Revelation 20 is best understood in what way?

[Checkpoint]

Many questions are asked about this chapter of Revelation, and answers given can differ widely.

Here are just a few questions, for example.

1. How does the chapter fit in with the theme of the whole book?

2. The "thousand years", if literal, are for what purpose? If metaphorical or symbolic, this conveys what?

3. "the first resurrection" describes what, and takes place when?

4. "the lake of fire" is what, and how is it related to "the second death"?

5. What is the nature of the reign "with Christ" that is mentioned?

[peacedove]

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 30 by peacedove]


While I agree that the 144,000 corresponds to the rulers of Rev 20 ( the 12 Aposles being foremost of that number) I believe their rule of 1000 years and judgement will be of all humanity and is yet a future event.

RELIEF FOR ALL NATIONS

REVELATION 20
He seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan,and bound him for 1,000 years [...] that he would not mislead the nations anymore until the 1,000 years were ended.

Connected to their rule is the binding of Satan, rendering him inactive and incapable of misleading "the nations" (plural). So the Kingdom rule signifies relief for more than the Jewish nation.. Indeed far from the destruction of Jerusalem representing any kind of relief both Jews and Jewish Christians sufferend to some extent, although obedient Jewish Christians escaped Jerusalem with their lives.

Further if that rule began in or around 70 CE then that would mean it was marked by 1000 years of Satan free existence. Yet the first thousand years of this modern era has been marked by much evil (not least the brutal persecution of Christians in the early days of the Christian congregations's formation). So if the judgement period fell in or around 70CE where and when did the abyssing of Satan and world relief fall?

EXCLUSIVE WORLDWIDE KINGDOM RULE

REVELATION 20:4
They came to life and ruled as kings with the Christ for 1,000 years.

The implication with "they" here is that the entire number (144,000) will rule with Christ. In 70 CE there were hardly 144,000 spirit anointed Christians that had died and were raised to life with him. Christianity was at its infancy and while Steven, James (the brother of John) and others had died, we can hardly imagine anywhere near the totality of spirit anointed rulers where at Christ's side by 70CE.

Further there is no indication "they" (Jesus and his co-rulers) will SHARE their rule with the the Roman Cesars, the British Royal family or the Anglo-American empire. On the contrary, Daniel 2:44 seems to indicate an total destruction of other rulerships in favor of kingdom rule and that on a GLOBAL scale. If the rule of the kings of Revelation was in the first century, why haven't human rulerships been destroyed?

DEATH & SUFFERING ENDS FOR ALL HUMANITY

REVELATION 20:14
And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire

According to the Revelation, the end of the 1000 year rule is marked by several events, not least that "death and the grave" are hurled into a lake of fire. If God were to "burn up death" it could hardly mean that death would continue to function. Rather "burning death" seems to imply that "death will be no more" (Rev21:4) God will destroy death. He will "burn up" the grave, put an end to people dying". If the rule with Christ was in or around 70 CE why are people still dying?

CONCLUSION: Although Jesus did indeed speak on occassion of the end of the Jewish system of things, the destruction of Jerusalem in no way resulted in the wonderful events described in Revelation 20 for "the nations" or for Jewish Christians.
The end of the Jewish system is not to be confused with the glorious 1000 year rule of him and his co-rulers which will culminate in the judgment of ALL the nations, the destruction of Satan and the freeing of mankind from sin and death.

[Monta]

[quote="Checkpoint"]
Many questions are asked about this chapter of Revelation, and answers given can differ widely.

Here are just a few questions, for example.

1. How does the chapter fit in with the theme of the whole book?

***The holy city New Jerusalem descending from God out of heaven.
New awareness of God and new emphasis on love and forgiveness.

2. The "thousand years", if literal, are for what purpose? If metaphorical or symbolic, this conveys what?

***All years mentioned signify period of time of a Church. 'Years' are mentioned many times and they have no literal meaning as they do not speak of earthly realities but spiritual/heavenly/divine.

3. "the first resurrection" describes what, and takes place when?

***Once you dead it is all in The Lord's hands it matters not whether I know it now.

4. "the lake of fire" is what, and how is it related to "the second death"?

***The lake of fire is lake of utter hostility and hatred against God and those who worship Him.

5. What is the nature of the reign "with Christ" mentioned.

***No eye has seen what God has prepared for those who love Him.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 32 by Monta]

they have no literal meaning as they do not speak of earthly realities but spiritual/heavenly/divine.

Aptly put.

That is basically what I have come to see applies to the whole book.

[peacedove]

[JehovahsWitness]

You state your belief that the 1000 has not yet started. So, it is incumbent on you to explain why the book itself puts the events of the end of the 1000 years soon in time, from the time the book was written (e.g. 22:6)

QUESTION: Does the statemeent in Revelation 22:6 indicate its fulfillment would be in the first century?

REVELATION 22:6
[God] sent his angel to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place

Various translations:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 785#872785

Notice that the "shortly" was from God not man. Peter observed that a thousand years can be to God as one day. This highlights the point that a short amount of time is relative. If the "short" amount of time is from God's perspective then that could be thousands of years into the future from a human point of view. We find similar time expressions in many parts of the bible for example the end to all wickedness in Psalms 37:10 being "in a little while" (NWT) yet few would claim that the earth is free from wickedness. And we have Paul claiming God's "Sabbath" had continued until his day, yet a human Sabbath would normally be only 24 hours long. So even if there is no agreement when the "shortly" of Revelation began, there is certainly no reason to limit it to a the perspective of a human lifetime.

So are there any more specific clues as to when we can expect the events of Revelation to fall?

• Turning to the first Chapter or Revelation we see the same expression, "the things that much shrotly take place" as were found in the concluding chapter, tying the entire book together (see Rev 1:1) but notice in verse 10 we read the writer, under inspiration, came to be in "The Lord's day" So the events John was recording were identified in "The Lord's Day". If the "Lord" is, as is reasonable to conclude, the Lord Jesus Christ, when might that be?
  
  It seems clear from the expression "the things that must shortly take place", that the Revelation is indeed speaking about events in the FUTURE of the time of writing. John was writing at the end of the first century, so the "Lord (Jesus') day" had to be future of that time and could not refer to Jesus' time on earth as the Messiah. If it wasn't Jesus' first visit to the earth, could "The Lord's day" not refer to his "second coming" as Mighty King promised to destroy the wicked and reward the meek that will inherit the earth?

A "day" is a reference to a particular and limited period of time (although not necessarily a literal 24 hours). This "day" is spoken of as belong specifically to "The Lord". Although Jesus has always been a loyal servant of the Father, it must be a period (future of the first century) when something outstanding marked his (the resurrected Jesus) place in the outworking of God's purpose.

THE LORDS DAY=THE LORDS PRESENCE

A clue as to when this "day" of special service of Christ would be can be found in the following passage

1 CORINTHIANS 15: 23-26 - NWT

But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence. Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.

So what do we learn? That Jesus will rule in a kingdom and bring all God's enemies to nothing. That "those that belong to Christ" are somehow associated with the beginning of this mission "during his presence". We can reasonably link the Lord's day then with this period as it has Jesus working in a special capacity for a limited period of time which ends when he (Jesus) "hands over the Kingdom to his God".


WHAT WILL BE THE SIGN OF YOUR PRESENCE?

The disciples understood that the beginning Christ's rule would be marked by his "presence". We now know that that "presence" or Pariousia in Greek, would mark the beginning of the Lords day. In Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13 Jesus helped us to understand that presence would be marked by events far in the future. Some of the events (worldwide conflicts, global (not local) persecution of christians, and a worldwide preaching work) we have only witnessed in our 20th and 21st, the climax of which (the destruction of the wicked, the judgement of the world and the reward of the righteous) are yet in the future.

CONCLUSION There is much more to say about the Parousia (christs "presence") and the year of the beginning of kingdom rule, but the above illustrates that the rather than taking Revelation 22:6 to refer to a "short" period close to the lifespan of John the writer of the book, the bible indicates that it was "short" in relative terms. The things would "shortly" take place in fact would take place during "Christ presence" which many bible scholars believe began in the 20th century. Two thousand years for John but only a "short" two days for God

[peacedove]

[Replying to post 30 by peacedove]

DEATH & SUFFERING ENDS FOR ALL HUMANITY

REVELATION 20:14
And death and the Grave were hurled into the lake of fire

According to the Revelation, the end of the 1000 year rule is marked by several events, not least that "death and the grave" are hurled into a lake of fire. If God were to "burn up death" it could hardly mean that death would continue to function. Rather "burning death" seems to imply that "death will be no more" (Rev21:4) God will destroy death. He will "burn up" the grave, put an end to people dying". If the rule with Christ was in or around 70 CE why are people still dying?

CONCLUSION: Although Jesus did indeed speak on occassion of the end of the Jewish system of things, the destruction of Jerusalem in no way resulted in the wonderful events described in Revelation 20 for "the nations" or for Jewish Christians.
The end of the Jewish system is not to be confused with the glorious 1000 year rule of him and his co-rulers which will culminate in the judgment of ALL the nations, the destruction of Satan and the freeing of mankind from sin and death.

Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire at the end of the 1000 years. So, if we can identify what this means and when it happened or is supposed to happen, it can help identify the timing and meaning of the 1000 years.

The defeat of death is the defeat of the death that entered the world when Adam sinned in the garden. This death happened the day Adam ate, as God promised. The serpent denied it, but God promised it in the very day Adam ate. As Adam didn't die biologically that day, the death was not biological death. What did happen that day is what the text says: Adam was cast out of the garden. As a result of that, he would suffer the hard labour of working the ground, which would produce thorns and thistles. But by through that hard labour, the man would produce bread, the bread of life, that would bring him back to the garden, back into fellowship with God.

The bread of life comes at the harvest time, when the wheat is gathered together into the barn, and the weeds are uprooted and thrown into the fire.

The message to the woman was the same as the message to the man, by labour pains, she would produce the seed, the man, the ruler. Her desire would be for her man, the ruler, who would redeem man from the curse of the ground, crush the seed of the serpent, and bring man back into the garden, into the presence of God.

This passage in Genesis 1-3 sets the stage for the story of death and resurrection life. This is the source of the parable of the wheat and the tares.

The story continues: Cain, the seed of the woman, offers God a restitution for the stolen fruit. But that was not the redemption. Cain, the seed of the woman, was really the seed of the serpent, and he killed the seed of the woman, Abel, resulting in the ground being cursed to produce thorns and thistles again, instead of wheat.

Eve produces another seed, Seth. But the curse continued, Lamech complains.

The serpent's seed tries to corrupt the bloodline of man by having children with women (Gen 6:1-4). The flood wipes them out, but they reappear (Num 13:33).

Israel would become the thorns! (Num 33:55-56) This is the seed of the serpent, the brood of vipers.

Israel would be ruled by thorns (Judges 9:8-15)

The thorn problem would plague Israel, God's field (Is 32:12-19).

Back to the defeat of death. Isaiah said it would be at the great wedding feast (Is. 25:5-8). Israel was invited to the wedding feast, but she would suffer the reversal (Is 65:13-15). At the great wedding feast, Jesus said Israel would be cast outside (Mat 8:10-12). At the great wedding feast, Jesus said ' The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.' (Mat 22:7).

It follows that the defeat of death, at the great wedding feast, was when Israel was cast outside, and when the king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city, at the great reversal Jesus predicted for the Jews. This provides some context and background for the defeat of death. It is when those murderers are repaid, and the blood they shed is avenged. Jesus said this would happen at the desolation of the house of Jerusalem in his generation (Mat 23:29-39).

Paul also identified the defeat of death with the resurrection in 1 Cor 15. It happens when the enemies of Christ, specifically their political power, is destroyed:
Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Cor 15:24-26).

In what sense were the rulers and authorities equivalent to death? That Old Covenant system, represented by the kingdom of the Pharisees and Sadducees, was the ministry of death, engraved on stone (2 Cor 3:7). At the fall of the earthly tabernacle, comes the resurrection, the swallowing up of death:
For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. (2 Cor 5:1-4).

Paul is quoting Isaiah 25:8 here, as he did in 1 Cor 15. This provides context for the resurrection that is the defeat of death: it is by and through and when the problem of sin is addressed. If we deal with sin, we have dealt with death. Paul said that would be at the end of the Law that was the Strength of Sin (1 Cor 15:56), which is the law of Moses.

This happens at and through the labour pains. Paul said that the labour was not in vain (1 Cor 15:58). The labour of Isaiah 26:15-21 was the labour of Israel, that Isaiah promised would not be in vain, it would produce the resurrection, at the avenging of the blood of the martyrs. Jesus said that the blood of the martyrs would be at the fall of Jerusalem's temple in his generation (Mat 23:29-39) and he said that the troubles of his generation before the fall of the temple were the labour pains (Mat 24:8).

Unless you are going to contract Paul and teach that the labour pains did not produce the resurrection, the defeat of death was at and through the defeat of the rulers, the authorities and the powers that were the enemies of Christ and his first generation of saints, at the desolation of the house of Jerusalem, at the end of the law of Moses.

[peacedove]

You state your belief that the 1000 has not yet started. So, it is incumbent on you to explain why the book itself puts the events of the end of the 1000 years soon in time, from the time the book was written (e.g. 22:6)

QUESTION: Does the statemeent in Revelation 22:6 indicate its fulfillment would be in the first century?

REVELATION 22:6
[God] sent his angel to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place

Various translations:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 785#872785

Some claim John's words in Revelation 22 place the events in the book firmly in the first century, however we notice that John wrote that these things would take place "shortly", so we have to ask the paradoxical question "How long is "short"?

The answer to that question would be "That depends". We know that in the bible time is presented in various ways and Peter observed that a thousand years can be to God as one day. This highlights the point that a short amount of time is relative. If the "short" amount of time is from God's perspective then that could be thousands of years into the future from a human point of view. We find similar time expressions in many parts of the bible for example the end to all wickedness in Psalms 37:10 being "in a little while" (NWT) yet few would claim that the earth is free from wickedness. And we have Paul claiming God's "Sabbath" had continued until his day, yet a human Sabbath would normally be only 24 hours long. So even if there is no agreement when the "shortly" of Revelation began, there is certainly no reason to limit it to a the perspective of a human lifetime.

So are there any more specific clues as to when we can expect the events of Revelation to fall?

• Turning to the first Chapter or Revelation we see the same expression, "the things that much shrotly take place" as were found in the concluding chapter, tying the entire book together (see Rev 1:1) but notice in verse 10 we read the writer, under inspiration, came to be in "The Lord's day" So the events John was recording were identified in "The Lord's Day". If the "Lord" is, as is reasonable to conclude, the Lord Jesus Christ, when might that be?
  
  It seems clear from the expression "the things that must shortly take place", that the Revelation is indeed speaking about events in the FUTURE of the time of writing. John was writing at the end of the first century, so the "Lord (Jesus') day" had to be future of that time and could not refer to Jesus' time on earth as the Messiah. If it wasn't Jesus' first visit to the earth, could "The Lord's day" not refer to his "second coming" as Mighty King promised to destroy the wicked and reward the meek that will inherit the earth?

That is an inadequate rear-guard action, there!

You can't really mitigate the time statements in the book of Revelation. They are sufficiently frequent and varied to uphold the basic message that the events were contemporary with John and his audience.

The book starts by making itself clear: the events 'must soon take place'. This is unambiguous and unqualified language. Not that the could or might take place soon, but that they MUST.

The book continues: 'Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.'

This is also unambiguous. The original audience would be blessed because the book would promise them blessings. The implication is that those blessing would arrive soon enough to benefit those original readers and hearers. This is audience relevance and can't be mitigated or dismissed.

This prophecy. The book is a single prophecy. It is not a collection of prophecies. This means that the events of the book take place at the same time-frame, and that timeframe was their time, for the book to be relevant to them and for its blessing to actually reach them.

Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come after these things (Rev 1:19, Young's Literal Translation)

John states that he was writing about the things that are, present tense, i.e. things contemporary with himself. And the things that are ABOUT TO COME after these things, i.e. those things that are on the point of happening. Audience relevance requires that these things are about to happen within the time-context of those receiving the letter. You can't mitigate this.

The fact that you need to mitigate this suggests that your approach to the letter is inappropriate. You should respond by reconsidering the framework and considering a framework that is more appropriate to the audience situation and time.

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the land will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. (Rev 1:4-7)

This section sets out the thematic and subject context of the letter and its prophecy. It is the prophecy of the avenging of the blood of Jesus Christ against those who pieced him, even the tribes of the land of Israel.

Look at the prophetic background:
Moses said that the blood of the martyrs would be avenged against Israel, in her last days (Deut 32:43)
Isaiah said that the blood of the martyrs would be avenged against Israel, in her last days (Is. 4:4)
Zechariah specifically predicted the mourning of the tribes of Israel for the one they had pierced (Zech 12:10-14)
Jesus predicted the avenging of the blood of the martyrs against Jerusalem in his generation at the desolation of her house (Mat 23:29-39)
Paul predicted the avenging of the persecutors of the church, who were Jewish and the Jewish authorities, in the lifetimes of those he wrote to (2 Thes 1:5-10)
Daniel predicted the coming of the one like a son of man on the clouds against the persecuting power of the little horn of the Fourth Beast (Daniel 7:7-14)

So, if you just take this little passage in its original prophetic context you have the key to the book:
1. The ones being judged in the book are Old Covenant Israel, in her last days
2. They are being judged for shedding the blood of Abel, the prophets, Jesus, and his apostles and prophets.
3. They are being judged through the event of the desolation of the House of Jerusalem, in Jesus' generation
4. The coming of the son of man is for the guilt of shedding the blood of the prophets and saints and against the old Jerusalem power and system.

And if you paying attention, you should notice that the events of the 1000 years were spoken of as being accomplished: [he] 'has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father'

There are plenty of material elsewhere in the book of Revelation showing that the language of immanence requires application and fulfillment within the time and audience of the people it was written to, but if you want to study the above that should be sufficient to show that the attempt to mitigate the time statements are inappropriate and unsuccessful.

[JehovahsWitness]

So, we should conclude [...] that the 1000 years was a period from about 30 A.D. to about 65 A.D.

QUESTION: Could the years between 30 and 65 CE be described as "Satan Free"?

The book of Revelation 20 verses 1-3 speak of a thousand year period when the nations of the earth would be free from Satanic influence. It depicts Satan the Devil being "bound" inactive and incapacitated and forcefully thrust into a deep pit far from mankind and unable to harm them. Do the years 30-65 in the first century fit this description let us consider some of the historical events.

- Jesus faces several attempts on his life by his fellow Jews

- Satan enters Judas and influences him to betray Jesus

- The Jewish religious leaders (condemned as being like their "father" Satan) succeed in having Jesus condemned for sedition

- Pontius Pilate, representing the Roman authorities have Jesus tortured and executed

- Early first century Christians are persecuted and prominent Jewish leaders such as the Apostle James, Steven and others are executed

- Christians are hounded out of Rome and persecuted by Emperor Nero

- The Apostle Paul and others are beat, imprisoned and persecuted in other ways by Roman authorities

What part of all the above indicates Satan the Devil was not busy during this period?

• How could Satan have entered Judas if he was bound, inactive at the bottom of a pit?
• Is there any evidence that the nations of the world experienced relief from Satanic influence during these years and if not why was that not remarked?
• What biblical support is there to equate 1000 years to a period of 35 years?
• Are there any time prophecies that support the placing of the 1000 years to the first century?
• If all the events in Revelation take place at the same time and the 1000 years is between 30-65 CE why did John (in approx 95 CE) say these events must "soon take place" (indicating future event) instead of "took place" (past tense)?

CONCLUSION: There is nothing in scripture that supports the period of 30-65CE as being "Satan free" on the contrary the Christian congregation faced bitter persecution during this period. If we can think Satan was behind the persecution and execution of Jesus as the bible specifically states he was, there is no reason to believe he was not behind the persecution of the early Christians during this period

JW


RELATED POSTS

Why is placing the events of Revelation 20 in the first century prior to the books being written problamatic?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 861#904861

Does Revelation 22:6 saying the events would happen "shortly" restrict them to the 1st century?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 233#905233

[peacedove]

So, we should conclude [...] that the 1000 years was a period from about 30 A.D. to about 65 A.D.

QUESTION: Could the years between 30 and 65 CE be described as "Satan Free"?

The book of Revelation 20 verses 1-3 speak of a thousand year period when the nations of the earth would be free from Satanic influence. It depicts Satan the Devil being "bound" inactive and incapacitated and forcefully thrust into a deep pit far from mankind and unable to harm them. Do the years 30-65 in the first century fit this description let us consider some of the historical events.

- Jesus faces several attempts on his life by his fellow Jews

- Satan enters Judas and influences him to betray Jesus

- The Jewish religious leaders (condemned as being like their "father" Satan) succeed in having Jesus condemned for sedition

- Pontius Pilate, representing the Roman authorities have Jesus tortured and executed

- Early first century Christians are persecuted and prominent Jewish leaders such as the Apostle James, Steven and others are executed

- Christians are hounded out of Rome and persecuted by Emperor Nero

- The Apostle Paul and others are beat, imprisoned and persecuted in other ways by Roman authorities

What part of all the above indicates Satan the Devil was not busy during this period?

• How could Satan have entered Judas if he was bound, inactive at the bottom of a pit?
• Is there any evidence that the nations of the world experienced relief from Satanic influence during these years and if not why was that not remarked?
• What biblical support is there to equate 1000 years to a period of 35 years?
• Are there any time prophecies that support the placing of the 1000 years to the first century?
• If all the events in Revelation take place at the same time and the 1000 years is between 30-65 CE why did John (in approx 95 CE) say these events must "soon take place" (indicating future event) instead of "took place" (past tense)?

CONCLUSION: There is nothing in scripture that supports the period of 30-65CE as being "Satan free" on the contrary the Christian congregation faced bitter persecution during this period. If we can think Satan was behind the persecution and execution of Jesus as the bible specifically states he was, there is no reason to believe he was not behind the persecution of the early Christians during this period

JW

The purpose of interpretation is to consider what the text means. What does the text mean when it says Satan is bound for 1000 years?

The answer could mean his action or activity is restricted. It probably can't mean he is dead or destroyed, because that seems to happen later. It doesn't necessarily mean he has no capacity or cannot do anything.

The text suggests the meaning for us: it means that he cannot deceive the nations, but later he does deceive the nations.

So anything other than him deceiving or non-deceiving the nations perhaps isn't relevant.

To address the issue, shouldn't we focus our attention on what does it mean to deceive the nations? Again, this is interpretation, we have to consider what it means and that means we have to study the topic and consider different possibilities. I can't see you have tried significantly to do so.

What did Jesus teach about deception?

Who are the deceivers, and who are the deceived?

Is there any indication as to when deception will take place?

Perhaps the most relevant text that discusses the deception of Satan is 2 Thes 2. The context is that the deceived are the Thessalonians are being persecuted by the Jews, and are promised relief at the repayment of their persecutors. The deception is through the instrumentality of the man of lawlessness, presently being restrained -- seen that somewhere else? -- but whose work is focused upon the Jewish temple.

How about Jesus teaching on Mat 24, like 2 Thes 2 it involves the Jews, the temple, deception, false prophets, false miracles, revolution, and the pouring out of judgment upon the desolator.

We need to look at these texts as to consider the interpretation, the context, including the time context, the protagonists and antagonists, the locations, the means by which things happen and the results.

Cherry picking this and that as counter-examples or objections is not an appropriate way to address the issue. It is not invalid to raise counter-examples and objections, but not necessarily productive of studying the material about the topic, in this case the binding of Satan.