I rebuke you in the name of Jesus. I bind you Satan. Your deceptions will not stand.
I’m not entirely sure this is a question. Perhaps it is an exorcism.
Either way, I have a concern.
Didn’t we bind Satan yesterday?
I swear, at some point we need to figure out who keeps untying him.
That sounds flippant, but there is a serious problem underneath the joke. Christians regularly hear language about “rebuking Satan,” “binding the devil,” “taking authority over demons,” and commanding spiritual forces “in the name of Jesus.” If Christians really possess the authority to bind Satan through a spoken declaration, we are left with the rather obvious question of why he needs to be bound again tomorrow.
How long does a binding last? Does Satan eventually work himself loose? Is another Christian accidentally unbinding him? Do we need someone maintaining the binding in shifts?
Scripture never answers those questions because Scripture never teaches Christians to perform this ritual in the first place.
Satan is real. Christians face spiritual opposition. Christ has absolute authority over demons. None of that is in dispute. The question is whether Christians are instructed to confront Satan by addressing him directly, issuing commands to him, rebuking him in Jesus’ name, and repeatedly declaring him bound.
When we actually look at the instructions given to Christians, we find something considerably different.
Jude gives us a remarkable example of an actual confrontation with Satan:
“But Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil and arguing about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him an abusive condemnation, but said, ‘May the Lord rebuke you!’”
Jude 9»
The surrounding passage condemns people who arrogantly speak about spiritual realities they do not understand. Against that presumption Jude places Michael. An archangel is actually contending with the devil, yet he does not pronounce judgment against Satan on his own authority. He appeals to the Lord: “May the Lord rebuke you.”
Jude’s concern is not that Satan deserves courtesy. The issue is legitimate authority rather than presumption. If Michael’s response to Satan is marked by that restraint, there is little reason for Christians to assume that shouting increasingly forceful commands at the devil demonstrates greater spiritual authority.
When the apostles instruct Christians about dealing with Satan, their language is considerably different.
James writes, “Be subject therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7). Submission to God comes first, followed by resistance to the devil. James does not provide a formula for rebuking Satan or tell Christians to declare him bound.
Peter gives similar instructions:
“Be sober and self-controlled. Be watchful. Your adversary, the devil, walks around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Withstand him steadfast in your faith.”
1 Peter 5:8–9»
Peter certainly takes Satan seriously. His response to that danger is sobriety, vigilance, and steadfast faith.
Paul’s description of spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6 follows the same pattern. Christians are told to put on the whole armor of God so that they can stand against the schemes of the devil. That armor consists of truth, righteousness, readiness associated with the gospel of peace, faith, salvation, the word of God, and prayer. Paul knows he is describing warfare against spiritual forces, yet he never tells the Ephesians to locate those forces, address them directly, or verbally bind them. He tells Christians to stand faithfully in what God has provided.
That is less theatrical than much of what passes for spiritual warfare, but it is no less spiritual. Resisting temptation is spiritual warfare. Holding to truth when confronted with deception is spiritual warfare. Remaining faithful during suffering is spiritual warfare. Prayer, obedience, righteousness, faith, and perseverance are not preliminary activities we perform before the real battle begins. They are how the New Testament teaches Christians to fight it.
The practice of “binding Satan” usually appeals to passages where Jesus actually speaks of binding, particularly Matthew 12. After Jesus casts out a demon, the Pharisees accuse him of doing so by Beelzebul, the ruler of demons. Jesus responds by explaining the absurdity of Satan casting out Satan and then says:
“Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then he will plunder his house.”
Matthew 12:29»
Jesus is explaining what his authority over demons demonstrates. Satan is not casting out Satan. The strong man’s house is being plundered because someone stronger than the strong man has arrived. Christ is invading Satan’s domain and freeing those who had been under his power.
The person doing the binding in the illustration is Christ.
Jesus never turns around afterward and tells his disciples, “Now you bind the strong man too.” The passage describes what Christ is accomplishing through his victory over Satan; it does not establish a verbal technique Christians are supposed to perform whenever they believe Satan is active.
Revelation later uses the imagery explicitly:
“He seized the dragon, the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole inhabited earth, and bound him for a thousand years.”
Revelation 20:2»
Christians disagree about the millennium and the precise interpretation of the passage, but the text is at least clear about who is not doing the binding. Individual Christians are not repeatedly speaking Satan into restraints. Satan is bound by divine authority for a particular purpose within God’s redemptive plan.
Turning biblical language about Satan being bound into a Christian ritual reverses the emphasis. Scripture points us toward what Christ has accomplished. The ritual points us toward what we supposedly accomplish by saying the right words.
Adding “in the name of Jesus” does not solve that problem.
The name of Jesus is not a spiritual password that transfers his authority to whatever command we attach it to. Scripture itself gives us a memorable example of people attempting something remarkably similar.
In Acts 19, the seven sons of Sceva attempt to use Jesus’ name against an evil spirit:
“We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.”
Acts 19:13»
The response is not encouraging:
“Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are you?”
Acts 19:15»
What follows goes considerably worse for them.
Their mistake was not pronouncing the formula incorrectly. Jesus’ name is not an incantation. Authority belongs to Christ, and attaching his name to a command does not give divine authority to something he never instructed us to do.
The Gospels certainly record Jesus giving particular disciples authority over demons, and Acts records apostolic confrontations with evil spirits. Those passages demonstrate the authority of Christ and the authority he granted to his representatives. They do not erase the ordinary instructions given to Christians concerning spiritual opposition: submit to God, resist the devil, remain watchful, stand firm in faith, put on the armor of God, and pray.
There is another problem when this kind of language is directed at people during theological disagreements.
Once someone’s argument has been identified as a deception of Satan, examining the argument becomes unnecessary. Instead of showing where the person’s interpretation of Scripture is wrong, I can rebuke the spirit supposedly responsible for it. If the person continues to disagree afterward, that can simply become further evidence of how deeply deceived he is.
The result is a theological position that can protect itself from examination. Agreement demonstrates that the truth has prevailed. Disagreement demonstrates that deception remains. At no point does anyone have to open the passage and demonstrate that the interpretation is actually correct.
Scripture gives us a better model.
When Paul preached in Berea, his hearers received his teaching and examined “the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Luke calls them noble for doing it. They were not expected to accept a teaching merely because the person delivering it possessed spiritual authority. What they heard was tested against what God had said.
That is how I would prefer someone respond to something I teach.
Open the Bible. Read the passage. Examine its context. Follow the argument. Compare it with the rest of Scripture. If I have mishandled the text, show me where. If what I teach cannot survive examination of Scripture, reject it.
No exorcism is necessary.
Christians have a real enemy, which is precisely why spiritual warfare should not be reduced to spiritual theater. The New Testament tells Christians how to respond to the devil, and its instructions are remarkably consistent. We submit ourselves to God, resist the devil, remain sober and watchful, stand firm in the faith, put on the armor God provides, pray, know the truth, and remain faithful.
When it comes to personally rebuking Satan, Michael the archangel has already demonstrated where the authority belongs: “May the Lord rebuke you.”
As for the original attempt to bind Satan and rebuke whatever deception was operating through me, I did experience a gastrointestinal event shortly afterward.
I am not presently prepared to recognize that as evidence of successful deliverance.