The interpretation
of the Book of Revelation is fodder for perennial debates amongst notable
theologians both from the Reformed as well as the Dispensational persuasions.
In chapters 10 to 14, my objective is to discuss Revelation 20:1-6, which I
believe is relevant and important for our study of the general resurrection,
the final judgment, and the millennium. Unfortunately, this portion of
Scripture is one of the most, if not the most, disputed segment of the
Revelation of Saint John.
Personally, the
method of interpretation which I believe to be most consistent with the entire
tenor of Scripture is that espoused by William Hendricksen in his commentary More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of
the Book of Revelation.[1]
Hendricksen
understands the book of Revelation as consisting of seven parallel sections,
each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ’s first
advent to His Parousia.[2]
He writes,
“The book of Revelation consists of seven sections. They are parallel
and each spans the entire new dispensation, from the first to the second coming
of Christ.”[3]
The seven sections
are presented as follow: Christ in the midst of the lampstands (1:1 - 3:22); the
vision of heaven and the seals (4:1 - 7:17); the seven trumpets (8:1 - 11:19); the
persecuting dragon (12:1 - 14:20); the seven bowls (15:1-16:21); the fall of
Babylon (17:1 - 19:21); the great consummation (20:1 - 22:21). This method of
understanding Revelation is known as progressive parallelism. Despite being
parallel to each other, each of these sections provides eschatological
revelations not presented in other sections. Each section furnishes us with a
different perspective of the new dispensation, with varying detail and clarity.
For example, the
last section (Rev. 20:1 - 22:21) gives us a vivid description of the final
judgment, also known as the Great White Throne judgment, which is only briefly
mentioned in the second (Rev. 6:12-17) and the first (Rev. 1:7). References to
the final judgment are also found in the third (Rev. 11:18), the fourth (Rev.
14:14-15), the fifth (Rev. 16:19-20), and the sixth section (Rev. 19:11-21).
Each of these sections furnishes us with different pictures and information
concerning the Parousia and the final
judgment. In fact, the judgment scene is progressively unveiled from section
one to section seven, where the vision of the Great White Throne reveals the
final defeat of Satan, death and hell. “The seventh or final section (chapters
20-22) not only describes the final judgment, but in this description drops
much of the symbolism of the earlier visions. Nothing is vague or indefinite
and little is clothed with symbolism (20:12 ff.). The joy of the redeemed in
the new heaven and earth is described much more circumstantially than, for
example, in 7:9 ff. The book has reached its glorious climax.”[4]
In his fourth
proposition, Hendricksen writes, “The seven sections of the Apocalypse are
arranged in an ascending, climactic order. There is progress in eschatological
emphasis. The final judgment is first announced, then introduced and finally
described. Similarly, the new heaven and earth are described more fully in the
final section than in those which precede it.”[5]
Thus, the term progressive parallelism
was used.
Hendricksen
further classified the seven sections into two groups or divisions. The first
division (chapters 1 to 11) consists of three sections, while the second
division (chapters 12 to 22) consists of four. In the first division, the
apocalypse of John describes how the Church
of Christ
The Revelation of
John concludes with the defeat of the devil, and the ushering in of the New
Heavens and the New Earth.
The Genre of
Revelation and Hermeneutics
The genre of the
Revelation of John is complex, to say the least. The opening verses “appear to
suggest three different genre identifications: apocalypse (1:1), prophecy (1:3)
and epistle (1:4).”[7] It
is difficult, if not impossible, to classify the Book of Revelation under any
one genre category. In one sense, it is an epistle from the Apostle John to the
seven churches in Asia Minor , especially when
we consider his opening address and salutation (Rev. 1:4-5, 9-11). The
Revelation of Saint John also belongs to the literary genre apocalypse. This is a unique genre of
ancient, pseudonymous Near-Eastern literature whereby the authors assume the
names of Israel
In apocalypses,
the writers utilize extensive symbolism, and their conception of history is
usually dualistic. The present age, together with its wicked and sinful
generation, is contrasted with the age to come. The new aeon will begin when
God intervenes in human history to establish His kingdom. A state of perfection
and sinlessness will then be ushered in by the Messiah.
Kim Riddlebarger
notes that “when apocalyptic writers describe the future, apocalyptic itself
becomes a form of prophecy. At this point, it should be easy to see how the
lines between apocalyptic and prophecy blur, especially since both these
elements are obviously present throughout the Book of Revelation.”[8]
When one attempts
to interpret prophetic portions of the Book of Revelation, it becomes difficult
to distinguish between the two genres in John’s writings, that is, apocalypse
and prophecy. John’s visions about the Second Coming of Christ and the future
consummation, for example, contain elements of both prophecy and apocalypse.
Therefore, the rich symbolism so inherent in apocalypses cannot be ignored when
we interpret John’s visions. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo explain:
“John certainly suggests that he stands in a prophetic role, and there
is a tendency in current scholarship to view Revelation as a prophecy. But a
better suggestion is to find elements of both prophecy and apocalyptic in
Revelation. Despite the impression given by some scholars, no rigid distinction
between these two is possible. They are combined in many Old Testament books
(e.g., Daniel, Isaiah, Zechariah) and in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse. In his
consciousness of inspiration and of the authority that he assumes, John is
truly a prophet. But his prophecy makes use of the forms current in Jewish
apocalypses.”[9]
Dispensationalists
have appealed to the literal or plain method of interpreting Scripture, even in
the exegesis of the Apocalypse of John. Of course, there is a certain amount of
truth in their argument, considering the fact that modernistic and liberal
theologians have attempted to avoid the clear doctrines of Scripture with
non-literal hermeneutics. Charles Ryrie argued that “if one does not use the
plain, normal, or literal method of interpretation, all objectivity is lost.
What check would there be on the variety of interpretations that man’s
imagination could produce if there were not an objective standard, which the
literal principle provides? To try to see meaning other than the normal one
would result in as many interpretations as there are people interpreting.
Literalism is a logical rationale.”[10]
What, then, is the
literal hermeneutics of Dispensationalism? Ryrie explains:
“Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that
of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word
the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing,
speaking, or thinking. . . . Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all
interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal
interpretation.”[11]
According to
Ryrie, Dispensationalists do not discount the presence of symbolism in
apocalyptic literature; nevertheless, such symbols are interpreted plainly via
the literal method of hermeneutics. Likewise, Reformed theologians such as Vern
Poythress understand “the word “literal” to mean prosaic, nonmetaphorical,
nonfigurative and nonsymbolic. “Literalistic” interpretation tends to find only
nonfigurative, literal meanings even when the author intends otherwise.”[12]
This method of
interpretation is also known as “flat” or “plain” interpretation. While it may
be correct to understand each word of Scripture in its literal sense, this
method tends to ignore the literary genre (i.e. apocalypse) of John’s
Revelation. John’s visions are not historical narrative. Poythress notes that a
literal understanding of individual words in John’s apocalypse is not adequate
for a proper interpretation of his visions. Words may have a strict, literal
meaning, but the sentences involved may not convey a similar literalness.
Poythress writes,
“One major aspect of the problem of defining “literal” is that in many
instances words, but not sentences, have a literal or normal meaning. Moreover,
for both words and sentences context is all-important in determining meaning at
any given point in an act of communication. What contexts are to be looked at,
and how they are to be looked at, in the determination of meaning is very
important.”[13]
Due to the complex
genre of the Book of Revelation, we have to consider four levels of
communication when we study this apocalypse. The first level is “the linguistic
level, consisting of the textual record itself.”[14]
This level refers specifically to the words given to John under the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit. The second level is the visionary level, which describes
the visual experiences of John. The Book of Revelation, understood at this
level, consists primarily of numerous visions revealed to the Apostle. The referential
level of communication, which is the third level, attempts to explain the
images and symbols found in John’s visions as actual historical references. For
example, the beast of Revelation refers to something in human history, perhaps
some form of antichrist. Finally “a symbolical level, consisting of the
interpretation of what the symbolic imagery actually connotes about its
historical referent,” makes up the last level of communication.[15]
The numbers and
images found in John’s visions are rich in symbolism and meaning. In the proper
interpretation of Revelation, it is essential to discover what the symbolical
level of communication is for each vision. Vern Poythress explains the four
different levels of communication with the examples of Revelation 5:6-8 and
19:7-8:
“The vision of Christ in 5:6–8 constitutes another example. For this
passage, the linguistic level consists in the textual description sent from
John to the seven churches (the actual linguistic material in vv. 6–8). The
visionary level consists in the visionary experience that John had of seeing
Christ represented in the form of a lamb. The referential level is the
reference to the living Christ, enthroned at God’s right hand. The symbolic
level consists in the symbolic significance of the imagery used. What is
connoted by the imagery of a lamb, the seven horns, the seven eyes, the taking
of a scroll? Similarly there are four distinguishable levels in the marriage
supper of the Lamb in 19:7–8. The linguistic level consists in the textual description
of 19:7–8. The visionary level consists in a vision of a bride and fine linen
clothing. The referential level involves the glorified saints enjoying
communion with Christ after his second coming. The symbolic level involves the
significance of communion, joy, and beauty attached to the wedding imagery.”[16]
In their
interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6, it is apparent that both Bible
Presbyterians and Dispensationalists have failed to acknowledge the visionary
and symbolic levels of communication. When we consider the literary genre and
immediate context of this passage, it becomes clear that the visionary and
symbolical elements so inherent in John’s writings cannot be divorced from the
linguistic and referential meanings. The literal meaning of each word in this
passage must be understood in conjunction with the context of the entire vision
of John in Revelation 20:1-6, which is indubitably highly symbolical.
Earlier on, we
discussed the fact that Dispensational interpreters such as Charles Ryrie have
feared the loss of objectivity when one abandons the literal method of
hermeneutics. But a wooden literalism will only deny John’s visions their
originally intended meanings. Although a literal hermeneutics might appear to
be a sufficiently objective standard of interpretation, Reformed theologians
have advocated a further hermeneutical principle. The analogia fidei mandates the interpretation of highly symbolic or
difficult passages of Scripture in the light of clearer ones. By interpreting
Scripture with Scripture, the objectivity of the clearer passages will guide
the exegete in obtaining a correct understanding of obscure passages.
G. K. Beale
elucidates that “it is important to remember the genre of Revelation in
approaching 20:1-6, especially the programmatic nature of 1:1, which states the
general symbolic nature of the communication from the mediating angel to John.
Further, the repeated introductory “I saw” (or similar expressions) throughout
the book introduces symbolic visions (e.g., 4:lff.; 12:1-3; 13:1-3; 14:1;
17:1-3) . . . Since “I saw” (εἶδον) introduces both 20:1-3 and 20:4-6, we can
assume that there are at least three levels of communication in vv 1-6: (1) a
visionary level, which consists of the actual visionary experience that John
had in seeing resurrected people and the other objects of his vision, (2) a
referential level, which consists of the particular historical identification
of the resurrected people and the other objects seen in the vision, and (3) a
symbolic level, which consists of what the symbols in the vision connote about
their historical referents.”[17]
Keeping in mind
the visionary and symbolic levels of communication and by applying the analogia fidei, the exegete must
interpret the symbolic and apocalyptic language of Revelation 20:1-6 in the
light of how these symbols are used elsewhere in the Book of Revelation, as
well as the entire Bible. Thus, Reformed theologians prefer the historical-grammatical-literary-theological
hermeneutics (discussed in chapter 2) over a literalistic method of
interpretation. This hermeneutical method emphasizes the analogy of faith
whereby Scripture is allowed to interpret Scripture.[18]
The rich symbolism
so inherent in Revelation has even forced certain Dispensational interpreters
to resort to spiritualizing certain words and sentences, and to acknowledge the
presence of symbolical meanings within John’s Apocalypse. Ironically, those
that advocate a strict literalism in hermeneutics have to reconsider the
flexibility of their literalism when interpreting portions of John’s visions.
Dr Vern Poythress writes:
“Literalistic interpreters all admit the presence of symbolism when it
is obvious and unavoidable. But they begin to differ in the rigidity of their
literalism when they venture out into the parts of Revelation that do not offer
such direct guidelines. For example, [J. A.] Seiss interprets the star of Rev
9:1 as symbolic of Satan, but the locusts of 9:1–11 are regarded as literal.
[John] Walvoord interprets the locusts as a symbolic representation of hosts of
demons, while the five months are still literal. Walter Scott and G. E. Ladd
allow that the five months as well as the locusts and the star may be symbolic.
Literalists understandably fear the introduction of uncontrolled subjectivity,
if we are no longer certain what items are nonsymbolic. But in fact it is just as subjective to impose a pedestrian,
nonsymbolic reading on a visionary genre to which such reading is alien.”[19]
In summary, sound
hermeneutics must comprise the proper understanding of a passage’s genre and
context. Apocalyptic literature must be distinguished from historical
narratives and didactic letters. In passages of Scripture with visionary and
symbolical elements, we must avoid limiting the meaning of the text to the
linguistic and referential levels of communications. The only reliable,
objective authority for determining the meaning of symbols in apocalyptic
literature will be Scripture itself.
References
Concerning abbreviated references: Please refer to previous posts for more details of repeated references
[1] For an able defense and exposition of
progressive parallelism, study William Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation
of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 1967),
16-50. Hendricksen effectively codified his arguments into nine propositions,
which are discussed in pp. 22-50 of his commentary. It must be emphasized that
Hendricksen’s structural division of Revelation into seven parallel sections
must only be accepted as a general approach to John’s apocalypse. There are
inherent difficulties with this divisional generalization, which are discussed
by Denis E. Johnson in his book Triumph
of the Lamb. See Denis E. Johnson, Triumph
of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation (Philipsburg , NJ
[2] The following theologians, amongst others,
also hold to a parallelistic view of Revelation: Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 4th
ed., IV, 663-66; Abraham Kuyper, E Voto
Dordraceno (Kampen: Kok, 1892), II, 252-290; M. F. Sadler, The Revelation of St. John the Divine
(1894); S. L. Morris, The Drama of Christianity (1928); B. B. Warfield, “The
Millennium and the Apocalypse,” Biblical
Doctrines (New York: Oxford, 1929), 644-646; R. C. H. Lenski, Commentary on the New Testament: The
Interpretation of Saint John’s Revelation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1963);
G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A
Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co, 1999); Simon J. Kistemaker,
Exposition of the Book of Revelation: New Testament Commentary (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co, 2001).
[3] Hendricksen, More Than Conquerors, 22.
[4] Ibid., 36.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 22.
[7] D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd
ed.(Grand Rapids , MI
[8] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 198.
[9] Carson
[10] Ryrie, Dispensationalism,
82.
[11] Ibid., 80-81.
[12] Vern
Sheridan Poythress, “Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6,” Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 36, no. 1 (1993): 48 n.15.
[13] Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 79.
[14] Poythress,
“Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6,” 41.
[15] Ibid., 42.
[16] Ibid., 43.
[17] Beale, The
Book of Revelation, 973.
[18] This is also known as the
historical-grammatical-canonical hermeneutics.
[19] Poythress,
“Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1-6,” 51, emphasis mine.
