian churches. But, their culture already inclines them that way. (Also, my denomination holds that view as well but many do indeed lack knowledge on the subject.)

Satan doesn't usually come with horns and a pitchfork, but masquerading as an angel of light.

Well, he certainly can and does come masquerading as an angel of light, but I'm not sure you can say that he "usually" does.

I don't think the comparison is valid when human wars are so different. In more recent history people mostly keep to themselves unless they are in a war. When the war is over they just want to go back to the lives they had before. With the demons it is different. They know they have lost, but each and every one of them is out to do as much harm as they can. Even one "lesser" demon has massive power. They are also under no illusion that if they just behave they will be spared. They have no incentive to "live and let live".

Fair enough, but you haven't given a Biblical reason to believe that all of the demonic horde is bound like Satan is.

It's simply one of the "plausible" explanations, not that it's necessarily so and I'm not married to it.

I agree that mankind can be bad enough on its own. Much of what I've seen and learned about doesn't seem to fit with just mankind's own inherent tendency to sin. There is far more going on out there.

No it surely not, and it's why I'm teaching a series on it! Certainly there's more going on, never said otherwise. Just pointing to the fact that it's not "just" demonic activity either.

I would say yes to the first two, but only in a sense. The "war" might be over, but there are many battles still being wages in the process of cleaning up. The battles seem to be just as fierce regardless of location or time.

Ok, but Christ says that he went into the strong man's (Satan's) house, and bound him so as to plunder his goods (people under his power). It's how he established God's Kingdom. Which he clearly says has come upon them in verse 28. -Matt 12:28

I agree the battles are still raging, again, never said otherwise, but I think they are less frequent and less fierce "as a whole" than they were.

[Cerebrum123]

Why do you say the events they speak of are not the same time frame? OP's would say that's not entirely correct. Revelation would be a much broader picture though. For instance, there are OP's that see Revelation 11 to be recounting the ministry of Christ, his death, burial and resurrection and the ascension seen in Acts 1:6-9 and Revelation 12 as the birth of the Church. Christ ascends to heaven in 11 and in 12 we see that his arrival in heaven results in Satan being banished from heaven and thrown down to earth.

Revelation 20 is at the end of the 7 year Tribulation, and marks the beginning of the Millenium alongside "the first resurrection" in which those who were "beheaded in the name of Christ" were supposed to be brought back to reign alongside Him for 1,000 years. Like I said earlier, unless Revelation is achronological as well as heavily symbolic you are talking about different periods of time.

Well that's true of many, but many is by no means all, and the ones who do recognize it are much more than the 70 disciples sent out by Christ wouldn't you agree? I have read where the spiritual warfare view is widely held in many African and Asian churches. But, their culture already inclines them that way. (Also, my denomination holds that view as well but many do indeed lack knowledge on the subject.)

How many of those who do are casting out demons like the disciples did? Even when Jesus cast them out all they ever seemed to do was move elsewhere, like when they went into the herd of pigs.

Well, he certainly can and does come masquerading as an angel of light, but I'm not sure you can say that he "usually" does.

Jibreel in Islam, and Moroni in Mormonism are two prominent examples I can think of that fit with this. I remember reading about a lot more, but can't remember the details on what work(s) it(they) were from. Deception is one of the primary tools of Satan, and being seen as something good works in his favor.

Fair enough, but you haven't given a Biblical reason to believe that all of the demonic horde is bound like Satan is.

It's simply one of the "plausible" explanations, not that it's necessarily so and I'm not married to it.

I gave a logical one based on what the Bible does teach about the subject. It's also partly based on personal experience with the demonic. Locking up Satan without locking up the "lesser" demons won't do much good. That kind of thing only works when you have a group that will be unwilling/unable to fight without their leader. Demons are not like that, they will steal, kill, and destroy for the sake of it.

No it surely not, and it's why I'm teaching a series on it! Certainly there's more going on, never said otherwise. Just pointing to the fact that it's not "just" demonic activity either.

I've never said it was "just" demonic activity either.

Ok, but Christ says that he went into the strong man's (Satan's) house, and bound him so as to plunder his goods (people under his power). It's how he established God's Kingdom. Which he clearly says has come upon them in verse 28. -Matt 12:28

I can only see this as accurate in a much looser sense than Revelation 20 speaks of. Especially since Jesus later speaks how Satan wants to sift Peter like wheat, and is going to be allowed to do so.

I agree the battles are still raging, again, never said otherwise, but I think they are less frequent and less fierce "as a whole" than they were.

I really don't see that. If anything things seem to be as bad as ever. Although, given what I've heard from others it is getting worse lately. Many who experience such things are either won't to bring it up because they are afraid they will seem crazy, or are so traumatized they would prefer to try and lock it out of their memories.

[KingsGambit]

I really don't see that. If anything things seem to be as bad as ever. Although, given what I've heard from others it is getting worse lately. Many who experience such things are either won't to bring it up because they are afraid they will seem crazy, or are so traumatized they would prefer to try and lock it out of their memories.

I disagree with this one point. The gospel has been preached worldwide which it hadn't been in past centuries.

[Littlejoe]

Revelation 20 is at the end of the 7 year Tribulation, and marks the beginning of the Millenium alongside "the first resurrection" in which those who were "beheaded in the name of Christ" were supposed to be brought back to reign alongside Him for 1,000 years. Like I said earlier, unless Revelation is achronological as well as heavily symbolic you are talking about different periods of time.

Well, no, you're assuming a Futurist view as the only correct one. (BTW, I was a futurist for 20+ years after my conversion and I'm still married to one) But from the Preterist standpoint, there's not problem. All that happened back in A.D. 70. I don't know how you know that the Christian martyrs of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem were not resurrected?

As you know (you're a sharp guy and well read, so this is for the readers more than for you) Preterists are pretty much only waiting on Christ bodily coming and a final judgement. Most of that begins in Rev. 21

How many of those who do are casting out demons like the disciples did? Even when Jesus cast them out all they ever seemed to do was move elsewhere, like when they went into the herd of pigs.

I'm not sure on a hard number, my wife was involved in it for several years and she was taught by a group that also did it. So, I have first hand knowledge of it, but to you that's purely annectdotal which is understandable. But, maybe it helps you to see it a little from my POV?

Implying to me anyway's that it's possible they were destroyed when the swine ran down the hill to the cliff and were drowned. I mean, angels and demons are created beings and IMO can be killed.

Jibreel in Islam, and Moroni in Mormonism are two prominent examples I can think of that fit with this. I remember reading about a lot more, but can't remember the details on what work(s) it(they) were from. Deception is one of the primary tools of Satan, and being seen as something good works in his favor.

No doubt! I agree deception is one of his primary tools.

I gave a logical one based on what the Bible does teach about the subject. It's also partly based on personal experience with the demonic. Locking up Satan without locking up the "lesser" demons won't do much good. That kind of thing only works when you have a group that will be unwilling/unable to fight without their leader. Demons are not like that, they will steal, kill, and destroy for the sake of it.

Yes, it's certainly plausible, but again, I think you are arguing from silence. Please feel free to show me how scripture would support the logical conclusion you are reaching. I honestly don't see it. But again, I'm not married to it.

I've never said it was "just" demonic activity either.

No you're right, you didn't, but you seemed to be implying it was primarily​ demonic, that's what I was responding to. Primarily implied to me to be almost always/mostly. It that was wrong I apologize.

I can only see this as accurate in a much looser sense than Revelation 20 speaks of. Especially since Jesus later speaks how Satan wants to sift Peter like wheat, and is going to be allowed to do so.

Satan had to ask permission though...that implies a binding IMO. No?

I really don't see that. If anything things seem to be as bad as ever. Although, given what I've heard from others it is getting worse lately. Many who experience such things are either won't to bring it up because they are afraid they will seem crazy, or are so traumatized they would prefer to try and lock it out of their memories.

Well, again I disagree, there may be activity but if you read the bible, there was massive amounts of demonic activity in that little country of Israel. I shudder to think what it was like in other places that openly worshiped demonic "gods" and such. I think relatively speaking, the activity seems to be far less in the here and now. That doesn't mean it's non-existent though. We agree on that much!

[Cerebrum123]

I disagree with this one point. The gospel has been preached worldwide which it hadn't been in past centuries.

Think of it this way, the demons were pretty much in control back then. Because of that they didn't have to fight as fiercely to get their way. Revelation 20 also describes Satan's release, which seems pretty intense. Intense enough to be described as him gathering armies from the world to destroy what appears to be a restored Jerusalem.

Well, no, you're assuming a Futurist view as the only correct one. (BTW, I was a futurist for 20+ years after my conversion and I'm still married to one) But from the Preterist standpoint, there's not problem. All that happened back in A.D. 70. I don't know how you know that the Christian martyrs of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem were not resurrected?

As you know (you're a sharp guy and well read, so this is for the readers more than for you) Preterists are pretty much only waiting on Christ bodily coming and a final judgement. Most of that begins in Rev. 21

I didn't say they weren't resurrected. I said that the binding and "first resurrection" are said to happen at approximately the same time. I was trying to establish a timeline for it, and in Revelation has the markers of the beginning of the Millenium as Satan being bound, and the "first resurrection". This should be true under either Preterism or Futurism.

I'm not sure on a hard number, my wife was involved in it for several years and she was taught by a group that also did it. So, I have first hand knowledge of it, but to you that's purely annectdotal which is understandable. But, maybe it helps you to see it a little from my POV?

A while back when there was a demonic entity in our past house we asked our pastor for help. My first experience was after said attempt at getting rid of it.

Implying to me anyway's that it's possible they were destroyed when the swine ran down the hill to the cliff and were drowned. I mean, angels and demons are created beings and IMO can be killed.

Seeing this I have to ask if you believe in "soul sleep" or "physicalism"? Do you believe that we are just gone when our bodies die? I certainly don't, especially after what I've seen. To think that killing a host body of a demon kills it comes off as ridiculous to me. They don't even need bodies, and can do things that are very hard to understand even without one.

Jesus spoke of demons that were cast out just returning if the person they were cast out didn't change. Granted, the host didn't die, but since they are spiritual beings a bodily death wouldn't harm them.

Matthew 12:43 “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45 Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”

No doubt! I agree deception is one of his primary tools.

Yes, it's certainly plausible, but again, I think you are arguing from silence. Please feel free to show me how scripture would support the logical conclusion you are reaching. I honestly don't see it. But again, I'm not married to it.

It flows from a couple of key points.

Revelation 12:12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.”

The other demons would have the same basic understanding.

The angel who was held back by the "Prince of Persia" seems to be a "lesser" angel since he required Michael's help to get to Daniel. Simply being in the room where Daniel encountered him, without actually seeing him, filled them with such terror they fled and hid themselves.

Daniel 10:7 I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; those who were with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. 8 So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. 9 Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground.

That was the result on people from one angel that wasn't even seen. How much worse it would be with something with similar power that actually intended harm?

So, they are all lashing out because they know they have no chance, and even the least demon has powers unimaginable for humans. Binding Satan, but not binding the others would be pointless.

No you're right, you didn't, but you seemed to be implying it was primarily​ demonic, that's what I was responding to. Primarily implied to me to be almost always/mostly. It that was wrong I apologize.

I'm not always as clear as I intend to be, so I don't mind clarifying things when asked.

Satan had to ask permission though...that implies a binding IMO. No?

No, unless you believe he was bound as far back as Job. He had to repeatedly ask for permission then too.

Well, again I disagree, there may be activity but if you read the bible, there was massive amounts of demonic activity in that little country of Israel. I shudder to think what it was like in other places that openly worshiped demonic "gods" and such. I think relatively speaking, the activity seems to be far less in the here and now. That doesn't mean it's non-existent though. We agree on that much!

It's still happening quite often, and all over the world. I would think Israel would have had more activity then than the other areas simply due to the fact that it was the "front lines" of battle at the time. Such places where foreign "gods" were worshiped were places they had effectively "owned". You usually don't fight on your own turf unless a threat shows up. The places that seem to have the most obviously demonic activity are those with a strong Christian presence, and third world countries that are being evangelized.

I have noticed that the occult, New Age, and various pagan beliefs seem to be gaining more acceptance. Usually the latter is given a secular "gloss" though not always.

More recently though they seem to be trying to identify themselves as aliens. At least in the more secularized countries. Even secular UFOlogists* see a link between alien encounters and demons. John Keel said the following.

“Millions of people have been affected at least temporarily by UFO contact, [and] thousands have gone insane and ended up in mental institutions after their experiences with these things began.”

“The UFOs do not seem to exist as tangible, manufactured objects. They do not conform to the natural laws of our environment. They seem to be nothing more than transmogrifications tailoring themselves to our abilities to understand. The thousands of contacts with the entities indicate that they are liars and put-on artists. The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demonological phenomenon. Officialdom may feel that if we ignore them long enough, they will go away all together, taking their place with the vampire myths of the Middle Ages.”

“Demonology is not just another crackpot-ology. It is the ancient and scholarly study of the monsters and demons who have seemingly coexisted with man throughout history. Thousands of books have been written on the subject, many of them authored by educated clergymen, scientists, and scholars, and uncounted numbers of well-documented demonic events are readily available to every researcher. The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar, if not entirely identical, to the UFO phenomenon itself. Victims of demonomania (possession) suffer the very same medical and emotional symptoms as the UFO contactees … . The devil and his demons can, according to the literature, manifest themselves in almost any form and can physically imitate anything from angels to horrifying monsters with glowing eyes. Strange objects and entities materialize and dematerialize in these stories, just as the UFOs and their splendid occupants appear and disappear, walk through walls, and perform other supernatural feats.”

Jacques Vallee, who was the inspiration for a character in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" said this.

“I pointed out in Invisible College that the structure of abduction stories was identical to that of occult rituals. I had shown in Passport to Magonia that contacts with ufonauts was only a modern extension of contact with non-human consciousness in the form of angels, demons, elves, and sylphs. Such contact includes abduction, ordeal (including surgical operations), and sexual intercourse with the aliens. It often leaves marks and scars on the body and the mind, as do UFO abductions.”

When writing "The Screwtape Letters" C.S. Lewis talks through the character Screwtape about how the demons were working on creating a "Materialist Magician" one who believes in "forces", but not God. They seem to be pretty well under way to achieving this with the deception they are spreading around as "aliens".

*Despite many seeing this kind of thing as crazy, it's become more acceptable in the West to believe in aliens than in demons.