Questions on the Binding of Satan

[fralo4truth]

According to the amillennial view of eschatology the binding of Satan as recorded in Rev. 20 has already transpired. Based on Jesus’s statement in Matt. 12:28-29 it leads one to conclude that Satan was bound prior to that time. Do you believe Satan was bound at Jesus’ birth?

As an alternative, it is very easy to ponder that Satan was essentially bound at the time Jesus made these remarks, but he would not officially be so until later, perhaps at Jesus’s death, resurrection, or ascension.

What are your thoughts on this matter? Perhaps I’m splitting hairs here, but hey, I like to split hairs in doctrine!

Also, if Satan deceived the nations PRIOR to his being bound, we should expect to see a great change in the ability (or lack of) of Satan AFTER he was bound; namely, the New Testament era. Yet when I consider how the Romans persecuted the early church for approx. 3 centuries, it is hard for me to picture this not being a deception of nations on the part of Satan as he attempted to check the growth of the Church and/or eliminate it altogether.

Could someone please point out how and if I am incorrect in my thinking here?

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Peairtach]

I believe that the binding of Satan is a process in history from the First Advent until his defeat in history by the Gospel (Revelation 19).

I happen to be a postmillennialist.

See Revelation 20 for the progressive binding of Satan by Christ with the chain of Gospel progress:-

(a) Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain.

(b) And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan,

(c) and bound him for a thousand years,

(d) and threw him into the pit,

(e) and shut it

(f) and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended.

(g) After that he must be released for a little while. (ESV)

It's a process in history, like the leaven or the growth of the mustard seed. Eventually a thorough display will be made of Satan and he'll run out of schemes ending in thorough defeat in history in the spiritual battle of Armageddon, which is long before the Second Advent proper and the Eschaton. See Revelation 19.

Revelation 6-19 details the process from the destruction of Jerusalem to the defeat of all Satan's forces, civil, ecclesiastical and pagan, in history.

See e.g.

Amazon.com: The Life And Writings Of St. John (9781428637085): James M. MacDonald, J. S. Howson: Books

A similar book by James MacDonald - "A Key to Revelation"(?), now out of print - was recommended by Charles Hodge in a footnote in his Systematic Theology.

Someone should reprint it. MacDonald avoids the extremes of preterism e.g. Gentry's placing of Revelation 5-19 all into the first century, with its better insights. A sort of pretero-historicist or historical preterist approach.

But "The Life and Writings of St. John" (above) maybe covers most of what he wrote about Revelation in the book that Hodge recommended.

 

[fralo4truth]

Appreciate your response Richard as I've never heard that before. According to your view then, does Satan presently have the ability to deceive nations or not?

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

As I read Rev. 20:1-9, the specific reason for the binding -- to prevent him from deceiving of the nations until the thousand years are completed (in vv. 2-3 ) -- is exactly the thing he does as soon as he is unbound for a short time (vv. 7-8): "Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations." He is bound in this sense and for this specific reason during the present age.

 

[Bengibor]

fralof4truth, I hope that St. Augustine's exposition on the topic will help you. This is from the City of God- Book XX:

"The Lord Jesus Christ Himself says, "No man can enter into a strong man's house, and Spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man"(6)--meaning by the strong man the devil, because he had power to take captive the human race; and meaning by his goods which he was to take, those who had been held by the devil in divers sins and iniquities, but were to become believers in Himself. It was then for the binding of this strong one that the apostle saw in the Apocalypse "an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the abyss, and a chain in his hand. And he laid hold," he says, "on the dragon, that old serpent, which is called the devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"--that is, bridled and restrained his power so that he could not seduce and gain possession of those who were to be freed. Now the thousand years may be understood in two ways, so far as occurs to me: either because these things happen in the sixth thousand of years or sixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing), as if during the sixth day, which is to be followed by a Sabbath which has no evening, the endless rest of the saints, so that, speaking of a part under the name of the whole, he calls the last part of the millennium--the part, that is, which had yet to expire before the end of the world--a thousand years; or he used the thousand years as an equivalent for the whole duration of this world, employing the number of perfection to mark the fullness of time. For a thousand is the cube of ten. For ten times ten makes a hundred, that is; the square on a plane superficies. But to give this superficies height, and make it a cube, the hundred is again multiplied by ten, which gives a thousand. Besides, if a hundred is sometimes used for totality, as when the Lord said by way of promise to him that left all and followed Him "He shall receive in this world an hundredfold;"(1) of which the apostle gives, as it were, an explanation when he says, "As having nothing, yet possessing all things,"(2)--for even of old it had been said, The whole world is the wealth of a believer,--with how much greater reason is a thousand put for totality since it is the cube, while the other is only the square? And for the same reason we cannot better interpret the words of the psalm, "He hath been mindful of His covenant for ever, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations,"(3) than by understanding it to mean "to all generations."
"And he cast him into the abyss,"--i.e., cast the devil into the abyss. By the abyss is meant the countless multitude of the wicked whose hearts are unfathomably deep in malignity against the Church of God; not that the devil was not there before, but he is said to be cast in thither, because, when prevented from harming believers, he takes more complete possession of the ungodly. For that man is more abundantly possessed by the devil who is not only alienated from God, but also gratuitously hates those who serve God. "And shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years should be fulfilled." "Shut him up,"--i.e., prohibited him from going out, from doing what was forbidden. And the addition of "set a seal upon him" seems to me to mean that it was designed to keep it a secret who belonged to the devil's party and who did not. For in this world this is a secret, for we cannot tell whether even the man who seems to stand shall fall, or whether he who seems to lie shall rise again. But by the chain and prison-house of this interdict the devil is prohibited and restrained from seducing those nations which belong to Christ, but which he formerly seduced or held in subjection. For before the foundation of the world God chose to rescue these from the power of darkness, and to translate them into the kingdom of the Son of His love, as the apostle says.(4) For what Christian is not aware that he seduces nations even now, and draws them with himself to eternal punishment, but not those predestined to eternal life? And let no one be dismayed by the circumstance that the devil often seduces even those who have been regenerated in Christ, and begun to walk in God's way. For "the Lord knoweth them that are His,"(5) and of these the devil seduces none to eternal damnation. For it is as God, from whom nothing is hid even of things future, that the Lord knows them; not as a man, who sees a man at the present time (if he can be said to see one whose heart he does not see), but does not see even himself so far as to be able to know what kind of person he is to be. The devil, then, is bound and shut up in the abyss that he may not seduce the nations from which the Church is gathered, and which he formerly seduced before the Church existed. For it is not said "that he should not seduce any man," but "that he should not seduce the nations"--meaning, no doubt, those among which the Church exists--"till the thousand years should be fulfilled,"--i.e., either what remains of the sixth day which consists of a thousand years, or all the years which are to elapse till the end of the world.
The words, "that he should not seduce the nations till the thousand years should be fulfilled," are not to be understood as indicating that afterwards. he is to seduce only those nations from which the predestined Church is composed, and from seducing whom he is restrained by that chain and imprisonment; but they are used in conformity with that usage frequently employed in Scripture and exemplified in the psalm, "So our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until He have mercy upon us,"(6)--not as if the eyes of His servants Would no longer wait upon the Lord their God when He had mercy upon them. Or the order of the words is unquestionably this, "And he shut him up and set a seal upon him, till the thousand years should be fulfilled;" and the interposed clause, "that he should seduce the nations no more," is not to be understood in the connection in which it stands, but separately, and as if added afterwards, so that the whole sentence might be read, "And He shut him up and set a seal upon him till the thousand years should be fulfilled, that he should seduce the nations no more,"--i.e., he is shut up till the thousand years be fulfilled, on this account, that he may no more deceive the nations.

CHAP. 8.--OF THE BINDING AND LOOSING OF THE DEVIL.

"After that," says John, "he must be loosed a little season." If the binding and shutting up of the devil means his being made unable to seduce the Church, must his loosing be the recovery of this ability? By no means. For the Church predestined and elected before the foundation of the world, the Church of which it is said, "The Lord knoweth them that are His," shall never be seduced by him. And yet there shall be a Church in this world even when the devil shall be loosed, as there has been since the beginning, and shall be always, the places of the dying being filled by new believers. For a little after John says that the devil, being loosed, shall draw the nations whom he has seduced in the whole world to make war against the Church, and that the number of these enemies shall be as the sand of the sea. "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. And the devil who seduced them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."(1) This relates to the last judgment, but I have thought fit to mention it now, lest any one might suppose that in that short time during which the devil shall be loose there shall be no Church upon earth, whether because the devil finds no Church, or destroys it by manifold persecutions. The devil, then, is not bound during the whole time which this book embraces,--that is, from the first coming of Christ to the end of the world, when He shall come the second time,--not bound in this sense, that during this interval, which goes by the name of a thousand years, he shall not seduce the Church, for not even when loosed shall he seduce it. For certainly if his being bound means that he is not able or not permitted to seduce the Church, what can the loosing of him mean but his being able or permitted to do so? But God forbid that such should be the case! But the binding of the devil is his being prevented from the exercise of his whole power to seduce men, either by violently forcing or fraudulently deceiving them into taking part with him. If he were during so long a period permitted to assail the weakness of men, very many persons, such as God would not wish to expose to such temptation, would have their faith overthrown, or would be prevented from believing; and that this might not happen, he is bound.
But when the short time comes he shall be loosed. For he shall rage with the whole force of himself and his angels for three years and six months; and those with whom he makes war shall have power to withstand all his violence and stratagems. And if he were never loosed, his malicious power would be less patent, and less proof would be given of the steadfast fortitude of the holy city: it would, in short, be less manifest what good use the Almighty makes of his great evil. For the Almighty does not absolutely seclude the saints from his temptation, but shelters only their inner man, where faith resides, that by outward temptation they may grow in grace. And He binds him that he may not, in the free and eager exercise of his malice, hinder or destroy the faith of those countless weak persons, already believing or yet to believe, from whom the Church must be increased and completed; and he will in the end loose him, that the city of God may see how mighty an adversary it has conquered, to the great glory of its Redeemer, Helper, Deliverer. And what are we in comparison with those believers and saints who shall then exist, seeing that they shall be tested by the loosing of an enemy with whom we make war at the greatest peril even when he is bound? Although it is also certain that even in this intervening period there have been and are some soldiers of Christ so wise and strong, that if they were to be alive in this mortal condition at the time of his loosing, they would both most wisely guard against, and most patiently endure, all his snares and assaults.
Now the devil was thus bound not only when the Church began to be more and more widely extended among the nations beyond Judea, but is now and shall be bound till the end of the world, when he is to be loosed. Because even now men are, and doubtless to the end of the world shall be, converted to the faith from the unbelief in which he held them. And this strong one is bound in each instance in which he is spoiled of one of his goods; and the abyss in which he is shut up is not at an end when those die who were alive when first he was shut up in it, but these have been succeeded, and shall to the end of the world be succeeded, by others born after them with a like hate of the Christians, and in the depth of whose blind hearts he is continually shut up as in an abyss. But it is a question whether, during these three years and six months when he shall be loose, and raging with all his force, any one who has not previously believed shall attach himself to the faith. For how in that case would the words hold good, "Who entereth into the house of a strong one to spoil his goods, unless first he shall have bound the strong one?" Consequently this verse seems to compel us to believe that during that time, short as it is, no one will be added to the Christian community, but that the devil will make war with those who have previously become Christians, and that, though some of these may be conquered and desert to the devil, these do not belong to the predestinated number of the sons of God. For it is not without reason that John, the same apostle as wrote this Apocalypse, says in his epistle regarding certain persons, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us."(1) But what shall become of the little ones? For it is beyond all belief that in these days there shall not be found some Christian children born, but not yet baptized, and that there shall not also be some born during that very period; and if there be such, we cannot believe that their parents shall not find some way of bringing them to the laver of regeneration. But if this shall be the case, how shall these goods be snatched from the devil when he is loose, since into his house no man enters to spoil his goods unless he has first bound him? On the contrary, we are rather to believe that in these days there shall be no lack either of those who fall away from, or of those who attach themselves to the Church; but there shall be such resoluteness, both in parents to seek baptism for their little ones, and in those who shall then first believe, that they shall conquer that strong one, even though unbound,--that is, shall both vigilantly comprehend, and patiently bear up against him, though employing such wiles and putting forth such force as he never before used; and thus they shall be snatched from him even though unbound. And yet the verse of the Gospel will not be untrue, "Who entereth into the house of the strong one to spoil his goods, unless he shall first have bound the strong one?" For in accordance with this true saying that order is observed--the strong one first bound, and then his goods spoiled; for the Church is so increased by the weak and strong from all nations far and near, that by its most robust faith in things divinely predicted and accomplished, it shall be able to spoil the goods of even the unbound devil. For as we must own that, "when iniquity abounds, the love of many waxes cold,"(2) and that those who have not been written in the book of life shall in large numbers yield to the severe and unprecedented persecutions and stratagems of the devil now loosed, so we cannot but think that not only those whom that time shall find sound in the faith, but also some who till then shall be without, shall become firm in the faith they have hitherto rejected and mighty to conquer the devil even though unbound, God's grace aiding them to understand the Scriptures, in which, among other things, there is foretold that very end which they themselves see to be arriving. And if this shall be so, his binding is to be spoken of as preceding, that there might follow a spoiling of him both bound and loosed; for it is of this it is said, "Who shall enter into the house of the strong one to spoil his goods, unless he shall first have bound the strong one?"

 

[Peairtach]

Appreciate your response Richard as I've never heard that before. According to your view then, does Satan presently have the ability to deceive nations or not?

His power over deceiving the nations will progressively diminish over the centuries as the gospel makes its progress and ousts the power of Satan until all nations are Christianised and incorporated into spiritual Israel. To the extent that the Gospel makes progress and people are converted, the nations are undeceived. The greater the proportion of the converted in the world, the less deceived the nations are.

The process is a bit like the ebb and flow of the tide. The general trend is towards the world being Christianised very slowly over a long period of time, but there are times and places where that process is halted or even reversed.

Also the Book of Revelation teaches that as Satan knows that his time is short, he becomes more desperate and wicked in his schemes until he is finally shut up altogether.

See e.g. I Timothy 3:1-9

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty.
For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people................. But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men. (ESV)


Whereas the interadventual kingdom of Christ symbolically lasts for 1,000 years, the period of struggle between Christ and his true Church and Satan and the First Beast (civil opposition) and the Second Beast (ecclesiastical opposition), lasts symbolically in the Book of Revelation for three and a half years or its equivalents. We are still in that period in history. The truth of the Gospel has not been established in the various nations of the world.

"Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!" And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. (Rev. 12:12-13, ESV)

Almost 2,000 years doesn't seem short to us. But 3 1/2 years is much shorter than 1,000 years. And inspite of everything the Gospel has and is making progress against the machinations of the evil one, which are like the dangerous writhings of a mortally wounded serpent. See e.g. Genesis 3:15.

Why does God do it this way, rather than converting the nations without a long struggle? Would God be as greatly glorified without a fight ?

A similar strategy was followed in the conquest of Canaan. The full glories and extent of Solomon's peaceful kingdom weren't until 400 (?) years after the Israelites entered Canaan. If it took 400 years to conquer Canaan with the sword of iron, how long will it take to conquer the whole earth with the Sword of the Spirit? It's been circa 1,979 years since the Crucifixion already.

I wouldn't presume to critique the mighty Augustine. The best I can hope for is that my comments are somewhat complementary/supplementary to his.

 

[fralo4truth]

As I read Rev. 20:1-9, the specific reason for the binding -- to prevent him from deceiving of the nations until the thousand years are completed (in vv. 2-3 ) -- is exactly the thing he does as soon as he is unbound for a short time (vv. 7-8): "Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations." He is bound in this sense and for this specific reason during the present age.

I totally agree Jimmy. My only problem is seeing how we fit the Roman persecution of the church into all of this. Was this persecution of Satan, and that while he was bound?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

As I read Rev. 20:1-9, the specific reason for the binding -- to prevent him from deceiving of the nations until the thousand years are completed (in vv. 2-3 ) -- is exactly the thing he does as soon as he is unbound for a short time (vv. 7-8): "Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations." He is bound in this sense and for this specific reason during the present age.

I totally agree Jimmy. My only problem is seeing how we fit the Roman persecution of the church into all of this. Was this persecution of Satan, and that while he was bound?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I'm not sure all evil acts by (or among) men must be attributed to Satan. In any case, I would not presume that Satan's "binding" during the church age totally eliminates his influence among sinful men. I am inclined to believe that Christ's words "you are of your father, the Devil" are applicable today even with Satan bound in the Rev 20 sense. I could be wrong. I'm just sayin' . . .

 

[Peairtach]

We see the progressive retreat of Satan in response to Christ's First Advent in Scripture and Church history.

(a) When Christ is born Satan tries to kill Him through the agency of Herod.

(b) Plan B is Satan trying to tempt Christ to sin, in three ways, in the wilderness.

(c) Satan uses Peter to tempt Christ to not go to the Cross.

(d) Satan incites the leaders of Judaea to kill Christ, but paradoxically suffers his greatest defeat at Calvary.

(e) Satan incites the Jewish leaders to oppose and persecute the Church. Christ brings judgment on the Jews in AD 70. This is dealt with in Matthew 24 and Revelation 6-11, which also anticipate later events in church history.

(f) After AD 70 the main opposition to the Church comes from the Roman Empire, which is evntually taken out of the way.

(g) Then Satan infects the Church with Paganism and falsehood. The true Church doesn't break free of this until the Reformation.

(h) Satan is now thrown back on the development of secular humanism from the time of the Enlightenment - c.17th Century to Present.

Liberal/democratic secular humanism which is built on the sand of finite, fallen and fallible human thought, will be brought to a bad end, as have its ugly sisters nationalistic humanism (Fascism) and Marxist humanism (Communism)

Satan's kingdom and strategies are doomed in the (very?) long term.

 

[Parsifal23]

I favor B. B. Warfield's view of The Binding of Satan that is that Satan is bound form bothering the saints in the intermediate state where a she can still harass the saints on earth. I also see it as evil and good will jockey for position until The church Militant is a small persecuted band of believers suffering underneath nightmarish persecution and apostasy then Christ will come and usher in the Eternal State and final judgment

 

[Scott1]

fralo4truth
According to the amillennial view of eschatology the binding of Satan as recorded in Rev. 20 has already transpired. Based on Jesus’s statement in Matt. 12:28-29 it leads one to conclude that Satan was bound prior to that time. Do you believe Satan was bound at Jesus’ birth?

(Asking these questions, not asserting)...

Doesn't amillennialism hold that Satan was bound by the resurrection of Christ?

Also, doesn't it ordinarily hold an apostasy shortly before Christ's return during which Satan is released from being bound?

Are there differences in this within amillennialism (e.g. "optimistic" v "pessimistic")?

 

[bill]

In Luke chapter 10 when Christ sends out the 72 He says in Luke 10:8-12, "8 Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. 9 Heal the sick in it and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.' 10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, 11 'Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.' 12 I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town."

I believe that Christ crushed the serpents head after his death and resurrection witch began the binding of satan. Where he is prevented from deceiving the nations until he is released (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. However during Christ's earthly ministry the Kingdom of God was near and in fact present. The Kingdom of God restricted satan from deceiving those Christ was near. Even in Luke 8: 26-39 the demons beg Christ not to cast them into the abyss, the demons recognized Christ's Sovereignty and his power over them. This is not in my mind in conflict with Matthew 12: 28-29

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Scott

Also, doesn't it ordinarily hold an apostasy shortly before Christ's return during which Satan is released from being bound?

Are there differences in this within amillennialism (e.g. "optimistic" v "pessimistic")?

Being a postmil, I hold to an apostasy shortly before Christ's return. But as Bahnsen once said, There's got to be something to fall away from. In postmil there clearly is something to fall away from. I don't know what there is clearly to fall away from with amil.

I suppose a lot of postmils, like myself, could be called optimistic amils, as many of us believe that the binding of Satan started or was completed with the events of Christ's incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, session and judgment on Jerusalem.

(Most?) postmils today also believe that the postmillennium technically started in the First Century, rather than that it will start at some point in the future e.g. when the Jews believe (Romans 9-11), when the apostate Church(es) is (are) reformed/abolished (Revelation 18) and when all nations and states are Christianised (Revelation 19).

 

[Turtle]

How much is included in "no more"?

"if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." Romans 11:6

 

[Peairtach]

"if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." Romans 11:6

I think you need another thread and section. I understand the above from our Apostle to be saying that justification by grace and works cannot be. It has to be one or the other.

And since we are already sinners it has to be by grace.

"if by grace, then it is not at all of works................But if it be of works, then it is not at all grace..........."

 

[Turtle]

No At All

"if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." Romans 11:6

I think you need another thread and section. I understand the above from our Apostle to be saying that justification by grace and works cannot be. It has to be one or the other.

And since we are already sinners it has to be by grace.

"if by grace, then it is not at all of works................But if it be of works, then it is not at all grace..........."

In light of the opening post, I think a cross reference to Romans is especially appropriate in this thread. The OP raised the topic of Satan being bound and deceiving the nations. The nature of that binding (the extent to which he is bound) is essential, with regard to Satan's deceiving the nations.

Is the original word in Rev 20:3 and Rom 11:6 not the same (and used for the same emphasis of "not at all")? When he is bound does he deceive the nations progressively less, to a lesser extent, or is he completely unable to deceive the nation, no more--not at all, until he is loosed for a season?

In addition to the Rev 20:3 and Rom 11:6, it appears the emphatic nature of the word is used in many other places to express "not at all" or "not any more". Just a few examples:

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted?" Matt 5:13

"They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat." Rev 7:16

"And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee...the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee...the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee" Rev 18:22

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Rev 21:4

"He cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season." Rev 20:3

Do the passages allow for remnants of any saltiness, any hunger, any echos of music, any tears, sorrow or pain... If it is of works, is any grace included... When Satan is in the bottomless pit, shut up, with a seal upon him, to what degree does he yet deceive the nations?

How much is included in "no more"?

Bryan
Tampa, FL

 

[Manuel]

I think the key to interpret the passage lies in the meaning of the phrase "deceive the nations" and the nature and purpose of his binding, not in the phrase "no more". He won't deceive the nations at all during the thousand years, but only in the sense in which this deception of the nations should be understood; in that sense, "no more" means exactly that: "no more". The binding of Satan doesn't mean that he is totally immobilized and unable to operate and deceive in all senses. It is a restriction put on him so he cannot stop the advancement of the Gospel to the nations and also so he cannot provoke the nations to try to annihilate the Christian Church; which is exactly what he will do when he is released from his prison. So that is a good proof that he is bound right now, otherwise, what stops him from deceiving the nations into trying to exterminate all Christians? self control?

 

[Phil_M]

I'm not sure what is needed to interpret, as the passage is quite clear. The need to spiritualize and allegorize arises out of necessity when the system brought to the text doesn't fit with what the text plainly says.

 

[Manuel]

I'm not sure what is needed to interpret, as the passage is quite clear. The need to spiritualize and allegorize arises out of necessity when the system brought to the text doesn't fit with what the text plainly says.

Agree. Also the need to "spiritualize and allegorize", like you say, comes from the literary style and the genre. I think it is kind of absurd to talk about spiritualizing and allegorizing a book that describes seven-headed monsters coming from the sea, women seating on seven hills, red dragons, women clothed with the sun and crowned with stars, locusts that look like horses and have crowns and human faces, chains that can bind spiritual beings, etc. Any literalism of a book like this has to be selective and accusations of "allegorization" sound ridiculous to me. But I agree with you, the passage is clear and it was perfectly explained by the Lord

Mat 12:29 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.

The entire world was in the devil's hands and he had authority over the nations (Luke 4:6), he had a place in heaven accusing the saints, but Christ, by virtue of His perfect obedience, His death and resurrection and further ascension was crowned in heaven as supreme Lord over all creation and Satan has been cast down and bound so he cannot stop the advancement of the Gospel and provoke the nations to outlaw the Gospel and destroy the church.

Before his binding, not even Jesus went beyond the boundaries of Palestine preaching the Gospel, the door was closed, he (satan) had possession of the nations. After His resurrection and just before His ascension (and only then) the Lord says:

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,

Jesus had to bind the strong man in order for us to go and make disciples of all nations, his house could not be plundered when he was loose.

So, the question stands: Satan has been defeated and he knows it, he's angry and in his wrath he wants to obliterate the church, destroy all christians. Why doesn't he do it now? why doesn't he deceive the nations now, how come he is not deceiving our president into making the Gospel illegal and persecuting Christians and putting them to death right now? What is stopping him? is he exercising self-control? did he take anger management classes?

Something or somebody is restricting him. If it's not the binding described in Revelation, what is it?

 

[Peairtach]

I'm not sure what is needed to interpret, as the passage is quite clear. The need to spiritualize and allegorize arises out of necessity when the system brought to the text doesn't fit with what the text plainly says.

Agree. Also the need to "spiritualize and allegorize", like you say, comes from the literary style and the genre. I think it is kind of absurd to talk about spiritualizing and allegorizing a book that describes seven-headed monsters coming from the sea, women seating on seven hills, red dragons, women clothed with the sun and crowned with stars, locusts that look like horses and have crowns and human faces, chains that can bind spiritual beings, etc. Any literalism of a book like this has to be selective and accusations of "allegorization" sound ridiculous to me. But I agree with you, the passage is clear and it was perfectly explained by the Lord

Mat 12:29 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.

The entire world was in the devil's hands and he had authority over the nations (Luke 4:6), he had a place in heaven accusing the saints, but Christ, by virtue of His perfect obedience, His death and resurrection and further ascension was crowned in heaven as supreme Lord over all creation and Satan has been cast down and bound so he cannot stop the advancement of the Gospel and provoke the nations to outlaw the Gospel and destroy the church.

Before his binding, not even Jesus went beyond the boundaries of Palestine preaching the Gospel, the door was closed, he (satan) had possession of the nations. After His resurrection and just before His ascension (and only then) the Lord says:

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,

Jesus had to bind the strong man in order for us to go and make disciples of all nations, his house could not be plundered when he was loose.

So, the question stands: Satan has been defeated and he knows it, he's angry and in his wrath he wants to obliterate the church, destroy all christians. Why doesn't he do it now? why doesn't he deceive the nations now, how come he is not deceiving our president into making the Gospel illegal and persecuting Christians and putting them to death right now? What is stopping him? is he exercising self-control? did he take anger management classes?

Something or somebody is restricting him. If it's not the binding described in Revelation, what is it?

So you disagree that Satan will become further restricted in his activities and ability to deceive the nations - since the nations are still deceived even today by Satan, even although less than they were in the first century and before - as the Gospel makes further progress under Christ?

Has the Gospel made any progress in history and in this world since the First Century -leaving aside the large numbers of souls that have been added to glory since then, for the time being? Is the Church in as weak and small a position as she was in First Century Palestine?

 

[Turtle]

I think the key to interpret the passage lies in the meaning of the phrase "deceive the nations" and the nature and purpose of his binding, ...

The purpose and effect of Satan being bound during the thousands years is plain enough, especially in light of how other verses use the same word.

I am not sure why the OP passage would lead us to conclude Satan is presently bound from deceiving the nations now... there are verses that speak plainly enough about that...

"We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

"if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them"

 

[Phil_M]

I'm not sure what is needed to interpret, as the passage is quite clear. The need to spiritualize and allegorize arises out of necessity when the system brought to the text doesn't fit with what the text plainly says.

Agree. Also the need to "spiritualize and allegorize", like you say, comes from the literary style and the genre. I think it is kind of absurd to talk about spiritualizing and allegorizing a book that describes seven-headed monsters coming from the sea, women seating on seven hills, red dragons, women clothed with the sun and crowned with stars, locusts that look like horses and have crowns and human faces, chains that can bind spiritual beings, etc. Any literalism of a book like this has to be selective and accusations of "allegorization" sound ridiculous to me. But I agree with you, the passage is clear and it was perfectly explained by the Lord

Some say the 6 days of creation isn't literal and we consider them liberal.

What about the text is so unbelievable that it can't be literal? Is it a literal angel? A literal heaven? If not, what does the angel and heaven symbolize?

1Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.

2And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

3and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

Does it say the dragon is bound up, or that merely his abilities are limited as the Amil's teach? It is clearly a person that is bound, not simply an attribute that is limited.

If we say that a bank robber has been chained, bound, and sealed in a jail cell so as not to rob any more banks, no one would assume that only their bank robbing abilities had been disabled while they themselves were still out functioning in society. That would be an absurd understanding.

-----Added 12/27/2009 at 08:13:55 EST-----

I think the key to interpret the passage lies in the meaning of the phrase "deceive the nations" and the nature and purpose of his binding, ...

The purpose and effect of Satan being bound during the thousands years is plain enough, especially in light of how other verses use the same word.

I am not sure why the OP passage would lead us to conclude Satan is presently bound from deceiving the nations now... there are verses that speak plainly enough about that...

"We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

"if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them"

Amen Turtle, it is absurd to think that Satan is not deceiving any nations right now.

 

[fralo4truth]

I think the key to interpret the passage lies in the meaning of the phrase "deceive the nations" and the nature and purpose of his binding, ...

The purpose and effect of Satan being bound during the thousands years is plain enough, especially in light of how other verses use the same word.

I am not sure why the OP passage would lead us to conclude Satan is presently bound from deceiving the nations now... there are verses that speak plainly enough about that...

"We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

"if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them"

Why I would lead one to conclude...?

Your remarks make it sound as if the premillennial view is the standard and that any system which speaks of Satan as an accomplished fact must be a new invention. Surely you know that the whole amillennial view, and not just me, advocates the binding of Satan as a past event, don't you?

But I understand your objections. Trust me. That's the very reason I posted this question. I've had a hard time reconciling the idea of Satan being bound with some of the conflicts with evil which have transpired in the post-Satan bound era (i.e. the New Testament). In particular I noted the Roman persecution of the early church, but probably could have included, for instance, the Inquisition, or any other evil occasion in which Satan seemed to be involved. My question is this:

According to the amillennial view how does one reconcile such terrible persecution by the Romans against the church, all the while Satan is supposedly bound? I admit that it does seem logical, as you would agree, to conclude that Satan was NOT bound, which would easily explain why it transpired.

All the amillennial resources I've consulted have not addressed this particular issue, yet I feel that it seriously needs to be considered.

 

[Turtle]

I think the key to interpret the passage lies in the meaning of the phrase "deceive the nations" and the nature and purpose of his binding, ...

The purpose and effect of Satan being bound during the thousands years is plain enough, especially in light of how other verses use the same word.

I am not sure why the OP passage would lead us to conclude Satan is presently bound from deceiving the nations now... there are verses that speak plainly enough about that...

"We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

"if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them"

Why I would lead one to conclude...?"

Your remarks make it sound as if the premillennial view is the standard and that any system which speaks of Satan as an accomplished fact must be a new invention. Surely you know that the whole amillennial view, and not just me, advocates the binding of Satan as a past event, don't you?...

No, sorry if I wasn't clear.. I meant the passage referred to in the OP (Rev 20).

It was my careful hope that my posts would not be misunderstood to argue in favor or against any millennial view, as I am not persuaded that an allegiance to any millennial view is particularly helpful to discussions.

It was my intention to focus on the text describing Satan being bound to deceive the nations no more, as referred to in the OP. In order to make a case that it did occur, is occurring, or will occur we probably have to establish some criteria to identify what is described.

 

[Manuel]

The purpose and effect of Satan being bound during the thousands years is plain enough, especially in light of how other verses use the same word.

Yes, it is plain enough, the text says: "that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years should be fulfilled." the question now is: what is meant by "deceive the nations"? but you are trying to make a case on the expression "no more"; but our differences have nothing to do with this expression, I understand it exactly like you do (although you as a premillenialist are not consistent in your interpretation of it throughout Scripture, at least, that's my way of seeing it). Our differences come from what do we think that "deceiving the nations" mean.

I am not sure why the OP passage would lead us to conclude Satan is presently bound from deceiving the nations now... there are verses that speak plainly enough about that...

"We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

"if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them"

See what I mean? you conclude that Satan is not bound right now because, according to your interpretation, he is still deceiving the nations. Your interpretation of the phrase "deceiving the nations" leads you to the conclusion that satan's binding is still in the future. You interpret the expression as meaning "being under the power of sin due to satanic influence over the world", that's why you brought those two quotes to prove your point. And that's the problem that i have with premillenialism and that's one of the reasons I abandoned that system, a lot of talk about literal meaning and plain sense that it's nothing but inconsistent, selective literalism that tries to force a preconceived notion into the text. The passage doesn't say, it doesn't even suggest, that deceiving the nations (in that context) has anything to do with keeping individuals under the power of sin. The passage says very clearly what deceiving the nations means, this is what it says

And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea.
Rev 20:7-8

Do you see the difference between forcing your own preconceived notions into the text and letting Scripture speak by itself? What is Satan going to do when he is released from the prison? He is going to DECEIVE THE NATIONS. Now, is he going to keep people under the power of sin is that what he is going to do, is he going to roam around seeking whom to devour, is that what his deception of the nations is gong to be once he is released? No, he is going to deceive all the nations of the world into trying to destroy the people of God once for all. He is going to deceive the nations at THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE WORLD to do one specific thing: to completely annihilate the people of God.

Now, the questions that all premillenialists refuse to answer is this: If Satan is not bound now, why isn't he doing that very thing at this very moment?

That's why I abandoned the selective literalism of premillenialism, it's inconsistent, the Bible was not written to be interpreted that way. If you open the newspaper and you read the news, you interpret them literally, but when your read the editorial cartoon and you see a donkey talking to an elephant, you don't interpret it literally, some things you do, but there are others that you know are symbols that represent something that is different than what is being portrayed at first sight. That's what is called "a literary genre" there are different kinds of them. Revelation was written in a literary genre called "apocalyptic" that uses symbols to represent different realities and is not meant to be interpreted all literally, it is impossible to do that. Some things can be interpreted literally, but the rest you simply can't.

Why should I go to the text that describes the binding of Satan and say "oh, this has to be interpreted literally" when I was just told that a lamb is going to marry a 1,400 cubic-miles city? Should I think that the chain is an actual chain made of steel and the key is an actual key and the pit has a real gate with a lock and an actual, real seal was put on the gate, or should I think that those are just symbols that are trying to paint a picture for me? I think it is more consistent with the rest of the Scripture to interpret as symbols that describe a restriction put on the devil for a very specific purpose.

-----Added 12/28/2009 at 05:52:35 EST-----

Some say the 6 days of creation isn't literal and we consider them liberal.

The book of Genesis doesn't contain all the symbolism that we find in Revelation, they belong to very different literary genres.

What about the text is so unbelievable that it can't be literal? Is it a literal angel? A literal heaven? If not, what does the angel and heaven symbolize?

is it a literal key, a literal gate, a literal chain, a literal seal? what makes me think that this passage describes with symbols a spiritual reality is the use of symbols throughout the entire book and the general teaching of the Scripture regarding satan and the end times.

1Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand.

2And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

3and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.

Does it say the dragon is bound up, or that merely his abilities are limited as the Amil's teach? It is clearly a person that is bound, not simply an attribute that is limited.

If we say that a bank robber has been chained, bound, and sealed in a jail cell so as not to rob any more banks, no one would assume that only their bank robbing abilities had been disabled while they themselves were still out functioning in society. That would be an absurd understanding.

I think it says that he is bound up but it actually means that a restriction was put on him so he doesn't perform a specific activity that is described in verses 7 and 8.

If I read in the newspaper (a publication that generally doesn't use symbols to convey spiritual realities) that a robber (who is not a spiritual entity) has been chained and bound and sealed in a jail so as not to rob banks anymore I interpret it literally, but when I read about seven-headed monsters that come from the sea, and a lamb, who is also a lion, who is also a human being, who is also God, marrying a bride that is a 1400 cubic-miles city, and then I read about chaining a spiritual being for a thousand years, I have a good reason to think that some elements in that description (if not all) are symbolic.

 

[fralo4truth]

Do you see the difference between forcing your own preconceived notions into the text and letting Scripture speak by itself? What is Satan going to do when he is released from the prison? He is going to DECEIVE THE NATIONS. Now, is he going to keep people under the power of sin is that what he is going to do, is he going to roam around seeking whom to devour, is that what his deception of the nations is gong to be once he is released? No, he is going to deceive all the nations of the world into trying to destroy the people of God once for all. He is going to deceive the nations at THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE WORLD to do one specific thing: to completely annihilate the people of God.

Now, the questions that all premillenialists refuse to answer is this: If Satan is not bound now, why isn't he doing that very thing at this very moment?

Appreciate your comments Manuel. I believe your hermeneutics are spot on.

But haven't we seen 'very moments' in history in which Satan, after he was supposedly bound, was 'trying to destroy the people of God once for all', such as the Roman persecution of the church or the Inquisition? If so, how do we account for these things seeing that Satan was bound?

I'm not trying to object here as I agree with you. Just trying to get some answers resolved in my mind.

 

[Scott1]

This is very difficult, because we tend to view history as if it began and ends in our generation.

We see the past "through a glass darkly."

When we say Christ's influence (understanding this in a specific sense since we know He is Sovereign) is increasing, and that Satan's power is gradually being "overcome," how do we account for broad periods of time where the reverse seemed to be the case. (emphasis on the word "seemed")

For example, we might agree that the Middle Ages was, in a sense, was a retreat into superstition and an institutionalized religion. I'm not entirely sure of history on this point, but it does not seem it was a period where the gospel advanced among the nations.

Now acknowledging this would seem to support more amillennialism in that it recognizes good and evil more or less grow side by side until the end of the world.

Isn't that idea more consistent (though imperfectly so) with the notion that the church appears more and less clearly throughout time until our Lord returns.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XXV
Of the Church

....

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]

....

 

[Peairtach]

I think the Church is making progress in history as well as adding saved souls to Heaven. Therefore Satan's binding by the chain of the Gospel is progressive until he is fully bound. Christ is the angel.

See e.g. the parables of the Mustard Seed and Leaven among numerous other Scriptures.

The Gospel will make progress until Satan's kingdom in this world is utterly routed in history under Christ by His Word, Spirit, Church and Providence. See e.g. Revelation 19.

We've gone through a peculiar test of the faith since the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th Centuries, but secular humanistic thinking is showing signs of strain and cracks are appearing. Even over this difficult period, progress has been made. Satan's lies and strategies have become more desperate; e.g. naturalistic evolution, Communism, Fascism, modern and post-modern secular humanism, fanatic Islam. Eventually the dam will burst and the next big Revival and Reformation will outdo the last.

Satan is desperate to keep people from hearing the Gospel, and also desperate to prevent them from receiving it. In the long term his strategies show a pattern of defeat.

See my post number 9 in this thread above, for Satan's pattern of retreat and defeat.

It took over 400 years for the Israelites to fully conquer the Promised Land, which is a type of the Church conquering the Earth by the Gospel.

Would God in Christ have been glorified as well if the world had capitulated in the First Century without a fight? We might think that that would have been "nicer" or, even, better?

Church history tells the story of how God has deigned to get glory for Himself through His people, by struggle against Satan and the forces of iniquity, angelic and human.

We must be patient, or we slip from postmil into amil.

 

[Scott1]

Richard Tallach
Therefore Satan's binding by the chain of the Gospel is progressive until he is fully bound.

Would we say that Satan was bound from "deceiving the nations" in that, in His death, burial and resurrection he broke that power, and from that point on the Gospel went out to the nations?

 

[Turtle]

Affirm the Consequent?

I stated that I have no allegiance to a millennial camp of thought so I don't think it would be useful to respond to assertions to the contrary.

The purpose and effect of Satan being bound during the thousands years is plain enough, especially in light of how other verses use the same word.

Yes, it is plain enough, the text says: "that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years should be fulfilled." the question now is: what is meant by "deceive the nations"? but you are trying to make a case on the expression "no more"; but our differences have nothing to do with this expression, I understand it exactly like you do (although you as a premillenialist are not consistent in your interpretation of it throughout Scripture, at least, that's my way of seeing it). Our differences come from what do we think that "deceiving the nations" mean.

Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on the meaning of "deceive the nations". Yes, you are right, in addition to having disagreement about the relevance of "no more" we also disagree about "deceive the nations" in Rev 20:3. But no worry, I have learned far more by someone disagreeing with me than by someone patting me on the back.

It is fair to observe we both think the other failed to adequately understand or address the other's point. I think you have not adequately addressed the qualifier "no more" and you probably assert I have not adequately addressed the phrase "deceive the nations". Your post helped clarify why we view "deceive the nations" differently. We have concluded that Satan being bound produces two different effects. My reasoning concludes that Satan is bound during the 1,000 years (whatever and whenever that is, it matters not)... the effect of that is a previous status quo is halted or completely reversed, ie. Satan is deceiving the nations no more, no longer, not at all. On the other hand, your reasoning concludes that Satan is bound during the 1,000 years with the effect that he is unable "to gather the nations to battle", until the binding is over.

Why do I think the binding of Satan in Rev 20:3 halts or causes a complete reversal of a previous status quo? It appears to me that the qualifying phrase translated "no more" is used precisely that way in other verses--ie. to describe a halting and reversal of a previous status quo. Those who once had a status quo of a salty savor, having lost their salt, no longer have any savour (Matt 5:13). Those who once believed in salvation by works, upon being made alive together with Christ, they repudiate the former status quo and rejoice that "if it be of grace, it is no more of works (Rom 11:16). Those who once had a status quo of hunger, thirst, and heat, while not serving before the throne of God, once they are serving there they hunger and thirst no more (Rev 7:16). Before Babylon is cast down the voice of harpers and trumpets echo music, the candle shines, and the sound of the millstone is a status quo, but after Babylon is cast down the sound of music is heard "no more at all", the candle shines "no more at all", and the voice of the bridegroom and bride shall be heard "no more at all" (Rev 18:22,23). In each case, where the same original ("no more") is used, the previous status quo was halted and reversed. If we set aside the words "no more", and the similar examples of how it is used, then "deceive the nations" in not qualified thereby, and begs for clarification.

If we set aside the qualifier "no more" (which I obviously don't find advisable) then "deceive the nations" lacks clarity... it might then be understood by comparing Rev 20:8--a possible explanation by way of example of Satan deceiving the nations. We might also find explanation in Rev 18:23 where the nations are deceived. Who's to tell where we find meaning for "deceive the nations"? Especially if we don't value cross references that illuminate the meaning of "no more"... At any rate, reasoning one way concludes that the binding of Satan remedies a long status quo from which the righteous seek relief, but reasoning the other way, the wicked should be thankful that they are not already gathered together in a circle besieging the camp of the saints where fire would already be raining down on them (Rev 20:8,9).


Be that as it may, even if I accepted that Satan is bound and unable to deceive the nations until after the 1,000 years to prevent or delay him being able to gather the nations to battle, your question has not been answered...


Q: "If Satan is not bound now, why isn't he doing that very thing at this very moment?"

A: The proposition affirms the consequent, a logical fallacy.

For example:

When the roads are icy<antecedant>, the mail is late<consequent>.
The mail is late<consequent affirmed>,
therefore the roads are icy<unproven conclusion>.

When Satan is bound, the nations are not being deceived and gathering together to battle.
The nations are not being gathered together for battle,
therefore Satan is currently bound.