I have run across Christians who believe Satan has been bound and imprisoned and, as such, can have no effect upon mankind today. They claim biblical justification for such a view, for in Matthew 12:29, Mark 3:27, and Luke 11:21-22, in apparent references to Satan and his works, Jesus made it clear that the "strong man's house" could not be spoiled until he was first "bound." This, I believe, is exactly what Jesus was doing during His earthly ministry—the final knot being the Lord's death on the cross and His subsequent resurrection from the dead three days later.
A Bound Satan Is Not A Satan Who Is Totally Out Of Business
However, to think that because Satan is bound he no longer has any influence today is to either misunderstand or ignore a passage like 1 Peter 5:8, which says, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour." In the very next verse, Peter wrote, "Resist him, steadfast in the faith." A Devil who is totally out of business cannot be described as going about as a roaring lion, nor would he need to be resisted. Furthermore, James taught the very same thing: "Resist the devil and he will flee from you" (Jas. 4:7). These two passages cannot be teaching that Satan, who was surely bound in some sense, can no longer do us any harm. Nevertheless, when I asked a brother who believed that Satan was not just bound, but locked away in prison as well, what he thought "goes about as a roaring lion" meant, he said it was "just a metaphor." When I said, "Yes, it's a metaphor all right, but what's it a metaphor for?," he tellingly had no reply.
Although the good brother mentioned above is not an RE, he remains convinced that Satan is no longer in business today. For all partical purposes, then, the Devil, according to this way of thinking, is already dead. If not actually, then in influence, for such a view holds Satan to be impotent. Likewise, when one does espouse the RE doctrine, he must necessarily believe, or so it seems to me, that since A.D. 70, Satan has been judged and is, as a result, totally out of business—i.e., dead. This is verified by David A. Green, an RE, who wrote:
The term preterism [which is just another name for RE] in this article [namely, "Preterism and the Ecumenical Creeds"] refers to the belief that all (or virtually all) Bible prophecy is fulfilled. It does not refer to the belief of partial preterism, which says that the Great Tribulation is fully past but that a great many other things are not fulfilled, most importantly: the Second Coming, the death of the Devil, the general Resurrection of the dead, and the Great White Throne Judgment. 1
Belief among REs in "the death of the Devil" is further evidenced by Don K. Preston, who said: "Jesus has indeed cast Satan into hell and broken his power," consequently, "Satan has been finally defeated, [and] cast into hell." 2 He concluded by saying:
One thing is certain: the Bible says Jesus came to destroy Satan, and he would return quickly to consummate his victory. The Christian must ask: did Jesus fail? If so, we are hopelessly lost. Personally, this writer believes Jesus returned as he promised, and consummated his grand Scheme of Redemption. Victory is assured! Mankind need never again say, “The devil made me do it.”
It is interesting to observe that Preston, who, as a result of his RE doctrine, negates the "hope" we have in Christ Jesus, a hope resting on the resurrection of our Lord's body from the grave and its subsequent glorification (see Rom. 8:8-25; Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 Jn. 3:2-3), has made his RE belief that everything was fulfilled in A. D. 70 the primary source of our present hope, for if everything the REs claim took place in A.D. 70 did not really happen, then we are, according to Preston, "hopelessly lost." Not hopelessly lost, mind you, as Paul said we were if the dead do not rise (see 1 Cor. 15:12-19), but hopelessly lost if what the REs claim happened in A.D. 70 did not actually happen. This is what I was referring to earlier when I said that REs, in order to be consistent (and "consistent preterism" is one of the terms they happily apply to themselves), wind-up turning topsy-turvy most everything we have believed to be true religiously, particularly the Lord's second coming and those events associated with it.
As bad as the things mentioned above are, such remain a far cry from the think-sos of Kurt Simmons, an RE who denies there ever was a real personal Devil in the first place. But before dealing with Simmons' bizarre contention, especially for one, like himself, who pays lip-service to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures, 3 I want to first deal with the claims of those who do not deny the existence of Satan, just that he has already been bound, defeated, destroyed, and as a result, no longer has any real cause and effect influence on the world.
The "Already" And The "Not Yet"
Anyone who has studied the Bible for very long understands there are two sets of scriptures dealing with Jesus' defeat and destruction of Satan and death. One set speaks of Satan and death as already being destroyed; another speaks of the very same thing as not yet having occurred. 4 In the "already" category, there is Hebrews 2:14, which, speaking of Jesus, says, "Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the Devil." Although this passage does not say so, in so many words, the New Testament makes it clear that it was through the Lord's resurrection from the dead that He won His great victory over Death: "[K]nowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him" (Rom. 6:9). Has the Devil already been destroyed? Yes. Has Death been destroyed? Yes, it has (see 2 Tim. 1:10). Even so, in 1 Corinthians 15:22-26, Paul wrote:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ are all made alive. But each one in his own order; Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kindom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
Thus, if the Bible is what it claims to be, and not just some man-made theological mumbo-jumbo, there is a sense in which Satan and Death were destroyed by Jesus' resurrection from the dead. But at the same time, there is a sense in which Satan is yet to be finally dealt with and Death destroyed in the general resurrection of the Last Day. This, then, is an example of the already-not yet tension we find exhibited several places in the Scriptures. Thus, there is a sense in which Satan and his works have already been destroyed. At the same time, there is a sense in which Satan was, and still is, very much alive and active on planet earth (see Eph. 4:27; 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:26; Jas. 4:7; 1 Pet 5:8; 1 Jn. 3:8; and Rev. 2:10). Satan's final destruction, then, is something yet to occur, and when it does, he'll be spending an eternity in a place "prepared for [him] and his angels" (Matt. 25:41). In the meantime, he is still active, although bound, and praise the Lord for such binding, for Satan's hold over us has been seriously diminished. But this does not mean he is no longer dangerous. He is, and we must be very careful not to be taken in by his "wiles" (Eph. 6:11).
I intend to return to a further discussion of this already-not yet tension a little later, especially as it impacts REs' interpretation of those things mentioned in Scripture they view as having to do specifically with the A.D. 70 event. But for the time being, suffice it to say that Kurt Simmons avoids the significance of this already-not yet tension by declaring the Bible's use of the term "Satan" (along with his other scriptural designations) is nothing more than a metaphor for "Sin and Death," and that demons are nothing more than figments of men's ignorant and superstitious imaginations—imaginations, Simmons says, the Bible simply accommodates. So, we'll now return to our examination of Simmons' view of Satan we first noted at the end of article IV. We'll then follow this with a look at his beliefs concerning the Bible's alleged accommodation of demons.
Satan: A Real Personal Being, Or Simply A Metaphor?
Wreaking of Gnosticism, Kurt Simmons engages in drunken bablings about the "source" or "seed" of evil residing inherently in man's flesh (i.e., his physical/material body). Under Gnosticism's influence, he further argues that angels, because they do not have physical/material bodies, "cannot sin." By cannot, he means they are simply incapable of doing so. But when pressed as to why this is true, he resorts to a circular reasoning that says: (1) "angels, by definition, are immortal, intangible, and immaterial" 5 (i.e., they do not have physical bodies). However, (2) all evil derives from physical bodies. Consequently, (3) because angels have no physical bodies, they "cannot sin." 'Round and 'round such reasoning goes, and it does not stop until it lands on those concepts that bolster RE think-sos. Such inspires confidence in neither Simmons' reasoning, nor his doctrine.
With this in mind, let's just stop and think about Simons' situation. If he had considered the already-not yet sense of Bible passages which impact his doctrine, he would never have needed to resort to his RE interpretation of such passages in the first place. If he would have not rejected the different uses of sarx in the NT, he would have never come to the conclusion that man's physical body is inherently evil/sinful. This is doubly true if he would have just believed what God had said about His "good"/"very good" creation from the beginning. And if so, he would have never ever thought that "Angels are not subject to fleshly lusts and therefore are not tempted with sin." 6 In other words, if Simmons had not been so intent on using an RE hammer when it came to interpreting the Scriptures, then every relevant passage would have not looked like an RE nail, and therefore it would more than likely never have occured to him that the Bible's use of the term Satan (and the other attendant terms associated with him) was intended to make one think the Devil was not a real spiritual entity at all, but was, instead, simply a metaphor for sin and death. After all, think of all those Bible passages that clearly represent the Devil as being not some impersonal force, but a very real, very personal, spirit being. Of course, the same thing holds true of demons, as well.
It is, therefore, absolutely shocking that Simmons holds the position he does on Satan and demons. I say shocking because it seems apparent the only reason he takes the position he does is because of his RE beliefs — beliefs he then allows to trump clear Bible teaching. This, of course, is the sad, but inevitable, saga of all false teaching, for everything must bow before the false system, even the clear teaching of God's word.
Furthermore, it is most interesting that while Simmons' position on the Devil and demons not being real entities is easily inferred from his belief that physical bodies are the source/seed of all evil, there is little said or written about this on his website or in his articles. I found it a bit difficult, then, to find quotes to substantiate his position on this. Notwithstanding, a few have been obtained and are quite illuminating.
Proof Is In The Reading
On a website run by Gary Demar, called American Vision, Simmons chided DeMar, who believes Satan and demons are real, with the following: "Come on, Gary. You are too smart to continue on in the error of this medieval myth. 'Satan' as a fallen angel, indeed, the whole idea of 'demons' and 'unclean spirits' are the stuff of ignorance. They are terminology used to explain what men did not know through ignorance of sin and medical science." 7 Then, in a recent edition of The Sword & The Plow, the newsletter of the Bimillennial Preterist Association, Simmons, in an answer to a question about Satan and demons, replied:
Thanks for writing. I have never been persuaded that there are supernatural being[s] or demons, but feel this is better explained as the superstitious jargon of the day. What we call epilepsy today, they thought was demonic possession back then. What we call insanity today, they called demonic possession, etc. The father who met Jesus after the mount of Transfiguration, said his son was "lunatic" in Matthew, but Luke describes him as being seized by a "spirit" which cast him down foaming and crying (Matt. 17:15; Lk. 9:37-42). The Greek definition given by Berry in his Interlinear Greek New Testament says the term "lunatic" means epilepsy, confirming what I said. The man called legion may have suffered from insanity and some sort of multiple personality disorder. In all these cases, it is just as easy to understand these in reference to physical and mental illness as it is demonic possession. Since all these sorts of things are with us today, but we do not ascribe them to demons, why should we interpret the same maladies differently in the Bible merely because of the names employed? 8
He continued:
The source of evil is the lust of man's flesh, which is still very much alive and well and we wrestle against it every day. The physical and emotional diseases associated with sin and the fall are all around us and ever will be. The word "Satan" means "adversary" and is many times translated that way in the Bible and applied to men. Do a word study in the OT on "adversary" and see how the word is also translated Satan, and see how many times it is used of men and governments. I don't believe in supernatural devils, but it is not a topic I go out of my way to talk about, since most people cannot receive it. 9
I find the last sentence most interesting, and want to point out that the "most people" who "cannot receive it" would include many, if not most, of his fellow REs, for only those who have drunk as deeply from the Gnostic well, as has Simmons, would be so bold as to deny the existence of Satan and his minons. Nevertheless, this is exactly what Simmons has done, and his own words prove it.
In answering a question about Matthew 4 and Jesus' temptation by Satan, Simmons tops it all off by saying:
Jesus' temptation was from his flesh, just like yours and mine. He hungered, he was tempted with world power, and he was tempted to doubt his identity and test God. These are all the sort of internal dialogues we have with ourselves all the time. The gospels express the internal battle in terms of an external foe apparently for purposes of communicating difficult lessons in terms everyone can understand.
Once again, I feel the need to say how anyone who believes in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible could so interpret Matthew 4:1-11 is practically beyond belief. In fact, if someone had tried to convince me, without the above documentation, that this was Simmons' viewpoint, I would never have believed it. Yes, the appeal in this series of temptations can certainly be classified in the catagories of what the Bible calls "the lust of the flesh," "the lust of the eyes," and "the pride of life" (cf. 1 Jn. 2:16), which have all been the modi operandi of Satan from the very beginning (cf. Gen. 3:6). Furthermore, such is perfectly consistent with James 1:12-15, which says:
Blessed is the man who endures temptation, for when he has been proved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
Unfortunately, Simmons, along with too many of my brothers and sisters in Christ, believe this is all there is to temptation. In other words, they believe we're just shadow-boxing, that we have no external opponent, because he has either been conclusively dealt with and cannot touch us today, as too many brethren think, or he never was a real entity in the first place, as Simmons teaches. Both of these views, however, are sorely mistaken.
There Is A Tempter
The Bible teaches there is a tempter and that he is still active, even today. To demonstrate this, we only need to turn to Matthew 4:3, which says, "Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, 'If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.'" Along these same lines, when writing to the Thessalonians, Paul said, "For this reason, when I could no longer endure it, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter had tempted you, and our labor might be in vain" (1 Thess. 3:5).
He Is Crafty
In Ephesians 6:11, Paul commanded the Ephesians, and by extension Christians today, to "Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." This isn't just shadow-boxing, it is the other half of the sin equation. Again, in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, Paul said:
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.
Beware!
So remember, the Devil doesn't play fair! Not only do we have a responsibility to control our bodies and hold them in check, as James 1 tells us, but we must also be willing to put on the whole armor of God in order to stand against Satan's wiles, tricks, and devices (Eph. 6:11). He and his deceitful workers, whether men or demons, will use every kind of deception. If we are not careful, then, we can be cheated (Col 2:8).
Be Sober! Sumbit to God! Resist The Devil!
The Scriptures say, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (1 Pet. 5:8). It further says: "Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you" (Jas. 4:7). So again, keep in mind that we cannot win this battle by ourselves. For in order to be victorious, we must have the Lord's help. He has, in Christ, graciously provided us with everything we need to overcome the Devil and his angels, telling us that "No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1 Cor. 10:13).
We'll continue this study in the next article, Lord willing.
Notes
1 David A. Green, "Preterism and the Ecumenical Creeds," in footnote 1, http://www.preteristcosmos.com/pretcreed.html.
2 Don K. Preston, "The Binding of Satan," http://fullpreterism.com/donkpreston/the-binding-of-satan/.
3 Kurt M. Simmons, "This We Believe: A Preterist Statement of Faith," http://www.preteristcentral.com/Preterist%20Creed.html, pay particular attention to the first four paragraphs.
4 This already-not yet tension is something that must not only be comprehended in order to understand numerous Bible subjects, but it is extremely critical when attempting to critique RE.
5 Kurt M. Simmons, "Three Views On The Resurrection," http://www.preteristcentral.com/Three%20Views%20on%20the%20Resurrection.html.
6 Kurt M. Simmons, "The Angels Of The Bottomless Pit," http://www.preteristcentral.com/Angels%20of%20the%20Bottomless%20Pit.html.
7 http://americanvision.org/3671/concerning-halloween/.
8 Kurt M. Simmons, "Questions From Our Readers," pp. 11-12, http://www.preteristcentral.com/pdf/The%20Sword%2011-11.pdf.
9 Ibid.
