"The Binding of Satan
First, the binding of Satan is said to have a specific purpose: "so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished" (v.3). That is, during this time Satan's activity is terminated. Now it has been suggested that this pictures this gospel age in which Christ's work proceeds more or less unhindered by the "strong man" who by Him is now "bound" (cf. Mat.12:28-29). Satan, so this theory goes, is not allowed today to successfully hinder the gospel. Further support is often gleaned from Rev.12:7ff where Satan is seen as "cast out" of heaven (v.9).
But the parallel is not as obvious as it might at first appear. Is the binding and fall of Satan in Mat.12 and Rev.12 the same as that of Rev.20? And how can we know? The text itself should provide some clues. Interestingly enough, a comparison of Rev.12 and Rev.20 demonstrates not a parallel but a contrast.
Most agree that Rev.12 speaks of this age, whether the church age as such or the tribulation period. Can Rev.20 be the same? Here is the data with which we must work toward our decision:
1) In Rev.12 Satan's time is "short" (v.12), but the time frame in Rev.20 is "a thousand years."
2) In Rev.12 he is cast from heaven to earth, but in Rev.20 he is cast from earth to the abyss.
3) In Rev.12 he frantically carries out a furious rampage over the earth, but in Rev.20 he is confined to the abyss.
4) Still more significantly, in Rev.12:9 Satan, on the loose, "deceives ( planao) the whole world"; but in Rev.20:3 it is precisely this deception ( planao) that is denied and disallowed (v.3)."
There are two competing assumptions here, 1) the Amillennialist assumes that chapter 20 occurs in Heaven and not on Earth; the millenarian (of basically any stripe I am aware) assumes just the opposite.
2) The Amillennialist assumes the binding of Satan, so as to keep him from deceiving the nations refers to the fact that the gospel is not hindered from going into all the nations.
Before, the gospel and the Law were localized on Earth; just as God’s presence among men, the Law and the gospel were “contained” in the Jewish temple. After the cross this hindrance was removed, thus the language of Satan’s “binding”. Zaspel’s assumption here (which is shared by the majority of Premillennialists) is revealed quickly, that the “binding” of Satan is paramount to the “termination” of his activity all together.
As it has been pointed out before, Satan, compared to a Lion or wild beast who roams to and fro (the premillennial assumption there is that “to and fro” means his ability to go wherever he pleases on Earth) in vicious, and just as an angry, feral dog tied to a tree (bound) is hindered in one respect, his anger is amplified and when he is approached, he would be all the more dangerous when in range.
So the idea of binding does not necessarily have to indicate the termination of activity. Below I have included a quote from the “The A Team” blog interview which is germane to this topic, from Kim Riddlebarger as he answers the question, “Could you clarify in a nutshell what amillennialism is for those who may have similar misunderstandings? [regarding the nomenclature of A-millennialism]."
"Amillennialism is simply the view that what is depicted in Revelation 20:1-10 is a description of the period of time between the first coming of Christ (and his binding of Satan) and his second coming (when the beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire). The scene in the first 6 verses of Revelation 20 take place in heaven and not on earth (that's where the thrones are). The thousand years are a figurative period of time–numbers in Revelation are always used symbolically. The first resurrection is a believer's conversion (John 5:24-25), and those who experience the first resurrection need not fear the second death. When we speak of amillennialism, we really mean "present millennialism." We do not "spiritualize" the Bible as dispensationalists claim. Neither do we hold to "replacement theology," but that is another discussion for another time.” - Riddlebarger
Zaspel’s objection to the parallel of Rev. 12:12 to 20:2 is that the 1000 years of 20:2 could not be represented as a “short time” as in 12:12.
I think what Zaspel misses in the context of 12:12 is that, the Devil knows his time is short, but this period of time how ever long, is short in relation to eternity. In other words, he knows he will not have enough time to accomplish his plans…it is too short.
No comments:
Post a Comment