Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

W. Edward Glenny, “Will Jesus Come Before the Millennium? A New Testament Answer from Revelation 20,” in Dispensationalism Revisited

by

Glenny contributed an excellent brief articulation of a premillennial reading of Revelation 20. I began this chapter wondering about the value of this chapter. It did not seem that Glenny would be contributing anything new to the debate. However, upon completing the chapter it would be fair to say that Glenny has contributed an excellent, clear articulation of the premillennial position coupled with brief but cogent critiques of Amillennial readings of this chapter. For someone who wanted an introduction to the premillennial position, this chapter would be an excellent place to start. Those who took the time to track down the sources mentioned in the footnotes would be led to some of the best resources from all sides of the debate as well as to several of the most significant Revelation commentaries.

I won’t try to summarize Glenny’s chapter since it is already a succinct summary of the premillennial approach to Revelation 20, but I do commend it to all.

Thoughts on an Interview with Tom Schreiner on the Millennium

by

In this interview with Tom Schreiner on his forthcoming Revelation commentary in the Baker Exegetical series, he discusses his current view of the Millennium.

Schreiner has famously shifted between premillennial and amillennial views of Revelation 20. In his forthcoming commentary he argues that Revelation 20 is the first stage of the new creation. He agrees with premillennialists that Satan is entirely bound during this time and that the bodily resurrection of believers is the “first resurrection” mentioned in Revelation 20. He notes that if the “first resurrection” is not the bodily resurrection, Revelation would have no mention of the ultimate vindication of the saints.  However, because he sees this period as part of the new creation, he does not see any non-glorified saints in Revelation 20. All the wicked are judged and all the saints are glorified. He also understands all of the “famous so-called millennial passages” in the OT are fulfilled in the new creation; he observes that they are copiously quoted in Revelation 21-22.

He notes that the big problem with his new creation view is the final battle in 20:7-10 . Who joins Satan in this final battle against the saints? His solution: these are those who were raised from the dead before the final judgment.

In many ways Schreiner’s view is similar to my own (and to that of Robert Duncan Culver in Daniel and the Latter Days). I too see the Revelation 20 as the first stage of the new creation. I too think that this helps make sense of OT millennial passages being referenced in Revelation 21-22. However, I would differ with Schreiner on a few points. (1) I don’t interpret the OT millennial passages symbolically the way that Schreiner does. I think those passages actually blend the millennial stage of the new creation with the consummate stage. That is why they can be alluded to in Revelation 21-22 while also containing material that cannot be true of the consummate new creation. (2) Because I hold to a pre-Day of the Lord rapture, my view doesn’t have a problem with non-glorified saints entering the Millennial period. Thus, I don’t have the difficulty with who joins with Satan in the final battle against the saints. (3) In the interview Schreiner does not elaborate on the purpose for a millennial first stage for the new creation. In my view this period is when Jesus Christ, the second Man, leads all mankind to fulfill the blessed mandate of subduing the earth.

In the interview Schreiner notes that his overall interpretation of Revelation is symbolic. If his ESV Expository Commentary is a guide, to the forthcoming BECNT volume, it will be consistent with Beale’s modified idealism. In the intreview Schriener notes his concern is with newspaper eschatology: Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, or those who were finding Iraq in Revelation during the early 2000s. I too am concerned with such eisegesis. I don’t think those views can rightly be called futurist. They are a kind of presentism, a historicist approach focused on the present, just as preterism is a historicist approach focused on the first century. A true futurist approach would see Revelation 6 and following taking place during the final Day of the Lord, the timing of which is completely unknown to us.

Schreiner also made some helpful comments about dispensationalism at the end of the interview. He notes that the trend today is away from dispensationalism. However, he warns against having a “superior, supercilious spirit” toward dispensationalists. I think this is precisely right. I find that dispensational positions, or even positions thought to be dispensational (even if they have been held by a wide variety of interpreters throughout church history), are often dismissed, without actual engagement with the arguments or perhaps with a passing reference to a proof text here (as though the interpretation of that text is beyond debate). Schreiner does not have that spirit and rightly warns against it.

Typology, Escalation, and Revelation: A Problem with the Idealist Approach to Revelation

by

I’ve recently been reading various commentaries on the trumpet judgments in Revelation 8-9. Everybody acknowledges that these judgments are modeled on the Egyptian plagues. Further, John’s description of the trumpet judgments are intensifications of the plagues.

The idealist interpreter must argue that the referent of these judgments are the normal kinds of events that characterize the entire inter-advent period. Further, it is not clear how the famines, diseases, etc. of the inter-advent period differ from those that preceded Christ.

The Egyptian plagues are the type, John’s description of antitype properly escalates the type, but the idealist interpreter must then deescalate the type to something less than the original type.

New Journal Article: The Futurist Interpretation of Revelation: Intertextual Evidence from the Prologue

by

In the most recent issue of BJU Seminary’s Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview, I have an article that argues that the allusions to the Old Testament in the prologue to Revelation (1:1-18), when taken together, point readers to interpreting Revelation according to a futurist approach, which understands Revelation as being primarily about the ultimate Day of the Lord. My conclusion:

The Apostle John begins the book of Revelation with a cluster of OT allusions which together focus on the coming of the Messiah in a Day of the Lord to judge the nations and to establish his kingdom on earth to be ruled by redeemed mankind. This focus within the prologue serves as a signpost to readers for how they should approach the remainder of the book. Though not every allusion, on its own, decisively points to a futurist reading, when they are considered together, the futurist orientation of the prologue is clear

I also contributed a book review of Ben C. Blackwell, John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston, eds., Reading Revelation in Context: John’s Apocalypse and Second Temple Judaism. My conclusion:

Reading Revelation in Context provides an interesting introduction to a segment of Second Temple literature. However, it fails to demonstrate the importance of this literature for understanding Revelation. Presuming that the authors chose the best companion texts, the lack of a strong connection between many of the texts and Revelation was notable. The most convincing parallels were due to the texts drawing on the same Old Testament material as Revelation. This reinforces what is plain from the numerous allusions to the Old Testament in Revelation: the most important source for rightly reading Revelation is antecedent Scripture.

What does it mean that the things prophesied in Revelation “must soon take place” (Rev. 1:1)?

by

G. K. Beale, who holds an idealist position claims that the term “soon” “appears to denote fulfillment in the near future, which perhaps has already begun in the present” (Beale 1999: 153). Peter Leithart, who holds a preterist position, insists that “soon” should be read in a straightforward manner and not trimmed or reinterpreted (Leithart 2018: 70-71).

However, there are good reasons for understanding the things which “must soon take place” to be the events of the Second Coming.

a. Revelation 1:1, 3 are paralleled in 22:6-7, 10, 12, 20. The ambiguous expressions “soon take place” and “the time is near” are clarified by the words of Jesus in 22:7, 12, 20: “I am coming soon.”

b. Other Scriptures speak of the Second Coming or its accompanying events as coming “soon,” “near,” “at hand,” etc. (Charles 1920: 6; Ladd 1972: 22; Osborne 2002: 55; Schreiner 2018: 549-50; Fanning 2020: 75).

Deuteronomy 32:35: “for the day of their calamity is at hand, And their doom comes swiftly.’” If this “doom” refers to an eschatological judgment (Jonathan Edwards 2006: 390-10; Jamison, Faussett, and Brown, 1:706; cf. Block 2012: 764.), the swiftness would have to be reckoned from God’s point of view.

Obadiah 15: “For the day of Yhwh is near upon all the nations.” Though Obadiah is focused on the judgment of Edom, this verse, encompassing as it does all the nations, is eschatological in scope (Raabe 1996: 191; Busenitz 2003: 270; Block 2013: 81; Rogland 2018: 383). There are two possible scriptural explanations for the use of this terminology. First, “what human beings consider ‘near’ need not be the same for God, for whom a ‘thousand years’ are ‘as a watch in the night’ (Ps. 90:4; cf. 2 Pet. 3:8–9)” (Rogland 2018: 383). Second, the Hebrew term translated “near” often “often expresses physical rather than temporal proximity” (Rogland 2018: 383). Thus the image would be of a threat that is always close by (See Raabe 1996: 192; Block 2013: 84).

Joel 3:14: “For the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.” Joel 1:15 and 2:1 also refer to the day of the Lord as “near,” but those verses likely refer to a historical day of the Lord (Finley 1990: 35, 40-42; Seitz 2016: 149-50; cf. Garret 1997: 328). This verse refers to the eschatological day of the Lord, but the statement of nearness should be considered as interior to the prophecy, not as measured from Joel’s time. Thus, this verse is not relevant to the question at hand.

Isaiah 13:6: “Wail, for the day of the Lord is near.” The day of the Lord in this chapter likely refers both to a historical judgment against Babylon and to the ultimate eschatological day of the Lord (Young, 1:419; Grogan, EBC, 101; Webb 1996: 81; Raabe 2002: 652-74; Adams 2007: 43-44; cf. Wolf 1985: 110; Oswalt 1986: 299.). It may be that the statement about nearness is “not from the standpoint of Isaiah’s own day,” but from the standpoint of those who experience the fulfillment of the prophecy (Young, 1:419). Or it may speak to “the total preparedness of that day to dawn whenever the Lord declares that the time has come” (Motyer, 138).

Zephaniah 1:7, 14: “Be silent before the Lord GOD! For the day of the LORD is near…. The great day of the LORD is near, near and hastening fast.” While verse 7 could refer to a historical day of the Lord, verse 14 clearly refers to the eschatological day (Motyer 1998: 922). Motyer notes, “”Imminence is part of the prophetic definition of the day of the Lord (Ezek. 7:2, 10; 30:2-3; Joel 1:15; Hag. 2:6), as it is in the New Testament, which expects the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Motyer 1998: 917). It is challenging, however, to see how the eschatological day of the Lord could be imminent prior to the first advent. Patterson suggests a linkage between the historical and eschatological days: “However much the events detailed here may have full reference only to the final phase of the Day of the Lord, they were an integral part of the prophecy and could occur anywhere along the series” (Patterson 1991: 320). Robertson notes that this idea of the nearness of the day of the Lord is picked up by the New Testament (Robertson 1990: 281).

Luke 18:7-8: “And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily [ἐν τάχει]. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” Bock notes that though Luke recognizes that there is “a concern about the return’s delay,” he can still affirm the speedy return to give justice (Bock 1996: 1453; Bock does note that this may be partially explained by the inaugurated last days). Marshall observes, “To the elect it may seem to be a long time until he answers, but afterwards they will realise that it was in fact short” (Marshall 1978: 676; cf. Plummer 1922: 414; Stein 1992: 446.).

Romans 13:11-12: “For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand.” The use of night and day imagery references the day of the Lord concept, with the night representing “the present evil age” and the day the day of the Lord (Moo 1996: 820-21; cf. Murray 1965: 167, 169; Schreiner 2017: 677-78). The “salvation” that has drawn near is culmination of God’s saving work at the return of Christ (Murray 1965: 165-66; Moo 1996: 822; Schreiner 2018: 677). Cranfield explains, “the primitive Church was convinced that the ministry of Jesus had ushered in the last days, the End-time…. As the interval provided by God’s patience in order to give men time to hear the gospel and to make the decision of faith, it could hardly be properly characterized otherwise than as ‘short time’” (Cranfield 1979: 683; cf. esp. Moo 1996: 822; Schreiner 2018: 678).

Romans 16:20: “The God of peace will soon [ἐν τάχει] crush Satan under your feet.” Cranfield observes, “That the promise refers to the eschatological consummation, and not to some special divine deliverance in the course of their lives, seems to us virtually certain” (Cranfield 1979: 803). Cranfield holds that verse 20 speaks of eschatological victory without reference to the opponents of 16:17-19 (Cranfield 1979: 803). Schreiner grants that a connection to the false teachers mentioned in 16:17-19 exists, but he believes the victory over those opponents is eschatological (Schreiner 2018: 799). Murray and Moo teach that the ultimate victory is eschatological, though they think there may be realizations of the victory throughout the history of the church (Murray 1965: 237; Moo 1996: 933). All three views are possible. Moo notes, “Paul’s prediction that the victory over Satan will come ‘quickly (ἐν τάχει) is no problem for the eschatological view once we appreciate rightly the NT concept of imminence” (Moo 1996: 933, n. 41; cf. Schreiner 2018: 799).

1 Corinthians 7:29, 31: “This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short…. For the present form of this world is passing away.” The form of this world is expressed by Paul in 7:30: “marriage, sadness, joy, possessing, and making use of the things of the world” (Taylor 2014: 191; cf. Ciampa and Rosner 2010: 348-49; Schreiner 2018: 157). At the day of the Lord, these will be replaced by life in the new creation (Lockwood 2000: 257). Fee and Garland claim that the present tense of παράγω (“is passing away”) indicates that that the process has already begun (Fee 1987: 342; Garland 2003: 331). Thus, the present time “has grown very short.” Christians live in the last days expecting the coming of Christ (See esp. Lockwood 200: 255-56 and Schreiner 2018: 156; cf. Ciampa and Rosner 2010: 344).

Philippians 4:5: “The Lord is at hand.” While some understand the nearness of the Lord to be spatial (Bockmuehl 1997: 245-46 is ambivalent), it is best to understand this in reference to the temporal nearness of the coming of the Lord (O’Brien 1991: 489; Fee 1995: 408; Silva 2005: 198; Hansen 2009: 289). On this understanding, “the eschatological dimension of this text may reflect Old Testament texts that speak of the coming ‘day of the Lord’ as ‘near’ (engus): these include Isa. 13:6; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 1:15; 3:14” (Bockmuehl 1997: 246).

Hebrews 10:25: “… all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” Philip Edgcumbe Hughes observes,  “When spoken of in this absolute manner, ‘the Day’ can mean only the last day, that ultimate eschatological day, which is the day of reckoning and judgment, known as the Day of the Lord (cf. 1 Cor. 3:13; Acts 2:20; 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:10, 12; Mt. 7:22; 10:15; 11:22, 24; 24:36; Mk. 13:32; Lk. 10:12; 17:26, 30, 31; 21:34; Jn. 6:39; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; Jude 6; Rev. 6:17)” (Hughes 1977: 416; cf. Attridge 1989: 291; Lane 1991: 290; Guthrie 1998: 346; Koester 2008: 446; O’Brien 2010: 371; Cockerill 2012: 481; Johnson 2018: 147, 150). Though some have suggested that the reference was to AD 70 (Owen 1991: 526), there is nothing contextually that connects to AD 70 and the unqualified usage best links this verse with the eschatological day of the Lord passages (Hughes 1977: 416; Cockerill 2012: 481, n. 70).

James 5:8, 9: “For the coming of the Lord is at hand… the Judge is standing at the door.”  Scot McKnight argues that the term “at hand” cannot simply refer to the imminence of the Second Coming. He claims it must be “understood as referring to something about to happen,” namely the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70 (McKnight 2011: 411-12). However this requires McKnight to conclude that the Olivet Discourse should be read in a preterist manner and that Paul, in allusions to the Olivet Discourse, understood Parousia differently from Jesus (and James) (McKnight 2011: 406-7). Not only are these positions unlikely, it is also unlikely that James is warning Christian Jews in the dispersion (see McKnight 2011: 67-68) about their being judged by the Lord in the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem. More likely is the view that Christians are in the last days and that the return of Christ is imminent; the Judge could pass through the doors at any moment (Hiebert 1992: 272-74; Moo 2000: 223-24; Blomberg and Kamell 2008: 227-28; McCartney 2009: 241-42). As McCartney notes, “Three other NT authors use this verb (ἐγγίζω, engizo) to speak of the day of judgment or the arrival of the Lord (Rom. 10 13:12; Heb. 10:25; 1 Pet. 4:7)” (McCartney 2009: 241).

First Peter 4:7: “The end of all things is at hand.” When Peter exhorts his readers to live righteously because “the end of all things is at hand,” je is reminding them that they live in the last days. The next major event of redemptive history is the Second Coming (Lille 1868: 274-75; Grudem 1988: 180; Hiebert 1992: 269; Schreiner 2003: 210; Storms 2018: 347; cf. Achtemeier 1996: 293-94). Though some have argued that this is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Sam Storms observes, “it seems strange to speak of it as ‘the end of all things.’” In addition, he questions the relevance of that event as a motivating factor for Christians living in Asia Minor (Storms 2018: 347).

c. A common explanation for this language with reference to events yet future is that “soon” should be understood from God’s perspective: “[T]o the eyes of the eternal and endless God all ages are regarded as nothing, for, as the prophet says, ‘A thousand years in your sight, O Lord, are as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night’” (Oecumenius 2011: 3; cf. Perkins 2017: 313? 314?; Thomas 1992: 55-56; Hamilton 2012: 32; Schreiner 2018: 549-50; Fanning 2020: 75). See 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Pet. 4:7; 1 John 2:18; James 5:8; Rev. 22:10 (Andrew of Caesarea 2011: 114; Gerhard, 11).

d. Another explanation: “These events could happen at any moment” (Hamilton 2012: 32; cf. Mounce 1998:41). Schreiner notes, “the last days have arrived with the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:16–17; Heb. 1:2). The last hour has now come (1 John 2:18), and thus the end is imminent, and has been for two thousand years. Every generation has rightly said Jesus is coming soon, because all the great redemptive events needed for him to return have been accomplished” (Schreiner 2018: 549-50; cf. Fanning 2020: 75; cf. Osborne 2002: 55).

Revelation 1:1 – “the things that must soon take place”

by

The words “the things that must soon take place” (ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει) (Rev. 1:1) are probably an allusion to Daniel 2:28-29, 45 in Greek translation: the Lord “made known to King Nebuchadnezzar things that must take place at the end of days [ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν], and he who reveals mysteries showed to you things that are necessary to take place [ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι.] (Dan. 2:28-29, LES) (Ladd 1972: 21; Thomas 1992: 53; Beale 1999: 137, 153; Osborne 2002: 54; Smalley 2005: 27; Boxall 2006: 24; Leithart 2018: 71; Fanning 2020: 74-75).

G. K. Beale and Peter Leithart argue that the allusion to Daniel 2:28-29, 45 indicates that John’s visions refer to events that began in John’s own time (Beale 1999: 137, 153; Leithart 2018: 71).

However, there are good reasons for understanding the allusion to support yet future referents (generally speaking) to John’s visions.

a. The earliest commentator on Daniel distinguished between the legs of iron, symbolizing ancient Rome, and the ten toes of iron mixed with clay, which he related to future entities (Hippolytus 2017: 78; cf. Hippolytus 1886: 186). The basic correctness of his interpretation is confirmed by the parallel with the ten horns on the fourth beast in Daniel 7:24-27. These horns relate to the fourth beast but represent a distinct eschatological stage of his activity (see below).

b. The stone, representing Christ’s kingdom, smashed the image, not upon the iron legs of the fourth kingdom (Rome), but upon the iron and clay mixture that represented the divisions that followed the Rome of Jesus’s day (Miller 1994: 100).

c. The stone destroyed not only the feet but all the previous parts of the image as well. The utter destruction of the image symbolized the complete replacement of human kingdoms with the Messianic kingdom (Miller 1994: 101; Greidanus 2012: 76, n. 51). The destruction of “every rule and every authority and power” comes at “the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father” (1 Cor. 15:24). Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Theodore of Cyrus all connected the crushing of the statue with the second advent. Irenaeus taught that the ten toes referred to kings existing in “the last times,” that is in the time of Antichrist. He concluded, “they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord” (Irenaeus, AH 5.26.1-2). Theodoret wrote, “Clearly, this teaches about that which will occur at the end, that is, the coming of the kingdom of heaven that is without end.” And, “The stone that was cut without hands and grew into a great mountain and fills the whole earth is the second advent” (Stevenson and Gluerup 2008: 171). Hippolytus taught that the stone crushes “the kingdoms of this world” when Christ “comes from the heavens” that he “might set up the heavenly kingdom of the saints which shall never be destroyed” (Hippolytus 2017: 78 [2.12.7, 2.13.2]; Hippolytus 1886: 209-10 [§27]).

d. Psalm 110 provides a paradigm for understanding the two stages of the coming of Christ’s kingdom. At present the kingdom is coming in salvation, and Christ reigns in the midst of his enemies. In the future, the kingdom will come in judgment, and Christ will scatter kings in the day of his wrath. This vision clearly displays the latter.

e. This eschatological reading finds confirmation in Daniel 7. Interpreters of diverse perspectives recognize that the vision in Daniel 7 elaborates on the vision of chapter 2 (Steinmann 2008: 328; Tanner 2020: 396-97). The same four kingdoms found in Daniel 2 reappear in Daniel 7, symbolized as beasts (cf. Dan. 7:17, 23). Notably, even commentators who denied an eschatological referent to the feet of the statue in Daniel 2 see an eschatological culmination in Daniel 7. Young, along with interpreters from the church fathers onward, identifies the little horn with the Antichrist (7:8, 20, 24) (Young 1949: 150; cf. Hippolytus 136-37 (4.5.3; 4.7.1); Jermone 1958: 77; Wood 1973: 188; Miller 1994: 202-3; Steinmann 2008: 348-49; Tanner 2020: 413; note, however, that these interpreters have different views on Antichrist and his appearing). Young concludes, “Thus, in one remarkable picture, the entire course of history is given from the appearance of the historical Roman Empire until the end of human government” (Young 1949: 150). Steinmann similarly says, “It seems that the vision given Daniel in 7:9–14, which is interpreted in 7:15–28, pictures in one scene the entire sweep of salvation history that includes Christ’s first advent, the church age, and Christ’s second advent” (Steinmann 2008: 329-30).

f. The opposition of the little horn to the saints will only end when the Ancient of Days comes to put an end to it (Dan. 7:22) and when the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7:13-14).

h. Since Daniel 2 is a prophecy about the establishment of the kingdom of God coming in eschatological judgment, the things that must soon take place which John will see in his visions are about the future coming of the kingdom in judgment.

Three Post-Reformation Revelation Commentaries

by

Perkins, William. “A Godly and Learned Exposition or Commentary upon the Three First Chapters of the Revelation.” In The Works of William Perkins. Volume 4. Edited by J. Stephen Yuille. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2017.

This is an excellent exposition of the first three chapters of Revelation in the Puritan style. That is, it is doctrinal and devotional in its emphases. I highly commend Perkins’s work on Revelation.

Goodwin, Thomas. “An Exposition of Revelation.” In The Works of Thomas Goodwin. Volume 3. Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1861.

Perkins ended his exposition of Revelation with chapter 3. Goodwin begins his with chapter 4 (though he mentions that chapters 1-3 relate to the church in John’s day). In distinction from chapters 2-3, which refer to seven historical churches, Goodwin held that chapters 4-5 relate to the universal church of all time. Goodwin thought that the prophetical portion of the book began in chapter 6 and that it came in two parts. Part one begins with the seals in chapter 6 and continues with the seven trumpets, which are the seventh seal. Part two relates the unsealed book, beginning at chapter 12 and running to chapter 16. Both parts cover the events from Christ’s ascension to his return, though with different emphases. The first focuses on the outward state of the empire and the second focuses on the church. Between these two parts come chapter 11, which Goodwin spends a great deal of time on. He holds that this chapter is delivered by Christ’s direct speech and serves as a hinge between these two parts. Following chapters 6-16 are several chapters that expand on certain aspects of this prophecy. Chapter 17 is an expansion of chapter 13’s description of the beast. Chapters 18 and 19 (up to v. 11) expand on the destruction of the great city. Goodwin was a premillennialist, but this exposition does not cover chapters 20-22.

Gerhard, Johann. Annotations on the Revelation of St. John the Theologian. Translated by Paul A. Rydecki. Malone, TX: Repristination Press, 2016.

This 1643 commentary by the renowned Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard is historicist in its approach. Interestingly, however, his historicist approach was general enough at points that it at times reminded me of an idealist approach. Gerhard was familiar with Patristic and Medieval commentators who preceded him, and he at times would evaluate their interpretations or provide a survey of interpretations.

His view of the Millennium is also interesting. He held that it began with the conversion of Constantine, which he places around A.D. 308 and ended in A.D. 1308 with the rise of the Ottoman Turks. He saw the Millennial period as a time in which the church was spared persecution.

“The Book of Parables” and the Interpretation of Revelation

by

Nickelsburg, George W. E.  and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37-82. Hermenia, ed. Klaus Baltzer. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.

I read the section by Nickelsburg on the “Book of Parables” (1 Enoch 37-71). One of my goals was to assess the similarity/dissimilarity between “The Book of Parables” and Revelation. There are some similarities between Revelation 4-5 and parts of “The Book of Parables,” but in general “The Book of Parables” is not full of the same rich imagery as Revelation.

There is some similarity in content. “The Book of Parables” draws heavily from Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Psalms as does Revelation. It also focuses on a Messiah figure bringing eschatological judgment to the earth. However, “The Book of Parables” lacks Revelations detailed treatment of the Day of the Lord that precedes the final judgment.

I remain skeptical about assigning much weight to “The Book of Parables” in determining how Revelation should be interpreted. I think that comparisons between Revelation and Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the other canonical prophets are more significant. However, if “The Book of Parables” weighs at all (e.g., as a witness to how some early interpreters of Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc. understood those texts), it is worth noting that “The Book of Parables” is futuristic rather than idealistic, preterist, or historicist in orientation.

Bauckham, “Creation’s Praise of God in the Book of Revelation”

by

Bauckham, Richard. “Creation’s Praise of God in the Book of Revelation. ” In Living with Other Creatures: Green Exegesis and Theology. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011.

Bauckham’s essay contains numerous interesting exegetical observations regarding Revelation 4-5, but the thesis of the article fails. Bauckham misses the importance of the Lamb’s enthronment when he argues for a non-anthropocentric reading of creation’s praise. The Lamb’s enthronment is the enthronment of the Second Adam. The Second Adam will fulfill the creation blessing that the first Adam failed to fulfill. It is only when Man is enthroned in submission to God that all the creation rejoices and gives glory to God. Thus, this Revelation 4-5 reinforces an anthropocentric reading of Genesis 1:28.

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.