Preterism and the binding of Satan

[KingsGambit]

My understanding is that partial preterists around here generally hold that Satan is currently bound, based of course on Revelation 20:1-6. Is this view universally held among partial preterists? I (and I don't have a firm stance on preterism vs. futurism) tend to think that basing firm doctrinal stances based on apocalyptic imagery may be unwise, and if I were to adopt preterism, I don't think this is something I would be dogmatic about personally.

[alaskazimm]

It's also based on Matt 12:29 where Jesus likens Satan to a strong man who has been bound so that his house is able to be plundered.

28*But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29*Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

The New King James Version. (1982). (Mt 12:28–29). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

[Obsidian]

I think it's a universal doctrine of what we normally call "partial preterists" to assert that Satan has already been bound. However, some other theologies (most notably historicism) also believe in a more limited form of partial preterism, and not all of them assert that Satan is bound.

[KingsGambit]

It's also based on Matt 12:29 where Jesus likens Satan to a strong man who has been bound so that his house is able to be plundered.

I don't see how this necessitates a 70 AD binding, though.

[Obsidian]

Personally, I think it is clear that it does not refer to 70 A.D. For it to apply to 70 A.D., you have to assume that Jerusalem is "Babylon" (which is dubious anyway). But in Revelation there are other events in between the destruction of Babylon and the start of the millennium. Hence, the millennium cannot start right at 70 A.D.

[alaskazimm]

I don't see how this necessitates a 70 AD binding, though.

Not 70 AD necessarily, but the first coming and work of Christ. His casting out of demons was proof that God's kingdom was upon them and that the strong man (Satan) had been bound so that his house could be plundered (people coming to believe in Christ and moving from Satan's domain to the Kingdom of God).

[AlphaBravo]

A working framework from a preterist/postmillenial-type perspective has Satan bound in AD 70 or shortly thereafter (Rev 20). This coincides closely with the apparent suspension of the miraculous age (including demon possession and exorcism), the passing of the apostles who transmitted the miraculous powers, the closing of the cannon (and the gifts of prophecy and knowledge), the ending of the Jewish sacrificial system, and the destruction of Jerusalem.

The feast of the carrion birds following the great battle (Rev 19) and the glorification and marriage of the Lamb (Rev 20) are also closely connected with this time period since the destruction of Jerusalem basically represents the death of the previous betrothed.

Another connection to AD 70 is the resurrection of many holy ones, prophesied by Daniel and connected by Jesus in Mt 24 with that generation and the destruction of Jerusalem. This process began at the resurrection of Jesus with many who were raised being seen in Jerusalem. The apostles and those who had gifts of power also raised many from the dead. In Rev 11 and 20 we have the resurrection of many but not all.

A release of Satan 1000 years later is prophesied to continue for a short period and result in the surrounding of the holy city by armies. This actually coincides closely with the beginning of the first Crusade and the waves of Islamic and Christian armies that came against Jerusalem.

[One Bad Pig]

A working framework from a preterist/postmillenial-type perspective has Satan bound in AD 70 or shortly thereafter (Rev 20). This coincides closely with the apparent suspension of the miraculous age (including demon possession and exorcism), the passing of the apostles who transmitted the miraculous powers, the closing of the cannon (and the gifts of prophecy and knowledge), the ending of the Jewish sacrificial system, and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Why would the binding of Satan cause the alleged suspension of the miraculous age? Are you confusing preterism with cessationism?

The feast of the carrion birds following the great battle (Rev 19) and the glorification and marriage of the Lamb (Rev 20) are also closely connected with this time period since the destruction of Jerusalem basically represents the death of the previous betrothed.

I've never heard of the 'death of the previous betrothed.'

Another connection to AD 70 is the resurrection of many holy ones, prophesied by Daniel and connected by Jesus in Mt 24 with that generation and the destruction of Jerusalem. This process began at the resurrection of Jesus with many who were raised being seen in Jerusalem. The apostles and those who had gifts of power also raised many from the dead. In Rev 11 and 20 we have the resurrection of many but not all.

Never heard of the resurrection of many holy ones in/around AD 70 either. And Rev 11 has nothing to do with resurrection AFAICT, while Rev 20 is the resurrection of 'the dead' - which ISTM means "all."

A release of Satan 1000 years later is prophesied to continue for a short period and result in the surrounding of the holy city by armies. This actually coincides closely with the beginning of the first Crusade and the waves of Islamic and Christian armies that came against Jerusalem.

I don't know of any partial preterists who think the millennium was a literal 1,000 years. The Islamic armies came in the 7th century, not 3-4 centuries later. Positing the Christian armies surrounding Muslim-controlled Jerusalem as fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecy makes zero sense.

[AlphaBravo]

Why would the binding of Satan cause the alleged suspension of the miraculous age?

Cause? No. I said that they coincided.

I've never heard of the 'death of the previous betrothed.'

I think that this is a natural conclusion when you consider that God spoke of Israel as his betrothed. Then later as a harlot and as having been given a writ of divorcement. Then later the Church is described as the Bride of Christ. Then in Revelation we have the death of the harlot and the marriage supper of the Lamb.

This concept is currently being developed by Dr. Kenneth Gentry in a commentary on Revelation. I think the title will be The Divorce of Israel or something along those lines.

Never heard of the resurrection of many holy ones in/around AD 70 either.
And Rev 11 has nothing to do with resurrection AFAICT, while Rev 20 is the resurrection of 'the dead' - which ISTM means "all."

I was referring to the resurrection of the two witnesses which occurs in Rev 11:11. I think that is at least something.

With respect to Revelation 20, we have the resurrection of the martyrs in Rev 20:4 who live and reign with Christ for 1000 years. This is evidently not "the" resurrection because the rest of the dead are not raised until after the 1000 years (Rev 20:5), hence this first resurrection is a resurrection of many and not all.

I don't know of any partial preterists who think the millennium was a literal 1,000 years. The Islamic armies came in the 7th century, not 3-4 centuries later. Positing the Christian armies surrounding Muslim-controlled Jerusalem as fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecy makes zero sense.

I was simply pointing out the coincidence that under a framework which has Satan being bound in AD70, we have Jerusalem surrounded by waves of armies, both Islamic and Christian, 1000 years later. And I use the term 'Christian' advisedly.

Although I find myself in agreement with the preterist approach, it is the best scholarship to date, I am really not interested in reciting the full, official, preterist positions. I consider them to be a work in progress.

[One Bad Pig]

Cause? No. I said that they coincided.

Okay. I'll note, however, that miracles have continued since that time, and that there was a formal position of 'exorcist' for centuries thereafter. While the canon was (eventually) closed to writings after that date (according to some dating methods, at any rate), the canon was not firmly established for centuries (and prophecy has largely, but not wholly, ceased).

I think that this is a natural conclusion when you consider that God spoke of Israel as his betrothed. Then later as a harlot and as having been given a writ of divorcement. Then later the Church is described as the Bride of Christ. Then in Revelation we have the death of the harlot and the marriage supper of the Lamb.

This concept is currently being developed by Dr. Kenneth Gentry in a commentary on Revelation. I think the title will be The Divorce of Israel or something along those lines.

IIRC, Israel was given a writ of divorce, but Judah was not. And I think Paul would take issue with the implication that the olive tree was cut off entirely and another one planted, which would be implicit in the idea of a divorce and remarriage.

I was referring to the resurrection of the two witnesses which occurs in Rev 11:11. I think that is at least something.

Two is hardly "many."

With respect to Revelation 20, we have the resurrection of the martyrs in Rev 20:4 who live and reign with Christ for 1000 years. This is evidently not "the" resurrection because the rest of the dead are not raised until after the 1000 years (Rev 20:5), hence this first resurrection is a resurrection of many and not all.

Okay. It would seem not to have been fulfilled in AD 70, at least not verifiably.

I was simply pointing out the coincidence that under a framework which has Satan being bound in AD70, we have Jerusalem surrounded by waves of armies, both Islamic and Christian, 1000 years later. And I use the term 'Christian' advisedly.

Granted your last qualification, IMO it is rather ad hoc (and it is not especially close to 1,000 years).

Although I find myself in agreement with the preterist approach, it is the best scholarship to date, I am really not interested in reciting the full, official, preterist positions. I consider them to be a work in progress.

The general preterist approach is not incompatible with my beliefs, AFAICT.

[AlphaBravo]

Okay. I'll note, however, that miracles have continued since that time, and that there was a formal position of 'exorcist' for centuries thereafter. While the canon was (eventually) closed to writings after that date (according to some dating methods, at any rate), the canon was not firmly established for centuries (and prophecy has largely, but not wholly, ceased).

It can be argued that the dispensation of miracles ended with the passing of the apostles and those whom the apostles had laid their hands upon. This would include the closing of the canon which was a product of those inspired individuals. Obviously this view would conflict with Catholic and Pentecostal doctrines and maybe others.

Okay. It would seem not to have been fulfilled in AD 70, at least not verifiably.

This is a problem that we both must deal with. We have no inspired accounts and only partial/imperfect historical accounts from the late AD 60s to the present. In particular, we have no inspired account looking back at the destruction of Jerusalem, which the preterist position focuses on. In addition, the available historical accounts are not particularly interested in the connection between this event and the prophecies of Mt 24 and the Revelation. If you head down the path of what is currently 'verifiable' you might just as easily argue against other tenets of preterism or even Christianity which we both accept.

With respect to the resurrection of the martyrs, the account in Revelation 20 is cryptic. John only states that he sees those who had been martyred alive and apparently ruling in heaven. As I say, from a pretereist-type perspective, this is consistent with the resurrection that begins at the resurrection of Jesus and extends through the tribulation of the destruction of Jerusalem. Resurrections are described in the gospels, epistles, and in both Rev 11 and 20 in connection with this time period.

Granted your last qualification, IMO it is rather ad hoc (and it is not especially close to 1,000 years).

I think that this proposition, namely that the release of Satan after 1000 years and the deception of the nations and the surrounding of Jerusalem (the beloved city) by the armies of the nations (Rev 20:8), is connected with the Crusades, deserves further study and cannot be casually dismissed.

The general preterist approach is not incompatible with my beliefs, AFAICT.

The preterist approach is strongest and most successful where it identifies the historical one-to-one connections with Daniel 7, Mt 24, and the Revelation, etc, most of these culminating with the destruction of Jerusalem. It is weakest where, due to the silence/imperfection of the historical record, it then rather arbitrarily reverts to a figurative/symbolic/metaphorical interpretation. In my opinion it is this capriciousness that causes many to go the route of premillenialism or futurism.

[One Bad Pig]

It can be argued that the dispensation of miracles ended with the passing of the apostles and those whom the apostles had laid their hands upon. This would include the closing of the canon which was a product of those inspired individuals. Obviously this view would conflict with Catholic and Pentecostal doctrines and maybe others.

From my (Orthodox) experience it is demonstrably wrong - though I'll also note that the Orthodox Church considers that is a direct successor to the apostles through the laying on of hands down through the centuries.

This is a problem that we both must deal with. We have no inspired accounts and only partial/imperfect historical accounts from the late AD 60s to the present. In particular, we have no inspired account looking back at the destruction of Jerusalem, which the preterist position focuses on. In addition, the available historical accounts are not particularly interested in the connection between this event and the prophecies of Mt 24 and the Revelation. If you head down the path of what is currently 'verifiable' you might just as easily argue against other tenets of preterism or even Christianity which we both accept.

With respect to the resurrection of the martyrs, the account in Revelation 20 is cryptic. John only states that he sees those who had been martyred alive and apparently ruling in heaven. As I say, from a pretereist-type perspective, this is consistent with the resurrection that begins at the resurrection of Jesus and extends through the tribulation of the destruction of Jerusalem.

The main problem that I have with this idea is that is essentially unverifiable given preterist methods of interpretation. They're reigning with Jesus. Jesus' returning 'on the clouds with power' is seen as fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (just as the OT fulfillment of similar passages is in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians). If the resurrected martyrs' co-reign is similarly metaphorical (and I see no reason why it shouldn't be), what would that look like?

Resurrections are described in the gospels, epistles, and in both Rev 11 and 20 in connection with this time period.

You'll need to be more specific.

I think that this proposition, namely that the release of Satan after 1000 years and the deception of the nations and the surrounding of Jerusalem (the beloved city) by the armies of the nations (Rev 20:8), is connected with the Crusades, deserves further study and cannot be casually dismissed.

I wouldn't absolutely rule it out as a secondary fulfillment, but I don't see the Crusaders as a particularly valid stand-in for the Church. I would consider the Church as metaphorical Jerusalem surrounded by armies of the world a much stronger possibility.

The preterist approach is strongest and most successful where it identifies the historical one-to-one connections with Daniel 7, Mt 24, and the Revelation, etc, most of these culminating with the destruction of Jerusalem. It is weakest where, due to the silence/imperfection of the historical record, it then rather arbitrarily reverts to a figurative/symbolic/metaphorical interpretation. In my opinion it is this capriciousness that causes many to go the route of premillenialism or futurism.

As far as I know, premillenialism is largely a Protestant phenomenon (except for early chiliasm); the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches have been largely amillenial in outlook.

[AlphaBravo]

From my (Orthodox) experience it is demonstrably wrong - though I'll also note that the Orthodox Church considers that is a direct successor to the apostles through the laying on of hands down through the centuries.

This topic probably needs a separate thread.

The main problem that I have with this idea is that is essentially unverifiable given preterist methods of interpretation.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Scholarship is scholarship. If you are relying upon modern orthodox apostles to expound upon the blanks in the historical record then I can't really follow you there.

My point is that the historical record is incomplete and imperfect and a scholarly approach to the Revelation in the preterist framework must recognize this fact. It must acknowledge that there are some things in the Revelation that we cannot understand unless further historical documents or discoveries come to light.

They're reigning with Jesus. Jesus' returning 'on the clouds with power' is seen as fulfilled in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (just as the OT fulfillment of similar passages is in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians). If the resurrected martyrs' co-reign is similarly metaphorical (and I see no reason why it shouldn't be), what would that look like?

Why must the reign of resurrected martyrs be metaphorical? What does that even mean? Was their faithful service unto death metaphorical? Is their beheading for refusal to worship the beast metaphorical? Is the beast metaphorical? Are their glorification, thrones and rule metaphorical? From a preterist approach I think we should say no. Again this is where I think the full preterist approach is sometimes arbitrary and abandons the strongest line.

You'll need to be more specific.

In addition to those unnumbered who were resurrected during the ministry of Christ, Matthew 27: 51-53 has "many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised and appeared to many in the holy city (Jerusalem)." This occurs after the resurrection of Jesus from the grave. This was followed over the next 40 years by an intense period of persecution and expression of miraculous gifts including resurrections.

Revelation 11 has the two witnesses martyred and resurrected in The Great City where Jesus was crucified (Jerusalem) which in a preterist framework can be closely connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.

Finally we have in Revelation 20 the eyewitness account of John who sees the resurrection of those who had not deferred to the beast and whose resurrection and reign precedes the general resurrection by at least 1000 years. To switch here from an historical framework to a metaphorical one I think does injury to the apparent continuity of the text.

I wouldn't absolutely rule it out as a secondary fulfillment, but I don't see the Crusaders as a particularly valid stand-in for the Church. I would consider the Church as metaphorical Jerusalem surrounded by armies of the world a much stronger possibility.

It would be better to just say we don't understand what parts of Revelation mean than to switch from an historical to a metaphorical interpretation just because the historical record is silent.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Scholarship is scholarship. If you are relying upon modern orthodox apostles to expound upon the blanks in the historical record then I can't really follow you there.

My point is that the historical record is incomplete and imperfect and a scholarly approach to the Revelation in the preterist framework must recognize this fact. It must acknowledge that there are some things in the Revelation that we cannot understand unless further historical documents or discoveries come to light.

Why must the reign of resurrected martyrs be metaphorical? What does that even mean? Was their faithful service unto death metaphorical? Is their beheading for refusal to worship the beast metaphorical? Is the beast metaphorical? Are their glorification, thrones and rule metaphorical? From a preterist approach I think we should say no. Again this is where I think the full preterist approach is sometimes arbitrary and abandons the strongest line.

I think you're missing my point. How does preterism interpret the coming of Jesus in AD 70 and His current reign? Why would not those reigning with Him be interpreted similarly? And we have accounts of martyrs from earliest times. However, we have no accounts of those martyrs being resurrected (the only one of which I'm aware is of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, which is from a later time period). The church has a record, if fragmentary, of the time period. I cannot fathom how a widely known resurrection of martyrs would be lost entirely. I can understand how secular historians might miss it, but not the church.

In addition to those unnumbered who were resurrected during the ministry of Christ, Matthew 27: 51-53 has "many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised and appeared to many in the holy city (Jerusalem)." This occurs after the resurrection of Jesus from the grave.

This occurred at the time of Jesus' resurrection -wrong time period. And I don't think they're referred to as martyrs.

This was followed over the next 40 years by an intense period of persecution and expression of miraculous gifts including resurrections.

One here, one there, and none of them martyrs - and not close to the time envisaged in Rev 20.

Revelation 11 has the two witnesses martyred and resurrected in The Great City where Jesus was crucified (Jerusalem) which in a preterist framework can be closely connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.

These seem unlikely to be related to the mass resurrection mentioned later, under different circumstances.

Finally we have in Revelation 20 the eyewitness account of John who sees the resurrection of those who had not deferred to the beast and whose resurrection and reign precedes the general resurrection by at least 1000 years. To switch here from an historical framework to a metaphorical one I think does injury to the apparent continuity of the text.

IMO a fair amount of what John saw was metaphorical. Another question is whether the resurrection of these martyrs was temporary (like those recorded in Matthew and Acts) or permanent.

It would be better to just say we don't understand what parts of Revelation mean than to switch from an historical to a metaphorical interpretation just because the historical record is silent.

Look, the Crusades really don't fit well historically. They're sorta close to 1,000 years, and at one point 'Christian' Jerusalem was surrounded by hostile armies. Except, as you admit, the Crusaders were hardly a shining example of Christianity, and Jerusalem subsequently surrendered to the Arabs instead of Revelation's depiction of fire consuming the surrounding armies.

[AlphaBravo]

I think you're missing my point. How does preterism interpret the coming of Jesus in AD 70 and His current reign? Why would not those reigning with Him be interpreted similarly?

Yes they should. But to say that it is metaphorical is impotent and meaningless. The metaphorical interpretation of the coming of Jesus at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 is exactly the point where the preterist approach abandon's its strongest case. Matthew 24 cannot be parsed into a literal and metaphorical component as preterists do, just as it cannot be parsed into a past and future component as the premillenialists do. Both do injury to the plain sense of the text.

It is the natural sense and explicit statements in Mt 24 and Lk 21 that drove me off the premillenial wagon and led me to a preterist approach. Preterism does some beautiful work in tying Mt 24 to the tribulation leading up to AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem. Then somewhere around Matthew 24:29, the formal preterist approach quails and abandons the strongest line for a metaphorical/figurative interpretation.

And we have accounts of martyrs from earliest times. However, we have no accounts of those martyrs being resurrected (the only one of which I'm aware is of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, which is from a later time period). The church has a record, if fragmentary, of the time period. I cannot fathom how a widely known resurrection of martyrs would be lost entirely. I can understand how secular historians might miss it, but not the church.

I think one has to ask themselves this question: What would we know about the fullfillment of messianic prophecies if the inspired accounts of the gospels and the epistles did not survive to this day? Would we doubt the virgin birth? Would we know about the angels who appeared in heaven at the birth of Jesus? The slaughter of the innocent by Herod? The feeding of 5000 with a basket of fishes and loaves? That Jesus emptied the land of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee of the sick, lame, blind, and possessed, even raising the dead? The resurrection of Jesus? The opening of the heavens to receive him as he floated up into the sky? The resurrection of many, perhaps hundreds when Jesus was raised? How is secular and even church history nearly silent of the wonders which Jesus performed which the world cannot contain the books if they were all written down?

We do not have an inspired account of the tribulation and destruction of Jerusalem. Period. There may be much that occurred that we do not know about, and yes even the resurrection of many.

Another matter that must be recognized is that modern expositors have neglected or disparaged the detailed historical accounts that survive. Josephus, an historian that was ignorant or perhaps indifferent to Christian prophecies, nevertheless records many interesting, even incredible events which align closely with the Christian apocalyptic writings. Are you aware that Josephus records the accounts of eyewitnesses who reported the opening of the sky above the cities of Judaea? That in the sky chariots, soldiers with glittering armor, flashes of lights and voices were seen and heard rushing back and forth across the entire land? Tacitus (and Eusebius) reports the same including flashes of lighting, declarations of a superhuman voice from heaven, and sounds of rushing winds as the gods (sic) departed the temple.

As I say, there is no where else to turn but to the preterist approach but I still consider it a work in progress.

Peace.