Meredith G. Kline
Ordained Servant: October 2021
Also in this issue
by Gregory E. Reynolds
by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.
by Gregory E. Reynolds
by Danny E. Olinger
by Alan D. Strange
by Joseph A. Tipton
by Ryan M. McGraw
by Stuart Jones
by Phillis Wheatley (1753?â1784)
One of the structural principles of the Apocalypse is to set before us different series of pictures relating not so much to successive events as to the same events under different aspects, each series complete in itself and inviting us to think less of its temporal relations to those which precede and follow it, than of the new and different light in which it presents an idea common to itself and them.
This statement represents fairly the synchronous structure of Revelation to be defended in this paper (provided that âthe same eventsâ is understood in a very broad sense, as indeed William Milligan does, and not as specific events recorded in history books). The danger is particularly strong in the case of the recapitulationist that the natural desire to find symmetry in the structure will betray him into sacrificing the thought, at least as to proper emphasis, for the sake of establishing a certain formally symmetrical arrangement of the visions. For instance, William Hendriksen, in dealing with the latter chapters, is consistent with his main principle that there are seven parallel sections and âeach of them spans the entire dispensation from the first to the second coming of Christ.â In finding indications of the beginning of the Christian dispensation here he is correct; however, the overwhelmingly predominant thought of final judgment pervading the entirety of this section is not sufficiently evident in Hendriksenâs exposition. This is symptomatic of his general fault in not applying adequately his principle that âthere is progress in eschatological emphasis.â Whatever may be its dangers of being abused, however, this structural principle of synchronism or parallelism or recapitulation is valid and necessary to a proper interpretation of Revelation. This thesis is here developed by dealing with certain introductory questions, by the exegesis of the climaxes of the main divisions and the consideration of related problems, and by a more direct refutation of the successive-judgment view.
To clear the way for the study of the text and to ground the Revelation of John in biblical apocalyptic, we evaluate three objections of a general hermeneutical character elaborated by David Brown from Marcus Dodsâs Introduction to the New Testament against the understanding of Revelation as a presentation largely of ideas rather than events, which historically, and not naturally exegetically, has gone hand in hand with recapitulation.
1. It is âout of keeping with the general purpose of apocalyptic literature,â which is to treat of the âthe Kingdom of God oppressed by hostile worldly powers; in both books (i.e., Daniel and Revelation) successive periods in the history of this struggle are definitely though symbolically predicted.â
The idea of the worldâs hostility is true enough, as is that of the final triumph of Godâs kingdom, which he later adds; but that âsuccessive periods in historyâ need be involved as of the essence of true apocalyptic is erroneous. Undeniably there are four successive historical empires before the founding of Godâs kingdom in Daniel, but far from Revelation being required to share this trait, it would be in direct contradiction to Daniel if it did so. For in Daniel, the coming of Godâs kingdom in Christâthe stone smiting the imageâdoes away with world powers. We do notâcannotâinterpret this literally, but we do insist that the Old Testament prophetâs spiritual outlook on the state of affairs introduced by the establishment of the messianic kingdom be shared by his New Testament successor. Daniel considered all kingdoms as in principle, or as to the decisive issue, destroyed by Christâs coming and unworthy of being specifically designated as world empires once the one and only true world Empire of Messiah had been founded. In accord with this is Daniel 7 where the latter issue of the fourth beast, during whose sway Christâs kingdom is established, is represented by ten hornsâten, the symbolic number of completenessâdesignating the opposition to Messiahâs people that would develop after the decline of Rome, everywhere throughout the earth, and down through all the centuries to the Judgmentâbut in no wise describing successive, specific, historical periods. The only exception to this is the detailed emphasis on Antiochus Epiphanesâs anti-type, the little horn which appears among the ten. To this eschatological outlook Revelation is true, for it deals only with the general principles of the worldâs opposition to the now established kingdom of God, with the one exception of the final stage of the beastâs activity. For a fuller discussion, see below: The Eschatological Perspective of Revelation.
2. It âfails to present a sufficient motive for its composition.â
First, it is close to presumption to judge what constitutes a proper motive for Godâs including any specific form of revelation in his Word. Second, such a consideration is highly subjective, and this is aggravated by Brownâs unjustly limiting the âideasâ to Godâs sovereignty, providence, goodness, and final triumph in the vaguest of senses. Third, many of those holding the view Brown disparages find in Revelation thus understood the fairest gem in Scripture, uniting in a fitting consummation of the divine Word the most precious themes of the Bible, illuminating the prophetic element of the Old Testament, elaborating and unifying the eschatological outlines inherent in the teaching of Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the New Testament, and providing an inspiration by its solemn majesty that is not afforded so impressively anywhere else. Fourth, it is a poor substitute for such to offer, as Brown does, a system of historical eventsâoften of the most obscure, trivial, and irrelevant natureâwhich but vaguely illustrate major Bible themes and would provide scarcely any practical comfort to the afflicted church.
3. It âfails to present a sufficiently definite guide through its intricacies,â wavering as it does between predictive and more general contents.
Quite on the contrary, grounding the symbolism in other scriptural symbolism is the only legitimate guide. If some portions are more specific predictions than others, no problem is presented, for the more specific portions are always at the beginning and the close of the gospel age where the really epoch-making, eschatological inbreaking of Godâs redemptive acts in the worldâs history transpires. The long intermediate period is similar enough throughout to describe by the general principles or ideas unfolding therein. Again, Brownâs system of historical events is no improvement, to say the least, for the events move in a narrow rut altogether out of keeping with the universalism of the New Testament and are so hopelessly without demonstrable scriptural relation to the symbols of Revelation that there are as many sets of events as there are proponents of this system of interpretation.
If we are to speak of the beginnings and endings of various series or cycles of visions within the Apocalypse, it is necessary to have the outline of the book in mind. The divisions which commend themselves to me are these:
The Church Imperfect in the World 1:9â3:22
The Seven Seals 4:1â8:1
The Seven Trumpets 8:2â11:19
The Deeper Conflict 12:1â14:20
The Seven Bowls 15:1â16:21
The Final Judgments 17:1â21:8
The Church Perfect in Glory 21:9â22:5
The only division of which the bounds are at variance with the usual ones adopted by recapitulationists is that of âThe Final Judgmentsâ (17:1â21:8). Some demonstration seems required:
1. Within these bounds all the main characters previously introduced are dealt with in respect to their final destinies: Babylon and the Beasts in 17:1â19:21; Satan in 20:1â10; unbelievers in 20:11â15; and overcomers in 21:1â8. This unity of theme is much disregarded but appears to me decisive and is confirmed by the following considerations:
2. This section begins with one of the seven angels that had the seven bowls coming to John and saying, âCome hither,â promising to show the judgment on the harlot-Babylon with whom are associated the kings of the earth and earth-dwellers who sinned with her. So, the next section, if divided as here suggested, begins (21:9) with the angel of the seven bowls series coming to John with the invitation, âCome hither,â promising now to show him the bride, the wife of the Lamb. The objection cannot be pressed that the material in 17:1â21:8 exceeds the statement in 17:1â2 of what is to be shown the Seer. For although nothing is said in 17:1â2 of the Beast, the harlot appears at once (17:3) in relation to the Scarlet-colored Beast, and this is undeniably within the proper bounds of this division. The various characters are so closely related that in the discussion of this theme of final judgments they all of necessity appear in relation to Babylon and become legitimate subjects to develop in this section.
3. âTheir (i.e., sinnersâ) part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death,â (21:8), supplies a fitting climax to the theme of judgment, especially since judgment on evil ones predominates in this section. Its appropriateness as the closing verse of this division appears also in that this is the last statement in the Revelation dealing in a positive fashion with the destruction of the wicked. It is true that 21:27a mentions sinners as not entering into the Holy City, but the obvious intention of this is to describe the perfection of the city (compare 21:26 and 21:27b) in a negative way, not the destiny of sinners.
4. If the division is made at 20:1, as by the majority of recapitulationists, the resultant division would be the only major one in Revelation not marked by obvious formal boundaries, if not in the first verse, at least in those immediately following (compare 8:3ff). The amillennialist is wont to do this thinking, perhaps, to strengthen the case for his interpretation of 20:1â10 thereby, whereas the premillennialist is more likely to point to the series of âAnd I sawâ phrases (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11; 21:1) and insist that to make a major division at 20:1 is to fly in the face of the obvious formal indications which become impressive by their very accumulation. The latter is correctâon this point. It does not avail to claim that the introduction of a new character, Satan, in 20:1â10, constitutes a new major theme. Just because a red horse gallops forth at the opening of the second seal, nobody will claim the second seal is a new theme since the preceding and following seals introduce different horses! The seals unify all. So, Satan is introduced to develop the same theme of Final Judgment which both precedes and follows 20:1â10 and unifies all.
As a matter of fact, however, I think this strengthens the amillennial view of 20:1â10 since it makes these verses of one piece with what has preceded. Then just as the discussion of the Beastâs final judgment took us back to the beginning of the Christian era (17:8, 10), so the binding of Satan (20:2â3) may readily be understood as going back to the same point before his final judgment is presented (20:10). On this basis, the newness of the main character in 20:1â10 can be appealed to, to show how unlikely it would be for these verses to follow chapter nineteen in chronological succession.
The most conclusive feature in the proof that the major divisions of the Apocalypse are parallel in their temporal scope rather than chronologically successive is that the climax of each formal division is the end of the gospel age. Further confirmation arises from the observation of the same phenomenon at the climax of certain parenthetical visions contained within the boundaries of the major divisions. The seven letters to the churches precede the visions properâsee below on progression in the Apocalypseâand do not close with a picture of the end of this age. Futurists who claim that 4:1 on deals with the final segment of this age only, usually torture the seven letters into the form of a historical succession leading up to the end, but to no avail.
SEALS: The seals reach the end of the age already in their sixth member (6:12â17).
(a) The vision is beyond doubt based on Jesusâs Olivet Discourse. There these astronomical phenomena and the terror of the unbelieving accompany âthe Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.â The cataclysm of the sixth seal is, therefore, also the end.
(b) âThe great day of their wrath is comeââáźŚÎťÎ¸ÎľÎ˝ (Älthen) (6:17). This âgreat dayâ in Scripture is the consummation of all things. (Compare 1 Thess. 5:2â3; Mal. 4:1; Joel 2:10â11). Swete takes the language as symbolical of national-social changes and decay toward the end, and therefore at this verse, though recognizing that the language refers to the end itself, he is forced to makeshift, âfear anticipates the actual eventâthere have been epochs in history when the conscience of mankind has antedated the judgment and believed it imminent.â Fatal to this is the obvious fact that 6:17 is no longer in the first person as 6:16âs âFall on us, and hide us.â This is the inspired comment of the Seer on what has preceded and cannot possibly be construed as the mistaken notion of the terror or conscience-stricken. The only reason for so construing it is that an anti-recapitulation view demands such. I believe this is the most vulnerable spot in the entire book for the opponents of our view who can elsewhere present a somewhat plausible interpretation by calling all the climaxes anticipations or interludes and by appealing to their telescopic-structure concept. None of these escapes works here. The case for the non-recapitulationist absolutely breaks on 6:17.
(c) The lists of natural catastrophes and varieties of unbelieving men affected by this judgment is in each case seven, the number of divine completeness, especially in dealing with the world; this is emphasized by the ĎážśĎ (pas) before the last two members of each list.
(d) The characteristic of wrath is not appropriate to the Lamb during the time when the sincere offer of salvation is being made based on the Lamb that was slain. Such is appropriate only when the day of salvation is past, and those who have rejected him receive their due.
(e) The removal of the âheavenâ (6:14) corresponds to the heavens fleeing away in connection with the Great White Throne Judgment (20:11), which is admittedly the end.
Since the sixth seal has introduced the great day of Godâs wrath, what are we to expect in the seventh seal? There is much dispute as to what constitutes the contents of this seal. The answers range from one verse, 8:1, to the whole of the Apocalypse from 8:1 on. This is probably the most crucial single point in the book for an understanding of the structure.
DĂźsterdieck presents a telescopic structure of the Apocalypse whereby each of the seals, trumpets, and bowls-series evolves out of the preceding one. He argues at length against recapitulation and in favor of temporal succession, largely on the basis of the seventh seal. We are led to expect by the crisis to which things have come at the sixth seal, the climactic effect of which is heightened by the visions of chapter seven, that the opening of the seventh seal will reveal the extreme end and final catastrophe, and that with âa certain fulness of significant contents.â This expectation is not at all met if we limit the contents of the seventh seal to âthere followed a silence in heaven about the space of half an hourâ (8:1). It is fully met if we accept the view that the trumpets and all the rest of Revelation evolve out of this seventh seal and form its contents.
In answer to these remarks of DĂźsterdieck we advance the following considerations:
1. The sixth seal does not lead us to expect a final catastrophe for the simple reason that it is itself the final catastrophe that befalls this fallen world. Beyond the cosmic cataclysm and the unspeakable terror of eternally lost souls in the presence of the wrathful Lamb and the throne of God revealed in the sixth seal, what final catastrophe is there that needs to be considered with any fulness of contents? Only the lake of fire remains, and Revelation nowhere elaborates with fulness upon that state. Furthermore, the blessed estate of the righteous in glory has already been dwelt upon at length in the second parenthetical vision of chapter 7 by the time we reach 8:1. We conclude, therefore, that a brief summary statement only should be expected at the opening of the seventh seal. This is exactly what we have. It takes the form of an impressive period of silence; the fact that the duration of this period is described in approximate terminologyâáżśĎ (Ĺs)âindicates that this was the impression made on the Seer and that the half-hour is not meant as a symbolic number. Surely if we put ourselves in the Seerâs place in the midst of these tremendous visions and especially at this point when the air has just been filled with the shrieks of the lost and praises of the saints, we must acknowledge that a period that seemed like a half-hour of purest silence would make and leave an indelible impression.
Granting that silence itself is a legitimate symbol, what better way could be found to present this symbol?âin fact, what other way? A priori, silence seems as legitimate a symbol as its opposite, a thundering noise. If the latter stands for Godâs judgments going forth, why should not the former symbolize Godâs judgments completed? This meaning is confirmed when we answer the question, âWhat is the connotation of silence in the prophetical language of Scripture?â In Isaiah 47:5 and 1 Samuel 2:9 the wicked are assigned to the silence of darkness, consequent upon the vengeance of God. In Zechariah 2:13 silence prevails because God has delivered his people and dwells in their midst.
DĂźsterdieckâs puerile objection against the silence obtaining on earth since it is said to be in heaven, is flatly contradicted by Zechariah 2:13 which relates âbefore Jehovahâ with the silence on earth! This would leave the way open also to find Revelation 8:1 at least partially fulfilled in the silence of the lost in their eternal abode, or for a view like Fairbairnâs (see below).
Habakkuk 2:20 associates silence with Godâs being in his holy temple. All of these ideas fit admirably into the final, eternal state which the seventh seal is required to symbolize. In the light of prophetical usage, this silence of Revelation 8:1 is a rich and comprehensive symbol, indeed. Fairbairn interprets: âThe struggle of conflict is over, the noise and tumult of war have ceased, and the whole field lies prostrate before the one sovereign and undisputed Lord.â
2. Still another possible view which has at least as much to recommend it as DĂźsterdieckâs is that the silence represents a withholding of revelation. Revelation 7:13â17 corresponds very closely to Revelation 21:1â8. Now since the only revelation in the entire book that marks a material advance beyond what is related in the sixth seal and 7:13â17 is the final vision of the holy city immediately after 21:1â8, it may be that immediately after 7:13â17, in 8:1, we have silence because the time had not yet come to present this last crowning vision, even though the preceding material leads to that point.
3. There are grave flaws in DĂźsterdieckâs interpretation both materially and formally:
(a) He is forced to read into silenceâwith no semblance of biblical warrantâthe idea of hushed, still excitement in anticipation of the coming trumpet judgments. But where is the information on the part of the heavenly host concerning coming judgments? To ground the anticipations of the heaven-dwellers, he must drag the vision of the seven angels with the trumpets forcibly into the half-hour period of silence and thus willfully ignore the fact that these angels are clearly separated as a distinct vision by the phrase âAnd I saw,â which is a common manner of dividing visions in Revelation.
Quite similar is the view of A. Pieters. Concerning the sixth seal he says: âIn Scene 3 of this Act (see program) men begin to be aware of the gathering stormâ (the removal of the heaven as a scroll, Pieters apparently considers a gentle spring zephyr). Then of the seventh seal, âSo the hosts of heaven stand silent, in breathless expectancy, waiting for the solemn pageant to proceed. Notice that this silence is, again, a purely dramatic touch, having no prophetic or doctrinal significance in itself, but placed here because the principles of dramatic art require it.â Such extreme insistence on the resemblance of the Revelation to a drama cheapens the divine Word as much, if not more, than classifying biblical apocalyptic on a mere par with and as of one cloth with other early apocalypses which Pieters is careful to guard against. It is asking too much of us, to require us to cease comparing Scripture with Scripture to determine Scriptureâs meaning, in favor of comparing Scriptures with the devices of the Greek stage!
(b) From a formal viewpoint it does not seem warranted to consider the cycle of trumpets as evolving from the cycle of seals. The trumpet cycle is clearly marked off as a formal unit by the phenomena of 8:5 which are repeated at the close of the cycle (11:19). Also, the seven-sealed book does not appear again, thoughâif the remainder of the visions constituted the contents of the seventh sealâwe should expect that when its revelations were exhausted there would be a final reference to it, at least.
Furthermore, the ease with which 8:1 might seem to blend into 8:2 is altogether in keeping with other transitional passages in Revelation, which is simply an evidence of a good literary style. The transition from the trumpets to the next cycle is so smooth that there has been dispute whether 11:19 goes with what precedes or âshould be the beginning of the next chapter, introducing a new vision.â Compare also the beginning of the bowls cycles (15:1); this major heptad is âanother sign in heaven,â and thus blends with the earlier signs of the previous cycle (12:1, 3). Again, the last two major divisions have an affinity to the bowlsâ cycle, for they are introduced by âone of the seven angels that had the seven bowlsâ (17:1 and 21:9). In so subtle a way the Revelation is even in its formal arrangement made a living, moving organism, rather than a row of detached blocks of material.
4. Even though it be granted that DĂźsterdieckâs view of the formal relation of the seventh seal and the trumpet series were correct, this would not at all militate against recapitulation. For instance, Milligan writes, âWe cannot, therefore, separate the trumpets from the seventh seal. The former are not independent of the latter but are evidently developed out of it, although the succession is one of thought rather than time.â
Also, DĂźsterdieckâs interpretation of the half-hour silence, if accepted, does not put recapitulation into discard. Lenski understands the silence with DĂźsterdieck as the hushed expectation of the heavenly hosts but does not conclude that what follows is the contents of the seventh seal. Rather, the climactic nature of the sixth seal decides him on the need of recapitulation if the book is to continue.
But the shining example that all of DĂźsterdieckâs arguments do not avail against recapitulation is DĂźsterdieck. For in his view the great final catastrophe is not introduced immediately in the trumpet series but much later. Meanwhile the visions immediately evolving from the seventh seal describe âthe trial of the patience of saints who are regarded as awaiting the day of the Lord.â When we observe that DĂźsterdieck admits that in the sixth seal âthe day of the Lord begins,â it becomes apparent that DĂźsterdieck is himself a recapitulationist.
We reaffirm, in concluding this matter, that the cycle of seals brings us to the Judgment at the sixth seal and into the eternal state in the silence of the seventh. As to formal structure, the evidence is wanting for the view that the visions are arranged in telescopic fashion; and even were this not the case, the essential synchronous nature of the revelations of the visions would be unaffected.
TRUMPETS: The language describing what follows the sounding of the seventh trumpet is almost unanimously taken as depicting the close of history. âThe kingdom of the world is becomeâáźÎłá˝łÎ˝ÎľĎÎż (egeneto)âthe kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ.â (11:15). âWe give thee thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who art and who wast; because thou hast taken thy great power, and didst reign. And the nations were wroth, and thy wrath cameâáźŚÎťÎ¸ÎľÎ˝ (Älthen)âand the time of the dead to be judged.â (11:17,18). âIn the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, then is finished the mystery of God, according to the good tidings which he declared to his servants the prophetsâ was the preliminary announcement (10:7). To be sure there have been diehards of the successive historical school who have so far lost their bearings as to refer all this to the victory of the Goths and other Arians under Narses, or to the victory of Christianity over Judaism involved in the destruction of Jerusalem, and the like. But most interpreters have acknowledged the force of the language (whichâtogether with 12:1ff.âcompels some to accept the fact of recapitulation here, if nowhere else). Swete: âWith the seventh trumpet blast the Kingdom of God has come and the general judgment is at hand. Thus, this section of the Apocalypse brings the course of history down to the verge of the Parousia.â Pieters: âThis is, therefore, the triumphant consummation of the divine enterprise.â Even W. Scott: Chapter 11:18 ârecords the last historical actionâthe judgment of the dead. There is no history beyond it.â
DĂźsterdieck, Charles, and Beckwith admit that the language describes the consummation but call 11:15â18 proleptic and introductory. The third woe, or contents of the seventh trumpet, we are told, are not found in this passage but in the remaining visions of the book. As the trumpets were said to evolve out of the seventh seal, now 12:1ff. evolves from the seventh trumpet, and the bowls in particular are thought of as the third woe. But for this there is not a shred of evidence:
(a) There is nothing after 11:19 which is called the third woe or seventh trumpet. The third woe is not mentioned at 11:19 because it would sound ridiculously didactic.
(b) Charles vainly tries to prove that each of the three woes is properly prefaced by the prayers of the saints or a vision of the heavenly temple, which means that 11:15â19 is this preface, and the woe must follow. To do this he must identify the first woe with the first trumpet which is manifestly impossible in view of the subsequent 8:13 âwoe, woe, woe, for them that dwell on the earth, by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels who are yet to sound.â
(c) Beckwith rightly insists that the third woe can no more be missing than one of the trumpets, but he refuses to see the third woe in 11:15â19, although he confesses that this leaves the precise calamity meant uncertain. âWe should therefore expect immediately after the trumpet blast of v.15 some great calamity to be sent upon the world corresponding to the first and second woes, but this does not occur.â This is a gross underestimating of the contents of 11:15â19. Lenski well remarks, âTo say that here no Woe appears is to ignore the fact that the destruction of the destroyers in the final judgment is a Woe greater than any other.â Furthermore, the vision which these verses contain consummates in the revelation of the ark of the covenant in the temple of God in heaven; this is no mere preparation for more historical events but signifies that the whole covenant is now fulfilled through the grace of our faithful God.
Thus, also we take it that in v. 15â19 we have the entire seventh trumpet complete. … Yet this seventh trumpet and third Woe, by placing us at the final consummation, involves all that now follows in further visions. But not in such a way that these visions follow in a temporal successionâall time has endedâbut so that John and we see anew and with greater fulness all that the final consummation involves.
So Lenski aptly states the relation of the ensuing cycles to that of the trumpets as both parallel and progressive.
DEEPER CONFLICT: The closing vision of the Deeper Conflict division again pictures the end (14:14â20). A simple comparison of the vision with Matthew 13:39, 41; 24:30â31 is enough to settle this. [Also, in the symbolic numbers of 14:20, a thousand and six hundred are elements of absolute completion: 100, (the number of completion, 10, squared or intensified) times 16 (the number of the earth or creation, 4, squared or intensified).] âThe revelations of vv.8â13 now culminate in a vision of the Parousia, represented as a time of general ingathering of the fruits of life,â is Sweteâs comment. The opponents of recapitulation still flounder about in a mess of devices though making even further concessions here than at previous climaxes. Charles indulges in amending the text (he exscinds 14:15â17) and calls the rest âa proleptic vision of the preliminary Messianic judgment executed by the Son of man on the heathen nations which is described in detail in 19:11â16 and further apparently in 20:7â10, and under another form in 17:14â! (Why he refuses to call the phenomenon of recapitulation, which he seems to recognize in these passages, by the name ârecapitulationâ is difficult to understand.) DĂźsterdieck again expressly discounts recapitulation while he admits that the vision âbrings, it is true, a preliminary representation of the final judgment.â He prefers to call this another example of the proleptical character of the structure. Similarly, Beckwith grants that âthe universal use of the figures employed here show that the judgment here symbolized is the great judgment of the last day.â  He refuses to solve the difficulty this brings to his successive arrangement of the vision as some critics do by âthe supposition that the passage stood originally at the end of another apocalypse, or of an earlier form of our Apocalypse,â which is fine, but he can only say this âannounces in anticipation the coming of the great catastrophe.â
At each new climax this talk of anticipations and preliminaries sounds more feeble. At previous climaxes we were told these evolved the ensuing material out of themselves; but here we must be willing to accept arbitrary statements to the effect that this full, detailed, striking vision admittedly symbolizing the Parousia is only an anticipation. There is no single vision in chapters nineteen and twenty that any more vividly depicts the final separation of the good from the evil and the punishment of the latter! Why not take the passage at face value and admit that since we are here at the end, to continue we must recapitulate?
BOWLS: The pouring out of the seventh bowl produces a devastating, cosmical, cataclysmic judgment with points of marked similarity to the visions of the sixth seal and seventh trumpet (16:17â21). The end of the world has come again. A great voice out of the temple and from the throne says, âIt is doneââÎłá˝łÎłÎżÎ˝ÎľÎ˝ (gegonen) â the perfect tense eloquently describing Godâs redemptive plan as fully executed and now followed by the predestined state of eternal blessedness accruing from that finished work of the Redeemer. (A more subtle mark of the finality of this judgment appears, as Beckwith indicates, in the seven-fold use of a form of Îźá˝łÎłÎąĎ (megas).)
The absolute finality of this judgment Swete makes relative to the course of the Roman Empire which he misinterprets Babylon to mean. However, he does show more insight into the scope of this symbol when he adds, âBut Rome does not exhaust St. Johnâs conception of Babylon … other ages may witness the rise and fall of other mistresses of the world not less magnificent and depraved.â Beckwith at least places the vision properly at the close of the age for he acknowledges that it is the last form of Beastly power (Anti-Christ, to him) that destroys Babylon (Rome, to him). But he continues to minimize the significance of these climaxes, for he says of Rome, âshe is overwhelmed in a ruin only implied here.â Of course, the subject of Babylonâs fall is treated more fully in the following chapters for that is their special theme, but it would take all the climax out of the progression within the judgments of the seven bowls of wrath to make the last a mere implication and not an actual description of the vengeance of Christ when he comes as a thief (16:15) to destroy the hosts of evil gathered for a last ungodly effort against God and the saints (16:16, compare 17:14; 19:19; 20:9).
FINAL JUDGMENTS: The division on Final Judgments (17:1â21:8) on any reasonable evaluation of the language brings us to the end of history again. Even H. Cowles, tenacious preterist, though claiming that even chapter nineteen refers to the destruction of the city of imperial Rome, at least grants that the final judgment is foreshadowed here. While there is general agreement that the main theme or emphasis of these chapters is the end of the age (though a recapitulationist does not overlook the fact that the beginning of the Gospel Age is also included in the scopeâ17:8, 10, 18; 20:1â3), interpretations vary greatly, of course, within the more limited scope of the end of the age, with the particular view to be adopted depending on whether the judgments on Babylon, the Beasts, Satan, and men are considered synchronous with one another, successive, or some combination of the two. Charles, DĂźsterdieck, and Beckwith refer 17:8 to the fall of Rome and mysteriously bridge the gap to the end of time in 19:1ff.âwhether by prophetic foreshortening or by supposing the prophet was just mistaken in thinking it was the Antichrist of the end-time who would destroy Rome, probably matters little to these gentlemen. Indeed, Charles in this section raves much of sources and fragments and from chapter twenty on says, âthe traditional order of the text in these three chapters is intolerably disordered and hopelessly unintelligible.â Such enlightening remarks serve well to indicate the problems that have long made these chapters the tinderbox of exegetical warfare, but they are of no value for an understanding of the text. However, all these men grant the point we desire to make here as a link in the case for recapitulation, i.e., in its climactic element this section presents the Final Judgment.
OBSERVATIONS: As for our own view of these chapters, the following observations may suffice:
1. Not without bearing on the chronological relations of these visions is the question, in connection with the fall of Babylon, of how we are to understand the fact that the Beast which courts the harlot, in its final state and in association with the ten kings, hates and destroys her. A very obvious question over which the commentators for the most part brush hastily. In answering it, exegetes fail in direct proportion as they have denied or minimized the religious significance of Babylon and have dwelt upon the seductiveness of the worldâthe âlust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the vainglory of life.â It does no good to point out that Judas the betrayer at last was not happy with the thirty pieces of silver and hanged himselfâthousands of other ungodly men have faced destruction in full pursuit of the philosophy âLet us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we dieâ and thus have to the very end clung with no revulsion of feelings to the seductiveness of the world.Â This, historyâs last hour, looms large in importance in the eschatological perspective of Revelation. Satan is loosed from the abyss; the mightiest anti-Christian powers are marshalled for this last desperate conflict with God. Why should Antichrist scorn any anti-Christian agencyâs help at such an hour? The only sound basis for explaining the Beastâs strange change in attitude toward Babylon is the consideration of the change in its own character which Scripture indicates. Whether we understand the Antichrist to be a personal being or the last form of world-imperial opposition to Christ, we must acknowledge that the Bible associates Antichrist with self-deification and non-tolerance towards all other worship, true or false. In 2 Thessalonians 2:4, the man of sin âopposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God.â In Daniel the little horn of the fourth beast not only speaks words against the Most High and wears out his saints (7:25), but also, he magnifies himself above every god (11:36ff.âthe basis of 2 Thess. 2), honoring only the god of fortressesâthat is, physical might or war as such. In Revelation 13 again, the last form of the Beast, i.e., to whom it is given to overcome the saints (13:7), is given authority that âall that dwell on the earth shall worship him.â (13:8). During the gospel age, Satan tolerates any false-gospel or religion or apostate church pointing men to some sort of being or principle of benevolence beyond. But when the last hour of intensified conflict has come, Satan endeavors to concentrate the energies, efforts, might, and worship of the whole world in his Antichrist. Therefore, the Beast at the last not only persecutes the true followers of the Lamb but also destroys all other pretenses at religionâthat is, Babylon.
Even though this interpretation of Revelation 17:16 be rejected, it is plain that there must be some succession from 17:16 to 19:19â21, for the Beast and ten horns cannot be destroyed before they themselves make the harlot desolate. A possible difficulty of harmonization presents itself in the prima facie impression of the sixth and seventh vials (16:14â20), for there the Beastâs forces are gathered to the battle (16:14â15) which we identify with that of 19:19â21, in the sixth vial, whereas the wrath of God is poured out on Babylon in the seventh vial. However, these bowls of wrath are not successive even though the last two go beyond the others to the end of the age. The first five are no doubt synchronous judgments, and we may allow for interlocking of details in the last two. Probably the meaning is that Antichrist rises to power gathering his forces, then destroys Babylon (Revelation 19:19ff. omits this since Babylonâs fall has already been disposed of in chapters seventeen and eighteen), and is presently brought to naught himself at the manifestation of the presence of Christ.
2. The careers of the harlot-Babylon, the Beast, and False Prophet were intertwined in chapter seventeen where it was revealed that the Beast would destroy Babylon; and the Lamb, the Beast. Then in chapter eighteen the separate strand of Babylonâs fall was elaborated, with the point of view now being that her fall, though executed by the Beast, was the Final Judgment of God. Then in chapter nineteen the other strand of the Final Judgment of Christ on the Beast and False Prophet is developed more fully, which involves (see 19:19â20) a recapitulation of 17:11â14. This recapitulation covers, however, only the climactic battle, not the whole New Testament age. Now in chapter twenty the Final Judgment on Satan is the theme, and since his career during the gospel age has not yet been described in this major division, by way of necessary background for a proper presentation and understanding of this final judgment, as in the cases of Babylon and the Beast in chapter seventeen, that career is covered, directly in 20:1â3 and by implication in 20:4â6. There is, therefore, another example of recapitulation of the Christian dispensation, with 20:1â6 synchronous with 17:3â6, 8a, 9, 10a. Also, Satanâs judgment (20:7â10) is thus parallel to 17:8b, 10bâ14, and 19:11â21. We do not detain ourselves with a full discussion of the question of Chiliasm but would merely add that in the symmetrically synchronous structure of the entire Revelation as propounded in this paper a millennium understood in the premillennial schoolâs sense would stick out like a very sore thumb.
3. The reaping of the harvest of the earthâs redeemed and the gathering of the clusters of the vine for the great winepress of Godâs wrath (14:14â20) finds a striking parallel in the casting of the reprobate from the presence of the Great White Throne into the lake of fire and the blessing of the elect in the new heaven and new earth where âGod himself shall be with themâ (20:11â21:8). Why is the past career of individuals, not found written in the book of life, described as preparation for their judgment? Their lives have no meaning and their individual careers no unity apart from the great anti-Christian powers whose dupes and agents they were; but these have already been fully disposed of (17â19), and all that remains is that those who were enslaved to them and meekly followed them in life should now share their calamity and follow them in death. Also, in the case of the redeemed, to relate their earthly course were to relate them anew to their foes; but why resurrect them again since God has cast them in final judgment into the second death? The synchronism in these last two instances is therefore limited in scope to the day of final judgments as pictured in this main division and elsewhere in the âRevelation.â
4. For the sake of completeness the nature of the climaxes of certain parenthetical visions is briefly indicated here:
(a) Before the opening of the seventh seal are two consolatory visions. The second (7:9â17) is a grave problem for all seeking strict succession in Revelation. Grotius thinks of Syrian Christians after the fall of Jerusalem, 70 A.D.! Elliott finds the fulfillment before 395 A.D. but is compelled to speak of the realization of glory by the collective body of the church of all generations. Barnes also, though arriving at 410 A.D. in 7:1â8, admits 7:9â17 is âan episode having no immediate connexion with what precedes or with what followsâ and picturing the totality of the redeemed in heaven. Swete talks as usual of mere anticipations of âthe issue of the final judgmentâ and recognizes that âthe whole of the episode … finds echoes in the last two chapters of the book.â
Conclusive indications that this is the finale of the redemptive program of God are:
(i) The remarkably close parallel of 7:15â17 with 21:3â6, which follows the cosmic regeneration (20:1,2).
(ii) The great tribulation is past (7:14), which, on any interpretation of the phraseâcomprehensive of the whole gospel age or restricted in some peculiar way to the end timeâmeans the gospel age is completed.
(iii) The innumerable and universal multitude indicate the great commission is fulfilled and the end come.
(b) The episode of Revelation 11:1â13, immediately before the seventh trumpet, also is concluded by age-ending events. (For a detailed discussion of this, see below, âEschatological Perspective of Revelation.â)
(c) Towards the close of the section, the Deeper Conflict (12â14), is a vision (14:1â5) which is perhaps not strictly parenthetical, and yet since it is complete in itself and not the climax of this section, this may be the proper place to treat of it. It presents the Lamb and one hundred forty-four thousand redeemed on Mt. Zion (compare Hebrews 12:22â24). Swete tries to make it out as an earthly scene, but DĂźsterdieck acknowledges,
In like manner, just as in ch. vii:9 sqq., an inspiriting prospect of the heavenly glory of believers abiding faithful in the great tribulation still impending is afforded before this trouble itself is stated, so also in the first part of ch. xiv. (vv.1â5) a scene is represented in which a multitude of departed believers … manifests the glorious reward of the victors.
Though we do not agree with all the details of this analogy, the exegesis of 14:1â5 is essentially correct.
The number of the redeemed is certainly the symbolic number for the completed church of both testaments; the whole church thus in heaven is a feature of the consummation. With this finality accord all the details. The redeemed are viewed as having been purchased out fromâá˝°ĎĎ (apo)âthe earth and from men, and as having overcome spiritually (i.e., they âwere not defiledâaorist tenseâwith women,â v. 4), and therefore they are followingâpresent tenseâthe Lamb âwhithersoever he goeth,â v. 4, (compare 1 Thess. 4:17, âso shall we ever be with the Lord.â).
The evidence has now been presented to demonstrate that the climax of each of the major formal divisions of Revelation from 4:1 to 21:8 brings the reader to the close of history. This hardly seems coincidental. At each of these points the opponents of recapitulation have sought to escape the force of the argument by claiming that these passages did not form part of the basic succession but were sidelights, interludes, anticipations, introductory summaries, and the like. Such excuses might carry some weight in those visions which are classified above as parenthetical. It seems plausible enough to consider these as anticipations of a final order of things which actually arrives only with later chapters in the Apocalypse, but as granted to John beforehand to sustain his spirit, as it were, through the visions of tribulation and woe to come. Even in these three instances, however, it should be noted that each of them occurs in immediate connection with the closing vision of their cycle (except that in chapter fourteen, a trio of angelic warnings intervene). Since the final triumph of Godâs kingdom is depicted in these closing visions immediately following, it seems more likely that the assurance contained in these parenthetical visions has primarily a backward reference to the calamitous judgments described in the earlier stages of their cycle. Thus, they corroborate the interpretation of the division climaxes as being actually climaxes of what has preceded rather than anticipations of what is yet to come.
Where it is applied to all the climaxes of the major divisions, this âanticipationâ evasion is altogether arbitrary. Especially since it requires an instance of exegetical violence impossible to defend in order to maintain this theory at one pointâand that the very earliest climax, i.e., the sixth sealâthe suspicion is hard to avoid that the preconceived notion that the end of the age cannot be presented before the end of the Apocalypse determines the interpretation of all the major climaxes. Furthermore, what is the need of so many anticipations? Is the author afraid he will lose his readerâs attention unless he keeps reminding him that great things are coming? If the earlier climaxes are all mere anticipations, the reader must be disappointed when he finds that the real thing at the end has not so very much more to add to the pictures of the âanticipationsâ! As for those opponents of recapitulation who tone down the obvious finality of these climaxes to mean something just short of historyâs close, the Book of Revelation becomes grotesquely futuristic. If at 6:12â17 the day of judgment dawns and then even at 14:14â20 it is only a preliminary phase of the Judgment that has arrived, concerning what within so meager a scope of time has the author been so verbose in the intervening chapters? Can it possibly warrant so much attention?
Why not therefore accept the synchronous structure which the climaxes demand? At the climax of each cycle the universe is shaken to the foundations, or Christ returns to earth in Final Judgment, or the hosts of heaven triumphantly proclaim that Godâs wrath has been poured out and his kingdom consummatedâbut all such, we are told, is a letdown from what we should be expecting! It is but a little prelude. We must realize that the seventh seal includes all the remainder of the book, and so again with the seventh trumpetâin spite of the facts that the seventh seal, seventh trumpet, etc. are never alluded to again and that each cycle is beautifully rounded off in its seventh member, and that the succeeding cycle is always a new beginning marked by a formal introduction. That the final Judgment section of the book goes beyond the previous climaxes in intensity and fulness of treatment is quite in keeping with parallelism. For each parallel section has its own theme to deal with, and also our position is that there is a logical progress in the intensity of Godâs judgments as found in the successive cycle-themes.
 This text is the ThM thesis of Meredith G. Kline for Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA, 1946.
 William Milligan, Lectures on the Apocalypse (London: Macmillan, 1892), 100.
 William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1944), 25.
 Ibid., 47.
 David Brown, The Structure of the Apocalypse (New York: Christian Literature Co., 1891), 31ff. The source of Brownâs three objections is a quote from Marcus Dods, Introduction to the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1888), 243â44.
 Ibid., 31â32.
 Ibid., 31.
 Ibid., 28.
 Ibid., 31.
 Compare Hendriksen, op. cit., 42â43.
 Matt. 24:29â30; Mark 13:24â26; Luke 21:25â27; compare 2 Pet. 3:10â12.
 Henry Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1907), 95. So also Isbon Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1919), 266.
 Friedrich DĂźsterdieck, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Revelation of John (Meyerâs Commentary on the New Testament), (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1887), 260â63.
 Ibid., 262.
 Patrick Fairbairn, Prophecy, Viewed in Respect to its Distinctive Nature, its Special Function, and Proper Interpretation (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1865), 407.
 Albertus Pieters, The Lamb, the Woman, and the Dragon: An Exposition of the Revelation of St. John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1937), 124.
 Ibid., 131.
 Ibid., chapter 2, especially 31â32.
 Ibid., 157.
 Op. cit., 51.
 Richard Lenski, Interpretation of St. Johnâs Revelation (Columbus, Ohio: Lutheran Book Concern, 1935), 266.
 Op. cit., 263.
 Ibid., 233, line 21.
 Swete, 146.
 Pieters, 157.
 Walter Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, 4th ed., (London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.), 245.
 DĂźsterdieck, 328ff.
 Robert Charles, Revelation of St. John (International Critical Commentary), (New York: Scribner, 1920), 292.
 Beckwith, 606ff.
 Beckwith, 608.
 Lenski, 356.
 Lenski, 358.
 Swete, 188.
 Charles, II, 18.
 DĂźsterdieck, 404.
 Beckwith, 661â67.
 So, Milligan, Lectures, Hendriksen, Lenski.
 Swete, 226.
 Swete, 159, 286.
 Swete, 686.
 Henry Cowles, Revelation of John With Notes (New York: D. Appleton, 1873), 9.
 Charles, II, 437.
 So, Carl Friedrich Keil, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, in Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, trans. by M.G. Easton (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1872), 461â67.
 Compilation of views by Johann Lange, Revelation of John (New York: Charles Scribnerâs Sons, 1874), 11.
 Swete, 100â106. So, also, Beckwith, 540; DĂźsterdieck, 252.
 DĂźsterdieck, 389â90.
 See Lenski, 249â50.
Meredith G. Kline (1922â2007) was a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church who served as a professor Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, and Westminster Seminary California in Escondido, California. Ordained Servant Online, October 2021.
Contact the Editor: Gregory Edward Reynolds
Editorial address: Dr. Gregory Edward Reynolds,
827 Chestnut St.
Manchester, NH 03104-2522
Electronic mail: email@example.com
Ordained Servant: October 2021
Also in this issue
by Gregory E. Reynolds
by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.
by Gregory E. Reynolds
by Danny E. Olinger
by Alan D. Strange
by Joseph A. Tipton
by Ryan M. McGraw
by Stuart Jones
by Phillis Wheatley (1753?â1784)
© 2023 The Orthodox Presbyterian Church