Is Satan Bound Today?

BibleBB ^ | Mike Vlach

[RnMomof7]

I do not know greek I will leave that to you..but it seems to me that Jesus addressed it when He said that it was not given to some to hear..and that For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect.

Did the deception occur before creation?

[CCWoody]

You've adduced ZERO passages where the church of Christ is called "Israel." There is a simple reason for that: in the 66 books of the Bible, the church of Christ is NOWHERE called "Israel." ~ Dan

Sure I did, unless you want to maintain that the church in the wilderness did not belong to Christ.


• 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:

Now, the assembly in the desert is called ekklesia in the Acts passage. How long have you studied NT Greek? For me, it's nearing 30 years. Luke uses the word ekklesia MORE TIMES to describe a SECULAR POLITICAL ASSEMBLY than he does Israel.

Actually, the entire gospel accounts only mention the church 3 times in two different verses: Matthew 16:18 & Matthew 18:17. Luke never uses the greek word ekklesia. In fact, the entire NT has only 115 (or 118 depending upon which lexicon I referenced) uses of the word ekklesia. Only 3 of those are translated as assembly (for the KJV).

That makes it statistically likelier that the church is a SECULAR POLITICAL ASSEMBLY than it is Israel. ~ Dan

Actually, it means that you should have checked your lexicon before you posted. I did.

BTW, as you are somehow using this phantom evidence to prove that the "church in the wilderness" is a "SECULAR POLITICAL ASSEMBLY" are you maintaining that none of these people are saved?

In point of fact, as I demonstrated above, Paul always and everywhere distinguishes between the church of Christ and Israel. ~ Dan

Actually, Paul identifies Christians as the Israel of God. From Strongs #2474:
3 Christians, the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), for not all those who draw their bodily descent from Israel are true Israelites, i.e. are those whom God pronounces to be Israelites and has chosen to salvation

So, back to my counter question: Do you have any passage where Christ claims to have come to establish the church?

Woody.

[fortheDeclaration]

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.

No, it isn't if one looks at all the passages.

National Israel will be 'grafted in' as a nation, those who survive the Tribulation (Zach 12:10, 14, Jer.31:31, Heb.8:8)

[CCWoody]

Interesting that Christ directs the apostles to utilize the church in matters of discipline ~supposedly~ before the Church even came into existance!?! ~ Jean Chauvin

I missed that one. Wouldn't the prudent thing for the Apostles to have done was ask Jesus: "What is a 'church'?" That is, if there was no such thing as a church.

Woody.

[rdb3]

Be careful, Woody.

We do NOT want to venture into the realm of Replacement Theology.

Let that beast lie where it is undisturbed, please.

[Jean Chauvin]

"Words mean things. In this particular case, the action and descriptive words used to detail the binding of Satan point to the idea that he is prevented (by removal from the playing field, as it were) from any activity against those still on the playing field. Sort of like being put in the penalty box, as is done in Hockey."

Yes, "by removal from the playing field, as it were". If only "it were" in there (Rev 20). With a little slight of hand, your attempting to reason your conclusion into the passage by inference without even presenting your case of why it must necessarily be so.

You think that this is a reference to Satan being "removed from the playing field" even though no such words are found in the text nor any such conslusion MUST be formed.

Again, your ~assuming~ your argument without even showing ~why~ it MUST be so.

"When you have that many descriptive words about what is being done to Satan as there are in this passage, a reasonable conclusion would be that Satan is no longer able, after those things are done, to do what he had been able to do up until that time."

Yes, a "reasonable" conlcusion. However, you must demonstrate, not how this is a "reasonable" conclusion, but why it is the ~NECESSARY~ conclusion.

Take the following passage, for example:

2 Peter 2
4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

We have very similar language of the spiritual demons being "bound" -note especially the use of "chains" just like you find in Rev 20.

Notice also the past tense! This has already been accomplished -without a doubt!

Is it "reasonable" to conclude that this passage is a reference to these demons being "removed from the playing field"?

Certainly, that would be a reasonable conclusion when reading this passage in isolation!

However, even though this passage gives us descriptive language similar to that found in Rev 20, we know from other passages in the N.T. which testify to the ongoing work of the evil spirits that we cannot possibly conclude that these demons have been "removed from the playing field".

Furthermore, Rev 20 itself gives us the "effect" of the binding. Rev 20 tells us ~ONLY~ that Satan will be unable to deceive the Nations/Gentiles until the 1000 years are ACCOMPLISHED!

Now, it might be accurate to say that if Satan was bound completely, then he most certainly would be unable to deceive the nations. However, as we know from the Story of Job, God's binding powers over Satan are so great that even though Satan was running around creating all kinds of mischief for Job, that Satan was completely and absolutley bound such that he was unable to take Job's life!

Therefore, it is just as reasonable to limit this binding of Satan to the stated "effect" which is already present in the text. We don't need to go any further than what is stated in the text. The text does not lead us to a necessary conclusion that Satan "has been removed from the playing field".

Since we know that the binding is effective to keep Satan from deceiving the gentiles, we can understand that the descriptive words such as "chained" and "cast" are to communicate the absoluteness of Satan's new found inability to deceive the gentiles.

Scripture interprets Scripture!

Jean

[fortheDeclaration]

The real problem is sin which results in death, now how can that happen in the New Heavens and Earth?

but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed..

This lines up with the Lords Sermon on the Mount warnings in Matt.5:22, 28-30 and the prayer for the kingdom to come in Matt.6:10

[RnMomof7]

Words mean things. In this particular case, the action and descriptive words used to detail the binding of Satan point to the idea that he is prevented (by removal from the playing field, as it were) from any activity against those still on the playing field. Sort of like being put in the penalty box, as is done in Hockey.

You know No I used to "bind up " my german shepherd so it could not get into my neighbors garden..Now he sure was bound and not at all happy about it ..but he still had some effect on his territory..

1210 deo {deh'-o}
a root; TDNT - 2:60,148; v
AV - bind 37, tie 4, knit 1, be in bonds 1, wind 1; 44

1) to bind tie, fasten
1a) to bind, fasten with chains, to throw into chains
1b) metaph.
1b1) Satan is said to bind a woman bent together by means of a demon, as his messenger, taking possession of the woman and preventing her from standing upright
1b2) to bind, put under obligation, of the law, duty etc. 1b2a) to be bound to one, a wife, a husband
1b3) to forbid, prohibit, declare to be illicit

[RnMomof7]

If it so silly and childish you can enlighten me with all your wisdom..Where is the Great White Throne located?

[CCWoody]

We do NOT want to venture into the realm of Replacement Theology. ~ rdb3

Who is talkinga 'bout "Replacement Theology"? I'm talking about "Unity Theology". I am grafted into the church of God. I do not replace the church of God. I am not segregated from the church of God. I am added to her.

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. (Romans 2:28)

Woody.

[RnMomof7]

In that case, the only difference is the actual Millennial reign, but Ezek. 44-48 is very clear that a real temple will be built while in the New Heavens and Earth there will be no temple (Rev.21:22)

AND in your Millennial Temple there will be blood sacrifices for sin making the sacrifice of Christ of no effect..

[Jean Chauvin]

"Wouldn't the prudent thing for the Apostles to have done was ask Jesus: "What is a 'church'?" "

I would think so, in typical N.T. fashion, the gospel authors were pretty quick to point out when the did not understand something!

Mark 9:32
But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.

Luke 9:45
But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

Luke 18:34
The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

John 12:16
At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.

John 20:9
(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

Jean

[fortheDeclaration]

If it so silly and childish you can enlighten me with all your wisdom..Where is the Great White Throne located?

Why don't you be honest for a change and ask the entire question instead of one piece at a time?

If you have a point about the Throne make it.

Maybe you do not think an Omnipotent God can suspend His Throne in outer space.

The unbelievers will be standing in outer space!

So, what problem do you have with that which proves that the amillennial view is correct and the premillennial view wrong?

You do believe in the Great White Throne Judgement,do you not?

Where do you think it will take place?

[the_doc]

If you will permit me to summarize my post #530, let me say that when you really pay serious attention to John 5:25-29, you will discover that the Incarnate Word of God is making a VERY strong, VERY emphatic statement. And this statement is that there are TWO "resurrections" for sinners to experience.

The Lord is contrasting spiritual life from spiritual death with physical resurrection from physical death. Among other things, perhaps, He is using this discussion of two different ideas of life from a state of death to talk about a full, free exemption--now and forever!--from the horror of the Judgment which is to come.

He is talking about an era of regenerations ("An hour is coming, and now is") versus a mass episode of physical resurrection ("An hour is coming"). He is talking about dead sinners hearing the Voice of the Son of God but telling us that there are two kinds of death and two kinds of hearing.

This passage, of course, is one of the most important passages in the entire Bible. It is a summary of the gospel, a summary of the hope of the church, and an utterly awful warning to the lost.

Since this passage is so important AND SO METAPHORICALLY STUNNING, John's readers should have studied it enough to be impressed on all of the above points. They should have seen that the Lord's thinking follows the idea of two different kinds of resurrection.

That being the case, they should have brought this understanding to Revelation 20.

That being the case, they should have seen that the two "resurrections" in Revelation 20 are the same two which we have been talking about in John 5:25-29.

This ain't hard.

(Ah, but are you ready for the clincher yet?)

[rdb3]

I was commenting on the fact that the semantics of it were similar. Some "Christians" believe that the LORD is totally done with Israel as a nation. That's not true.

That's what I was talking about. I'm not talking about you, but I do know that there is quite a number of "Christians" who loathe the Jews and they proudly state that God is forever done with the Jew. I avoid that nonsense. Again, I'm not saying that this is what you were doing. Nevertheless, those of whom I've described are indeed very real.

[fortheDeclaration]

In that case, the only difference is the actual Millennial reign, but Ezek. 44-48 is very clear that a real temple will be built while in the New Heavens and Earth there will be no temple (Rev.21:22) AND in your Millennial Temple there will be blood sacrifices for sin making the sacrifice of Christ of no effect..

What arrogrance you have! That is not my Millennial Temple, that is God's, and it is in His Bible, which you are unable to twist out of shape like you do His other verses.(2Pet.3:16)

There is no Day of the Atonement, thus nothing contradicts Heb.9.

The sacrifices are memorial and ceremonial, not efficacious

[RnMomof7]

I want to know when Christ bodily left the earth and returned to heaven for the Great White throne judgement. Surely that should be somewhere in Revelation it would be another resurrection

[BibChr]

I do sincerely apologize for not stating myself more clearly, and I understand the misunderstanding.

Here is what I said:

Luke uses the word ekklesia MORE TIMES to describe a SECULAR POLITICAL ASSEMBLY than he does Israel.

That statement, on the face of it, is irrefutably true. I was excepting the uses of the word referring to the church of Christ. NOBODY argues that ekklesia isn't one of the regular words referring to the church! And you may recall, my challenge has been only to find uses identifying the church of Christ with Israel. So one use of ekklesia referring to Israel is adduced, quite understandably. My point was that, apart from the uses referring to the Church per se (which DO NOT identify the church with Israel), Luke uses the word (I *think*) once of Israel, and (I *think*) three times of secular political assemblies. Hence, the statistics BETTER favor IDing the church with a secular political assembly than with Israel.

Better still, the real evidence points to acknowledging, with Paul and Christ, the uniqueness of the church as a "new man" (Ephesians 2).

Thanks for your thoughtful work, and giving me a chance to clarify; and again I apologize for imprecision.

Dan

[BibChr]

As I clarified in my response above to Chauvin, you are mistaken. Argue the significance if you like, but the facts are irrefutable: the church is never called new or spiritual or any kind of Israel.

No need to try to force Paul into making one exception in tens of thousands of verses. His meaning, in the context of Galatians, is clear. "Israel of God" refers to the elect remnant within the nation. Very Pauline, very Biblical. Not neo-Romanist, of course, but the Bible isn't, either.

Dan

[RnMomof7]

The sacrifices are memorial and ceremonial, not efficacious

That is

~NOT ~

what the bible says

Eze 42:13 Then said he unto me, The north chambers [and] the south chambers, which [are] before the separate place, they [be] holy chambers, where the priests that approach unto the LORD shall eat the most holy things: there shall they lay the most holy things, ~and the meat offering, and the sin offering, and the trespass offering;~for the place [is] holy.

Hbr 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, ~which can never take away sins~
Hbr 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;