The Significance Of Deception In Revelation 20:3

By Richard A. Ostella

Empire State Baptist Seminary, Liverpool, New York

To evaluate an interpretation[1] of the phrase ἵνα μὴ πλανήσῃ (Rev. 20:3), we must begin with a survey of the possible interpretations of this deception which follows the over all process of discontinuation then resumption.[2] Our survey is especially concerned with the deception which is temporarily discontinued. In this connection there appears to be three viable options:

1. It refers to that deception which operated among the nations prior to the Christian era in their alienation from the universalism of the gospel proclamation characteristic of the new covenant. 
2. It refers to that deception which will have operated among the nations prior to the parousia but not including the deceptive antecedents to Armageddon. 
3. It refers to that deception which will have operated among the nations prior to the parousia and including the deceptive antecedents to Armageddon. 

James Hughes rules out the first option[3] on the basis that the context (vss. 7–8) defines the nature of this deception as related to Armageddon, an eschatological not an historical triumph. In other words, he suggests that the deception of the nations in v. 3 is with reference to Satan’s gathering them together to battle in v. 8. And both of these passages refer to the same battle, to the battle of Armageddon because of the instrumentality of the evil triad (the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet) in gathering the nations to the battle of the great day of God Almighty (cf. Rev. 16 and 19). Thus Hughes stresses the resumption side of the deception process as a whole. He exhaustively identifies v. 3 with v. 8. His interpretation therefore involves the understanding that that which is discontinued is a deceptive strategy that does not include the antecedents to Armageddon. It does not include these antecedents because he restricts them to the resumption of deception (vss. 7–8). He therefore holds to the second option of our survey outlined above.

Now we are in a position to evaluate this construction Hughes has given us concerning the idea of deception in Revelation 20. First, we feel that Hughes is correct in affirming a unity between Revelation 19:11–21 and 20:1-3 in terms of the evil triad. And we desire to emphasize the fact that these evil ones are united as recipients of judgment at the parousia[4] which is subsequent to Armageddon since that conflict is brought to an end through the apprehension of the beast, the false prophet, and the dragon.

Second, we agree that the context of Revelation 20:1-3 therefore restricts the cessation of deception to the complex of Armageddon.

Third, however, we disagree with the exhaustive identification of the deception of v. 3 with that of vss. 7–8. On the basis of such an identification, Hughes concludes that the phrase ἵνα μὴ πλανήσῃ ἔτι τα ἔθνηindicates an interruption of the deception of the nations which awaits a time immediately prior to Armageddon for its resumption. This the context does not allow because it defines the deception that is interrupted as one which includes the immediate antecedents to Armageddon (cf. the third option outlined above). This conclusion is dictated by the unity between 19:11-21 and 20:1-3 in conjunction with the implication of ἔτι which suggests that a deceptive activity engaged in prior to Satan’s binding is interrupted when he is bound. On this basis, the judgments of the beast, the false prophet, and the dragon are synchronous and take place after the battle of Armageddon. This means that μὴ πλανήσῃ ἔτι refers to the cessation of deception that extends up to, and includes, this great battle. In other words, since Satan is apprehended at the same time as the beast and the false prophet, then his activity of deception (which is interrupted by his apprehension) must refer to the same activity of deception engaged in by the other members of the evil triad. The beast and false prophet are apprehended in the very process of stimulating the battle of Armageddon through deception. Satan is apprehended in the same course of events; consequently, his deceptive activity must also include the process of stimulating the battle of Armageddon. It is such deceiving of the nations that is interrupted at the parousia and that is to be resumed ὅταν τελεθῃ τα χίλια ἔτη. Therefore, we positively reject the conclusion that the deception of 20:1–3 is defined in 20:7–8. The deception of 20:1–3 is defined in the context of the unit extending from 19:11 through 20:3 as the deception which climaxes in the battle of Armageddon. And this deception cannot be identified with the deception of 20:7–8 because the former is antecedent to the thousand years (Satan is bound and imprisoned ἵνα μὴ πλανήσῃ ἔτι τα ἔθνη ἂρχι τελεσθῃ τα χίλια ἔτη) whereas the latter is subsequent to the thousand years (ὅταν τελεσθῃ τα χίλια ἔτη, λνθήσεται ὁ Σατανᾶς … πλανησαι τα ἔθνη). The former interrupts a prior deceptive activity and holds it in abeyance until a later time; the latter reflects upon the subsequent resumption. Though we have surface parallelism between vss. 1–3 and 7–8, we do not have exhaustive identification as becomes clear when the unity between chapters 19 and 20 is stressed, the implication of ἔτι is reflected upon, and the material antecedent and subsequent to Satan’s binding is co-ordinated.

This analysis concerning the significance of the discontinuation of deception in Revelation 20:3 has far reaching eschatological implications. It is our conviction that this aspect of Revelation 20 is a critically decisive exegetical point that has been overlooked in the controversy concerning the question of the millennium and which ultimately demands the conclusion that the millennium involves an extension of redemptive history subsequent to the parousia.

Notes

1. Specifically, we wish to evaluate the interpretation offered by James Hughes contained in the article, “The Question of the Millennium” in The Westminster Theological Journal 35 (Spring 1973) 281-302. Mr. Hughes lays a significant foundation for his whole article on pages 281-283 in which he discusses the meaning of πλανήσῃ.
2. ἔτι, v.3, indicates that a prior deceptive activity is interrupted or discontinued, later to be resumed as recorded in vss. 7-8.
3. As held by such scholars as W. Hendriksen who interprets μὴ πλανήσῃ as grounding the victory of missionary enterprise among all nations. Hughes objects that such an interpretation is out of context in Rev. 20.
4. This is obviously based on the classic interpretation of Revelation 19:11 and following as a reference to the parousia.