Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20

The Chronological Fallacy

The Book of Revelation is not a historical narrative whereby the reader is able to deduce the chronological sequence of events merely by reading the apocalypse from beginning to end. When we study John’s apocalypse, we discover that the order of the various visions is not according to actual, historical chronology. We recall that William Hendricksen divides the Book of Revelation into seven parallel sections, each of which depicts the current age from different perspectives. The series of visions in Revelation can be likened to different camera angles, each angle providing us with a different view of the same event. This element of repetition is also known as recapitulation.

Denis Johnson concurs that this recapitulation or “repetition in visions sometimes provides a second or third camera angle on the same person, historical event, or institution.”[1] Using the camera angle analogy, Johnson writes, “God rewinds the videotape, in effect, and calls John to view the same drama from a different perspective.”[2] Thus, the various visions unveil in a progressive manner details regarding a certain person, institution or event in actual history.

Although we adopt Hendricksen’s approach of progressive parallelism, we are reminded that “sometimes, however, the repetition that links one vision with another does not mean that the visions refer to the same time period.”[3] In these cases, the same events are referred to, but the time frame may be dissimilar.

Recapitulation is an important factor to consider when understanding Revelation 20:1-6. Premillennialists and Bible Presbyterians understand the events in Revelation 19:11-20:10 as occurring in a chronological sequence. According to Fowler White, Premillennialists “have viewed the visions as an account of events associated with the second coming (19:11–20:3), a subsequent interregnum (20:4–6), and a judgment of Satan and the nations following that interregnum (20:7–10).”[4]

Premillennialists and Bible Presbyterians find the Second Coming of Christ described in Revelation 19:11-16. The millennium described in Revelation 20:4-6, according to Bible Presbyterians, occurs chronologically after the Parousia (Rev. 19:11-21). If this alleged temporal sequence between Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:1-6 is untrue, the entire system of premillennial eschatology collapses.

There is, however, substantial evidence to suggest that Revelation 20:1-6 begins another series of visions, and is not continuous with Revelation 19:11-21. This evidence for a nonsequential temporal relationship between 20:1-6 and 19:11-21 is often ignored by premillennial interpreters.

The Deception of the Nations in Revelation 20:3

In Revelations 20:7-8, we read, “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.” Here, Satan is described as deceiving the nations, so as to gather them to battle against Christ and the saints.

In Revelation 19:19, we read of a similar gathering of the nations against the army of the Most High God, “And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.” Clearly, those people who are gathered to fight against Christ are the unbelievers who “had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image (Rev. 19:20).” These unbelievers form the “nations,” which are mentioned as being deceived by the Devil in Revelation 20:8.

The recurring motif of deception of the nations is reiterated in Revelation 16:13-14, “And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.” The “great day of God Almighty” is an obvious reference to the Day of the Lord, also known as the Parousia of Christ, when Jesus shall return to judge the wicked (2 Thess. 1:6-10). The language of Revelation 16:12-16, 19:11-21, and 20:7-10 suggests that John was depicting the same event, which is commonly known as the battle of Armageddon. G. K. Beale explains:

“Rev. 16:12-16; 19:19-20; and 20:8 have in common not only the same language for the gathering together of forces for the war (noted above), but also the idea that the gathered forces have been deceived into participating. This enforces the impression that Satan’s deception of the nations in 20:8 “to gather them together for the war” is the same event as the deception of the nations in 16:12-16 and 19:19, where, respectively, demons “gather them together for the war” of Armageddon and “the kings of the earth and their armies” are “gathered together to make war” (the latter in connection with mention of the false prophet’s deceptive activities, though that is not directly stated). And, just as the war of Armageddon in ch. 16 is followed by a description of the destruction of the cosmos (16:17-21), so likewise a vision of the dissolution of the world follows the final battle in 20:7-10, which suggests further the synchronous parallelism of the two segments.”[5]

Another line of evidence suggesting recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-6 is, in fact, the problems encountered when attempting to interpret Revelation 19:15-21 and Revelation 20:1-3 in a chronological fashion. The nations were judged and destroyed by Christ at His Second Advent in Revelation 19:15-21. Symbolically, a sharp sword was used to “smite the nations,” “and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God (Rev. 19:15).” The fowls of the air were called to feed upon the flesh of kings, captains and mighty men (Rev. 19:17-18). Finally, the beast and the false prophet “were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh (Rev. 19:20-21).” Revelation 19:11-21, therefore, describes the utter destruction of the unbelieving nations. Here, even “the remnant” or “the rest” of the nations were killed with the sword of Christ (Rev. 19:21).

If the nations are to be completely annihilated with the Parousia of Christ, which is consistent with the events described in 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10, what nations is Revelation 20:3 referring to when it says that the devil “should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled?” Upon Christ’s Second Coming, the saints are glorified, while the wicked are completely destroyed. One wonders what “nations” the Bible Presbyterians would propose if they insist on interpreting Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:1-6 as being chronologically sequential.

Fowler White reasons:

“The contention that there is a discrepancy in a chronological approach to 19:11–20:3 is based on the observation that reading the events of 19:11–21 and 20:1–3 in historical sequence does not yield a logically coherent picture. The incongruence of 19:11–21 and 20:13 surfaces when we consider that 20:1–3 describes actions taken to prevent Satan’s deception of the very nations who had just been destroyed in 19:19–21 as a result of their deception by Satan (16:13–16). In other words, the discrepancy consists in this: it makes no sense to speak of protecting the nations from deception by Satan in 20:1–3 after they have just been both deceived by Satan (16:13–16, cf. 19:19–20) and destroyed by Christ at his return in 19:11–21 (cf. 16:15a, 19).”[6]

Furthermore, if the nations are annihilated, and the wicked are judged at Christ’s Parousia, how do we account for a second rebellion against Christ at the end of the earthly millennium (Rev. 20:8) as proposed by premillennialists? In fact, the number of rebels “is as the sand of the sea.” In order to explain the number of unbelievers at the end of the millennium, the premillennialists have to propose that there are wicked survivors after the battle of Armageddon. At Christ’s Second Coming, all the saints will be glorified. The problem becomes apparent when we recall that glorified saints do not procreate.

Fowler White comments that,

“The claim that there will be survivors of Armageddon becomes important as a way for [the premillennialist] to explain the presence of the rebel nations in 20:8 after all rebels were (at least ostensibly) removed in 19:11–21. Specifically, the rebel nations are present in 20:8 because they are the descendants of the surviving nations in 20:3. In the premillennialist’s speculation, then, the postulate of survivors at the second coming explains the presence of the nations in both 20:3 and 20:8.”[7]

But in his epistles, the Apostle Paul associates the Parousia of Christ with the sudden destruction of the wicked (1 Thess. 5:3; 2 Thess. 1:6-10). Applying the Analogy of Faith, and by comparing Scripture with Scripture, this is consistent with the interpretation that the wicked are completely destroyed at Christ’s Parousia in Revelation 19:11-21. The only survivors are the saints. Given the fact that all the saints are glorified, who, then, is left in his mortal body to procreate during the earthly millennium? Premillennialists must at the very least bear the burden of proof for the alleged sequential chronology of Revelation 19:15-21 and Revelation 20:1-3.

Fowler White notes that “in 19:18–21, John’s narration emphasizes the completeness and finality of Christ’s victory by describing his enemies in all-inclusive terms: all the nations will have taken up arms against the Divine Warrior and all will fall by his sword in the final confrontation. . . . If any are to survive the day of Christ’s coming (cf. 6:17), they will be able to do so precisely and only because they have been redeemed from among the nations and placed within the Divine Warrior’s kingdom-protectorate (5:9–10; cf. 3:10; 20:9).”[8]

The Premillennialist’s argument that the nations of Revelation 20:3 are the remnant or survivors of the nations who opposed Christ in Revelation 19:11-21 is gratuitous at best.[9] The entire thrust of this hypothesis depends, at least partially, upon the argument that the visions found in Revelation 19:11-20:3 are arranged in a historically chronological sequence. This is tantamount to circular reasoning, for the Premillennialist’s insistence that there must be survivors of Armageddon is based upon the presumed sequential, temporal relationship between Revelation 20:1-6 and 19:11-21. But the alleged historical chronology in Revelation 19:11-20:3 is, in fact, the problem under investigation. The Premillennialist should argue for the presence of Armageddon survivors using the content of John’s visions, rather than assuming an a priori temporal relationship between Revelation 20:1-6 and 19:11-21.

Fowler White perceptively comments,

“It must be kept in mind that the order of the visions in Revelation need not reflect the historical relationship of the events in those visions; it need only reflect the sequence in which John has presented the visions he received. Any historical relationship among the visions must be demonstrated from the content of the visions, not simply presumed from the order in which John presents them. The discrepancy discussed above is one indication that the order in which John presents the visions of 19:11–20:3 cannot be, as premillennialists would have it, reflective of the sequence in which the events depicted there will occur in history.”[10]

Given that the content of John’s visions in Revelation 19:11-20:3 does not convincingly support a historical chronology of events, the onus is upon the Premillennialist to prove the viability of such a postulate: that the nations of Revelation 20:3 are the remnant of the nations that battled at Armageddon in Revelation 19:11-21.

Thematic Allusions to Ezekiel 38-39 in Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:7-10

Revelation 20:7-10 makes repeated allusions to the imagery of Ezekiel’s prophecy in Ezekiel 38 and 39. If this is true, then Revelation 20:7-10 is a recapitulation of the battle mentioned in Revelation 19:11-21, which likewise refers to the imagery of Ezekiel 38-39. There are marked similarities between Revelation 20:7-10, 19:11-21, and Ezekiel 38-39. When we peruse these apocalyptic passages, it becomes apparent that John’s visions reiterate certain motifs used in Ezekiel’s prophecy of the defeat of Gog and Magog.

With regard to the battle described in Revelation 20:8-10 and 19:17-21, Beale observes that “both also use variants of the expression “gather them together for the war” (so 20:8, “gathered to make war,” in 19:19; cf. 19:17).”[11] He further notes that “[Revelation] 16:12-16 recounts the same battle and is highlighted in [verse] 14 by the same expression (identical to the form in 20:8). If 20:1-6 precedes the time of 20:7-10 and 19:17-21 is temporally parallel to the battle in 20:7-10, then 20:1-6 is temporally prior to the battle in 19:17-21.”[12]

If, indeed, Revelation 20:1-6 is temporally prior to the battle in 19:17-21, it then points to the fact that the millennium described in 20:1-6 is temporally prior to the Parousia of Christ mentioned in 19:11-21. This sequence destroys the chronology in premillennial eschatology.

Prophesying the defeat of Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, the prophet Ezekiel writes, “And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, even a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood. Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan. And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you. Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD (Ezek. 39:17-20).” Here, the prophet foretells the day when birds and beasts will feast upon the flesh of God’s enemies.

This ghastly imagery is reiterated by John in his apocalypse when he describes a scene in the Battle of Armageddon, “And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great (Rev. 19:17-18).” The similarities between Ezekiel’s and John’s visions are remarkable. Kline observes that “most striking is the distinctive motif of God’s summoning the birds and beasts to feed on the carcasses of the defeated armies Gog had gathered, the banquet theme elaborated in Ezek 39:4, 17–20 and incorporated into the account of Christ’s victory over the beast and his assembled armies in Rev 19:17–18.”[13]

In Revelation 19:21, John’s vision describes the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy, “and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” It is clear that Revelation 19:11-21 fulfills the prophecy of Ezekiel 38-39, and this event shall become historical reality at our Lord’s Second Coming.

Allusions to Ezekiel 38-39 are similarly found in Revelation 20:7-10, particularly when we read that the enemies of God are referred to as “Gog and Magog.” Meredith Kline summarizes the allusions made by John in 20:7-10, “The relationship of Rev 20:7-10 to Ezekiel 38-39, obvious enough from the adoption of the Gog-Magog terminology in Revelation 20, is also evidenced by a set of basic similarities: the marshaling of hordes from the four quarters of the earth (Ezek 38:2-7, 15; 39:4; Rev 20:8); the march of the gathered armies to encompass the saints in the city of God, center of the world (Ezek 38:7-9, 12, 16; Rev 20:9); the orchestration of the event by God (Ezek 38:4, 16; 39:2, 19; Rev 20:3, 7); the timing of the event after a lengthy period in which God’s people were kept secure from such a universal assault (Ezek 38:8, 11; Rev 20:3); the eschatological finality of the crisis (Ezek 39:22, 26, 29; Rev 20:10ff.); and the fiery destruction of the evil forces (Ezek 38:22; 39:6; Rev 20:9-10).”[14]

In Revelation 20:7-10, the judgment of the nations and the dragon (Satan) are described. This vision provides an alternative camera view of the same judgment event described in 19:11-21, when the beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire. John is not saying that God will only destroy the devil one thousand years after the judgment of the beast and the false prophet. Rather, Revelation 20:7-10 is a recapitulation of the battle in 19:11-21. The judgment and destruction of the beast, the false prophet and the devil will occur contemporaneously at Christ’s Second Advent. White argues,

“If John expected us to interpret the revolts in Revelation 19 and 20 as different episodes in history, we would hardly expect him to describe them in language and imagery derived from the same episode in Ezekiel’s prophecy. On the contrary, John’s recapitulated use of Ezekiel 38-39 in both 19:17-21 and 20:7-10 establishes a prima facie case for us to understand 20:7-10 as a recapitulation of 19:17-21.”[15]

From the evidence for recapitulation discussed so far, it is apparent that Revelation 20:7-10 describes the same battle of Revelation 19:11-21. We have seen that the New Testament teaches the complete destruction of God’s enemies at Christ’s Parousia (e.g. 2 Thess. 1:4-10, Rev. 19:11-21). This is consistent with the victory of the saints at the battle of Armageddon, and the final defeat of the devil, the antichrist, and the false prophet at Christ’s Second Coming. With an understanding of the recurring Har Magedon motifs in both Ezekiel 38-39 and John’s apocalypse, viz. Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:7-10, it is clear that John did not intend Revelation 19:11-20:10 to be chronologically sequential.

Kline concludes his observations:

“The conclusion is amply warranted that Ezekiel 38-39 is the common source of Rev 20:7-10 and the passages earlier in Revelation that deal with the eschatological battle. This confirms the standard amillennial contention that the Gog-Magog episode of Rev 20:7-10 is a recapitulation of the accounts of the Har Magedon crisis in these other passages. . . . Revelation 20:7-10 is not, as premillennialists would have it, an isolated, novel episode, not mentioned elsewhere in the book of Revelation. Rather, it belongs to a series of passages, including Rev 19:11-21, which premillennialists rightly regard as referring to the antichrist-Har Magedon crisis and the parousia of Christ. It therefore follows that the thousand years that precede the Gog-Magog crisis of Rev 20:7-10 precede the Har Magedon-parousia event related in the other passages. Har Magedon is not a prelude to the millennium, but a postlude. Har Magedon marks the end of the millennium. And that conclusion spells the end of premillennialism.”[16]

The Seven Bowls of Revelation 15 and the Completion of God’s Wrath

“Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels having the seven last plagues, for in them the wrath of God is complete. . . . Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God who lives forever and ever. The temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from His power, and no one was able to enter the temple till the seven plagues of the seven angels were completed (Revelation 15:1, 7-8, NKJV).”

Further evidence for recapitulation in Revelation 20:7-10 can be obtained by studying the seven bowls of God’s wrath envisioned by John in Revelation 15. In Revelation 15:1, John explains that the “seven last plagues” will “complete” or “fulfill” (ετελεσθη) God’s wrath against the nations. With the sixth plague, the dragon, the beast and the false prophet gather “the kings of the earth and of the whole world,” so as to battle the saints on “that great day of God Almighty (Rev. 16:14).” This scene is reiterated in 19:19, “And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.”

In Revelation 16:17-21, with the completion of the seventh bowl, “there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done (Rev. 16:17).” This angelic declaration affirms that God’s wrath is fulfilled or completed. This means that, according to Revelation 15:1, the seven plagues will bring an end to God’s wrath upon the wicked nations of the world in secular history. The reader should observe that “since in 15:1 the bowl plagues are said to bring an end to God’s (temporal) wrath against the nations, God’s wrath against the nations in chap. 20 must coincide with Christ’s Second Coming wrath against the nations in chaps. 16 and 19.”[17]

Fowler White elucidates further:

“To appreciate the bearing of 15:1 on the interpretation of 19:11-20:10, we need to remember that Christ’s wrath against the Armageddon rebels in 19:19-21 concludes the plot line that was dropped in 16:16 and thus must (more or less) coincide with the last plague of God’s wrath in 16:17-21. This coincidence of 19:19-21 with 16:17-21 means that Christ’s wrath in 19:11-21 falls within the time frame which 15:1 established for the completion of God’s wrath.”[18]

Since the seventh plague (Rev. 16:17-21) coincides with the battle scene of 19:19-21, the destruction of the nations in the battle of Armageddon (Rev. 19:11-21) concludes God’s wrath against the wicked nations in human history. This wrath is, of course, referring only to God’s temporal wrath and judgment against the nations, and expressly excludes God’s eternal judgment against unbelievers. With the fulfillment of God’s wrath in the seven bowl judgment, one realizes the difficulty in explaining a further temporal judgment and wrath against the nations in Revelation 20:7-10. The amillennialist understands Revelation 20:7-10 as a recapitulation of 19:11-21. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Christ’s wrath in the battle of 20:7-10, and the completion of God’s wrath in 15:1. 

White explains,

“If we read the visions of 19:11-20:10 as premillennialists do, we are, of course, bound to place God’s wrath against the Gog-Magog rebels in 20:7-10 after Christ’s return in 19:19-21 and 16:17-21. But, by doing this, we contradict the clear intent of 15:1. For we cannot place the outpouring of God’s wrath on Gog-Magog and Satan after Christ’s return without exceeding the deadline set for the completion of God’s wrath in 15:1.”[19]

However, if we understand Revelation 20:7-10 as a recapitulation of 19:11-21, God’s wrath against the Gog-Magog dissenters would fall comfortably within the time frame established by 15:1 for the fulfillment of God’s fury.

References
 
Note concerning abbreviated references: Please refer to previous posts for more details of repeated references

[1] Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 44.
[2] Ibid., 45.
[3] Ibid. Johnson also reminds us that “in interpreting repetition of wording and imagery, we need to give attention not only to the similarities but also to the differences between visions and vision cycles.” See Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, 47.
[4] R. Fowler White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10,” Westminster Theological Journal 51, no. 2 (1989): 319. White also recommends, “For the premillennial approach to 19:11–20:10, see, e.g., J. F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966) 289–90, and G. E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951) 259–63.” See White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10,” 319 n. 1.
[5] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 980.
[6] White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10,” 321.
[7] Ibid., 323 n. 10.
[8] Ibid., 324
[9] For example, see Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation: New International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998), 363.
[10] White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10,” 324.
[11] Beale, The Book of Revelation, 976.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Meredith G. Kline, “Har Magedon: The End of the Millennium,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39, no. 2 (1996): 220.
[14] Meredith G. Kline, God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006), 184-185. See especially Kline, “Har Magedon: The End of the Millennium,” 214-220 for a detailed defense of the view that Revelation 20:7-10 describes the eschatological battle prophesied in Ezekiel 38-39.
[15] White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10,” 327.
[16] Kline, “Har Magedon: The End of the Millennium,” 220. With the understanding that Har Magedon refers to “the mountain of God,” Meredith Kline effectively explores the Har Magedon motifs both in the Old and New Testaments. In his paper, Kline conclusively defends his view that Revelation 16:14-16, 19:11-21, and 20:7-10 are closely intertwined with Gog and Magog of Ezekiel 38-39. In so doing, he argues that Revelation 16:14-16, 19:11-21, and 20:7-10 refer to the same battle. For an excellent discussion of various arguments against recapitulation in Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:7-10, see Beale, The Book of Revelation, 976-980. Beale successfully rebuts all such arguments, and ably defends recapitulation in John’s apocalypse.
[17] R. Fowler White, “Making Sense of Revelation 20:1-10? Harold Hoehner Versus Recapitulation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 4 (1994): 547.
[18] White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Revelation 20:1-10,” 331.
[19] Ibid.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

An Introduction to Revelation 20:1-6

The Structure of Revelation

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 is persecuted by the world. Nevertheless, the Church is protected, and eventually emerges victorious. The deeper, spiritual background behind this struggle is unveiled in the second division. This division elucidates that the conflict is actually spiritual warfare between Christ and the devil. “It is the outward manifestation of the devil’s attack upon the Man-child. The dragon attacks the Christ. Repulsed, he directs all his fury against the Church. As his helpers, he employs the two beasts and the great harlot, but all these enemies of the Church are defeated in the end. It is evident that the sections which comprise this second group (chapters 12-22), though synchronous, present a continued story. The dragon, the beasts, the harlot (note the order) assail the Church. The harlot, the beasts, the dragon (again, note the order) are overthrown.”[6]

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’s patriarchs or other prominent figures, such as Adam, Abraham, Shem, Zephaniah and Enoch.

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: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2001), 44-47.
[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: Zondervan, 2005), 713.
[8] Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, 198.
[9] Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 715.
[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.