The Third “Last Thing”: The Binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1-3)

By David J. MacLeod

David J. MacLeod is a member of the faculty of Emmaus Bible College in Dubuque, Iowa, and is associate editor of The Emmaus Journal.

This is article four in an eight-part series, “Expositional Studies of the Seven ‘Last Things’ in the Book of Revelation.”

In the nineteenth century, Christian theologians began openly questioning the existence of Satan.[1] Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the father of modern liberalism, declared, “The idea of the devil as developed among us is so unstable that we cannot expect anyone to be convinced of its truth.”[2] He preferred that Satan be seen as a metaphor for evil. In the midst of the titanic struggle of World War II, with evidences of demonic evil all about him, Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), the most distinguished New Testament scholar of his time, made his celebrated plea that we should demythologize the New Testament. It is impossible, he argued, to live in the modern world of electricity, radio, and scientific medicine and still believe in the New Testament world of miracles, angels, and the devil.[3] In the Encyclopedia of Philosophy there is but one reference to the devil in the entire eight volumes. Belief in the devil’s existence, Paul Edwards asserts, is rejected by agnostics, atheists, and most believers in God. Edwards says, “Billy Graham is one of the few Protestant ministers who still believe in the devil.”[4]

The reasons for this modern attitude are many, three of which may be mentioned.[5] First, there is the modern secular worldview that has no room for the supernatural. Second, there are the popular conceptions of the devil as half man and half beast, with horns, cloven hooves, tail, and trident, which have turned him into a figure of fun for many. Third, there is the devil’s own lie. As the French critic and poet Pierre Charles Baudelaire (1821–1867) wrote, “The devil’s cleverest wile is to convince us that he does not exist.”[6]

The Bible states that Satan is from a high order of angelic beings and was created good (Ezek. 28:12, 15). He, Packer says, is the supreme illustration of good gone wrong.[7] He heads an army of rebel angels, that is, demons, whose moral nature is like that of their king (Rev. 9:11). Jesus called him a “murderer” (John 8:44) because of his sustained and pitiless hatred of humanity. He is called “the evil one” (1 John 5:19) because he embodies all that is evil. He is called a “roaring lion” (1 Pet. 5:8) because of his strength and destructiveness. He is called the “accuser of the brethren” (Rev. 12:10) because he is always calling on God to banish Christians because of their sins. He deceives the nations (Rev. 12:9), he blinds the eyes of people (2 Cor. 4:3–4), he snatches away God’s Word before it takes root in their understanding (Matt. 13:4, 19). He lays moral snares for people (2 Tim. 2:25–26), mixes truth with error (Matt. 13:25–28), and is the father of confusion and lies (John 8:44).

This last description (“father of lies”) underscores the importance of knowing what the Bible says about Satan. Only the pure Word of God reveals the truth about this great enemy of humankind.

Satan’s regular way of working is to deceive and get people to err without any suspicion that what they are thinking and doing is not right. He plays on their pride, willfulness, unrealism, addictions, stupidities, and temperamental flaws to induce all forms of mental and moral folly-fantasies, cults, idolatries, unbelief, misbelief, dishonesty, infidelity, cruelty, exploitation, and everything else that degrades and dehumanizes God’s image bearers. Love, wisdom, humility, and pure-heartedness-four basic components of Christlikeness-are special objects of his attack.[8]

That is why Revelation 20:1–3 should be of real encouragement to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ. The passage teaches that a time is coming, namely, the millennial age, when Satan’s activities in the world will cease.

The setting of the passage should be borne in mind. Babylon, the world commercial and political capital of the endtime, will fall. John then begins to describe the “last things” of history. The first “last thing” is Christ’s return from heaven with His saints. Second, the armies of the Antichrist will be defeated, and the beast and the false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire. Then will occur the third “last thing,” traditionally called “the binding of Satan.”

The Instrument of the Divine Will: An Angel Equipped for His Task (20:1)

The Angelic Jailer

“From the beast John now turns to the beast’s master.”[9] Behind the kings and armies that will have been destroyed in the Battle of Armageddon is a sinister, cunning personality who will lead them to the winepress of God’s wrath and judgment. God will single him out for special judgment.[10] John saw “an angel coming down from heaven” as an agent of Almighty God.

Some people think of Satan as God’s equal. Surely, they think, God will send Christ Himself to wrestle with the dragon. But He will send an angel. He will not send a cherub, a seraph, the archangel, or one of the principalities and powers. It is simply “a nameless angel.”[11]

This will occur after the second advent of Christ and the destruction of Antichrist and his armies. The expression at the beginning of the verse, “And I saw” (Καὶ εἶδον), occurs frequently in chapters 19–20 (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12; 21:1; cf. 21:2, 22). It appears to establish a sequence of visions,[12] which describe events beginning with the return of Christ, followed by the terrible supper and slaughter in Armageddon, followed by the binding of Satan, the one-thousand-year kingdom, the last judgment, and the new heavens and the new earth.[13]

This seems obvious to many, but some students of Revelation find in the prophecy a pattern of recapitulation.[14] They see the whole book as a series of several visions-usually seven-each going over the same ground, with each vision beginning with Jesus’ first coming and extending to His return.[15] Thus at 20:1 they argue that John went back to the Lord’s first advent, and so the binding of Satan refers to what Jesus accomplished at His crucifixion.

However, the repeated phrase, “And I saw,” argues against that view.[16] The binding of Satan will occur after the second coming of Christ. Also the binding of Satan will take place before the millennial reign of Christ. Again, this may seem obvious, but some interpreters argue that this reign of Christ described in verses 4–6 symbolically describes the present age.[17] They argue that Satan is gradually being bound during the present age, symbolized by the one thousand years.

The Angel’s Authoritative Equipment

The angel in 20:1 is obviously involved in a spiritual police action, and he will be equipped with the appropriate tools. In his hand he will carry “the key of the abyss,” which suggests that absolute authority and control over the abyss has been delegated to him.

Many readers of the Scriptures hold confused and inadequate ideas about the unseen world. It might be helpful at this point to define a few terms.[18] The Hebrew term “sheol” (שְׁאוֹל) and the Greek word “hades” (ᾅδης) both refer to the place where the soul or spirit of a person goes at death. It is the “realm of the dead,”[19] that is, the conscious state of existence before the resurrection and judgment (Luke 16:19–31). For the unsaved it was a place of torment, but for the saved it was a place of bliss, that is, paradise (Luke 23:43).

Many commentators believe that before the resurrection of Christ there were two compartments in sheol, or hades,[20] one for the lost and one for the saved, but that at His resurrection Jesus emptied the one compartment of all believers (Eph. 4:8–9).[21] Paul clearly taught that at death all believers in the present church age go directly to heaven to be with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:6–8).[22]

Today hades is the place where the souls of the unsaved go at death. The second place of which the Bible speaks is hell, “the lake of fire” (Rev. 19:20). This is the place of final torment after the last judgment. In the Old Testament it was called “Topheth” (תֹּפֶת), lit., “place of burning”; Isa. 30:33; Jer. 7:31–32).[23] Jesus called it “Gehenna” (γέεννα; Mark 9:43). Gehenna was a wadi, or valley (Valley of Hinnom), southwest of Jerusalem that acquired a bad reputation because child sacrifices to Moloch were offered there in the days of Ahaz and Manasseh (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). Because of the threats of judgment by the prophets against this sinister place (Jer. 7:32; 19:6), it came to be equated with hell, the lake of fire of the last judgment.

Hell and hades are not the same.[24] Hades receives the unsaved for the intervening period between death and the resurrection; hell, or Gehenna, is the place of punishment after the judgment of the nations (Matt. 25:31–46) and the last judgment (Rev. 20:11–15).[25] Just before the millennium the beast and his followers and the false prophet (but not the devil) will be cast into the lake of fire (19:20).

“The abyss” (ἡ ἄβυσσος), was originally an adjective that meant “bottomless” or “unfathomably deep.”[26] This is the place of imprisonment for disobedient angels (Luke 8:31).[27] The picture is of a vast subterranean cavern where the fallen angels await the day of judgment.[28] The Antichrist is said to be animated by a demon from the abyss (Rev. 11:7; 17:8). According to 9:3–11 demonic “scorpion centaurs”[29] will be released from the abyss to terrorize the earth during the tribulation. The abyss is not hell, or the lake of fire.

Satan will be in the abyss during the one-thousand-year reign of Christ, and then he will be cast into hell (20:10). The abyss is the prison in which fallen spirits are detained before their final judgment. It is much like a county jail in which prisoners are kept before being sent to the state or federal prison. The abyss is the county jail; hell is the federal penitentiary.[30]

The angel will carry a key with which he will unlock the shaft that leads to the abyss, which is to be Satan’s millennial home. Looped over the angel’s arm[31] is a “great chain” with which to take his prisoner. The term used here (ἅλυσις) was sometimes (Mark 5:4) used in the sense of manacles or handcuffs.[32] Here it may refer to something to bind the hands or a chain with which the whole body is tied up.[33]

When discussing a verse like Revelation 20:1, many writers state that the Book of Revelation is written in highly symbolic apocalyptic language.[34] The present writer does not know of anyone who denies that the Book of Revelation includes symbols.[35] However, noting that symbols are used gives no warrant to avoid its clear teaching. If students of Scripture were to neglect all symbolic passages in the Bible, they would be ignoring large sections of Scripture-from Genesis to Revelation-containing symbols and figures of speech.

The point is this: Even when God uses symbols and figures of speech the general thought (even if not all of the particulars) is sufficiently plain. The last book of the Bible is called a “revelation,” that is, an unveiling (Rev. 1:1). It was not intended by the Lord to be obscure. In fact special blessing is promised to those who read and give heed to its pages (1:3). Tragically the influence of prejudice against the book causes many people to have such difficulty with it that in many churches the Book of Revelation is scarcely looked at, taught, or preached.[36]

While John used symbolic language, his symbols mean something. All symbols have referents; otherwise figurative language would be meaningless. Someone might ask, “Do you actually expect Satan to be tied down by an ordinary iron or steel chain?”[37] The writer answers that the verse says nothing about an iron or steel chain. It says “a great chain” as a way to describe the fact that Satan will be confined.[38]

This passage is teaching God’s complete control over evil.[39] He is completely sovereign, even over the satanic realm.[40] Yet it is also teaching something more specific. One day an angel will actually come to imprison Satan in a place called the abyss. Furthermore he will be chained, that is, immobilized.

One of the great evangelical commentators on Revelation suggests that the chapter before us may contain a clue as to why many churches ignore this book (except for chapters 2 and 3 and a few other fragments). There is no book, he opines, that Satan fears more. Why? “It announces first his sure humiliation by angelic power, and then his destruction afterwards.”[41] The devil hates this book and its prophecy of his doom, and he hates for people to read it.

The Verdict (or Mandate) of the Divine Will: The Devil Apprehended for His Imprisonment (20:2-3a)

The Arrest of the Evildoer

The angel will lay hold of Satan. The verb ἐκράτησεν, “laid hold” (NIV has “seized”), literally means “to exercise power.” It is used in Matthew 26:50 of the arrest of Christ. They “took Him into custody.” That is precisely how it is used here.[42]

The Names of the Evildoer

In Revelation 20:2 all four titles by which Satan is designated in Revelation are brought together.[43] First, he is called “the dragon” (ὁ δράκων).[44] He is the horrible monster who sought the life of the Christ child (12:4). As the dragon, Satan will give his authority to the Antichrist (13:4). This title links him to the political powers of the earth that he seeks to influence (Dan. 7).

Second, he is “the serpent of old” (ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος). Serpents are known for their subtlety and poison. They are dangerous and malevolent. They were also associated in Israel with idolatry (2 Kings 18:4) and with heathen gods and demons.[45] That he is called the serpent “of old” recalls that he was the one who in Eden deceived Eve and brought ruin on the human race.[46] As the serpent, Satan deceives souls and beguiles them with false doctrine and false values.

Third, he is called “the devil” (διάβολος). The word “devil” is from a verb that has the sense of “separating,” that is, to be set in opposition to someone. In some contexts it has the sense of “accuser.” In others the thought is of a “slanderer.”[47] The dominant idea seems to be “adversary.” The work of the adversary is to attempt to separate God and people.[48] He is a malignant liar, and this has been one of his chief characteristics from the beginning (John 8:44). He is the author of slander and malignant untruth. He reminds God perpetually of the guilt of the human race that he has perverted.[49] He is the one who is behind the beast’s blasphemies against God and Christ.

Fourth, he is called “Satan” (ὁ Σατανᾶς). There is little difference between this name and “devil.”[50] “Satan” means literally “adversary.”[51] As the malignant adversary of God, he disputes God’s right to rule and seeks to defeat Christ’s becoming King of the earth.

The Incarceration of the Evildoer

When Satan will be thrown down the shaft of the abyss and locked inside, the abyss will be “sealed” (ἐσφράγισεν). This parallels Matthew’s words that Jesus’ tomb was sealed (Matt. 27:66), that is, some kind of mark or object was used to prevent its being opened. Satan had his minions seal Jesus’ tomb to keep His body in the grave. Their effort was futile. An angel will seal the prison of Satan, and he will be totally powerless and without influence for one thousand years.[52]

The elaborate measures taken with this prisoner clearly imply the complete cessation of his influence during the millennium.[53] John could hardly have expressed more emphatically the inability of Satan during that time to deceive the human race.[54] This should be noted because some interpreters argue that Satan was bound during Christ’s first advent and is today chained in the abyss.[55] It is true that Jesus did curtail demonic activity during His earthly ministry and did demonstrate His authority over Satan, but that differs entirely from the complete cessation of satanic influence on the earth.[56]

The New Testament elsewhere clearly states, “Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet. 5:8).[57] When amillennial students of Revelation are confronted with a verse like this and are asked how they can say that Satan is today bound, they answer, “Well, he has a long chain.”[58] However, language is meaningless if such a view is true.

If amillennialists are asked to explain the meaning of Satan’s imprisonment, they answer that it means that Satan is not allowed to prevent the extension of the church among the nations by its missionary program.[59] This is contradicted, however, by a comparison of Revelation 19:20 and 20:3. Satan, the beast, and the false prophet form an evil triad of deception. The deception described in 20:3 is not one that ended at the Cross. It is one that is yet to be interrupted at the future battle of Armageddon. At that point the beast and the false prophet will be cast into the lake of fire and their deceptions will end. And Satan will be cast into the abyss, and his deceptions will end.[60]

By God’s grace people are being converted to Christ every day. Yet Satan is not bound in the sense that he does not fight it. Paul wrote, “Our gospel is veiled. .. to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving” (2 Cor. 4:3–4). History simply does not permit the amillennial interpretation that says that Satan is bound today and unable to prevent the spread of the gospel.

The gospel has not spread to many peoples. The Jews as a nation were not won to the gospel. Every city east of Greece and in North Africa mentioned in the New Testament or that was gained for Christ in the eastern Roman Empire during the first six centuries has been under Muslim control for many years. Over the centuries large segments of the human population have remained impervious to the gospel. Most of Asia, for example, is still Islamic, Buddhist, or Hindu. The twentieth century saw large geographical areas go under communist ideological and political control. In the latter part of this century there has been a resurgence of superstition, sorcery, pseudoreligion, and overt demonism that is baffling and (on a human level) frightening. Within professing Christendom a secularist spirit is undermining belief in the supernatural. Far from being limited and fettered, Satan is free and rampant, and none suffer more from his attacks and frustrations than the church of God.[61]

What, then, of Jesus’ earthly ministry and death? John wrote that He came “that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). He delivered His people from “the fear of death,” the devil’s great weapon (Heb. 2:14–15). At the Cross He made a public spectacle of the demonic host and exposed them to disgrace (Col. 2:15). The Cross, says Koch, is “the end of demons,”[62] and, one might add, the end of Satan. Since Easter morning, Koch adds, “the power of Satan is an empty display.”[63] No longer can he bring any accusations against God’s elect (Rom. 8:33–34). So the gospel, God’s “good news,” is preached and many are coming to Christ. The word εὐαγγέλιον (“gospel”) originated in the language of military combat and is a technical term for the announcement of victory.[64]

Yet the devil is still on the loose within the bounds determined by the sovereign plan of God. At the Cross, God delivered the verdict against Satan. He is like a criminal who has been sentenced but is not yet in custody. His fate has been determined.

In June 1967 war broke out between Israel and her Arab neighbors. The writer, then a college student, was working with a land-surveying company in New Hampshire at the time. Every evening he came back to his motel room and watched the news with great interest. For several days news reports from Cairo reported that many Israeli planes and tanks were lost and that Egypt was penetrating Israel. But in seven days the war was over, and Israel was the victor. It was then revealed that by destroying the air forces and air fields of the surrounding Arab states Israel had won the war two hours after hostilities had begun. The Arabs fought on for a week, even though they were defeated. So today Satan continues his warfare against God and His people.[65]

The two advents of Christ have been compared to D-Day (June 6, 1944) and V-Day (May 8, 1945) during World War II.[66] The decisive action was the Allied invasion of Europe (D-Day). The final victory did not come until almost one year later (V-Day). So it is with Satan. The decisive battle has been won, yet the war continues.[67] For some reason-puzzling though it may seem-the judgment against Satan has not yet been executed. God has His purposes for prolonging history, and one of those purposes is that more people might be saved (2 Pet. 3:9).[68]

The Purpose of the Divine Will: The Nations Protected from Diabolic Deception (20:3b)

The Objects of Deception

According to Revelation 20:3 Satan’s imprisonment during the thousand years is not so much punitive as it is precautionary. It is a precaution against his deceiving the nations.[69] Who are “the nations?” Will not all the nations be killed with the sword at Christ’s second coming?[70] Some argue that there were outlying nations that had not joined the Antichrist in his campaign.[71] It is more likely that this refers to the redeemed[72] from all nations who will be converted during the tribulation and who will be left to populate the millennial kingdom.[73] Earlier in the book (5:9–10) John spoke of those redeemed from every “nation” who will “reign upon the earth.”

The Necessity of His Release

After his one-thousand-year imprisonment Satan will be released. John wrote that he “must” (δεῖ) be released. This expression implies logical necessity. For some reason, grounded in the divine will, Satan will be released and will deceive the nations again. It is apparent that his long imprisonment will not change either his own plans or the character of humanity. (Further elaboration of why it is necessary for Satan to be released will be considered in a later article on verses 7–10.)

Conclusion

Christians have every reason to be the most realistic people

Believers have an explanation for the terrible condition of the world in which they live. They know sin when they see it.[74] They know that there is a great malevolent being in our world who actively promotes the love of wrongdoing and the hatred of all that is good. They know that evil is personal.[75] It is not just the accidental, impersonal results of nature.[76]

They know that the devil is on the loose in the world. His kingdom is noted for error, falsehood, deception, lies, and moral rottenness. Reverence for God is scarce, truthfulness is nothing, falsities and treacheries confront people at every point. People “speak falsehoods, print falsehoods, and believe falsehoods.. .. they eat them, and drink them, and wear them, and act them, and live them, and make them [the central essence] of their being.” At least half of all that “the eye can see, or the ear hear, or the hands can touch, or the tongue taste, is bogus, counterfeit. .. shoddy, [or some kind of] untruth.”[77]

In business, politics, social life, the professions, and especially in religion, untruthfulness reigns, so that people scarcely know whom to trust. The devil’s supporters attack the church, the church Christ loves. They call the Lord’s Supper and baptism absurd. They speak of prayer as a delusion and of the Bible as a dull record of superstitious beliefs. The idea that all must give an account of their moral lives at a future judgment is laughed at. Heterosexuality and monogamous marriage are outdated, optional conventions. The immortal soul is a fiction. Life itself is a mere freak of “Mother Nature.”

The devil is not bound, he is loose; and his lies are being spread every day by thousands of his emissaries. He has his nests in every city, town, and village in the world.[78] He is a liar and a murderer. Christians, knowing this, should have nothing to do with lies and hateful attitudes.

Christians have every reason to be the most hopeful people

Evil will not prevail forever. The powers of evil are doomed.[79] In his great novel Robinson Crusoe Daniel Defoe (1659–1731) tells of an Englishman who was involved in a shipwreck off the coast of America. Crusoe realized he was sinner and accepted Christ as his Savior. After several years on an uninhabited island he found a footprint and eventually met a native, whom he named “Friday.” He spoke to Friday about the devil and God. One day Friday asked, “Well, you say God is so strong, so great; is He not much strong, much might as the devil?”

“Yes, yes,” said Crusoe. “Friday, God is stronger than the devil; God is above the devil; and therefore we pray to God to tread him under our feet, and enable us to resist his temptations, and quench his fiery darts.”

“But,” Friday said, “if God much strong, much might, as the devil, why God not kill the devil, so make him no more wicked?” Crusoe pondered this for a while. Then he said, “God will at last punish him severely; he is reserved for the judgment, and is to be cast into the bottomless pit to dwell with everlasting fire.”[80]

Christians have every reason to be the most optimistic people

Christians know that the future will yet unfold with terrible chapters. Yet they have the expectation of victory. In the eighth century when Boniface (680–754), later called “the Apostle of Germany,”[81] came upon the sacred oak tree of the pagan god Thor, he chopped it down and built a chapel with the wood. Thousands of Thor worshipers, seeing that their god had failed to strike Boniface with lightning, converted to Christianity on the spot. Boniface knew he was on the winning side. The terrorizing deities of paganism meant nothing to him. He worshiped the one true God to whom alone ultimate victory belongs.[82]

Evangelist Billy Graham was asked by a reporter if he was an optimist or a pessimist. “Oh,” he said, “I’m an optimist!” “How can you be an optimist,” asked the reporter, “when your sermons are so full of warnings about God’s judgment and the sins, immorality, and perversions of mankind?” “I’m optimistic,” said Graham, “because I’ve read the end of the Book-I’ve read the biblical prophecies of Christ’s return and Satan’s defeat.”[83]

Christians have every reason to live truthfully and with integrity

Knowing the enemy and his character, Christians should lead lives that honor the holiness, goodness, and truthfulness of their Savior. “I hate the devil!” yelled undergraduate and future missionary to India, Paget Wilkes (1871–1934), across an Oxford street to a friend walking on the opposite side. “So do I!” his friend roared back. Passersby were struck by the exchange, and perhaps it did them good, says Packer, in his inimitable way, for their sentiment was right.[84] Those who have learned to hate the devil as Christians should, rejoice and praise God that the devil has been defeated at the Cross and that one day he will be imprisoned.

Notes

1. Ken Dyers, “Not Giving the Devil His Due,” Tabletalk 17 (July 1993): 60-61. Doubts about Satan’s existence actually arose earlier: “Until the age of Enlightenment [1650-1780] belief in an objectivized personal Devil and his minions was all but universal among theologians. Today, however, it is generally recognized that belief in Satan, the leader of the fallen angels, etc., is not a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil” (Alan Richardson, “Satan,” in Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, 522).
2. Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, ed. H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart (Edinburgh: Clark, n.d.), 161, 169–70.
3. Rudolf Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” in Kerygma and Myth, ed. Hans Werner Bartsch (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1961), 4–5.
4. Paul Edwards, “Atheism,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1 (1967), 182. Rejection of belief in Satan’s existence is not universal, of course. Russell writes, “The horrors of twentieth-century genocide and war have revived serious philosophical concern with radical evil, and the Devil is once again a serious issue for modern theology” (Jeffrey Burton Russell, Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986], 12).
5. Russell suggests there are seven major objections to belief in the devil’s existence today: (1) The general disbelief in theology and metaphysics, that is, the belief that only scientific knowledge is true knowledge. (2) The objection that belief in the devil is not progressive or up to date, an objection that arises from hunches and fads rather than careful or coherent thought. (3) The objection that arises from theological traditions (e.g., rabbinical Judaism or Buddhism) that deal with the problem of evil without recourse to the devil. (4) The manifestly untrue objection that belief in the devil is inconsistent with the main lines of the Christian tradition. (5) The argument-based on wrenching the text away from the meaning intended by the authors-that belief in the devil is inconsistent with the Scriptures, specifically with the New Testament. (6) The objection-grounded in a dogmatically materialistic worldview-that belief in the devil is inconsistent with experience. (7) The objection-which applies equally to all supernatural aspects of the biblical revelation-that belief in the devil is inconsistent with the doctrine of a sovereign and good God (Jeffrey Burton Russell, Satan: The Early Christian Tradition [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981], 220–22).
6. Pierre Charles Baudelaire, Short Prose Poems, quoted in Denis De Rougemont, The Devil’s Share (New York: Meridian, 1956), 17.
7. J. I. Packer, “The Devil’s Dossier,” Christianity Today, June 21, 1993, 24.
8. Ibid.
9. Leon Morris, The Revelation of St. John, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 233.
10. W. A. Criswell, Expository Sermons on Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), 5:49–50.
11. G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, New Century Bible (London: Oliphants, 1974), 284.
12. Without giving a reason, Swete denies that καὶ εἶδον is used here to describe sequential chronological events (Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John [London: Macmillan, 1906], 256).
13. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, New International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 361. This, according to Albertus Pieters, an amillennialist, is “a very good feature” of premillennialism (Studies in The Revelation of St. John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954], 294).
14. Against this evidence Donald Garlington asserts that John showed “very little concern. .. for a precise chronological program” (“Reigning with Christ: Revelation 20:1–6 and the Question of the Millennium,” Reformation and Revival Journal 6 [spring 1997]: 80).
15. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1943), 564; William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1939), 221; Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 223–26; and Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 68–72.
16. White, a proponent of the recapitulation view, argues that the presence of καὶ εἶδον in 20:1 is irrelevant. The only relevant point, he says, is the content of the visions. Yet he does acknowledge that the repeated καὶ εἶδον does introduce a series of events in chronological sequence in Revelation 19:11–21. The present writer’s point is that a pattern is established in 19:11–21, that is, visions that are clearly in chronological sequence are introduced by καὶ εἶδον. The fact that 20:1 is introduced by καὶ εἶδον suggests that one should at least consider whether the events in 20:1–3 follow chronologically after those in 19:11–21. There is nothing in 20:1–6 that suggests anything but such a sequence. It is White’s amillennialism that has produced this hermeneutical device (recapitulation) and not the straightforward exegesis of Revelation 19:11–20:10 (R. Fowler White, “Making Sense of Rev. 20:1–10? Harold Hoehner versus Recapitulation,” Journal of the Evangelical Society 37 [1994]: 540). As Blomberg notes, the content of the section makes it “impossible to insert a literary seam in between Revelation 19:20–21 and 20:1 as amillennial and postmillennial perspectives are forced to do. Chapter 19 ends with the eternal punishment of two-thirds of the unholy trinity of chapters 12 to 13: the first beast and the false prophet. But what is the fate of the dragon, i.e., Satan, the third individual and chief person of this demonic trio? This question is not answered until 20:1–3. But, given that there is no logical or chronological break before verse 4, the millennium that is described in the rest of chapter 20 must of necessity follow the return of Christ, with which chapter 19 concludes” (Craig Blomberg, “Eschatology and the Church: Some New Testament Perspectives,” Themelios 23 [June 1998]: 14-15). See also F. Fowler White’s unconvincing attempt to deal with the hermeneutics of Revelation 20:1–3 (“On the Hermeneutics and Interpretation of Revelation 20:1–3: A Preconsummationist Perspective,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42 [March 1999]: 53-66). For further discussion favoring chronological sequence in these verses see Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 527–41, 580–81; and Harold W. Hoehner, “Evidence from Revelation 20, ” in A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, ed. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey T. Townsend (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 247–52.
17. This untenable view is held by postmillennialists. Boettner writes, “We hold. .. that the binding of Satan is a process continuing through this dispensation as evil is more and more suppressed, as the world is more and more Christianized” (Loraine Boettner, The Millennium [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1957], 127). Chilton writes, “The Lord began ‘binding the strong man’ during His earthly ministry; having successfully completed His mission, He is now plundering Satan’s house and carrying off his property” (David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance [Fort Worth: Dominion, 1987], 500 [italics added]). Chilton’s view seems to be a refinement of Boettner’s. As Hughes pointed out, however, the binding will occur before the one thousand years (James A. Hughes, ”Revelation 20:4–6 and the Question of the Millennium,” Westminster Theological Journal 35 [spring 1973]: 281, n. 2).
18. Joseph Seiss, Lectures on the Apocalypse, 9th ed. (New York: Charles C. Cook, 1906), 3:270–82; René Pache, The Future Life, trans. Helen I. Needham (Chicago: Moody, 1962), 61–96; Robert A. Morey, Death and the Afterlife (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1984), 72–93; and C. Fred Dickason, Angels Elect and Evil, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 233.
19. J. Jeremias, ”ᾅδης,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:146–49.
20. According to Josephus the Pharisees held to the idea of a spatial separation in the underworld (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.14). Cf. Jeremias, ”ᾅδης,” 1:147.
21. On the view that Ephesians 4:8–9 refers to the abode of the dead, see J. Schneider, ”καταβαίνω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1 (1964), 523; F. Büchsel, ”κατώτερος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 (1965), 641–42; J. Schneider, ”μέρος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 4 (1967), 597–98; Homer A. Kent Jr., Ephesians: The Glory of the Church, Everyman’s Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 69–70; and Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 65. For alternate views, however, see F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 343–44, n. 56; and W. Hall Harris III, “The Ascent and Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4:9–10, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 151 (April-June 1994): 198-214.
22. See the discussion in Seiss, Lectures on the Apocalypse, 3:270–82; and Morey, Death and the Afterlife, 84–87.
23. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, ed., A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), 1075; and J. F. Prewith, “Topheth,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 (1988), 876–77.
24. Seiss, Lectures on the Apocalypse, 3:279–80.
25. J. Jeremias, ”γέεννα,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:657–58.
26. J. Jeremias, ”ἄβυσσος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1:9–10.
27. In Romans 10:7 the term “abyss” may be a synonym for sheol or hades, but even there it may refer to the prison of spirits (1 Pet. 3:19). Cranfield says the abyss in Romans 10:7 is the same as sheol (C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: Clark, 1979], 2:525).
28. The Bible speaks of angels who are imprisoned today. There are apparently demons in the abyss (Luke 8:28–31), and some demons are kept in Tartarus (2 Pet. 2:4; the NASB mistakenly reads “hell”) in “eternal bonds” [Jude 6] because of their sin in Genesis 6. The demons of Tartarus, unlike those of the abyss, will never be released (Rev. 9:1–3). Tartarus is probably different from the abyss (Dickason, Angels, 233; and Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. ”ταρταρόω,” 3:336.
29. Jeremias, ”ἄβυσσος,” 1:10.
30. Seiss, Lectures on the Apocalypse, 3:270. R. H. Charles writes, “The abyss is regarded only as a temporary abode of punishment” (The Revelation of St. John, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: Clark, 1920], 2:141).
31. The Greek text is difficult to explain. It literally reads “and a great chain upon his hand” (καὶ ἅλυσιν μεγάλην ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτου). E. R. Craven suggests that the chain is looped over the angel’s hand or arm (John Peter Lange, “The Revelation of John,” trans. E. Moore, ed. E. R. Craven, in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, ed. John Peter Lange [reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960], 25:349). Swete suggests that the chain lies on the angel’s hand “ready for use as soon as he comes upon the criminal” (The Apocalypse of St. John, 256).
32. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 256; and Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 361, n. 4.
33. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 2:141.
34. One of the more recent warnings of this kind comes from Vern Sheridan Poythress, “Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev. 20:1–6, ” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 (March 1993): 41-54. As much as the present writer admires Poythress’s obvious gifts, he cannot help but conclude that his “new” approach is simply another attempt to somehow find amillennialism in the passage. His attack on literalism is really as old as amillennialism itself. The point that literalists make is one that Poythress acknowledges, namely, that symbols have referents. It should be added that the symbols of the Revelation are intended to symbolize something literal or actual.
35. One of the more well-known literalists says, “One need scarcely insist upon the symbolic character of the scene, for that seems evident ” (Walter Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, 4th ed. [London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.], 396).
36. After hearing the writer preach on Revelation 19:17–21, a professor with experience in two prominent denominations remarked that he had never heard anyone preach from the Book of Revelation.
37. Walvoord pointedly addresses the issue: “The question has been raised as to how an angel who is an immaterial being can lay hold on Satan who is also an immaterial being. Such a query is born of unbelief” (John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ [Chicago: Moody, 1966], 291).
38. Seiss, Lectures on the Apocalypse, 3:269.
39. Martin Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John, Moffatt New Testament Commentary (New York: Harper, 1940), 399.
40. Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, 396.
41. William Kelly, Lectures on the Book of Revelation (London: G. Morrish, 1874), 412–13.
42. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 361, n. 6.
43. Ibid., 361. On the significance of the names here in Revelation, see Seiss, Lectures on the Apocalypse, 3:264–67.
44. W. Foerster, ”δράκων,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2 (1964), 281–83.
45. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 2:141.
46. W. Foerster, ”ὄφις,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 5 (1967), 580.
47. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 182.
48. W. Foerster, ”διάβολος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2 (1964), 71–73.
49. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, 285.
50. Foerster, ”διάβολος,” 580; and W. Foerster and K. Schäferdiek, ”σατανᾶς,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 7 (1971), 151–65.
51. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 744.
52. Donald Grey Barnhouse, Revelation: An Expository Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971), 378–79.
53. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 362.
54. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, 285.
55. For example Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, 225–26; Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation, 574–75; and Garlington, “Reigning with Christ,” 69–72.
56. Harry R. Boer, an amillennial scholar, admits, “The binding of the strong man in the Synoptic Gospels, on which Augustine based his entire position, bears no recognizable relationship to the thrust of the amillennial view. That thrust is that the binding of Satan applies only to his ability to deceive the nations. But where are the nations in the pericopes that refer to the binding of the strong man? They are not to be seen. What is very much in view is the local sufferers from demon possession and Satan’s inability to prevent Jesus from healing them; what is not at all in view is the now blessedly undeceived nations” (“What about the Millennium?” Reformed Journal 25 [January 1975]: 29).
57. See the discussion in Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 292–93.
58. So Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors, 228.
59. Ibid., 226. In context, however, the deception of Satan that is interrupted is the yet-future deception of the nations (Rev. 16:13–14) by the beast, the false prophet, and Satan (19:20). It is not a deception that ended at the Cross allowing for worldwide missionary effort. Hendriksen and those who follow him do not see the contradiction of their position here. He asserts that Satan was bound at the Cross to end his deceptions, yet he earlier stated that only at Christ’s second coming will Satan’s “power to deceive on earth. .. cease forever” (ibid., 219).
60. Contrary to the amillennial exegesis of Hughes, the deception of 20:3 is not defined by 20:7–8. Hughes says the deception in verses 7–8 is the same as that referred to in verse 3 (Hughes, ”Revelation 20:4–6 and the Question of the Millennium,” 281–83). This cannot be the case, for John wrote that Satan is imprisoned in order that he might not deceive the nations “any longer” (ἔτι). The deception mentioned in verses 7–8 refers to the end of the one thousand years. The deception described in verse 3 refers to something antecedent to the thousand years, namely, the events in 19:11–21. Richard A. Ostella argues that the discontinuance of deception in 20:3 “is a critically decisive exegetical point. .. which ultimately demands the conclusion that the millennium involves an extension of redemptive history subsequent to the parousia” (“The Significance of Deception in Revelation 20:3, ” Westminster Theological Journal 37 [Winter 1975]: 236-38).
61. Boer, “What about the Millennium?” 28.
62. Kurt Koch, Christian Counseling and Occultism (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1965), 290.
63. Ibid.
64. G. Friedrich, ”εὐαγγελίξομαι,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2 (1964), 710, 722.
65. J. Dwight Pentecost, Your Adversary the Devil (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), 183.
66. Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time, trans. Floyd V. Filson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 84, 144–46.
67. Ray Bakke tells of an old Glasgow professor named MacDonald who, along with a Scottish chaplain, had bailed out of an airplane behind  German lines. They were put in a prison camp. A high wire fence separated the Americans from the British, and the Germans made it next to impossible for the two sides to communicate. MacDonald was put in the American barracks and the chaplain was housed with the British. Every day the two men would meet at the fence and exchange a greeting. Unknown to the guards, the Americans had a little homemade radio and were able to get news from the outside, something more precious than food in a prison camp. Every day MacDonald would take a headline or two to the fence and share it with the chaplain in the ancient Gaelic language, indecipherable to the Germans. One day news came over the little radio that the German High Command had surrendered, and the war was over. MacDonald took the news to his friend, then stood and watched him disappear into the British barracks. A moment later, a roar of celebration came from the barracks. Life in that camp was transformed. Men walked around singing and shouting, waving at the guards, even laughing at the dogs. When the German guards finally heard the news three nights later, they fled into the dark, leaving the gates unlocked. The next morning the British and American captives walked out as free men. Yet they had truly been set free three days earlier by the news that the war was over. While Satan still prowls this earth, and Christ’s kingdom has not been manifest on the earth, the outcome of the battle is clear. The Cross has sealed Satan’s ultimate doom (“To Illustrate Plus,” Leadership 19 [spring 1998]: 79, 81).
68. J. Oswald Sanders, Satan Is No Myth (Chicago: Moody, 1975), 137.
69. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 257. The recapitulation theory, that is, the amillennial view that Revelation 20:7–10 recapitulates the events of 19:11–21, founders on the question of the deception of the nations. According to this view the binding of Satan (20:3) took place at the Cross, and from that time on the nations are protected from satanic deception, allowing the gospel message to be disseminated worldwide. However, in 19:20 the Battle of Armageddon will bring to an end the yet-future deception of the nations by the false prophet. Furthermore the recapitulation theory assumes that the final defeat of Satan (20:7–10) will take place at the same time as the defeat of the beast and the false prophet (19:19–21). However, 20:10 presupposes that the beast and the false prophet will be defeated before Satan; they will be in the lake of fire before he is. It is simply wrong to posit a wrenching chronological break between chapters 19 and 20. “Narrative progression seems hard to evade” (Paul A. Rainbow, “Millennium as Metaphor in St. John’s Apocalypse,” Westminster Theological Journal 58 [1996]: 211, n. 8). Rainbow is responding to R. Fowler White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Rev. 20:1–10, ” Westminster Theological Journal 51 [1989]: 319-44).
70. White raises this question in what he thinks is a major problem for premillennialists (ibid., 323–24).
71. For example George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 262–63; and James Moffatt, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 5:471.
72. White notes that the term “nations” (τά ἔθνη) generally refers to unbelievers in contrast to the saints (2:26; 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:2, 9, 18; 12:5; 13:7; 14:6, 8; 16:19; 17:15; 18:3, 23; 19:15). As he admits, however, four other times-five, including 20:3-the term does refer to the saints, namely, 15:4; 21:24, 26; 22:2 (White, “Making Sense of Rev. 20:1–10?” 540–41).
73. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 302; cf. Thomas, Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary, 410–11.
74. For the ideas developed here, see Seiss, Lectures on the Apocalypse, 3:285–89.
75. Lynn Harold Hough, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine: Exposition,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George A. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon, 1957), 12:517.
76. There are, of course, “impersonal evils” in nature (e.g., storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and disease). The point here, however, is that the most tragic evils in the world are caused by deliberate, wicked choices of personal beings (see ibid., 517–18).
77. Seiss, Lectures on the Apocalypse, 3:284–86.
78. Ibid., 286-87.
79. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, 287.
80. Daniel Defoe, Adventures of Robinson Crusoe (Chicago: Moody, 1965), 194. Unfortunately many of these Christian elements have been deleted from other editions (see, e.g., Daniel Defoe, Robinson Crusoe [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1945], 150).
81. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v. “St. Boniface,” 187.
82. For this illustration the writer is indebted to Chilton, Days of Vengeance, 497.
83. This illustration was told to the writer by Mrs. Gwyneth Schwab at Conference Point on Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, July 23, 1996.
84. Packer, “The Devil’s Dossier,” 24.