Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Four Commentaries on Revelation: Thomas (WEC); Beale (NIGTC); Leithart (ITC); Osborne (BECNT)

by

Thomas, Robert L. Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary, Revelation 8-12: An Exegetical Commentary. Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. Edited by Kenneth Barker. Chicago: Moody, 1992, 1995.

Thomas’s commentary takes a futurist, dispensational approach to Revelation.

The most significant weakness of this commentary is the too frequent insistence that a given interpretation must be accepted because it is the more “literal” without distinguishing between literal as “the distinctive epithet of that sense or interpretation (of a text) which is obtained by taking its words in their natural or customary meaning, and applying the ordinary rules of grammar; opposed to mystical, allegorical, etc.” and literal as “used to denote that the accompanying n. has its literal sense, without metaphor, exaggeration, or inaccuracy; literally so called” (OED). For instance, he insists that Babylon in Revelation 17 must be literal Babylon, or that God will create a white horse especially for Christ to return on (Rev. 19:11; Thomas, 2:384) despite the abundance of symbolism in this section (a sword coming from his mouth, fiery eyes, etc.). Sometimes he, oddly, takes an element that, if symbolic, would be part of the the symbolism, and uses it as grounds for interpreting something as non-symbolic. For instance, in the midst of several good arguments for the two witnesses in chapter 11 being two actual witnesses, Thomas argues that they have to be actual individuals because “only individual persons can wear sackcloth: (Thomas, 2:87). But if the two witnesses are symbolic, surely the wearing of sackcloth is too! So the claim that they must be individuals because they are said to wear sackcloth is a clear example of begging the question.

This weakness aside, I think that many of Thomas’s arguments are sound. I found especially convincing his argument for the telescoping structure of the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments.

Thomas is probably the best of the dispensational commentaries. He should be consulted by everyone. Dispensationalists should consult him, of course. But non-dispensationalists should as well. Too many non-dispensational writers use as their foil Hal Lindsay, which is not much better than attacking a straw man. Both Beale and Osborne did interact with Thomas, and it was clear they took his views seriously even when disagreeing with him.

Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.

Beale’s commentary takes an idealist, amillennial approach to Revelation.

The idealist approach is this commentary’s most significant weakness. Beale identifies his position as “a Redemptive-Historical form of Modified Idealism.” The modification indicates that, unlike a pure idealism, the return of Christ and the last judgment is part of Revelation. Beale’s position is: “no specific prophesied historical events are discerned in the book, except for the final coming of Christ to deliver and judge and to establish the final form of the kingdom in a consummated new creation” (exceptions being  2:10, 22; 3:9–10, which were fulfilled for particular churches) (48). Despite having the best and fullest introduction of the four commentaries Beale provides no argument for the modified idealist approach apart from his critiques of the other systems. He critiques the preterist approach for confining the judgment to the events of AD 70 and to Israel whereas Daniel, on which Revelation heavily depends, and Revelation clearly envisions a universal judgment on the nations. Among Beale’s critiques of the historicist approach, the most compelling is that “[p]roponents of this view living at different periods of church history cannot agree with one another, since they limit the meaning of the symbols only to specific historical referents contemporary with their own times” (46). Beale’s critique of the futurist position is truly odd: “The futurist position especially encounters the difficulty that the book would have had no significant relevance for a first-century readership” (47). By this reasoning the Old Testament holds no relevance for today because it is about events outside of our own present experience. If it is conceded that the past events of the Old Testament do have relevance for the believer today, how could it be denied that prophetic revelation about the future have relevance even for believers who will not be alive at the parousia? This objection is also odd in light of the fact that Beale thinks that Daniel prophesied of future events and in light of the fact that he does think that Revelation itself does predict the return of Christ and the final judgment. Surely he does not think that Daniel was irrelevant to its original audience or that the prophecies about the parousia and final judgment are irrelevant to Christians from the first century to the preceding generation, since Christ did not return in any of those generations. Hence, I fail to see how his argument against the futurist approach has any purchase. Thus the argument for idealism by means of eliminating the other interpretive approaches fails.

Alternately, there are positive arguments against idealism. Leithart notes that idealism “is not … consistent with the way biblical poetry works. Isaiah describes Jerusalem, not some generic city of man, as Sodom, and so does Ezekiel. Daniel sees beasts coming from the sea, and the beasts are identifiable kingdoms (with some qualifications, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome). Daniel sees a goat racing over the land without touching the ground. It crashes into a ram with two horns and shatters the ram’s horns (Dan. 8:5–8). That is not a generic portrait of “conquest.” It is Alexander’s conquest of the Persians. … John is not referring to … some transcendent concept or class of “harlot-city” of which there are many specific instances. He refers to a real harlot city, one that existed in his own time, and that harlot city becomes a type of future cities” (Leithart, ITC, 1:12). Apart from the preterist assumption in the last sentence, Leithart’s observation is compelling. If one’s interpretive method is to be modeled on the genre constraints of the first century, idealism is ruled out.

The futurist approach has a pedigree reaching back to the earliest centuries of the church, and the historicist approach also reaches back to the earliest commentaries on Revelation. Preterism does not have as lengthy a pedigree (it was developed after the Reformation by Roman Catholic scholars seeking to challenge the Reformers’ identification of the Roman church with the beast and harlot; cf. Leithart, ITC, 1:15), but it could be claimed as a form of historicism. Idealism, however, seems to be a novel approach and the least supportable based on genre considerations.

If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then I would have to conclude that idealism fails in practice as well as theory. For example, here are Beale’s comments on the first trumpet judgment (Rev. 8:7):

This woe is not referring to literal fire that will burn up part of the earth. This is consistent with 1:1, where the visions are said to be a ‘communication by symbols.’ Furthermore, ‘fire’ elsewhere is used figuratively (so most clearly 4:5 and also in 1:14; 2:18; 10:1; and 19:12; see also on 9:17 and 11:5). 4:5 is especially relevant because there the ‘fire burning before the throne’ in heaven receives a formal figurative interpretation, and the ordeals signaled by all the trumpets also have their origin ‘before God’ (8:2) and therefore before the heavenly throne (8:3–4 explicitly equates ‘before the throne’ with ‘before God’). The parts of the earth affected are associated with food supplies, which is clear from Exod. 9:25, 31–32. The Exodus plague destroyed only part of the food supply (Exod. 9:31–32: ‘flax and barley were smitten … but wheat and rye were not’). This is strikingly similar to the description in Rev. 6:6, where there is famine, and wheat and barley are scarce but still available. Consequently, the first trumpet may refer figuratively to the famine depicted by the third horseman.”

p. 474

The chain of reasoning—the trumpet is connected with an Egyptian plague → the plague dealt with the destruction of food → the third horsemen dealt with famine → the burning of a third of the world symbolizes localized famines during the church age—is tortuous. Is this kind of exegesis reproducible by others? If not, one suspects the approach is somewhat arbitrary. (A way to test this is to see how the book has been interpreted through history, but apart from Leithart’s interaction with patristic and medieval commentaries, all of these commentaries are light on the history of interpretation.)

Related to his idealism, Beale takes the book of Revelation to be fundamentally symbolic. In response to those who say that the book should be interpreted literally unless there is clearly symbolism, Beale argues that the use of ἐσήμανεν in 1:1 indicates that the book should be interpreted as symbolic unless there is a clear indication that it should be interpreted literally.  I don’t think that either of these a priori approaches is a good way to approach the book. With regard to Beale’s contention, the presence of ἐσήμανεν in 1:1 does not indicate that the book is symbolism unless otherwise noted. The verb is commonly translated in this verse “made it known” (NIV, NRSV, ESV, CSB; cf. LEB, NASB). Furthermore, in practice, Beale sometimes takes the interpretations of the symbols given within the book and interprets the interpretations symbolically. That strikes me as just as absurd as trying to interpret symbols literally.

Another weakness, related to his idealism, is Beale’s insistence on seeing the events of Revelation within the “already-not yet” paradigm. I heartily concur that the already-not yet paradigm exists in the New Testament, but Beale works very hard to press “not yet” elements into the already. For instance, he argues that the statements about Christ’s coming (e.g., Rev. 1:7; 22:7) “likely do not allude primarily to his apocalyptic appearance at the end of the age but to all his unseen comings in judgment throughout the age and climaxing with the final parousia” (185; cf. 197-98, 1127). In response, Revelation 1:7 refers to Christ coming in the clouds, to every eye seeing him, and to the tribes of the earth mourning. This has to be “his apocalyptic appearance at the end of the age.” A survey of commentators on this passage (Oecumenius, Fulgentius of Rupse, Alford, Ladd, Morris, Mounce, Osborne, Fee, Beeke), some of them idealists, reveals significant agreement that this verse refers to only to the future return of Christ. In this odd insistence in finding the already in passages that are clearly about the not yet, Beale’s approach seems to be the mirror image of traditional dispensationalism in working hard to fit passages into a pre-arranged system. For the traditional dispensationalist, the challenge is to make passages about the kingdom’s presence relate only to the future; for Beale, the challenge is to make passages about the future apply directly to the present. In both cases, I can see how one can make the exegesis work if one has to, but the very effort seems to throw up a red flag.

Beale’s commentary is nonetheless very useful. His theological comments are always sound. His introduction is the fullest and most helpful of the four commentaries. Most significantly, he gives careful attention to the use of the Old Testament in Revelation. The commentary is worth reading if only to harvest his collection of allusions and parallels. But the commentary is worth more than that. When not being hindered by his idealism, Beale’s comments are frequently the most perceptive of the four commentators.

Leithart, Peter J. Revelation. Vol. 1 & 2. The International Theological Commentary. Edited by Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain. New York: T&T Clark: 2018.

Leithart’s commentary takes a preterist, postmillennial approach to Revelation (though his interpretation of Revelation 20 is the standard Augustinian, amillennial interpretation).

The preterist approach is a significant weakness to this commentary. Leithart insists that this approach is necessitated by Revelation 1:1’s statement that the book is about “things that must soon take place.” However, by insisting that “soon” must mean that the events of the book will take place within the next several years after writing, Leithart’s interpretation of other passages within the book at times borders on the absurd. To note just one: Leithart argues that the New Jerusalem described in 21:9-22:5 is “the church in the present age” (though he does take the city of 21:1-8 to be the new creation) (2:357-60). This leads him in 22:6 to argue that the curse imposed after the Fall in Genesis 3 is lifted for the church in the present age (2:402). Since there are other ways to take “soon”—Beale notes that in some contexts it could mean “quickly” and refer “a swift, ‘unexpected’ appearance” or that it could indicate that our conception of soon and delay is not the same as God’s (2 Peter 3:8-13)(Beale, NIGTC, 1134-36)—it is best to adopt one of those readings and avoid the absurdities elsewhere.

Another difficulty with the preterist approach to the book is that it depends upon dating the book prior to AD 70. Leithart makes a good case that such a dating is not impossible and that it should be given more credence by other interpreters. However, the possibility of an early date is far from the probability, much less certainty, of such a date. If such a piece of information is crucial to the right interpretation of the book, one would expect that information to be present within the book. Daniel dated his visions, so there would be a precedent for dated visions within Revelation. The absence of such dating points away from the preterist view.

Another weakness of this commentary is Leithart’s own idiosyncratic theological positions as represented in the Federal Vision and in his book, The End of Protestantism. These do make appearances at points in the commentary.

A third weakness also contributes to one of the book’s chief strengths. If a significant person, place, or thing occurs in the text of Revelation Leithart will give a full survey of all the appearances of that something in Scripture and attempt to draw connections. I recall a reviewer of his commentary on 1 & 2 Kings observe that 2/3’s of the connections that Leithart attempted to make were too fanciful to be credited but that the commentary was worth reading for the 1/3 which were valid and which other commentators missed. The same is true of this commentary. It would be worth reading just to pick up on the pervasive Old Testament allusions within the book.

Leithart is also a keen observer of the details of the text. Since in much of the commentary he is operating within the narrative flow of the text rather than making applications of the symbolism to the first century, much of the commentary maintains its usefulness. His comments on chapter 7 provide an example of the utility of his observations coupled with the need to qualify his positions. He argues that chapter 7 “is not an interlude (pace Farrer 1970; Reddish 2001: 141; Mounce 1997: 154; Smalley 2005: 177; and many others). To treat it as such is to miss the critical progression from the end of chapter 6 to the beginning of chapter 7. True, the opening words of verse 1 mark a disjunction in the vision (μετὰ τοῦτο; in some texts, μετὰ ταῦτα; cf. 4:1), opening a section that continues through eight verses before a new section begins with a similar phrase (μετὰ ταῦτα, 7:9). Yet the sealing is also a continuation of the world-collapse episode begun in 6:12–17. It portrays heaven’s answer to the martyrs about the “short time” of waiting. It shows us why the universe begins to collapse but does not collapse (Farrer 1964: 105)” (1:277). He further observes, “Later, when the first trumpet trumpets, some trees are harmed—a third of them (8:7). … So the restraint is taken away when the trumpets start blowing. The angels’ blowing releases the wind; the blowing of trumpets is the blowing of the wind, which harms the land, sea, and trees” (1:321-22). Yet, in this same context, Leithart makes other less convincing connections. For instance, he claims that since the temple was made of wood, the trees in chapter 8 represent a sacred grove which represents the temple. Thus the blowing down of the trees represents the destruction of the temple. Leithart also is incorrect in seeing all of chapter 7 as part of the sixth seal. Even if he is able to demonstrate connections between chapters 6 and 7, chapter 7 is an interlude. By the end of chapter 7, the reader is certainly taken out of the narrative flow of the seal, trumpet, bowls sequence.

Finally, I would note that of the four commentaries, Leithart is the most sensitive to how literature works and brings a literary sense to the work.

This would not be my first recommendation, but it is worth reading (and at points skimming) alongside other commentaries on Revelation.

Osborne, Geant R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Moises Silva. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

Osborne’s commentary takes a largely futurist, premillennial approach to Revelation.

The most significant weakness in this commentary is his willingness to mix the idealist and futurist approaches. As might be expected, I find Osborne least convincing when he adopts an idealist interpretation.

The strongest point of this commentary is its survey of Revelation’s theology. Osborne gives a better survey of Revelation’s theology than any commentary I’ve looked at.

Osborne is also fair in handling weighing what is symbolic and what is not in Revelation. For instance, when discussing the first trumpet judgment, Osborne says, “My view is that while the imagery of these judgments is symbolic, the tensive symbols were meant to function at a literal (what if?) level. So the way they should be thought about is to contemporize them [e.g., “We are supposed to picture one-third of all the great forests of the world (the Amazon, the Congo, Yosemite, Yellowstone) burned down.”], which is what I do throughout the remainder of this volume” (351, n. 5). Though I lean toward viewing this as a true judgment by fire (Thomas makes a compelling argument for this based on the parallel with the Egyptian plagues), I think Osborne presents a viable alternative as well. Often Osborne is modest in his claims, noting that something in Revelation may be symbolic (and understood in the restrained method noted above) or it may be literal—time will tell. I find this approach to symbolism much preferred to Beale’s more speculative approach.

Though on numerous issues, I find myself siding with one or another of the commentators against Osborne, in general he was my favorite commentator on Revelation.

March 2022 Update: Review of Buist Fanning’s ZECNT commentary on Revelation. In my opinion, Fanning displaces Thomas as the best dispensational commentary on Revelation, and he edges out Osborne as my favorite commentator on Revelation.

Waymeyer on the Millennium

by

Waymeyer, Matt. Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model. Woodlands, TX: Kress, 2016.

Waymeyer observed that amillennialists, developing the work of Geerhardus Vos, have developed an argument for amillennialism based on the two-age model of eschatology. According to this argument, the two-age eschatology of Scripture does not permit an “intermediate kingdom” between this present age and the age to come. The imperfections of the proposed millennial age render it unfit to be part of the age to come. The return of Christ marks the transition from one age to another.

In Part 1 of this book Waymeyer argues that Psalm 72; Isaiah 2:1-33 || Micah 4:2-4; Isaiah 11; Isaiah 24-25; Isaiah 65; Zechariah 8:4-5; and Zechariah 14 predict of a time of Messianic rule in which the positive features of that rule sit alongside negative features that cannot be true of the consummated new creation. I find this argument compelling. When in seminary, I found Zechariah 14, not Revelation 20, the decisive passage in convincing me of premillennialism.

In Part 2, Waymeyer looks more particularly at two-age eschatology. At the beginning of this discussion quotes Vos to the effect that the two-age eschatology need not be incompatible with premillennialism: “According to Vos, the immediate succession of the two ages isn’t necessarily incompatible with the eschatology of premillennialists, for “under their scheme the millennium could in part be identified with the age to come as the beginning thereof”  (kindle loc 2357-2359, citing Vos, Pauline Eschatology, p. 25). Again, I find this compelling. When I first came across the two-age argument in Kim Riddlebarger’s book on amillennialism I thought that a transition period from one age to another is not unreasonable since we have the same thing in the transition from the old covenant age to the new covenant age in the ministry of Christ. In addition, I have for other reasons been convinced that the Millennium should be conceived as the first stage of the new creation.

In the remainder of Part 2 Waymeyer engages convincingly with amillennialist exegesis on key texts that allegedly disprove the idea that the millennium could be an initial stage of the consummated kingdom.

Part 3 is focused on the arguments that surround Revelation 20. At this point the focus shifts away from the two-age argument and rehearses the standard amillennial and premillennial arguments.

This is a careful, well-argued book that makes a contribution to the debate by addressing the two-age argument for amillennialism and by summarizing the argumentation regarding Revelation 20. Though Waymeyer is a dispensationalist, is simply arguing for premillennialism here (most of the time) and draws on non-dispensationalists in presenting the arguments. He recognizes and documents the variety of premillennial positions on various exegetical points. He is willing to critique weak premillennial arguments and concede when an amillennial argument has some force. In sum, this is a book worth reading and interacting with whatever one’s millennial position.

Waymeyer, Matthew. Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate. Woodlands, TX: Kress, 2004.

This is a brief defense of the premillennial position in outline form. It retains the form of a classroom syllabus since Weymeyer thought that facilitated clarity. I found most helpful chapter 3 on the timing of the binding of Satan (Rev. 20:1-3) and chapter 7, which defended the sequential (rather than recapitulatory) relationship of Revelation 19-20.

Blaising and Goodwin on Eschatology

by

Craig Blaising, “The Kingdom That Comes with Jesus: Premillennialism and the Harmony of Scripture,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 14, no. 1 (2010): 4-11.

This is a brief argument for premillennialism that spans the canon. Blaising begins by noting that Isaiah 24-25 present the following sequence: The day of the Lord, a punishment that will happen after “many days,” and then the abolition of death. Isaiah 65 speaks of the continued existence of death in the context of the new creation. When interpreted in light of Isaiah 24-25, this is best located in the “many days” subsequent to the day of the Lord but prior to the abolition of death. Additional evidence for a millennial period exists in the continued presence of sin and the coercive rule of Christ on earth in the future (Isa. 11; Zech. 14). First Corinthians 15 gives the sequence of first the resurrection of Christ, then the resurrection of his people, and then the end―which opens the possibility of a period between the resurrection of the righteous and the end. Finally, Blaising argues for a sequence that runs from Revelation 19 through Revelation 20. The logic of the passage requires that the dragon, who was not finally dealt with at the end of chapter 19, be dealt with later in the narrative. In addition, the passage’s affirmation of the resurrection of the martyrs followed by the resurrection of the wicked s thousand years later point to a millennial period.

Goodwin, Thomas. “Of the Blessed State of Glory which the Saints Possess after Death.” The Works of Thomas Goodwin. Vol. 7. Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1863.

The title of this work aptly describes its content. The bulk of the work is an argument that 2 Corinthians 5 refers to the state of the saints in heaven immediately after death. Goodwin did not convince me of his position, but his arguments are worth reading. Goodwin also exposits Revelation 14:13; John 11:25-26; Romans 8:18.

The discussion of 2 Corinthians 5 could get technical, but much of this treatise was warm and designed to help believers see the blessedness of God himself, which believers will enjoy for eternity.

Warfield on Revelation and Prophecy

by

Warfield, Benjamin B.”The Apocalypse.” In Benjamin B.Warfield: Selected Shorter Writings. Volume 2. Edited by John E. Meeter.Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1973.

The apocalypse is a book of symbols. The whole action of the book and every detail of the representation alike, is wrought out not directly, but through a symbolical medium. And as nothing is stated, so nothing is to be taken, literally; but every event, person, and thing that appears on its pages is to be read as a symbol, and the thing symbolized understood.

p.652

(1) We should apply its symbolism consistently throughout. For instance, the number seven is not a designation of a literal ‘seven,’ but of a divine perfection… We must not forget this in xvii. 9, and understand the ‘seven’ mountains as literally seven in number. (2) We should not forget that the purpose of this prophecy, as of all prophecy, is ethical and not chronological…. (3) We should not try to force the book to deliver a consistently progressive prophecy from beginning to end. Nothing is clearer than that it constantly returns on itself. And it is probably that with a prologue (i. 1-8) and an epilogue (xxii. 6-21), it is framed in seven parallel sections (the divisions falling at iii. 22; viii. 1; xi. 19; xiv. 20; xvi. 21; xix. 10), each of which independently unveils the great principles that rule the conflict between Christ and Belial and glance at it in its whole extent from conception to victorious conclusion.”

p. 653

If some dispensationalists err in interpreting the symbols of Revelation literally, Warfield here errs in the opposite direction. For instance, the seven mountains in Revelation 17:9 are not part of the symbolism but are part of the explanation of the symbolism.

The main problem with Warfield’s structure is that it divides the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments. In the narrative structure of the book, these are interlinked. An important function of that interlinking is that it connectsall three series of judgments back to the throne room scene of chapters 4-5.

Warfield,  Benjamin B. “The Millennium and the Apocalypse.” In The Works of Benjamin B.Warfield: Biblical Doctrines. 1932; Reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

This article is an enlargement on the previous shorter article, “The Apocalypse.” Warfield proposes the same structure as in the earlier article. He also enunciates principles for interpreting Revelation at greater length.

We have only to bear clearly in mind a few primary principles, apart from which no portion of the book can be understood, …. These primary principles are, with the greatest possible brevity, the following: 1. The principle of recapitulation. That is to say, the structure of the book is such that it returns at the opening of each of its seven sections to the first advent, and gives in the course of each section a picture of the whole inter-adventual period—each successive portraiture, however, rising above the previous one in the stress laid on the issue of the history being wrought out during its course. The present section, being the last, reaches, therefore, the climax, and all its emphasis is thrown upon the triumph of Christ’s kingdom. 2. The principle of successive visions. That is to say, the several visions following one another within the limits of each section, though bound to each other by innumerable links, yet are presented as separate visions, and are to be interpreted, each, as a complete picture in itself. 3. The principle of symbolism. That is to say—as is implied, indeed, in the simple fact that we are brought face to face here with a series of visions significant of events—we are to bear continually in mind that the whole fabric of the book is compact of symbols. The descriptions are descriptions not of the real occurrences themselves, but of symbols of the real occurrences; and are to be read strictly as such. Even more than in the case of parables, we are to avoid pressing  details in our interpretation of symbols:most of the details are details of the symbol, designed purely to bring the symbol sharply and strongly before the mind’s eye, and are not to be transferred by any method of interpretation whatever directly to the thing symbolized. The symbol as a whole symbolizes the real event: and the details of the picture belong primarily only to the symbol. Of course, now and then a hint is thrown out which may seem more or less to traverse this general rule: but, as a general rule, it is not only sound but absolutely necessary for any saneinterpretation of the book. 4. The principle of ethical purpose. That is tosay, here as in all prophecy it is the spiritual and ethical impression thatrules the presentation and not an annalistic or chronological intent. Thepurpose of the seer is to make known indeed—to make wise—but not forknowledge’s own sake, but for a further end: to make known unto action, to makewise unto salvation. He contents himself, therefore, with what is efficaciousfor his spiritual end and never loses himself in details which can have noother object than the satisfaction of the curiosity of the mind for historicalor other knowledge.”

  1. Warfield’s divisions and proposal for recapitulation fails to capture theverbal structural markers and interlocking sections of the book.

2. I think Warfield’s structure divides the book into more distinct visions than the book itself does.

3. While generally true, if pressed to the extreme, as I think Warfield does, the book becomes unintelligible or its interpretation arbitrary. It seems that along with the symbols there are interpretations or indications of what the symbols signify. As Leithart observes, “More generally, it seems that any apocalyptic allegory must mix literal and the figurative. If it is wholly literal, it is not allegorical; if wholly allegorical, it has no hooks to real events. If there is no literal hook, how can we begin to recognize allegory as allegory? Alexander the Great is not a goat, but he does rush across the surface of the earth, does beat down a great empire (the Persians, represented by a ram), is shattered and broken into four parts (Dan. 8:5–8). To insist on a reading that vision as consistently literal or consistently figurative is to destroy the music and dance of reading” (Revelation, ITC, 427).

4. Barthian-influenced interpreters sometimes indicate that the point of the Bible’s historical narratives is found in their ethical teaching rather than in their historicity. But this is to create a false dichotomy. I wonder ifWarfield is stumbling into that same false dichotomy here. It is in the revelation of Christ’s future triumph that the spiritual and ethical truths are communicated.

When it comes to the Millennium, Warfield argues that it is the intermediate state. The binding of Satan is only a symbol. “There is, indeed, no literal ‘binding of Satan’ to be thought of at all: what happens, happens not to Satan but to the saints, and is only represented as happening to Satan for the purposes of the symbolical picture. What actually happens is that the saints described are removed from the sphere of Satan’s assaults.” Similarly, thelanguage of martyrs is metaphorical for all Christians in that “all ofChrist’s saints are martyrs of the world.” The “firstresurrection” is thus a symbol of those “who while dead yet live inthe Lord” while the second resurrection is the resurrection of the body.The “nations” that Satan deceives no more refers to the saints.

I think this provides a pretty clear example of how it is not only literalistic interpretations that lead to strained understandings of Revelation. Strict symbolic readings can also produce absurd results. What is amazing is to see how a false hermeneutical axiom can lead even Warfield astray.

Warfield,  Benjamin B. “The Prophecies of St.Paul.” In The Works of Benjamin B.Warfield: Biblical Doctrines. 1932; Reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

The most valuable observation of this article is as follows:

“And it has been suggested, either that the Apostle in his early ministry made more of the Second Advent in his teaching than growing wisdom permitted him to do later; or else, that at this particular period, amid the special trials of hiswork—the persecutions in Macedonia, the chill indifference at Athens, the discouragements that met him at Corinth—he had his heart turned more than was usual with him to the blessed consolation of a Christian’s expectation of the coming glory. Both of these explanations are entirely gratuitous. A sufficient reason for this marked peculiarity lies at the hand of all in that other fact that distinguishes these letters from all their fellows—they are the only letters that have come down to us, which were addressed to an infant community just emerged from heathenism. For it is undeniable that the staple of Paul’s preaching to the Gentiles was God and the Judgment…. The address on the Areopagus, which was delivered only a few months before I Thessalonians was written, admirably illustrates how the Apostle tried to reach the consciences of his heathen hearers; and the totality of the message delivered in it was God(Acts 17:24–29) and the Judgment (Acts 17:30, 31). But if Christ coming for judgment was thus the very centre and substance of Paul’s proclamation to theGentiles, it would not be strange if he had dwelt upon it to the Thessaloniansalso. …

But we not only learn thus how it happens that Paul dwells so much on the Second Advent when writing to the Thessalonians, but we learn also what is much moreimportant,—how he himself thought of the Advent and in what aspect he proclaimed it. Plainly to him it was above all things else the Judgment. It was the Judgment Day that he announced in its proclamation; and this was the lever with which he prized at Gentile consciences. “The day in which God will judge the world in righteousness” was what he proclaimed to the Athenians, and that it was just this that was in mind in 1 Thess. 1:10 is evident from the office assigned to the expected Jesus,—“the Deliverer from the coming wrath.

pp. 602-3.

Steinmann and Thomas on the Structure of Revelation

by

Andrew Steinmann, “The Tripartite Structure of the Sixth Seal, The Sixth Trumpet, and the sixth Bowl of John’s Apocalypse (Rev 6;12-7:17; 9:13-11:14; 16:12-16),” JETS 35, no 1 (March 1992): 69-78.

Steinman argues against the idea that interludes exist after the sixth seal and trumpet judgments. He instead proposes that there are three sections to the sixth seal. Similarly, the sixth trumpet is followed by two related scenes in chapters 10 and 11. Further, the sixth bowl is divided into three parts by theinterjection “Behold, I am coming like a thief!” The seventh seal,trumpet, and bowl are all united by the depiction of a theophany. Steinmannargues from the sixth and seventh items in the series of seal, trumpet, bowljudgments that there is a double pattern of judgment in heaven and judgment onearth that is also found in chapters 14, 19, and 20.

If these judgments are listed in order, it is obvious that there is a progressive revelation concerning the final judgment:
Judgment 1: The seventh seal. Silence in heaven (8:1).
Judgment 2: The seventh trumpet. Voices in heaven. Implied judgment on earth(11:15–19).
Judgment 3: The double harvest. Initiated by angels’ commands in heaven. First harvest an implied blessing for the saints. Second harvest brings judgment on earth (14:14–19).
Judgment 4: The seventh bowl. A voice announces the end from heaven. Judgment on earth identical in form to judgment 2 (16:17–21).
Judgment 5: The celebration in heaven. The blessings for the saints at the marriage feast of the Lamb. The army of Christ brings judgment on earth at the great supper of God. The beast and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire (19:1–21).
Judgment 6: Fire from heaven consumesSatan’s army on earth. Satan, the beast, the false prophet, and those not in the Lamb’s book of life are thrown into the lake of fire. Blessings for the saints in the new Jerusalem (20:9–22:5).

p. 78

Assuming that each of these judgments end a section, Steinmann proposes the following structure for the book:

I.Introduction (1:1–9)
II. Seven letters (1:10–3:22)
III. Opening of the seven seals of the scroll (4:1–8:1)
IV. The sounding of the seven trumpets (8:2–11:19)
V. The woman, the dragon, the two beasts, the 144,000 with the Lamb, three angels, the harvest of the earth (12:1–14:20)
VI. The seven bowls of God’s wrath (15:1–16:21)
VII. The fall of Babylon, the marriage feast of the Lamb, the great supper ofGod (17:1–19:21)
VIII. The millennium, the great white throne, the new Jerusalem(20:1–22:5)
IX. Conclusion (22:6–21)

pp. 78-89

There are several problems with Steinmann’s proposal, however. Even if chapter 7 were read as part of the sixth seal and chapters 10-11 were read as part of the sixth trumpet, the interjection in 16:15 hardly creates a parallel tripartite sixth bowl. Furthermore, this double judgment, first in heaven and then on earth does not always hold. It is not found in judgments 1 or 2. His interpretation of 14:14-19 is debatable. And the claim that 17:1-19:21 forms one section and that 20:1-22:5 is problematic given the way chapters 19 and 20 flow together. Bauckham’s structure, based off of repeated phrases is much preferred to this structure, which depends on forced or imagined parallels at key points.

Thomas, Robert L.  “The Structure of the Apocalypse: Recapitulation or Progression?” Master’s Seminary Journal 4, no. 1 (1993): 45-66.

Thomas argues for a progressive relation of the seals, trumpets, and bowls while acknowledging that recapitulation occurs in the intercalary sections. He gives seven (of course!) arguments in favor of progression. (1) There is no outpouring of wrath after the opening of the seventh seal. (2) There is no outpouring of wrath after the seventh trumpet. (3) The seventh trumpet needs to be a pouring out of wrath because it is the third woe. The seven seals are specifically identified as the seven last plagues which complete God’s wrath (15:1), which fits the third woe. (4) The six seals seem to correlate with the beginning of birth pangs noted in the Olivet Discourse, which would place them early in “the hour of trial” in comparison to the bowls, which are the last plagues. (5) There is an increasing severity in the judgments, which fits well with a progression from seals to bowls. (6) The storm theophany that occurs with the seventh seal, trumpet, and bowl links these judgments back to the throne room scene in chapters 4-5. Since the seals appear in those chapters, the idea that all of these judgments flow from the throne room scene is best maintained if the trumpets are the content of the seventh seal and the bowls are the contents of the seventh trumpet. (7) The seventh bowl marks theclimatic end of the judgments whereas the seventh seal and trumpet do not clearly do this.

Thomas, Robert L. “John’s Apocalyptic Outline,”Bibliotheca Sacra 123 (1966): 334-41.

This article is an argument that Rev. 1:19 provides a tripartite division for the book of Revelation. I’m still not sure that the interpretation of this verse is as significant as some think. A futurist, it would seem, could hold to either position. In arguing for futurism, I wouldn’t make this verse foundational.

Thomas, Robert L.  “The Chronological Interpretation of Revelation 2–3,” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (1967): 321-31.

Thomas surveys of views about the significance of the letters to the seven churches. He defends the view that the letters to the seven churches are simply letters to churches in John’s own day without any additional symbolic significance relating to the history of the church.

Richard Bauckham on the Structure of Revelation

by

Bauckham, Richard. “Structure and Composition.” In Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. New York: T&T Clark, 1993.

Richard Bauckham has proposed the most convincing structure of Revelation among the proposals that I’ve surveyed. Bookending the whole are a prologue (1:1-8) and an epilogue (22:6-21). The major divisions of the book are signaled by the use of “in the Spirit” (1:10; 4:2;17:3; 21:10), resulting in the following structure:

  • 1:9-3:22—”vision of the risen who gives the seven messages to the churches
  • 4:1-16:21—”vision of heaven…from which develops the whole sequence of judgments”
  • 17:1-21:8—the fall of Babylon though the coming down of the NewJerusalem
  • 21:9-22:9—the New Jerusalem (pp. 3-4)

Within this structure there are other substructures and linkages. For instance parallel wording in 17:1-19:10 and 21:9-22:9 (particularly at the beginning and end of the sections) show these sections to be parallel: “they deal respectively with the two cities that John portrays as women: Babylon and Jerusalem.” Further, “between the two sections 17:1-19:10 and 21:9-22:9 comes a section which must be understood as a single section describing the transition from one to the other” (p. 5).

The longest section of the book is 4:1-16:21, and the series of seven seals, trumpets, and bowls mark distinct subsections. He notes that the formulaic repetition of rumblings, thunder, lightning, etc. in with the seventh item in each series unifies the series. In addition, “The judgment of the seventh seal-opening, the climax of the first series, described by this formula in 8:5, encompasses the whole course of the judgments of the seven trumpets,and similarly the judgment of the seventh trumpet, described by this formula in 11:19b, encompasses the whole series of bowl judgments, climaxing in the final, fullest elaboration of the formula in 16:18-21” (p. 8). In addition, an interlocking of the seventh seal and trumpet with the series that follows marks each series as a development of the first.

Between the sixth and seventh seal and trumpet, are intercalations that parallel one another. Bauckham suggests that “these lengthy interruptions in the sequence of judgments delay the final, seventh judgment, and such delay would be particularly felt in oral performance. They serve to incorporate the issue of delay into the structure of the book” (12). He further suggests that the second intercalation (chs. 10-11) is focused on the theme of witness. I think the same could be said of the first intercalation.

Bauckham notes that many structures of Revelation struggle with how to handle Revelation12-14. He takes the abrupt beginning of chapter 12 to mark a distinct subsection that intentionally restarts the narrative. In this case, it alludes far back as Genesis 3:15 and more specifically begins with the birth of Christ. “But if John has not integrated this section into the rest of his book at the beginning of the section, he has done so at its end. He links it to the account of the seven bowls which follows by the same technique of overlapping or interweaving as he had used to link the series of seal judgments to the series of trumpet judgments” (16).

This leads Bauckham to propose the following structure of Revelation:

1:1-8 Prologue
1:9-3:22 Inaugural vision of Christ and the churches including seven messages to the churches
4:1-5:14 Inaugural vision of heaven leading to three series of sevens and two intercalations:
    6:1-9:1; 8:3-5 Seven seals, numbered 4 + 1 + (1 + intercalation) + 1
    8:2; 8:6-11:19 Seven trumpets, numbered 4 + 1 + (1 + intercalation) + 1
12:1-14:20; 15:2-4 The story of God’s people in conflict with evil
    15:1; 15:5-16:21 Seven bowls, numbered (4+3) without intercalation
17:1-19:10 Babylon the harlot
19:11-21:8 Transition from Babylon to the New Jerusalem
121:9-22:9 The New Jerusalem the bride
22:6-21 Epilogue

Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, 22.

Kaiser on Rest and Bauckham on the Lord’s Day

by

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., “The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest,” Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (1973): 135-150.

This is a helpful survey of the rest theme in Scripture. Kaiser’s own summary:

The rest of God is distinctively His own rest which He offers to share first with Israel and through them with all the sons of men who will also enter into it by faith. While there were antecedent aspects of that final rest to come, chiefly in the divine rest provided by the inheritance of the land of Canaan; because it was not accompanied by the inward response of faith to the whole promise of God, of which this rest was just a part, the land of Canaan still awaits Israel and the people of God. The rest of God, lost in the fall, again rejected by the older wilderness generation and subsequently by their erring children is still future to us in our day.

The dead will enter into its full enjoyment after their resurrection from the dead (Ps. 116:7), therefore it is not to be identified with heaven. Rather it is fixed by Isaiah 11:10 as being “in that day” when “the Lord will extend his hand a second time to recover the remnant of his people” (Isa. 11:11). In that eschatological setting, “his rest” (not “dwellings” as in RSV) shall be glorious. Then the Lord shall choose Jerusalem as His dwelling place, and this new David will say, “This is my resting place for ever” (Ps. 132:14).” [149-50]

Bauckham, R. J. “The Lord’s Day.” In From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. Edited by D. A. Carson. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999.

This is an excellent examination of Revelation 1:10 in its historical and canonical context. Bauckham makes the case that the Lord’s day in Revelation 1:10 is Sunday. He further argues that the day was significant to the message of the book, which centers on the issue of sovereignty. The person you worship is your lord. Here it is fitting for the revelation given to John about the reality of Christ’s lordship and his coming full triumph to be given on the day the church gathers to worship. This connection between Christ’s sovereignty and the Lord’s day is strengthened by its being the day of Christ’s resurrection, which marked his triumph over opposition to his sovereignty. The Lord’s day, then, is to be a day of worship in anticipation of our Lord’s return and the full and visible manifestation of his sovereignty.

J. I. Packer, Knowing God

by

Packer, J. I. Knowing God. IVP, 1973.

There is good reason that this book is considered a classic. It is an accessible introduction to the essentials of the Christian faith. A Christian with few books who mastered this one alongside his Bible would truly be a theologian in the older sense of theology: the science of living blessedly forever.

Logos 8 Review

by

Logos 8 arrived earlier this month, and FaithLife (Logos’s parent company) was kind enough to send me a review copy. I’ve been using it for the past several weeks now, and what follows are a few of my favorite features along with some constructive criticism.

Canvas

Something that I’ve long wished was part of Logos’s highlighting toolbox is the ability to draw lines between key words in a text. I frankly thought that feature would never come due to technical challenges, but the canvas tool makes it possible to do that and much more. Below is an example I produced fairly quickly using Canvas.

Logos’s own blog post about Canvas shows it being used for more creative, artistic purposes, but expect I’ll use it most often to structure and highlight a passage. Because of this, one feature I hope Logos adds in the future is the ability to use the custom highlighting palates that can be used in other resources within Canvas.

See this page for a video and some other Canvas examples.

Workflows

One of the challenges with Logos is sifting through a large library of resources to find those most relevant for one’s present study. One way Logos has addressed this problem in the past has been through passage guides or exegetical guides.

Here are some examples from the passage guide:

 

Workflows take this concept to the next level and provide a click-through guide for how to study a passage. Here is the list of steps for the Passage Exegesis Workflow:

Within these steps, the workflow will direct users out to various resources:

Workflows are customizable, so if there are steps that you can do without or do without being prompted by the workflow, you can customize the process.

In addition to workflows that are focused on studying Scripture, Logos also included a workflow for praying Scripture. On the one hand, the process is simple enough that a workflow isn’t really needed, but part of the utility of the workflows is to teach people how to do something. I can also see using this workflow as a way to discipline myself to slow down and be more intentional in praying through Scripture.

For a video about workflows, see here.

Lexham Survey of Theology / Theology Guide

Another new feature of Logos 8, and one to which I contributed, is the Lexham Survey of Theology. Information from this resource is also presented and expanded on in the theology guide.

The LST provides a brief definition of a theological topic followed by an entry which summarizes the topic. Key passages and recommended resources follow the entry. In general, I think the summaries are helpful, though there are some which, unfortunately, seem to argue for a viewpoint instead of surveying positions. I contributed entries relating to the themes of covenant and law and sought to provide a summary of viewpoints followed by suggested resources that represent the range of viewpoints on the topic.

I think the resource recommendations and the key passages may end up being the most useful part of this resource.

For a video about the theology guide, see here.

Touch and Pen

I use Logos on a Surface device, and, in general, it works well with touch. I’ve used the Logos mobile app on both iOS and Android, and while the mobile app is nice, I prefer the full-featured experience on my Surface.

In many ways, Logos 8 improves upon Logos 7 in the realm of touch. The new design for accessing the table of contents within resources is more touch-friendly, as are the new toggles for the interlinear and multiple resources views. However, while the main resources respond to touch, the interactives do not. This is frankly unacceptable. Windows devices have had touch for the past decade, and a program in which touch works only selectively is broken.

Similarly, the pen works everywhere in Logos–except with the notes feature. There is no place where pen functionality is more desirable within Logos. Furthermore, there is no reason why pen functionality should not work here. Microsoft provides the pane for pen input, and the Logos program should not care whether the text is coming from the pen input pane, from an onscreen keyboard, or from a hardware keyboard. It is the only program I have that does not recognize pen input. When a program does not function with a basic operating system feature that works with every other program, it is broken.

Other Features

Logos 8 includes a number of other nice features. For instance, the Library now has a side panel with helpful filters. I find that I use this far more than I might have anticipated. In fact, if I were to organize this post by most used feature, this paragraph would be at the top of the post instead of at the bottom.

The homepage now includes a dashboard that fills up with the users own documents. The advertising is still present, but if you have enough docs on the dashboard, it is tucked away below your docs. This is better than the old homepage. I had my various prayer lists in the sidebar on the old homepage, but it seemed distracting to interact with them as a sidebar to blog posts and advertisements. At least for my workflow, the new homepage is better.

I’m generally happy with the new UI as well. While I did like the big book panel/icon that always appeared on the far left of a resource pane in the old design (and have to retrain myself to go to ellipses on the right of the screen instead of to the left of the screen to access the resource menu), I think the new design is better overall. It’s clearer which tab is active, and the icons within the tab make identifying resources in different tabs a bit easier.

My general assessment is that Logos 8 is a solid and substantial upgrade from Logos 7.

The Significance of Genesis 1:26-28 in Exegesis, Theology, and Culture

by

On Monday I presented a paper at the BJU Seminary symposium for Fall 2018 on Genesis 1:26-28. The paper is posted on the Theology in 3D website. I’m thankful for the opportunity to present the paper, and I welcome feedback.

I’m grateful to Dr. Ken Casillas for inviting me to present the paper and to Dr. Eric Newton for his insightful response.