Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[BibChr]

Dan I do NOT think it is clear what Israel is or who Israel is

It's clear enough, my sister. I'll give you three clues, in verses whose meaning is plain — unless the mystical spiritualizing allegorizer comes in with his secret decoder ring.

Clue one: Jesus calls it "Israel," says it has twelve tribes, and a future earthly kingdom over which He will reign:

So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Matthew 19:28

Clue two: it isn't the church, and it isn't the nations:

Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God
1 Corinthians 10:28

Clue three: it is never ever ONCE identified as the church of Christ:

The entire Bible

Dan

[jude24]

The light goes on as I finally understand what you kept referring to in Jn. 5:25-29.

Wow.... it's so simple.

[RnMomof7]

You've got a lot of chutzpah talking about misapplying Isaiah 65 -- I know, I was guilty as charged, too.

You are right Tim..the scripture CLEARLY says the NEW Heavens and the NEW Earth

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

[the_doc]

Please explain.

See #502.

I suspect xzins will NEVER get it. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but it ain't looking good for him.

Come to think of it, it ain't looking exactly wonderful for you at this time, either.

[jude24]

It's nowhere near as simple as that.

7 ¶ But when [John the Baptist] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 "Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance;
9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.
10 "The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
- Matthew 3:7-12

Here, the Baptist is warning Jews who placed their confidence in their pedigree (cf. Phil. 3:5), thinking that that entitled them to inherit the kingdom. But, in remarkable synch with Romans 11, warns that their branches will be taken off if they do not bear fruit. Romans 11 further explains that the church is grafted in. Intriguingly, Paul writes,

17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "THE DELIVERER WILL COME FROM ZION, HE WILL REMOVE UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB."
27 "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
-- Rom. 11: 17-28

Notice that for Israel to be saved, they still must be grafted in, even as the church did. Factoring in the fact that Romans 9:6ff says that not all national Israel is spiritual Israel (my interpretation, granted), things are a lot more complicated than your hermaneutic allows.

[xzins]

Hi, Jude. Where have you been? I've not heard from you in a while.

No chutzpah.

Clearly the passage about "dying" renders THAT SECTION inapplicable to the New Heavens and New Earth, doesn't it? Taken literally, it would be a lesson to the inhabitants of the NHNE that they will die. Taken allegorically, it would be a lesson to the inhabitants of the NHNE that a death threat is hung over their heads.

If one does not contrast these words IN THIS SECTION with the Rev passage that says "there will be no more death" then one is not being fair with the bible.

1. As amill's say, the death mentioned could be allegorical...but it sure doesn't read that way. Any honest, simple reading will conclude that. And as pointed out, if it's allegory, then what's the message of the allegory to the inhabitants of the NHNE??? There's only one answer...."death threat."

2. As premil's say, the death mentioned could be literal. In that case, the death passage and the "NHNE" verse MUST be speaking of different times or different situations.

3. Personally, the more I read it, the more I see that verse 17 actually concludes the thought of verse 16. The "but" of verse 18 begins an explantion. If one views it as a progressive explanation of the building of paradise phasing into the NHNE, then one avoids the contradiction with Revelation about "no more death."

4. Rev 20, of course, in a simple, unadorned reading, tells of a progressively enlightened Millenium peopled by humans.

5. I remind you that the scholars of Jesus' day missed the "suffering servant" who would die for our sins, because those passages were combined with the victorious messiah. They saw peaks of prophecy and failed to see expanses of time between the suffering Messiah and the kingly Messiah. Similarly, the attachment of verse 17 to verse 16, and the progressive paradise of the Millennium which then blends into the NHNE could extremely easily be seen as 2 peaks. (Separated by a 1000 years.)

I'm glad you're still searching. No one said it is an easy subject.

[jude24]

Dont get me wrong: I still have reservations about the amil position -- but I can't take the premil position anymore (though, truth be told, I really havent for the past 3 months).

I still can't figure out how II Cor. 4:4 squares with amillenialism. But thats a completely different issue.

Signed,
A former premil.

[drstevej]

1st statement by doc #494:
***Ah, but you have been appointed to stumble. It's a Calvinistic thing (Psalm 2:4).***

2nd statement by doc #504:
***I suspect xzins will NEVER get it. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but it ain't looking good for him.***

Quite a difference!

***Come to think of it, it ain't looking exactly wonderful for you at this time, either.***

Thanks for your assessment, doc. I'll seek a second opinion.

[xzins]

LOL....

You might check for that 2nd opinion with our Lord.

[Jean Chauvin]

"According to the text, Satan is "bound" with a "great chain" (vv.1-2) and thrown into the "abyss" that is "shut" and "sealed" for a thousand years (v. 3). This abyss acts as a "prison" (v. 7) until the thousand years are completed. The acts of binding, throwing, shutting and sealing indicate that Satan's activities are completely finished."

This simply is not the case. You are ~assuming~ your argument. You utilize the words of 'binding', 'throwing', 'shutting' and then jump to the conclusion that this ~MUST~ Necessarily mean that the 'binding is total'!

While that certainly is a logical possibility, it is not a logical NECESSITY!!

Your author has not presented a case of why the binding must be total and complete. He simply jumps to the conclusion.

That does not suprise me.

"As Mounce states:

"The elaborate measures taken to insure his [Satan's] custody are most easily understood as implying the complete cessation of his influence on earth (rather than a curbing of his activities)."28 "

See above. He simply is assuming his argument. His argument is that Satan's binding is complete and he 'proves' this by showing that certain words might indicate a total binding. Unfortunately for you, he does not make a case. He simply assumes that ~his~ conclusion must be the only conclusion without ever making the case. He simply declares that this binding is complete.

Well, sorry x, the passage only tells us that Satan's binding is such that he is no longer able to deceive the Gentiles! You guys continue to go beyond the stated words of the passage to support your assumed premillennial position -how liberal.

For the sake of argument, assuming this is a description of a total and complete binding of Satan, this passage says nothing about Satan's minions. Certainly they could work all kinds of mischief in his absense. But I suppose you will now tell me that, even though the Scriptures never declare this to be so, that if Satan is bound, then his minions must be bound as well.

X, if you want me to accept that Rev 20:1-3 is a description of Satan's total binding -you must show me why this ~must~ be so. You can't just state it and assume you've won the argument.

Your author has done just that. He simply declares that 'binding', 'throwing', 'shutting' -must be- a description of complete binding. He assumes it -he does not make the case biblically for why this must be so!

Jean

[jude24]

Hi, Jude. Where have you been? I've not heard from you in a while.

Been studying, keeping busy with Campus Crusade stuff, etc. Those two things have taken up most of my time.

Clearly the passage about "dying" renders THAT SECTION inapplicable to the New Heavens and New Earth, doesn't it? Taken literally, it would be a lesson to the inhabitants of the NHNE that they will die. Taken allegorically, it would be a lesson to the inhabitants of the NHNE that a death threat is hung over their heads.

Then we have a real problem on our hands, since the passage says that it applies to the NHNE. So then we must fall back on our hermaneutic. If we fall back on a slavishly literal one (as most premils do), then one will ipso facto either simply ignore the NHNE reference (as it appears you do), or they will have to come up with some weird esoteric explanation why there is death in the NHNE.

A proposal: Revelation is specific when it says there is not anymore death who is included: those that are saved. The unbelieving, indeed, are in the "second death" immediately preceeding. It is an eternal dying, I would submit. Thus, one who died would be counted accursed -- because they were.

[xzins]

It is definitely a conundrum. I am an advocate of a literal methodology, so it is a real problem for me.

You are right The mention of the NHNE makes it difficult. I disagree that it is the premills who come up with weird ideas about death in the NHNE. I believe that the allegorizing of "tree of life in Eden" and "age of mimosa trees" is odd. Also, since full preterism is a form of amillennialism, it is clear that they are the ones who have said that "death actually exists" in the NHNE.

I think seeing it as a progressing phasing into the NHNE does no damage to the text and prevents the "death in the NHNE" problem.

God put it there to prevent amillennialism from holding sway.

[Jean Chauvin]

First things first and welcome back! You have always been a delightful presence as one who continually searches for the truth of the Scriptures.

As far as I can tell by your posts, even when a premillennialist you were/are one who allows Scripture to correct the record of your theology, not making your theology correct the record of Scripture.

I have seen little of that in the Pre Mil camp here. They continually ignore the simple definitions of words (esp in Rev 20) and add their own meanings and thoughts to them.

"Then we have a real problem on our hands, since the passage says that it applies to the NHNE. So then we must fall back on our hermaneutic"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the literal hermeneutic doesn't ~require~ you to interpret ~every~ passage literally.

If I understand the 'literal hermeneutic' correctly, figurative speach and metaphor are allowed when the context of a given passage indicates that it cannot be a literal description.

I see just that in Isaiah 65. That this is a description of the New Heavens and the New Earth is not up for debate.

Because there are references to death, and since we already know without a doubt that there will be no, none, kina, zilch death of any sort in the New Heavens and the New Earth, wouldn't the 'literal hermeneutic' allow, if not require, a metaphorical interpretation of this text?

Jean

[BibChr]

So, I think that the_doc is saying that you're going to Hell if you don't buy the RomanCatholic/"Reformed" approach to prophetic scriptures. That's a novel element I've not seen before in these discussions. And not a welcome one.

Dan

[CCWoody]

You've made a false exclusion alien to the mindset of Scripture. You think that saying a promise involved Abraham and Christ excludes the nation of Israel. This falters on the explicit language of Scripture, over and over again. ~ Dan

Nope! I am not making a false exclusion. I am making a Biblical definition of the "seed of Israel". You are actually the one who is making a false assertion:

• Israel - the blood offspring of Abraham. (Dan)
• Israel - the spiritual offspring of Abraham. (Scriptures)

The great "land promise" of scripture:


• And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, [then] shall thy seed also be numbered.

And now Paul's interpretation of exactly who will share in this promise:


• Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to Abraham by promise.... There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Now, there is nothing in what I have said or quoted which declares that I have in any way excluded the blood people of Israel who are also the spiritual offspring of Abraham. You have made this false assumption about my position. Nevertheless, my assertion still stands and my charge against you still stands. The nation of Israel who will be forever before the Lord are not the blood children of Abraham; they are the spiritual offspring of Abraham:


• He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Nevertheless, the great land promise in the Scripture has absolutely nothing to do with the blood people of Israel. I know that you need for this to be so for your bad eschatological position and interpretation of Jeremiah 31, but it just isn't so. The land promise was to Abraham and to Christ alone:


• Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

As a child of the Promise, I am a full heir to the land promise which the Lord make with Abraham and Christ. And unless you interpret the promises of the Scripture for a material nation of Israel before God in light of what we know to be true, then you are forcing a bad interpretation upon the scripture.

And, I get the distinct impression that you believe the New Jerusalem is only for the blood offspring of Abraham.

Woody.

[CCWoody]

Clue three: it is never ever ONCE identified as the church of Christ: ~ Dan

• Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and [with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

You were saying?

[the_doc]

Yes, the anti-premillennial argument inherent in John 5:25-29 is INCREDIBLY simple.

This is also why it is so RELIABLE. It completely SMASHES premillennialism and installs amillennialism quite solidly in its place. The "first resurrection" (actually the first "coming to life" idea) in Revelation 20 really IS the one mentioned in John 5:25.

Unfortunately for the unspiritual Bible student (whether saved-but-smugly-carnal or just plain unregenerate), the millennial argument contained in John 5:25-29 is also incredibly simple in the sense that it proves to be simply unbelievable for most professing Christians in our day.

Ah, but notice from this incredible simplicity that there is no excuse for our unbelief. Our unbelief is evil. Premillennialism is demonically energized resistance to the Truth of God and His gospel.

Now that you see what I am saying, go back and read 2 Peter 3 and Ephesians 1:18-2:7. Go back and read Luke 19:11-25. The WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT screams out that premillennialism is a LIE.

It's actually one of the nastiest lies in the history of professing Christianity. What is really interesting is that all such lies are GOD-ORDAINED.

(This is why even Spurgeon got fooled. Spurgeon's blunder was to set up the more massive, awful deception of dispensationalism--which is, to be frank, getting lots of people DAMNED as UNCONVERTED PROFESSING CHRISTIANS in our day.)

[drstevej]

I think some peer-review of his hypothesis is advisable.

[CCWoody]

There was a time after I realized that Premillennialism could not possibly be correct that I actually declared that I was stepping out of that room in the "eschatological inn" and into the Pan-Mill hallway. At some point, I finally figured out that we are today living in the age of the kingdom of God, that Christ has already sat down on His throne. The rest is just figuring out the difficult stuff.

BTW, I know what you mean about the lightbulb.

[drstevej]

Flag to #518 omitted, sorry.