THE BINDING OF SATAN- REVELATION 20:1-3

[Matthehitmanhart]

You make a good point here, so let's see if spirit creatures can be literally cast places. And let's see if the bottomless pit(abussos) is an actual location, or just a state of mind or something.


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;

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Here we see these are cast down to hell. I would think both passages are describing the same group. So how should 'hell' be understood? A literal place? Or just a state of mind? Or perhaps hell is symbolic for the earth? My guess would be the former.


Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
29 (For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness. )
30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep(abussos).
32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
33 Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

The same Greek word for bottomless pit in Rev 20, it is used here in verse 31. So what exactly did the demons mean by..And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep(abussos).?


Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above: )
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep(abussos)? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

Once again, in verse 7, this same Greek word is used. It would seem to me, if heaven, in verse 6, is a literal place, then so must the deep in verse 6 be a literal place. Rev 20 states that satan is cast into the deep for 1000 yrs. So why shouldn't the deep be understood as a literal place, since Scriptures clearly show that God is capable of literally casting spirits into places? And besides, if satan can't be literally cast into the deep for 1000 yrs, why should anyone believe that satan is literally cast into the LOF?
Maybe that shouldn't be understood literally either, right? Wrong. Of course it should be understood in the literal sense.

All of this spiritual vs. physical debate really misses the point, in my opinion. A more pertinent question would be this: is Satan literally a dragon? Or is the "dragon" a visionary representation of Satan? Because if the latter is correct, then we should probably understand the "binding" itself to be a visionary representation as well, not a direct transcription of something that happens to Satan in the real world. Analogously, when chapter 12 pictures the dragon attempting to "devour" the man child, we should not think of Satan literally seeking to eat Jesus after his birth. Rather, that image represents Satan's beastly program to thwart God's purposes, which were put to operation climatically in Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

[The Beginner]

Though I would agree that there is symbolism, and other literary devices in the book of Revelation, that in no way detracts from the literal nature and meanings of the things those literary devices are seeking to explain. If the language of Revelation has no literal conclusion then what is the point of John being given the Revelation? How can Revelation ever be understood if it is open to anyone’s interpretation on what the symbolic things mean. Though everyone has the right to interpret the book how they please, does not mean that God didn’t have a original intent and focus of which the book is about. At the end of the day, all the symbolism has to mean something or else it is not symbolizing anything. In order for something to be a symbol means it has to be a symbol of something literal.

With that said, I like what DivaD is saying. The bottomless pit has to be a literal place, the same as the earth, heaven and hell are literal places. Regardless of wether one thinks that the Abyss is literal they have to face that fact that Satan is chained in a place that is different than the earth for 1,000 years. Therefore he is hindered from access to earth or else it is not a prison. IMO in is awkward to explain how Satan is shut up, sealed and chained in a prison called the bottomless pit and is cast there from the place called earth and yet somehow he is still allowed to roam free on earth. The term prison loses all validity if the prisoner does not have to stay confined to the prison.

Now looking at the passage, although I agree that not all of revelation is written in chronological order, this does not in itself prove that Rev 19:11-21:8 is not chronological. IMO, if there was not a presupposition that Rev 20 was recapitulated then there would be no reason why one would get the impression that Rev 20 not in chronological order. Lets take for example the “transitional phrase” in Rev 20:1 “Then I saw” .

- If we look at Rev 19:11 the start of the chronological sequence begins with “Then I saw” followed by the 2nd coming passages of the Lord’s return for battle.
- Rev 19:17 then states “Then I saw” and follows the story line of the battle and ends with the destruction of two of the key demonic figured (Beast and False Prophet and their armies) and the casting of them in the Lake of Fire.
- Rev 20:1 says “Then I saw” then deals with the judgment on the Dragon. Notice that in Revelation that that often these three entities are group together (Beast, False Prophet, and Dragon) (Rev 13, Rev 16:13, 19:11-20:3, 20:10). Rev 20:1-10 is the natural development of the destruction of Satan’s kingdom. Rev 19 tells us the destruction of Beast and False Prophet, and the natural next step would be to tell us the destruction of the Dragon.
- Rev 20:4 continues the chronological order of “And I saw” and tells us of the saints ruling with Christ. Nothing tells us this is not chronological to 20:1-3.
- Rev 20:11 says "And I saw" and then tells us about the final judgment at the GWT. Again few would think this is not chronological to 20:7-10.
- Rev 21:1-8 states “Now I saw” and he sees the New Heavens and New Earth. Is there any reason why we should not see this passage not chronological after the GWT.
- There is very little reason why Rev 20:1-6 should be the only passage taken out of chronological order of the entirety of Rev 19:11-21:8

Not to mention Rev 20:10 states that when Satan is released that he is cast into the Lake of Fire where the beast and false prophet are. Meaning that the beast and false prophet are already there when Satan is hurled in. The obvious conclusion being that there was a time separation between the casting of the Beast/False Prophet and Satan. Rev 19 tells us that Beast and False Prophet were cast into the lake of fire with no mention of Satan being cast with them. However, what is mentioned is that Satan is cast into the bottomless pit for 1,000 years with no obvious beak in the sequence. Then it says later after his release from prison, that he is eventually cast into the LOF where the Beast and False Prophet are. This demands a time difference and that the three beings are not cast at the same moment as would be suggested by a recapitulating understanding of Revelation in that 19:11-21 is the same event as 20:7-10. At best, IMO a Amill would need to admit that John made it really confusing by sticking a 1,000 years phrase between the destruction of the beast and Satan if they actually happen at the same time and did not tell us that they were cast together into the LOF.

To me, one of the biggest flaws with the Amill approach is that if so much of Revelation is not to be taken literal or at least have a literal meaing, like the 1,000 years or Satan being in real prison. Then why should anyone believe a amill’s position that Rev 20:7-10 is literal and that Jesus’s 2nd coming at that time is literal. Why is that taken literally but much of the rest of Revelation is figurative and symbolic. I understand that few want to be labeled a the full preterist camp, nor am I suggesting that anyone here is such. But I am pressing the issue that why do you take Rev 20:7-10 literal and Rev 20:1-6 is symbolic?

[The Beginner]

All of this spiritual vs. physical debate really misses the point, in my opinion. A more pertinent question would be this: is Satan literally a dragon? Or is the "dragon" a visionary representation of Satan? Because if the latter is correct, then we should probably understand the "binding" itself to be a visionary representation as well, not a direct transcription of something that happens to Satan in the real world.

I agree with you that dragon is a "visionary representation of Satan". The problem is that John actually identifes him as the "serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan". That "being" is a litteral being who is said to be cast into a litteral place called the Abyss. In fact Rev 20:7 says that it "when Satan is released" and dosent call him a dragon. Does that mean that Satan will be only figurativly released or literally? Or when Satan is cast into the lake of fire, is it literal? If it is literal then why should the Abyss not be? In other words, if the "visionary experience" does not translate to the "real world" then what is is symbolic of?

Analogously, when chapter 12 pictures the dragon attempting to "devour" the man child, we should not think of Satan literally seeking to eat Jesus after his birth. Rather, that image represents Satan's beastly program to thwart God's purposes, which were put to operation climatically in Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

True, Satan did not try and actually eat Jesus when he was born. There are obvious literally devise used in Revleation as there are throughout the bible. Biblically, the word "devour" is used used similarly to "consume". When Jesus talked about Pharassess "devouring widows houses" no one was thinking he was talking about them chewing on the doors and windows. When Peter rebuked the believers and warned against back bitting saying that they would "devour one another", no one was thinking he was talking about cannibalism. Neither is the case with Rev 12, that is why John starts the chapter with saying "I saw a sign" indicating that the symbolism be used, but just as the "Male Child" would represent a literal man name Jesus, so too would the other symbolism represent literal things.

Blessings

[David Taylor]

T

Now looking at the passage, although I agree that not all of revelation is written in chronological order, this does not in itself prove that Rev 19:11-21:8 is not chronological. IMO, if there was not a presupposition that Rev 20 was recapitulated then there would be no reason why one would get the impression that Rev 20 not in chronological order.

It is easily considerable with Revelation chapters 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 to see all of them sharing with the reader different aspects of the 2nd Coming of Christ (His Revelation), and events surrounding that.

Chapter 16 shows the time of Armegeddon where the final battle is being set and Christ reminds us his coming is soon.
Chapters 17 and 18 show the destuction of "Babylon" at Christ's Revelation as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
Chapter 19 shows Christ's Revelation from Heaven as King of Kings commencing with the marriage to His bride.
Chapter 20 shows the events leading up to the final judgment of Christ that will occur at His Revelation, and the casting out of the wicked into the Lake of Fire.
Chapter 21 shows the presentation of His bride and the New Jerusalem as the eternal state of the redeemed at His Revelation.
Chapter 22 reminds us of our choices to repent and partake of Christ as opposed to the alternative in the Lake of Fire, and that we still have time, but He is coming soon.

No reason at all to expect a strict chronology between all of those chapters....because it would make 7 different Revelation's of Christ from Heaven to accomplish all of that.
They all overlay.

Chronology isn't the focal point of Revelation.

Christ's "REVELATION" is the focal point of Revelation, and the final triumph of Christ and His people over Satan and his people at Christ's REVELATION.

Not to mention Rev 20:10 states that when Satan is released that he is cast into the Lake of Fire where the beast and false prophet are. Meaning that the beast and false prophet are already there when Satan is hurled in.

The word 'are' is misleading you. It doesn't tell us the B and FP are in cast in there a long period of time before Satan. All these passages are telling us is that all the wicked are cast into the LOF at Christ's Revelation. Noone is exempt. Not the B, not the FP, not Satan, not the wicked from the seas or the land and not even death and the grave.

The obvious conclusion being that there was a time separation between the casting of the Beast/False Prophet and Satan. Rev 19 tells us that Beast and False Prophet were cast into the lake of fire with no mention of Satan being cast with them.

It's only an obvious conclusion if you want to inject a period of earthly time between Christ's REVELATION, and the final presentation of the eternal state. (which the NT is silent on describing, and which the OT must take passages out of context and be misapplied to attempt to create support for).

Is the Second Coming and the REVELATION of Christ the final highlight of mortal human endeavor upon the Earth when sin and death are defeated (as Amill teaches); or just another blip along the timeline of wicked sinful man and their exploits(as Premill teaches)?

At best, IMO a Amill would need to admit that John made it really confusing by sticking a 1,000 years phrase between the destruction of the beast and Satan if they actually happen at the same time and did not tell us that they were cast together into the LOF.

Amill wouldn't admit John being confused at all. Amill sees nearly all of Revelation's visions as depictions of events and circumstances of Christ's REVELATION from different perspectives and angles, with different people, groups, and topics being covered and explained.

Amill sees John use the term thousand like many OT writers used it, to denote a long, undeternable time period....and Amill can see John was using that phraseology to denote the duration of the NT Harvest era prior to the REVELATION of Christ and the final judgment and presentation of the Eternal state.

Amill realizes that at Christ's REVELATION all the wicked are destroyed; wicked men, women great and small, Beasts, Prophets, devils, demons, and the grave and death themselves.

Amill doesn't accept the Premill notion of a continued period on the Earth after the REVELATION of Christ, when Christ comes to the earth to rule and reign over a sinful and still-cursed planet which resists His reign to the point that at the end of this period, billions of people as the sands of the sea have revolted against the direct prsence of Christ.

Amill believes the kingdom that Christ presents at His REVELATION will be perfect, sinless, without death and the curse.....just as Christ intended it to be when He returns.

I was a Premill Dispensationalist for over 20 years....and I can say that the vision of the future that that system presents is one foreign to most teachings and concepts of the NT; and is more in accord with the vision of the kingdom that the Pharisees were wanting...that Jesus said would not come like they expected. A kingdom of continued sin and revolt, of legalism and returns to OT shadows and types that Christ has already abolished and replaced.

When you realize that the Scriptures make Christ's REVELATION the single focal point and climax to human mortal sinful history....then the scriptures will truly begin to harmonize and make perfect sense. No return to racism with Jews ruling over Gentiles....no return to sacrificing bulls and goats for sin offerings....no return to physical circumcision....no return to pilgrammages to Jerusalem....none of the stuff that Dispensationalism is forced to embrace because of how it misrepresents and misapplies all of Rev 20, Ezekiel 40-48, and Zech 12-14 into our future creating many conflicts and disharmonies with the NT scriptures and must of the core precepts and foundational concepts of NT Christianity.

To me, one of the biggest flaws with the Amill approach is that if so much of Revelation is not to be taken literal or at least have a literal meaing, like the 1,000 years or Satan being in real prison. Then why should anyone believe a amill’s position that Rev 20:7-10 is literal and that Jesus’s 2nd coming at that time is literal. Why is that taken literally but much of the rest of Revelation is figurative and symbolic. I am pressing the issue that why do you take Rev 20:7-10 literal and Rev 20:1-6 is symbolic?

One mustn't do as Full Preterism does and over-emphasize the symbolic meaning of everything.
Likewise one mustn't do like Dispensationalism does and over-emphasize the literal meaning of everything. (which is is very inconsistent about doing when regarding pretrib rapture topics).

One should let scripture interpret scripture, and use context to find the right intent.

John expect a literal future return of Christ because the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts and most all the NT epistles also wrote in plain literal speech expecting this.

None of them however, wrote of a pretrib rapture even 7 years prior to the REVELATION of Christ from Heaven; nor did any of them write of a literal thousand year period where Christ governed in a condition where billions as the sands of the seas were so displeased that they preferred revolt over love and trust.

Satan is a spiritual being, who the NT says Jesus bound and is now spoiling His goods. Why not accept that? Scripture says when Christ returns, Satan will be destroyed? Why not accept that? Scripture says when Christ returns all the wicked will be severed from among the just. Why not except that? Scripture says when Christ returns the resurrection of all man occurs; not separate sub-group resurrections at different times. Why not accept that? Scripture says that when Christ comes, the bondage of corruption will be removed. Why believe it really won't, and accept a premill kingdom that isn't perfect, isn't sinless, and makes Christ look ineffective and foolish?

[John146]

There is a great difficulty for the Amill position as it relates to the subject of Revelation 20. IMO the burden of proof falls on an Amill to explain Rev 20 in a sensible way. The most natural reading of Rev 19-21 is in a chronological order and it takes great difficultly to do otherwise.

I see no basis for what you're saying here. I disagree with your premise. There is no "natural reading" of Rev 19-21. As with any other scripture we should read it with the rest of scripture in mind and make sure our interpretation does not contradict any other scripture. I believe the premil interpretation of Rev. 20 contradicts quite a bit of scripture. Here is what I think Paul would say in response to the idea of scripture having a "natural reading":

1 Cor 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

One of the greatest difficulties to the Amill position is there understanding of Satan being bound to mean "restricted or hindered". From an Amill perspective, this does not mean complete confinement from having any activity on the earth but rather that he is "hindered” or “restricted" from thwarting the progress of the gospel through deceiving the nations. There are several problems with this thinking…

1. Burden of Proof: Nothing in the text says specifically that the binding of Satan is specifically targeted against the stopping of the gospel from going forth.

There is also nothing in the text that says anything about Christ reigning on the earth. This works both ways.

Even though from a premil’s perspective, we would agree that this is a result of the binding of Satan in the Millennial reign, the burden of proof rest on the Amills that this is only thing that the binding of Satan means. In other words, how Satan can be bound and still tempt people, still roam like a lion across the earth and cause his sway to be over the earth and yet only be hindered in stopping the gospel proclamation or from destroying the church? This theology must be concluded from an Amill perspective even though nothing in the text of Rev 20 specifically states this. The limiting of Satan’s binding is not warranted from the text. John goes to great length to tell us that the binding of Satan is not limited. John says he is “bound” with a “great chain”, “cast into the Abyss”, “shut up” and a “sealed” or a “lock”(NIV) set over him. This in no logical way his gives the impression that Satan is roaming the earth at the same time, tempting men into sin and causing destruction. Even if it is not a literal chain but spiritual one, it still has a literal meaning in that his current activates are stopped.

That's your opinion and nothing more. Amils say he is restrained and that it is described figuratively. You say he is completely stopped even though he's a spiritual being who can't be literally chained up.

2. Many Amills place the binding of Satan at the same time as the casting down of Satan in Revelation 12. With this belief, they promote that once Satan is cast down, he then goes throughout the earth with “great wrath because he knows his time is short.”. However there is an extreme difficultly with this interpretation. In Rev 12, Michael and his angels fight with the dragon and the result is that Satan along with his angels are “cast to the earth’. However in Revelation 20 the mighty angel cast Satan to the “Bottomless Pit” from the earth.

Where does it say he is cast into the bottomless pit from the earth? Even if he was on or around the earth how would you know he hadn't just been cast there? The text doesn't say.

He is cast from one location (Earth) to another location (Abyss). Throughout the book of revelation the “Abyss is a different place than the earth”. In Rev 9 a fallen star comes to the earth to open a door to the bottomless pit, in which Locust come upon the earth, thus proving they are two different locations. It takes an opening of a door for these locusts to roam on the earth. Yet in rev 20 the angel “shuts” and “locks” the bottomless pit, therefore there can be no roaming.

This is based on your assumption that the language is meant to be taken literally, but do you really think a spirit being like Satan can be literally chained in a literal prison? It should be clear that it's all symbolic language there.

3. Satan cannot be both bound in one location and present in another location. The only other time we see in the book of Revelation a “binding” is in Rev 9:14. There it says that four angels are “bound at the great river Euphrates”. It would make no logical sense to believe that if the angels are bound at the Euphrates that they could also be roaming other parts of the globe, or else the language of being “bound at the Euphrates” would mean nothing. Likewise, Satan being bound in the Abyss means that he is there and cannot at the same time be elsewhere.

Again, this is due to your literal way of thinking. If you think that is referring to the literal Euphrates river then do you also think that the references to Babylon are referring to the literal city of Babylon?

4. If Satan is currently chained in the Abyss, shut up and sealed, then the burden of proof lies on the Amill to explain how Satan could also be "walking about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour", or how the "whole earth is under his sway", or how he "hindered" Paul (1 Tim 2:18), or how he has "blinded the eyes of the unbelieving" (2 Ch 4:4), or how he is "the prince and power of the air", or how he caused Annias and Sapphria to lie to the Holy Spirit, or how the "coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,” or how some widows in the Christian community could "turn aside to follow Satan" (1 Tim 5:15). They have to logically explain how other new testament verses speak of Satan being active on earth if at the same time he is chained in the Abyss.

Again, you are making the assumption that the description of a dragon being chained in a prison is meant to be taken literally. I don't believe that it is. I believe that is a symbolic way of talking about Satan being restrained from doing certain things, but not from doing anything at all.

5. The 1,000 years: For a Amill the 1,000 years is not a literally 1,000 years but symbolic. They point to 10 being the number of completion and since 1,000 is a multiple of ten it speaks a time of ultimate completion. They may even point to elsewhere in the scriptures where numbers are rounded off to the nearest thousand instead of giving the exact number (such as a military census). The problem is the burden of proof again lies on the Amill to prove that when John uses the specific number “1,000” six times in six verses that he is actually implying a “extended period” or a “unspecified amount of time”. If it is not a literal number, then why does he not just use the language that says “a long time” or another variation of an "extended time". Throughout the book of Revelation, we see other terms that mean an unspecified period of time or amounts, such as “For one hour”, or “a little while”, or “his time is short”, “a little while longer” or “soon”, or “ten thousand times ten thousand”. Yet when John sees the number of 1,000 years and says it 6 times, Amills put that in the same camp with an "unspecified amount of time". John is clearly capable of telling us if it is "unspecified" or "extended" without telling us a literal number. In Rev 6 when identifying the sealed he says it was 144,000 and in Rev 9 he sees 200,000,000 army, but when describing the multitudes of Gentiles coming out of the Great Trib, he says it was a “number to great to count”. This means “very large”. The point being is that when John sees a specific number, why would we automatically assume it is figurative when he already uses different language in other places to describe numbers or lengths that are unspecified?

The Greek number translated as "thousand" in Rev 20 can be plural. It does not have to mean one thousand. It seems to me that if he intended it to be a literal one thousand then he would have used the word "chilias" instead of "chilioi". Also, the word thousand is used symbolically elsewhere in scripture such as when it refers to God keeping His covenant "to a thousand generations" (Deut 7:9) and when it speaks of the cattle upon a thousand hills (Psalm 50:10).

6. If Satan is currently bound which according to a Amill equals not being able to deceive the nations from the gospel going forth or destroy the church, then what restrictions are lifted when he is let out? When Satan gathers his nations to come against the Saints, is that the restriction that is lifted? Believers are persecuted now and have been ever since the days of the first Advent.

But at that point there will be no restraint. You know how Paul talks about iniquity being restrained in 2 Thess 2 even though "the mystery of iniquity doth already work"? I believe that relates to Satan's binding. Once iniquity is no longer restrained then the falling away Paul mentioned will occur and this will be "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish" (2 Thess 2:9-10).

7. Last but not least, though it is not a theological point, it is a very practical point. If Satan is "bound", "shut up" and "sealed in the Abyss", how in anyway can one logically account for all the horrible demonic activity on the earth? Human Trafficking, Widespread Abortion, the Holocaust, WWI and WWII, Billion Dollar industry of Pornography, and the Occult just to name a few. Not to mention the massive amount of unbelievers on the earth and people that are completely blinded to the reality of the gospel. This is a difficult pill to swallow if the hindrances to the gospel have been removed.

We're not saying they have been removed, we're saying they have been restrained. Before Christ came the word of God was limited to just Israel. The Gentile nations had not heard it. After He came the gospel went out into the entire world through the power of the Holy Spirit. Do you think Satan did not need to be restrained in order for that to happen? What caused him to be less successful in keeping the world in spiritual darkness after Christ came compared to before? I understand that there has been a lot of wickedness occur since Christ came but you have to understand that before He came it was much worse because the Gentiles "at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" (Eph 2:11-12). But "now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." (Eph 2:13).

I believe passages like the following relate to the binding of Satan:

Matt 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. 29Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Passages like these show the tremendous effect Christ's death had on Satan. I think premils underestimate that because they're so focused on him going about like a roaring lion.

[John146]

All of this spiritual vs. physical debate really misses the point, in my opinion. A more pertinent question would be this: is Satan literally a dragon? Or is the "dragon" a visionary representation of Satan? Because if the latter is correct, then we should probably understand the "binding" itself to be a visionary representation as well, not a direct transcription of something that happens to Satan in the real world. Analogously, when chapter 12 pictures the dragon attempting to "devour" the man child, we should not think of Satan literally seeking to eat Jesus after his birth. Rather, that image represents Satan's beastly program to thwart God's purposes, which were put to operation climatically in Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

I agree. It pictures a dragon being physically bound by a "great chain" in a prison but Satan is not a dragon and is not a physical being and therefore we should not understand it to be speaking of a literal chain or of him being literally bound in a physcal place completely separate from the earth, either.

[Raybob]

... The bottomless pit has to be a literal place, the same as the earth, heaven and hell are literal places. Regardless of wether one thinks that the Abyss is literal they have to face that fact that Satan is chained in a place that is different than the earth for 1,000 years. Therefore he is hindered from access to earth or else it is not a prison. IMO in is awkward to explain how Satan is shut up, sealed and chained in a prison called the bottomless pit and is cast there from the place called earth and yet somehow he is still allowed to roam free on earth. The term prison loses all validity if the prisoner does not have to stay confined to the prison...

You are missing the point of why Satan was bound. He was bound only from decieving the ethnos. Ethnos, most places, is translated to mean gentiles, in the NT. Satan was bound only from deceiving the gentiles.

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations (ethnos) no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
(Rev 20:2-3)

That binding of Satan was only to stop him from getting the gospel to the "ethnos".

[John146]

You make a good point here, so let's see if spirit creatures can be literally cast places. And let's see if the bottomless pit(abussos) is an actual location, or just a state of mind or something.


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;

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Here we see these are cast down to hell. I would think both passages are describing the same group. So how should 'hell' be understood? A literal place? Or just a state of mind? Or perhaps hell is symbolic for the earth? My guess would be the former.

Aren't those describing something that has already happened? Despite being reserved in everlasting chains for judgment they are still active on the earth, right? So, that's clearly not speaking of them being literally chained up somewhere and unable to move.

Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
29 (For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters; and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness. )
30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
31 And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep(abussos).
32 And there was there an herd of many swine feeding on the mountain: and they besought him that he would suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them.
33 Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked.

The same Greek word for bottomless pit in Rev 20, it is used here in verse 31. So what exactly did the demons mean by..And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep(abussos).?

They were inside someone's body so who is to say that the abyss wasn't right there in the vicinity of the earth? Where does it say that the deep/abyss/bottomless pit is located far away from the earth somewhere? Since it's where spirit beings are cast you can't think of it the same way you think of a physical location. The text doesn't say how far away it was. They just didn't want to be cast out of the man's body. They didn't say anything about being sent far away from earth. For all we know the abyss might just be a reference to the spiritual realm outside of heaven, including in the vicinity of the earth.

Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above: )
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep(abussos)? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

Once again, in verse 7, this same Greek word is used. It would seem to me, if heaven, in verse 6, is a literal place, then so must the deep in verse 6 be a literal place. Rev 20 states that satan is cast into the deep for 1000 yrs. So why shouldn't the deep be understood as a literal place, since Scriptures clearly show that God is capable of literally casting spirits into places? And besides, if satan can't be literally cast into the deep for 1000 yrs, why should anyone believe that satan is literally cast into the LOF?
Maybe that shouldn't be understood literally either, right? Wrong. Of course it should be understood in the literal sense.

What do you mean by "literal sense"? Are you saying the lake of fire should be understood as a literal, physical lake of literal physical fire? Will it look something like this:



If you think so then tell me how a spirit being like Satan could be cast there?

[John146]

With respect, I think that view bigs up Satan to be more powerful then he is.

That must surely be down to the power of the gospel, not the lack of the power of Satan because some say he is bound. The power of the gospel is far far greater then the power of Satan

The power of the gospel being spread through the power of the Holy Spirit restrains the power of Satan. That's the point. This was not the case in OT times. And he is very, very powerful or else why would scripture say this:

Acts 26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. 16But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

And this:

2 Thess 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

And this:

Rev 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 5And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

[John146]

I agree with you that dragon is a "visionary representation of Satan". The problem is that John actually identifes him as the "serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan". That "being" is a litteral being who is said to be cast into a litteral place called the Abyss.

But it's not a physical place and should not be understood the exact same way a physical place is understood. While he is a real being he is not a physical being so you have to take that into account. A spirit being cannot be literally bound by a literal chain so him being bound by a chain is clearly symbolic of something.

[John146]

Though I would agree that there is symbolism, and other literary devices in the book of Revelation, that in no way detracts from the literal nature and meanings of the things those literary devices are seeking to explain. If the language of Revelation has no literal conclusion then what is the point of John being given the Revelation? How can Revelation ever be understood if it is open to anyone’s interpretation on what the symbolic things mean. Though everyone has the right to interpret the book how they please, does not mean that God didn’t have a original intent and focus of which the book is about. At the end of the day, all the symbolism has to mean something or else it is not symbolizing anything. In order for something to be a symbol means it has to be a symbol of something literal.

No one is saying otherwise.

With that said, I like what DivaD is saying. The bottomless pit has to be a literal place, the same as the earth, heaven and hell are literal places. Regardless of wether one thinks that the Abyss is literal they have to face that fact that Satan is chained in a place that is different than the earth for 1,000 years.

Where is that place exactly? It doesn't say, does it. And it should be clear that it's not speaking of a literal chain since he is a spirit being, not a physical being.

Therefore he is hindered from access to earth or else it is not a prison.

But it isn't a literal prison just as it isn't speaking of a literal dragon or literal chain.

IMO in is awkward to explain how Satan is shut up, sealed and chained in a prison called the bottomless pit and is cast there from the place called earth and yet somehow he is still allowed to roam free on earth. The term prison loses all validity if the prisoner does not have to stay confined to the prison.

This all depends on what it means for him to be bound from deceiving the "ethnos". Think of the beast with seven heads and ten horns. Does anyone think what that represents literally is just like a real beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns? Of course not. In the case of the binding of Satan it's speaking of a spiritual binding of a spirit being using physical symbolism. Just like it does elsewhere in Revelation. Again, the beast with seven heads and ten horns is not a literal beast with seven heads and ten horns at all. Just because the symbolism refers to physical things doesn't mean the reality is physical rather than spiritual.

To me, one of the biggest flaws with the Amill approach is that if so much of Revelation is not to be taken literal or at least have a literal meaing, like the 1,000 years or Satan being in real prison. Then why should anyone believe a amill’s position that Rev 20:7-10 is literal and that Jesus’s 2nd coming at that time is literal. Why is that taken literally but much of the rest of Revelation is figurative and symbolic. I understand that few want to be labeled a the full preterist camp, nor am I suggesting that anyone here is such. But I am pressing the issue that why do you take Rev 20:7-10 literal and Rev 20:1-6 is symbolic?

Come on. We all believe there is a mixture of literal and symbolic language in the book of Revelation. Why is it a flaw just because we might see certain things as being symbolic that you take literally? Which parts are symbolic and which parts are literal is a matter of interpretation so there is no basis for seeing it as a flaw just because we see certain parts of the undeniably highly symbolic book as being symbolic instead of literal. If it had to be all literal or all symbolic then you might have a point but none of us see it that way.

[The Beginner]

So let me get this straight... Satan was symbolically cast into a symbolic Abyss by a symbolic chain. He was symbolically shut up with a symbolic lock for a symbolic 1,000 years...

After the symbolic 1,000 years end...

He will be literally released to deceive literal nations and literally gather them to persecute the saints. At that time Jesus will literally return and literally destroy Satan by throwing him into a literal lake of fire...

Anybody else see a problem with this hermeneutic?

[David Taylor]

So let me get this straight... Satan was symbolically cast into a symbolic Abyss by a symbolic chain. He was symbolically shut up with a symbolic lock for a symbolic 1,000 years...

After the symbolic 1,000 years end...

He will be literally released to deceive literal nations and literally gather them to persecute the saints. At that time Jesus will literally return and literally destroy Satan by throwing him into a literal lake of fire...

Anybody else see a problem with this hermeneutic?

Yes.

It is offered up by a Dispensational Premillennialist attempting to speak on behalf of a non-Dispensational Amillennialist.

Those rose-colored glasses just don't have the clarity they need to have to make an accurate depiction!

[The Beginner]

Yes.

It is offered up by a Dispensational Premillennialist attempting to speak on behalf of a non-Dispensational Amillennialist.

Those rose-colored glasses just don't have the clarity they need to have to make an accurate depiction!

Hey David Taylor,

I'm not a Dispensationalist...

Bless you

[David Taylor]

Hey David Taylor,

I'm not a Dispensationalist...

Bless you

Sorry...I thought I had read earlier where you were Pre-trib.

Ok, then anyhow, let me correct my prior statement.


It is offered up by a Premillennialist attempting to speak on behalf of a Amillennialist.