Pages

Friday, December 09, 2011

The knight on the white horse


Alan Kurschner raises an objection to many popular amil interpretations of Rev 20:


Alan is correct to point out that Revelation 20:1-6 is part of a larger literary unit. And I think he’s suggesting that the overall sequence is premillennial. The millennium in chap. 20 takes place after the return of Christ in chap. 19. So, by definition, it’s premillennial.

What about that?

i) Does 19 describe the Parousia? The Second Coming of Christ?

Keep in mind that when we think about the Parousia, that’s a theological construct based on many different passages of Scripture. So the question is whether we’re subconsciously fitting 19 into that theological framework. If we were just working with the textual clues in 19-20, what would we think?

ii) Apropos (i), another way to cast the question is to ask where the action takes place in 19-20? Is this a scene of Christ returning to earth? Well, that may be implicit in 19, where Christ defeats his earthly enemies or human adversaries. But what about 20:1-6? It could be argued that this scene also takes place on earth.

However, this is modeled, in some measure, on the vision of God’s throne room in Dan 7. Which also lies behind the divine throne room in Rev 4-5. That suggests a heavenly setting. 

So it’s not simply a picture of Christ coming to earth, in premillennial eschatology–where Jesus reigns from Jerusalem. You do, of course, have that motif in Revelation, but that takes place after the “Millennium” (20:1-6), and after the final judgment (20:7-15). 

iii) But let’s suppose 19-20 do describe a premillennial sequence. That, alone, doesn’t settle the issue. For one thing, we need to distinguish between a chronological or historical sequence, on the one hand, and a psychological or visionary sequence, on the other hand.

Likewise, we need to distinguish between a literary sequence and a historical sequence.

John is seeing visions in a certain order. And in his visions he is seeing events unfold in a certain order. But that raises questions of how we ought to correlate the data in real time and real space.

For instance, did John see all these visions in one sitting? Visionary revelation could be exhausting.  A single vision left Daniel bedridden for days (Dan 8:27). That’s just a fraction of what we find in Revelation.

If he didn’t receive these visions in single sitting, then does his account recount the visions in the same order as he saw them? In what order did he see them? Can we reconstruct the process?

Even assuming that he saw them in one sitting, when he committed his visions to writing, did he preserve the original sequence? How could we tell?

For instance, biblical narrators sometimes rearrange events they saw in a topical or typological sequence rather than a chronological sequence. They group similar material together. Or they sequence events in the life of Christ in a way that evokes OT events.

Likewise, is the visionary or literary sequence chronological or symbolic? Is the order of events in Revelation meant to track the order of fulfillment?

iv) What’s the chronological relationship between 19:11-21 and 20:1-6? Are these successive events? Or are these simultaneous events in two different places (i.e. heaven and earth)? Are they distinguished by time or by space?

v) What’s the chronological relationship between 19:11-21 and 20:7-10? Are these successive events? Or does the fact that both events allude to Ezk 38-39 indicate that 20:7-10 is, in some respect, a throwback to 19:11-21?

vi) What’s the chronological relationship between 12:7-11 and 20:1-6? Are these consecutive events, or do these represent variations on a common theme? Assuming the latter, if Satan is cast down from heaven in 12, that would suggest a heavenly setting for 20.

And that, in turn, goes to the question of whether you view John’s narrative plan as basically linear or basically cyclical–with a climactic ending 19-22, that culminates the cycle.

vii) What’s the spatial relationship between 6:9-11 and 20:4? If these are variations on a common theme, then the heavenly setting of 6:9-11 creates a presumption in favor of the same setting in 20:4.

At the same time, we must make allowance for thematic progression as well as recapitulation, where the story is building to a dramatic conclusion. To some extent history repeats itself, but there will be a definitive break with the past at the end of the church age. In a sense, the repeatability of the past functions as a set-up or lead-in to an unrepeatable future (i.e. the eschaton).

viii) There is also the implicit chiasmic parallel between the first/second resurrection and the first death/second death. That affects whether we view the first resurrection as “spiritual” (e.g. the intermediate state) rather than physical.

It’s arguable that the resurrection language in Rev 20:4 is a spin-off from the “resurrection” in Ezk 37. Indeed, the narrative order in Rev 19-22 broadly follows the narrative order in Ezk 37-48.

ix) The issue of how the narrative sequence correlates with a temporal sequence is further complicated by John’s fondness for hysteron-proteron–a literary device which reverses the chronological sequence. Cf. Aune, 1:258-59; 3:1084-85.

All these factors raise the question of the distance at which the we were meant to view the narrative. Are we meant to focus on each scene, up close, as individually significant–or are we meant to view it from several paces back, where what matters is the general impression, the overall pattern, that John wants to convey–like a pointillist painting? Is his technique microscopic or macroscopic?

I’m not raising any issues which Alan isn’t thoroughly familiar with. I’m just discussing some of the considerations I bring to the text. In case Alan decides to eviscerate my post, I reserve the right to finger Evan May as the culprit. He hacked my password and posted this under my name. I’m blameless for what was said. 

14 comments:

  1. Steve,

    Thanks for the response. You brought up some good points to discuss. I will have more time later to respond. But for now, let me give a clarification for some here on what I think the impetus is for the millennial debate. I should had mentioned this in my article.

    As you know Steve, but some readers may not, the millennial debate has never been about whether there is a literal 1,000 years. No premillennial should object that it could symbolize 10,000 years, for example.

    Amills and premills both agree that there is a period of time between the binding of Satan and his destruction. Accordingly, the millennial debate has really been about the terminus a quo of Satan's binding. Amills place it at the first coming of Christ; premills place it during the second coming.

    Ok, I'll write more later when I have time.

    Alan

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Does 19 describe the Parousia? The Second Coming of Christ?"

    It describes a portion of it. I believe the parousia of Christ begins between the sixth and seventh seal, the battle of Armageddon occurs much later at the end of the bowl judgments. I hold to a consecutive nature of the seal-trumpet-bowl septets.

    Accordingly, I see the parousia as a complex-event, beginning with the resurrection-rapture between the sixth and seventh seal and extending throughout the millennium. The battle of Armageddon is the climax of the day of the Lord's judgement.

    On another question, I don't believe that Christ is "returning" to earth in the sense that he has been there all this time. I believe he has been in Jerusalem (Ps 2, Zech14). He will indeed go to heaven to gather his armies for battle; hence, the language of the heavenly armies and his warrior disclosure to the earth.

    "John is seeing visions in a certain order. And in his visions he is seeing events unfold in a certain order. But that raises questions of how we ought to correlate the data in real time and real space."

    At least one important principle requires us to put stock into logical cause and effect actions. And this is my main point in my article. The binding of Satan is the effect of the defeat of the armies of the nations by Christ in chapter 19.

    "Even assuming that he saw them in one sitting, when he committed his visions to writing, did he preserve the original sequence? How could we tell?"

    This comes back to my principle that we should look for logical relationships between the visions.

    From my example, we are asking, why is Satan bound? We are told so that he may not deceive the nations any longer, until the 1,000 years are over.

    And it is no coincidence that immediately before Satan is bound Christ is destroying the armies of the nations who Satan deceived (Rev 16:13-14)

    The natural reading then is the binding of Satan follows after this battle.

    "iv) What’s the chronological relationship between 19:11-21 and 20:1-6? Are these successive events? Or are these simultaneous events in two different places (i.e. heaven and earth)? Are they distinguished by time or by space? "

    This should be answered by my question of why is Satan being bound? There is a cause and effect relationship between the battle and Satan's binding. Just as there is a cause and effect relationship between the battle and the destruction of the beast and false prophet (19:20)

    "v) What’s the chronological relationship between 19:11-21 and 20:7-10? Are these successive events? Or does the fact that both events allude to Ezk 38-39 indicate that 20:7-10 is, in some respect, a throwback to 19:11-21?"

    Other texts may illuminate this, but the immediate context must take precedence. That 19:7-10 recapitulates or the like 19:11-21 is not the natural reading. Further, it disrupts the destinies of the "three enemies of God" pericope in 19:20–20:3.

    Another premill trajectory of argumentation is showing how the portrayal of 20:1-6 is not keeping with the limits put on Satan at Christ's death. But I won't rehash that here.

    As far as Ez 38-39, I see three, not one military campaign in that narrative, so that argument does not carry much weight with me.

    There are other questions that you raised that I did not respond to hear, and what I did respond to may not be satisfactory to some given the brief response. Time allowed, I hope to respond more in due time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ""At the same time, we must make allowance for thematic progression as well as recapitulation, where the story is building to a dramatic conclusion."

    This as I am sure know is Beale's orientation to Revelation. I think he commits the "similarity equals identity" fallacy quite a bit in his approach to Revelation.

    I don't see recapitulation in Revelation; instead, I see two main parentheses, which function as temporary pauses in the narrative to provide development on previous events. There are minor parenthetical passages scattered throughout the book, but two main ones (12–14; 17–20:3). The first half of the book, chapters 1–11, are naturally sequential taking us up to the completion of the seventieth week of Daniel. Following this is the first parenthetical section in chapters 12–14 that provide detail on the cosmic conflict of the great tribulation, Antichrist and the False Prophet, the angelic warnings of impending judgment, and a preview of the day of the Lord’s wrath. The narrative then picks up with the bowl judgments and Armageddon that will be executed following the completion of the seven-year period in chapters 15–16. Then the second parenthetical section, chapters 17–20:3, unpacks the sixth and seventh bowl of the great prostitute and the beast’s authority, destruction of the great city of “Babylon,” God glorified and the marriage supper of the Lamb, and the defeat of the “Three Adversaries of God.” Finally, the conclusion to the book of Revelation highlights the beginning of the millennium in chapters 20:4–22:21.

    "So it’s not simply a picture of Christ coming to earth, in premillennial eschatology–where Jesus reigns from Jerusalem. You do, of course, have that motif in Revelation, but that takes place after the “Millennium” (20:1-6), and after the final judgment (20:7-15)."

    I see the new Jerusalem and Christ's rule during the millennium. I realize that many read ch 21 sequential to 20. But I interpret the reference to Satan's binding for a 1,000 years relating only to that binding, and not requiring the narrative of ch 21-22 to be subsequent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ALAN KURSCHNER SAID:

    "Finally, the conclusion to the book of Revelation highlights the beginning of the millennium in chapters 20:4–22:21."

    So how does that relate to the final state, or does it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Alan Kurschner said...

    "On another question, I don't believe that Christ is 'returning' to earth in the sense that he has been there all this time. I believe he has been in Jerusalem (Ps 2, Zech14). He will indeed go to heaven to gather his armies for battle; hence, the language of the heavenly armies and his warrior disclosure to the earth."

    Do you mean he already returned, or that he never left? Is he physically present here on earth, living somewhere in Jerusalem, but incognito? Or do you have something else in mind?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alan Kurschner said...

    "This comes back to my principle that we should look for logical relationships between the visions."

    Agreed. However, that raises the issue of whether we're dealing with a one-to-one correspondence or a one-to-many correspondence. Do separate depictions necessarily represent separate events, or do we have more depictions of fewer events?

    In other words, are there a few core events which Revelation depicts in a variety of ways?

    Put another way, are there certain perennial events, which is to say, certain *types* of events (like the conflict between good and evil), which recur throughout history–along with a few decisive events?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Do you mean he already returned, or that he never left? Is he physically present here on earth, living somewhere in Jerusalem, but incognito? Or do you have something else in mind?"

    The prewrath schema of the key events:

    1. Antichrist's Great Tribulation against the Church.

    2. The Great Tribulation will be "cut short" with the initiation of the parousia when Christ returns in the sky to resurrect the dead in Christ and translate the living (1 Thess 4:15-17).

    He will not immediately descend to earth, but will escort his bride before the throne of the Father (2 Cor 4:13-14; John 14:2-3; Rev 7:13-15).

    3. The Day of the Lord's wrath begins (which is the judgment aspect of the parousia): Trumpet judgments.

    4. At the end of the 70th week of Daniel the Jewish remnant that survives will be all saved. It is at this time that Jesus physically comes to earth to lead this remnant to Jerusalem; hence, the armies of the nations coming to battle him in Jerusalem, but he meets them in the valley of Megiddo.

    Another point, it is an assumption by many that his parousia must began when he physically comes to earth. This is not the case, since Paul speaks of his parousia beginning when he is in the sky. His parousia begins at the resurrection followed by his subsequent wrath upon the ungodly. The day of the Lord's judgments expressed in the trumpets should be thought of his presence; hence, the day of the Lord.

    5. The final wrath of God in the bowl judgments are executed, which includes Armageddon (sixth-seventh bowl).

    6. The Three Enemies of God are brought to their end, the beast and false prophet thrown in hell, and Satan bound.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Alan:

    "Finally, the conclusion to the book of Revelation highlights the beginning of the millennium in chapters 20:4–22:21."

    Steve:

    So how does that relate to the final state, or does it?

    Alan:

    I should have qualified that. It highlights the beginning of the millennium, but the new earth and heaven and Jerusalem extends beyond the millennium to the final state.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Alan, Steve,

    If, let's say in the next 10 years, there was the Battle of Armageddon, would either one of you be surprised?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "In other words, are there a few core events which Revelation depicts in a variety of ways?

    I can think of at least one key event, which is the activity of Antichrist during the great tribulation. I am a futurist, but obviously I recognize prefigures in history.

    Chapter 6, though laconic, displays Antichrist's activity expressed in seals 1-5.

    Chapter 13 portrays his abomination, program of persecution, his false prophet helper.

    Chapter 17-18 portrays his kingdom activity vis-a-vis other kings and the Babylonian harlot.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ALAN KURSCHNER SAID:

    The prewrath schema of the key events:

    1. Antichrist's Great Tribulation against the Church.

    2. The Great Tribulation will be "cut short" with the initiation of the parousia when Christ returns in the sky to resurrect the dead in Christ and translate the living (1 Thess 4:15-17).

    He will not immediately descend to earth, but will escort his bride before the throne of the Father (2 Cor 4:13-14; John 14:2-3; Rev 7:13-15).

    -----------------------

    i) That's like the method of systematic theology. However, I'm concerned about mixing different genres, as if we can simply collate or intercalate events across different genres.

    I think highly emblematic, idiomatic writings like Zechariah, Revelation, and parts of Ezekiel are fairly self-contained. Attempting to coordinate their internal narratives with the narratives or semi-narratives of more prosaic writings, or map them onto a grand narrative, is quite elusive–especially when we lack an outline to supply the frame of reference.

    ii) I also think it's hard to see how the stages go together ahead of time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ALAN KURSCHNER SAID:

    "I don't see recapitulation in Revelation..."

    "At least one important principle requires us to put stock into logical cause and effect actions."

    "The first half of the book, chapters 1–11, are naturally sequential taking us up to the completion of the seventieth week of Daniel."

    i) I think there's recapitulation in Revelation because there's recapitulation in history, especially redemptive history. I don't view recapitulation in Revelation as just a literary technique. Rather, I think that's grounded in the underlying typology of providence.

    History repeats itself with infinite variation. History is both cyclical and linear.

    An analogy would be the cycle of apostasy and restoration in Judges.

    In Revelation, literary recapitulation is a stylized version of historical recapitulation.

    ii) In Revelation there are some unique, unrepeatable events, like the life of Christ (where that's alluded to in Revelation), the final judgment, and the new Eden/new Jerusalem.

    But there are also certain types of events, like the persecution of God's people, or God's deliverance thereof. A type of event is a repeatable event.

    On a related note you have paradigmatic events like the Exodus. Because the Exodus is a type of event, it can serve as a paradigm for analogous events.

    iii) Apropos (i-ii), when we try to arrange the events in Revelation into an actual (real time) trajectory, with consecutive stages, we need to consider how we're counting the events. Are all these recorded events different events, or are some of them different ways of depicting the same type of event? Should we count them as many, or as one of a kind–under varied descriptions?

    That, in turn, affects whether we think some recorded events are actually before or after other recorded events, in a causal and/or temporal sequence.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'd also add that Revelation recycles lots of stock imagery, mostly from the OT. By definition, stock imagery is applicable to multiple events in time and space. That's what makes it "stock" imagery.

    Which doesn't mean Revelation may not have something more definite in view when it uses stock imagery. Just that stock imagery makes it more difficult for the reader to single out what specific event is denoted by that imagery.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think what contrasts me so much from the Beale-recapitulation approach to Revelation are two areas: First, I am a futurist. Beale is a historicist. To take an example that you mentioned, the persecution of God's people. Beale will take the fifth seal martyrs and see it as depicting the inter-advent age. I see it as the last generation of the church that will undergo the persecution of Antichrist. Second, I am a minimalist, Beale is a maximalist. Accordingly, I am much more wary of identifying the Revelation motif's intent with a similar OT intent. So I am more apt to say, "Yes, there is similar language in this motif with this OT motif, but in this parousia context how does it serve its new purpose?"

    I think that recapitulation sounds good in theory, but applied to specific texts, it does not work. For example, a concurrent view of the seals, trumpets, and seals. Recapitulation often places the wrathful trumpets and bowls before the seventh seal. But how can that be the case given that the fifth seal explicitly states that God's wrath has not occurred. Or take for example the 144,000. An angel commands saying, “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.” How can you have the trumpets which destroy the earth before this event, as Beale does?

    I just think that that recapitulation is an unnatural reading.

    "when we try to arrange the events in Revelation into an actual (real time) trajectory, with consecutive stages, we need to consider how we're counting the events. Are all these recorded events different events, or are some of them different ways of depicting the same type of event? Should we count them as many, or as one of a kind–under varied descriptions?"

    That can only be done on a case-by-case account. Likewise, claims of recapitulation can only be addressed on by specific examples. Earlier you suggested that 20:7-10 recapitulated the battle text in 19. I responded by a couple of reasons why I think that is an unnatural reading.

    This is not to say that there are interludes, or as I claimed two major parenthetical sections in Revelation.

    I realize that I did not address every concern you made, but this should do for now.

    ReplyDelete