A few days ago I did a post called Is Reformed Eschatology Hard to Understand? in which I dealt with a prior comment on another post to the extent that it is. In that I contended that Reformed eschatology is actually fairly easy to understand (although I suppose I should admit that many of us have a gift for making the easy difficult). It may be completely wrong, but I don't think it is hard to understand conceptually.
So, that post wasn't meant to be an explanation or apologetic defense of Reformed eschatology. And really, it is hard to pin down one particular eschatological view and call it the Reformed view, as several views have been tolerated within the Reformed camp. What all of the views have in common is that they see a unity between Israel and the church, but beyond that, it's hard to pick one as the reformed view. For my purposes I think I'll just drop that terminology for now and say that I am speaking of amillennialism, since it's my own view.
Since that post was neither explanation nor apology I thought it wise to provide something in the way of such. The prior post was simply to saying that amillennialism is easy to understand, I love it and makes me feel all tingly inside. Today I want to begin what I hope can become a series of posts explaining and defending the amillennial position, but I want to interrupt this series here at the beginning to address a matter that came up in a comment.
One of the commenters objected to the way we amils twist the Scriptures and suggest that we live in a world where Satan is bound. I want to take up the idea of Satan being bound here.
To give you some perspective most of us amils believe in the recapitulation view of the book of Revelation. This means that Revelation isn't written chronologically, rather it is written as a series of seven cycles of judgment. What is germane to this discussion is that we believe there is a break in cycles between Revelation 19 and 20. Thus, the events of Revelation 20 don't follow Revelation 19 chronologically, they start a new cycle of judgment. I don't want to argue that right now, I'm just using it for background.
We believe that the millennium described in Revelation 20 is the period of time between the first and second advents of Christ. Hence, we now live in the millennium. And, if you read Revelation 20 you can see that Satan was bound at the beginning of the millennium. Thus, amils interpret that to mean that Satan was bound during the first advent of Christ.
This is what is objectionable to many. Exegetical concerns aside, the main reason most folks have trouble believing that Satan is bound is because they see so much evidence of his activity on the earth today. From looking around, it appears that Hal Lindsey was right - Satan is alive and well on planet earth.
Sometimes we amils get mocked when we say that Satan is bound, or at least people say "yeah right, he sure doesn't look bound to me."
But our contention is simply that believing Satan to be bound is the result of using a consistently literal hermeneutic when it comes to interpreting all of Scripture. By literal we mean that we interpret the literal, literally and the figurative figuratively. Also, the literal should interpret the figurative. Along with this we believe the clear should interpret the unclear, and the new should interpret the old.
Before I flesh this out let me use an analogy that I think is almost exactly parallel. The rationale for saying Satan is not bound is that the presence of Satanic activity on earth rules out the notion that Satan could be bound.
Having said that, who here believes they are dead to sin? Raise your hand if you believe this? The Bible states absolutely and unequivocally that we are dead to sin.
Romans 6:2 - We died to sin
Romans 6:6-7:
6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
Galatians 6:24:
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.
And yet, I still sin every day. There is ample evidence to me and anyone who looks around that I sin. And yet, the Bible says I am dead to sin. Paul himself writes in Romans 6 that he is dead to sin and in Romans 7 he writes about his ongoing struggle with sin.
My point is that, if we say Satan cannot be bound because we see so much Satanic activity, then we need to argue just as strongly against these statements in Romans and Galatians which say that we have died to sin. But nobody does that. We affirm the truth of these verses - that we are dead to sin, while interpreting them in the light of other Scriptures that speak of our ongoing struggle with sin. Whatever the details of your particular exegeis of these Scriptures or mine, we come out with something affirming that there is a sense in which we can be dead to sin, and yet still sin.
Amillennialists say the same thing about Satan. There is a very real sense in which he can be bound, yet active.
That Satan is bound is so clear from the New Testament that I am frankly surprised that anyone would argue otherwise. It may be that we amils completely misunderstand (or twist) Revelation 20, but when it comes to the larger question of the binding of Satan, the burden of proof is not on the amil to prove he is, it is on our critics to prove that he isn't.
A classic passage on this is Matthew 12:25-29:
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29 “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.
Notice the parallel between vv. 25-28 and verse 29. The binding of the strong man in verse 29 is analogous to Jesus' casting out of Satan by the Spirit of God. There is a ton of eschatological meaning in this passage and it goes beyond particular instances of demonic deliverance. It is a paradigm for the coming of the kingdom of God. The fact that Jesus casts out demons by the Spirit of God is evidence that a) Satan has been bound, and more importantly b) the eschatological kingdom of God has come upon us.
So, the point is that the coming of the kingdom entails the binding of Satan. The timing of the coming of the kingdom is given here. It is not a time somewhere in the future - it is at the time that Jesus demonstrates His binding of Satan by casting out demons. This happened at His first advent.
This is seen more clearly in several other passages.
In John 12:31, predicting His death, Jesus says this:
31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.
Please notice that, and notice the parallel to Revelation 20:1-3. Jesus says "now the prince of this world will be driven out." Who is the prince of world? Satan. Where is he being driven from? It has to be this world. In Revelation 20 the angel comes down out of heaven to seize Satan, so in Revelation 20 it appears that Satan is on the earth when he is bound. In John 12:31 Satan is driven out of this world. And, according to John 12:31, when is Satan to be driven out (bound?)? At the time of the crucifixion.
Colossians 2:15 says:
And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
At the cross Christ disarmed the powers and authorities and triumphed over them. It wasn't the Roman or Jewish authorities He disarmed, it was the satanic, spiritual powers and authorities.
I realize that "binding" and "disarming" are two different words, but they both have the same idea of defeat and subjection to Christ.
Hebrews 2:14-15 says:
14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
As in Colossians 2:15, Hebrews 2:15 says that something happened to Satan at the cross. In Colossians Satan was disarmed, in Hebrews 2 we see that Satan was destroyed. Again, the word "destroy" is not the same word as "bind" but the idea is the same - Satan is defeated and subjected to Christ on the cross.
I John 3:8 says:
The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.
Here we see that the Son of God "appeared" - past tense. This appearance was at His first advent. What did He do at His first appearance? He destroyed the devil's work.
All of this is to simply say that we must let the Scriptures interpret our experience, not the other way around. Again, the objection that is raised against the amil view of the binding of Satan is that our experience tells us otherwise. I am trying to show that the Bible is very clear, apart from Revelation 20, that Satan is bound, and we need to interpret our experience in light of the Bible, not vice versa.
As a reminder, my focus has been very narrow here. I have not attempted to prove that amils understand Revelation 20 correctly (although I think we do). It may be that we are wrong in our assertion that Rev. 20 does not follow Rev. 19 chronologically and that we have messed up all kinds of eschatological details.
But, if one plank in the argument against amillennialism is that Satan cannot be bound because our experience tells us differently, then that plank needs to be removed.
On a larger note though, this does give an example of the amil contention that we ought to interpret Revelation in light of the whole of Scripture, not the other way around. When we look at the whole of Scripture we see that it is very clear that Satan was bound at the first advent of Jesus. So, when we see Revelation 20 talking about Satan being bound and cast out of the earth we say hmm . . . All of those other passages, and especially John 12:31 insinuate that Satan was cast out of the earth during the first advent of Jesus, maybe there is a correlation.
I didn't want to get into the particulars of exactly how it is that Satan was cast out, just to prove that he was. However, while I was working on this post a comment came in from Clive on the prior post that I agree with:
Satan "bound" does not mean inactive. It means that his activity is restricted here in the millennium. It means that he can’t stop the Gospel from going forth, he is being restrained from exercising all that he is capable of exercising.
You may disagree with me and Clive on these particulars - some may think that Clive's description of "binding" sounds too weak, i.e. Satan doesn't seem to be very bound. But I will push you back to the very strong language of Scripture describing what happened to Satan at the first advent - he was bound, disarmed, destroyed and cast out. The Scripture itself can use that strong of language while acknowledging the continued activity of Satan.
So I conclude by restating that, though Satan may still be active, the Scripture is unmistakeably clear that he is bound and we are to interpret our experience in light of this rather than the other way around.
Right on!
You said it much better than I ever could - that's why you're the Blogger and I just make comments.
Posted by: Clive | August 17, 2005 at 01:31 PM
Wayne, I've never gotten into Eschatology so please help me out here. And while I've read most of the "Left Behind" series, "Forgive me Father for I have sinned..." I read them more as fictional novels than as fact.
If Satan in now bound and I believe I understand what that implys, does that then mean he was not bound prior to the Cross? For me this begs the question, what was so different about the world, sin and mans nature before the Cross? What biblical evidence would you site to show Satan being unbound before the Cross?
Thanks
Posted by: Rong | August 17, 2005 at 02:09 PM
Satan is bound because his primary power, death, has been taken away. Through Christ's resurrection God defeated death, so Satan has been disarmed. "Death is swallowed up in victory" and all the rest of 1 Cor 15 shows clearly that the war has already been won, just a few million individual battles still going on. Because death is the result of sin, and the blood of Christ washes away our sin, we stand before God justified, not having to fear death nor Satan.
Posted by: Anthony | August 17, 2005 at 02:43 PM
If I may offer Rong a bit of explanation in terms of Satan not being bound before the Cross:
In Revelation 12 (a passage parallels Revelation 20) we see war in heaven. This war is a result of the finished work of Christ. When Christ takes his throne he makes war on Satan, He casts him out. Michael (a picture of Christ) casts Satan out and Satan no longer has an audience with God, he can no longer accuse the saints before God’s throne as he did in the past. The evidence that Satan did have an audience with God in the past appears at least three times in the Bible. Think of Job, Satan appears before God's throne to accuse him. Think of Joshua the High Priest in Zechariah as Satan accuses him of being unclean and unworthy right there in God's throne room. Think also of Satan contending for the body of Moses as recorded for us in the book of Jude.
Satan had somewhat of a case (at least the way he saw it) in his accusing the saints before the Death and Resurrection of Christ took place in time and history.
Now it's a clearly settled matter. Satan has no leg to stand on. God will not hear his accusations against the elect, their redemption has been accomplished and applied.
Hope that helps.
Posted by: Clive | August 17, 2005 at 03:10 PM
If God is truly sovereign, then there's a sense that Satan was never actually "loose" in the sense that he was free from God's complete control. How is bound in this (post-cross) sense different from bound pre-cross?
Posted by: Mickey | August 17, 2005 at 03:15 PM
First of all, forgive me for the frequent comments. After this I'll just be an observer(for a while).
Mickey, Take your point further for the sake of argument. Why does Satan eventually get "loosed" as we are told he does in Revelation 20? God in His sovereignty certainly can keep him bound to the end right?
Answer: He is loosed to be cast into the lake of fire. Beyond that we cannot go.
Why was Pharaoh raised up? To be cast down. Beyond that we cannot go.
Why did God love Israel? Because he loved them. Beyond that we cannot go.
Satan's activity pre-cross and post-cross is different because God has revealed it as different in His word. I cannot go beyond that.
Satan has always been under God's control. But God chose to let him roam, he chose to cast him out and bind him, He has chosen to loose him at the end of history, he has chosen to cast him into the lake of fire forever.
He has done so for His Glory.
I hope I did not offend you or twist your comments
Posted by: Clive | August 17, 2005 at 03:57 PM
Excellent, excellent work, especially your comparison to us being described as dead to sin. Scripture is exceedingly clear. Maybe you should be the one to write a book in a popular format that the average saint can understand. If they can understand the intricacies of dispensationalism surely they can understand the beauty and simplicity of amillenialism.
Posted by: stan | August 17, 2005 at 10:03 PM
What a bad example (comparing "dead to sin" to Satan being bound). The next verse needs to be quoted as well.
Revelation 20:2-3 ISV He captured the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and tied him up for a 1,000 years. (3) He threw him into the bottomless pit, locked it, and sealed it over him to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were over. After that he must be set free for a little while.
This is not a picture of some metaphysical binding of Satan. I suppose Satan is no longer deceiving "the nations" either? Saying that Satan is bound (in some weird way) but not bound is a huge stretch IMO. It is funny how people say that hell and the lake of fire are literal but the "pit" is not.
This is a good example of molding Scripture to fit doctrine and support a position instead of the other way around (molding doctrine and forming positions according to the Scripture).
AMDG
Posted by: Brian | August 18, 2005 at 01:09 AM
I like your comparison of a bound Satan and being dead to sin. Both are true and both place a responsiblility on the believer. Once the grace is given to me to live life dead to sin, it is my job to walk it out. That is why Rom. 6:11 says to "reckon yourself dead to sin..." In other words, Act like it.
Satan may be bound, but it is our responsibility to enforce it in our sphere of influence. It is the same way with sin. Rom. 6:12 says "let not sin therefore reign..." One might say how can sin possibly reign if we are supposed to be already dead to it? Because we let it. I believe it is the same way with Satan. Many times Satan accomplishes much more than he should in our communities and families only because we in some way allow it.
Posted by: Jay | August 18, 2005 at 01:55 AM
Sorry Brian but you are way off base here. If the Bible says that Satan is bound as it does in Matthew 12:25-29, and if the Bible says that Satan has been cast out as it does in John 12:31, and if the Bible says that Satan has been disarmed as it does in Colossians 2:15, if the Bible says that Satan has been destroyed as it does in Hebrews 2:14-15 and I John 3:8, then how is it that I am molding Scripture to fit doctrine rather than the other way around if I say that Satan is bound, cast out, disarmed and destroyed?
Posted by: David Wayne | August 18, 2005 at 09:44 AM
Actually I think Brian makes a good point about interpetation in context of the letter.
Posted by: Rey | August 18, 2005 at 10:16 AM
Rey - I mentioned that I take the "recapitulation" approach to the book of Revelation and I agree that it is legitimate to argue whether or not this is the correct approach.
If you take a futuristic approach to Revelation then I think you can assert that this is a different kind of "binding" of Satan than is described in the gospels, and Pauline and general epistles. What I was getting at is that it is unmistakably clear that, in his first advent Jesus bound/destroyed/disarmed Satan.
So the next question would be to ask in what way the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 differs from the binding of Satan spoken of by Jesus, Paul and others.
I think that is a valid dispute and valid line of argumentation, but my concern is that we not try to take away the weight of the other N.T. statements on the binding/destruction/disarming of Satan.
Posted by: David Wayne | August 18, 2005 at 10:32 AM
Jollyblogger, you are a very brave man. I admire you for your fairness, and your clarity of writing. Of course, being the good leaky dispensationalist premil guys that I am, I completely disagree with you.
I think that the comparison between "being dead to sin" and the binding of Satan is terrible. Now, if there is anything we reformed types like (and we agree here) its the fact that in the preconversion state we are "dead in trespasses and sin." (Eph. 2:1, 5). Are we really dead in sin before we are saved, or is that only sort of, kind of dead there also?
If you argue that we are "really" dead, then I again have to wonder why you don't believe that Satan is completely bound. And as someone else pointed out, Satan is bound, shut in, and sealed up in Rev. 20.
Finally, there is that bit about him being "loosed", which apparently only means he'll be let out to walk to judgment. Would that be any sort of loosement?
I really appreciate your writing on this, and I look forward to reading the rest of the posts.
Posted by: Brad Williams | August 18, 2005 at 10:51 AM
Heh heh, being a non-Calvinist I didn't want to be the one that questioned the "dead" part. Heh heh.
And David, I'm following you man.
Posted by: Rey | August 18, 2005 at 11:20 AM
Isn't Satan unbound at the end for the tribulation? And doesn't it indeed have to do with his ability to 'deceive the nations', which I recall, when I studied this, means being able to unite the enemies of Christ in the world against the Christians of the world?
(Think of it this way: Christians have always been a vulnerable minority on this planet, yet most nations - like China, for instance - have been 'historically asleep'. Just as Islam was historically asleep for many centuries prior to its current rampaging. So they havn't been a collective threat to the people of God or their work for God on this planet. In the end, though, these sleeping anti-Christian nations and peoples will awaken and be conscious of being able to unite against the people of God (notice it's America and Israel, primarily, that is the target of the intense hatred of these anti-Christian peoples, whether 'liberals' or Muslims, or secular totalitarians of whatever stripe, etc.)
If Satan is unbound in the end times (not just so he can be led to the lake of fire, but so that he can cause alot of end time tribulation trouble) we would see it in the anti-Christian nations and people of the planet becoming awakened and conscious of their collective power and ability to attack the people of God. This doesn't mean they can be victorious (their cause is irrational to the end), but it does mean they can literally raise alot of hell.
Posted by: ct | August 18, 2005 at 12:40 PM
Well, I am Reformed, and I love eschatology, but I probably do not hold to your view of Reformed Eschatology. I think one problem a lot of amillennial scholars have is that they do not deal with the implications of Satan's binding or the fact that Christ redeemed the creation at his 1st advent. Although I believe in the consummation and in the new heavens and new earth, very few amillennial scholars talk about the progressive elements of redemption in history.
Although I am not a theonomist, I think the eschatological views of men like Gary Demar, Kenneth Gentry, and Greg Bahnsen are most faithful to Scripture, especially the book of Revelation.
On my blog, I will be reviewing Cornelis Venema's The Promise of the Future. It should be done by early next week.
In Christ,
Daniel F. Wells
(cosmicchrist.blogspot.com)
Posted by: Daniel F. Wells | August 18, 2005 at 02:23 PM
OK, I'm back. I just couldn't stay away.
CT,
I would agree with you on your assessment of why Satan is released. I made it too simplistic by saying; "Satan is loosed to be cast into the Lake of Fire."
But I was making a point about God's sovereignty. Satan being released is a step in God's sovereign plan. The ultimate end of God's plan for Satan is to cast him into Hell forever.
Posted by: Clive | August 18, 2005 at 04:27 PM
Maybe Satan is bound, but he must be on a work release program.
One the road to Damascus, Jesus testified to Paul that Satan was working.
Acts 26:18 "to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God..".
Paul testified Satan is working.
2 Thessalonians 9: "that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders"
James testified that Satan is working.
James 4:7 Submit herefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
Peter testified that Satan is working.
1 Peter 5:8 Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
Posted by: Joel | August 18, 2005 at 04:48 PM
I wrote a response, however, it was entirely too long for a comment IMO. I will make a blog entry and trackback. This will keep the space usage here to a minimum. In addition, people that don't care to read it don't have to click the link. :)
Keep in mind, my response is a quick one (not an in depth exegetical study on the subject). I would like to post a more in depth article, however, I am not sure when I will have the time.
AMDG
Posted by: Brian | August 18, 2005 at 06:51 PM
Quick (late) question: If the resurrection and Christ's assension to the throne resulted in a conflich that cast out Satan so He could no longer accuse the elect, how do you interpret 1 John 2:1?
"My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."
Posted by: Doug | August 18, 2005 at 09:31 PM
Great post David. Let me throw in my .02 worth.
In the comments Rong asked
"For me this begs the question, what was so different about the world, sin and mans nature before the Cross?"
and Brian says
"I suppose Satan is no longer deceiving "the nations" either?"
There is one point that has not been really emphasized in the discussion yet, and that is how the Covenant at the first advent was expanding from Israel to the whole world. Every people and nation and tribe and tongue (except for Israel) was filled with idolotry, pagan practices, fertility religions, human sacrifice and all kinds of abominable practices. The nations were totally deceived by Satan. But then with the first advent came the new covenant and the promises of the gospel. Think of what Paul said when he preached to the philosophers in Athen in Acts 17 (ESV)-
22So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,[a] 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28for "'In him we live and move and have our being';
By the evangelistic and missionary endeavors of the church, carrying the gospel to the whole world. Satan can no longer deceive the nations.
Posted by: FattripletOne | August 19, 2005 at 01:43 PM
In a comment on another thread I said that "all eschatology is hard to understand." I must confess that I still feel that way.
Kudos to all those brave enough to face the terrible dragon of eschatology!!!!
Posted by: Curt | August 20, 2005 at 09:58 PM
Daniel Wells said:
"I think one problem a lot of amillennial scholars have is that they do not deal with the implications of Satan's binding or the fact that Christ redeemed the creation at his 1st advent. Although I believe in the consummation and in the new heavens and new earth, very few amillennial scholars talk about the progressive elements of redemption in history."
I am not sure why you say this. We agree with Romans 8:22ff that creation groans, awaiting its release from the curse when the sons of God are to revealed.
The idea of the "already/not yet" has not entered this discussion yet. Jesus purchased our complete salvation through His obedience and death/resurrection on the cross. This has cosmic, not just individual, ramifications.
We already possess some aspects of our salvation: forgiveness, the indwelling Spirit, power to obey (Titus 2:11ff), access to the Father in prayer etc.
We do not yet have possession of other aspects of our salvation: freedom from sin, freedom from illness/disease etc.
Some groups, like the Corinthian church, were over-realized in their eschatology. They believed we already have more of our salvation than we really do. This is typical of the health-wealth gospel crowd (though they also entertain numerous heresies as well).
Many evangelicals, Reformed included, under-realize our eschatology by thinking that since we are still sinners, we can make NO progress in the fight against sin. We underestimate the spiritual resources Jesus grants us through the Spirit.
The 'already/not yet' helps us to grapple with many of the issues regarding eschatology. And I'm sure David will address alot of them in the upcoming posts.
btw: as a former-dispensationalist, I never understood why God would release Satan at the end of the literal millenium. It sounds like a repeat of Rev. 19, and who was he deceiving any way. No dispensationalist has yet to pose even a credible solution (well, that I've read- Lindsey, Ryrie, Rosenthal).
Posted by: cavman | August 21, 2005 at 07:02 PM
This is a very interesting post (although I had to grab Webster's a couple of times).
I do wonder if perhaps, too, it means Satan's work is 'bound' to this earth? However, the other verses you cite seem to agree more with your thoughts that they are actually confined to this milennium (and perhaps the earth, too).
Also, the Bible does say that we have dominion over all that Jesus had dominion over, right? So, while the devil can still do his thing, doesn't that mean we have the power to stop him? Or at least try? *feeling stupid*
Posted by: Miss O'Hara | August 24, 2005 at 10:00 AM
Not to sound Clintonesque, but I suppose it depends on your definition of the term 'bound'.
If, by it, you mean that he is somehow made immobilized or without effect, you are clearly wrong. (see Joel's references in earlier comment)
If, by it, you mean that he has been stricken, even fatally, then I agree (see David Wayne's)
Many people cling to the Satan bound argument because they can't (or won't) come to grips with the concept of a personal devil lose on the earth. (whom they might have to confront) It's simply post-modernism. Or even old fashioned modernism. At any rate, it is not the plain teaching of the New Testament.
Posted by: anybudee | August 25, 2005 at 04:04 PM