Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Apocalyptic Eschatology The Relevance of John’s
Huibert
Zegwaart*
I. Pentecostal Pentecostals
Premillenarianism
they hope costals look
Heavenly
Jerusalem,
are of Parousia
people
will
repent, acknowledging
3
and Pentecostalism: Millennium for
Today
Attacked.1
excited Christians.
kingdom.
Furthermore,
Pente-
scorned
them,
for them in the
denominations
to the
Israel
°
are well known to be eschatologically
They sing
of their future
reign
with Christ and about the thrones which
to
occupy
in His millennial
forward to the time in which
they
will be vindicated before the whole world that refused to believe their
message,
and at times showed itself
quite
hostile to them. But more than all that they expect
to live forever in the mansions
prepared
close to the heart of Him in whom
they believe, seeing
the face of the
Almighty.
Not
surprisingly
we find that most of the Pentecostal
a
pre-millenarian stamp.2 They
hold that
subsequent
an ideal
kingdom
will be ushered in
by
Jesus the Messiah in which
paradisiacal
conditions will
prevail.
The
saints, usually the small
in the
present age,
will attain to
power;
and
unbelieving
that Jesus Christ was its true Messiah after all. In the often terse
descriptions
of the
Millennium,
that the
Kingdom
of Peace is considered a this- worldly
established not
only
in the New
Creation, but also on the Old Earth that
of human
(sinful) history.
that the belief in the Millennium is
not .
nor that it is
original
to that movement.4 On
dominant and it is clear
concretization
of salvation.3
has been the
scenery
It hardly needs to be pointed out limited to Pentecostalism,
rural
imagery
is
The
Kingdom
of God will be
*Huibert
of Leuven in Zegwaart
completed
his academic work at the
He is
University hood of Pentecostal Churches Belgium. in
currently
a
the
pastor
with the Brother-
Netherlands.
lThe term “Pentecostal Premillenarianism” is not meant to suggest that the chil- iasm in Pentecostal circles differs from that current elsewhere. The term merely indi- cates the ecclesiastical context within which this article is to be situated. The author is himself a Pentecostal and the debate
concerning premillenarianism
which occasioned this paper is situated within Pentecostalism.
Pinkstergemeenten
1968),
2E.g. The Assemblies of God in the U.S.A. and Britain, the Broederschap
van
in Nederland en Belgie, the Church of God (Cleveland), the Ehm Pentecostal Churches, the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Not all Pentecostal denominations, however, are pre-millenarian. The Mulheim Association of Christian Fellowships in Gcrmany, for instance, is Amillenialist.
3M.A. Alt, Bijbeistudic voor ze/fonde”icht
(Velp: De Pinksterzending, 2e dr., z.j.
601-602; J. W. Embregts, Geen uitstel meer (Rotterdam: Gramma, 1978), 202-206; L. Steiner, Kommeniare zur Offenbarung (Basel: herausgegeben von dem Verfasser, oJ. 1982), 64-65.
4It appears that the pre-millenial views held by Pentecostals are carry-overs from
1
4
the
contrary,
it is shared with a large
segment
of the
evangelical world, as well as with a good number of
theologians
and
religious
movements throughout
the
history
of
Christianity.5
In recent
years,
however, some
aspects
of classical Pentecostal escha- tology
have come under attack from within the movement itself. In 1981 1 J. W.
Embregts,
for
example, signaled
that a number of
pastors6 ques- tioned the moment of the
“rapture.”
That is to say, he noted a crisis with respect
to
“pre-tribulationism.”
It is a well known fact that
large
sections of the movement believe that the Gentile Church will be taken into heaven before the Anti-Christ will
persecute
the
people
of God, or alter- natively
that the Church will be
raptured half-way through
the “Great Tribulation,”
before God’s wrath is poured out
upon
the world
(=
“mid- tribulationism”).
The fact should not
escape
us that in
many large Pentecostal denominations these ideas are not official doctrine,
despite the fact that these
teachings enjoy
considerable
popularity
within their ranks.7 In his
paper Embregts expressed
concern about the fact that increasingly
Pentecostals were
embracing
the so-called
“post-tribula- tionist”
position, according
to which the Church will have to go through
the convictions found in the traditions in which the Pentecostal movement has its roots. W. J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (London: SCM Press, 1972), 415 notes that the Pentecostal movement arose in an atmosphere of fervent of the return of Jesus. of the
expectation
Many early Pentecostals came from dispensationalist circles. This inherited dispensationalism is still dominant in large sections of the Pentecostal world.
In the discussion
following
the delivery of this paper at the “Conference for Pentecostal and Charismatic Research in Europe” held in Gwatt
(Switzerland), August
12-15 1987, Donald W. Dayton remarked that in America a similar is taken by Gerald T. Sheppard and D. William
position
Faupel who argue that even
is essential to
though eschatology Pentecostalism,
the historical form it
took, namely dispensationalism, is quite accidental; it happened to be the form of eschatology the early Pentecostals brought along from their former denominations.
‘
5For a historical overview see K. Dijk, Het rijk der
in het verleden en het heden over het
duizend jaren: beschouwingen and for some of the more recent contributions duizendjarig rijk G. (Kampen:
Kok, 1933), 11-180;
see C. Berkouwer, The Return Christ
of
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 291-322.
6J. W. Embregts, “Current Eschatological
Expectations
in the Mainline Pente- costal Denominations in Europe.”
Paper presented
at the Second Conference on Pentecostal
History
and
Theology
held in Leuven, December
28-29, 1981. A slightly
revised form of that paper was published in Parakleet 2:1 ( (182) 1-6 “Eschatologie
in de Europese Pirksterbeweging; huidige eschatologische verwachtin- gen
in de hoofdstromingen van de Pinksterbeweging in Europa.”
7Cf. the declaration concerning “the rapture” issued by the General Council of the American Assemblies of God, held in Baltimore (August, 1979). A Dutch translation of this document was published under the title “De opname van de gemeente” in Woord en Geest 2: 20 (1979), 6-8. It should not go unnoticed that the “Declaration of Faith” of the American Assemblies of God does not at all mention a pre-, mid- or post-tribulation rapture.
See W. W. Menzies, Anointed to Serve (Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1971), 385-390.
2
5
the “Great Tribulation. “8
At the time the author did not
envisage
the
possibility
that the doctrine of the Millennium itself would come under attack within the Pentecostal movement. Yet this is precisely what seems to be happening at present, as
may
be inferred from the title of a
paper
read at the 1987 EPTA- conference.9 This
paper,
authored
by
David
Allen,
bore the
telling
title “The Millennium-an Embarrassment or a Fundamental of the Faith?” In it the writer noted that several of the pastors of the British Assemblies of God “… would like to see the references to the ‘Premillennial Second Advent’ deleted from the ‘Fundamental Truths’.”10
By way
of illustra- tion he
quoted
two statements made
by pastors
who feel that “Christ is not
going
to
reign any
more in the future than he does now,” and that “… this doctrine of the literal Millennium was an embarrassment-a leftover from the
pioneering days
that needed
quietly putting
to rest.” 11 I In the concluding section of his
paper
Allen admitted that “… whichever scheme
of eschatology
we
adopt,
there are
problems,” 12
and counseled avoidance of
rigid dogmatism concerning
the matter. The author con- cluded with a warm endorsement of the
healthy insight
that Jesus
reigns now and that believers
may enjoy
a “… foretaste of that
Coming King- 13 dom of
peace, prosperity, longevity
and
joy
in our churches now.” Yet,
all this does not
imply
that one should
give up
the doctrine of a literal Millennium. Indeed, Allen sees no compelling reason to do son. 14
‘
II. The Basic Problem in Discussions of the Millennium. It is not our
primary
intention to defend
any
of the
dogmatic positions concerning
the Millennium in this
paper. Rather,
I would like to limit discussion at
present
to a number of considerations
pertaining
to the interpretation
of Revelation 20:1-10. The
problems surrounding
this
‘
8 J. W.
Emregts,
“Current
Expectations,” 8-9,11 (= “Eschatologie,” 4-5),
mentions just a few groups.
9This conference was held at Continental Bible
College (St. Pieters-Leeuw,
Belgium), April 13-16, 1987.
IOD. Allen, “The Millennium-an Embarrassment or a Fundamental of the
Faith,” unpublished manuscript,
1. It should be observed that the issue is somewhat
confused by the fact that often no clear distinction is made between the question of
Chiliasm and that of Pre-tribulationalism. Of course there are good reasons for this
mix up, as within
(Pentecostal) Dispensationalist
into the latter. We see that in practice the issues of the
eschatology
the former is sub-
of the times” – and “the rapture” attract most attention. Whenever believers are fed “signs up with all kinds
merged
of schemas of end-time events and speculations concerning the rapture are
to
they happy
dispense
not
only with Pre-tribulationalism but with Pre-millenarianism as well.
And this is really not
11
necessary.
Allen, “The Millennium…,” 6.
l2Allen, “The Millennium…,” 14.
l3Allen, “The Millennium…,”
14.
l4A?len, “The Millennium…,” 1, 3-4, 6.
3
6
passage
are manifold.
They
situate themselves on both the
exegetical and
theological plain. Very
often in discussions of the Millennium no clear distinction is made between the
exegesis
of the
passage
and its theological
relevance. On the
contrary,
the two are
simply lumped together
and as a result Revelation 20:4-6 is interpreted
against
a theo- logical
horizon,
instead of
against
its historical and
literary
back- ground. 15
Of course, it is
always possible
to make sense of a text taken out of its context, but whether such a
procedure
leads to a correct understanding
of the
passage
is another
thing.
We contend that
only after
having
arrived at a proper
understanding
of the
text,
can it be used for
theological
reflection.
This means that first of all we have to recognize the circumstance in which the
only
New Testament
passage
that
unequivocally speaks
of the Millennium is found. 16 The Book of Revelation, or the
Apocalypse
of John,
is
unique
in the New Testament. It is the sole
representative
of a literary genre
that made its
way
into the New Testament canon. And if
Revelation is often little understood, then the
literary genre
named after it is a pure
mystery.
Nevertheless, some
knowledge
of that bizarre liter- ature and its eschatology is
germane
to the discussion of our
topic.
It is also
important
to remember that even if the Millennium is found in the New Testament in but one
place,
it does have
parallels
in a couple of extra-canonical
apocalypses stemming
from the same
period
as John’s book.
Moreover,
the antecedents of the
image lay
in the Old Testament as well as in a number of
apocryphal apocalypses.
It is our conviction that Revelation 20:4-6 must be understood in the
light
of its traditio- historical
background (both
Biblical and
extra-Biblical), and-of course – in relation to its immediate
context,
i.e. the
composition
and
theology of the Book of Revelation.
Though
we do not think that the
suggested approach
solves all of the many problems
connected with the Millennial
question,
we do think that it
provides
us with a more solid basis for
thinking through
the matter than when we
try
to do so on the
shaky ground
of a “decontextualized” exegesis
of the text.17
III.
“Apocalyptic”
Since the
image
of the Millennium occurs
exclusively
in
apocalyptic writings
we will do well to get better
acquainted
with this
literary genre
15A. G. Komet, De Pinksterbeweging en de Bijbel (Kampen: Kok, 1963), 97-154.
16G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, 301. As Kornet De Pinksterbeweging, 153 correctly points out, all other passages in Scripture which are said to refer to the, Millennium do so only when they are read in the light of Rev. 20:4-6.
17 So, e.g., Komet, De Pinksterbeweging en de Bijbel, 97-154;
and H. Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), vol. 3 :424-427. D. Allen, “The Millennium…,” 11, does mention the messianic and
Rev.
apocalyptic background of the notion of the Reign of Christ (I Cor. 15:25; I 1 : ls , but unfortunately he does not pursue this line of approach any further.
4
7
if we want to
understand Revelation 20:4-6.
However, given
the limitations of this
article it is impossible to give an adequate introduction to this
highly complicated type
of literature.
Therefore,
we will have to limit ourselves to a few
explanatory
remarks about some of the basic notions and some of the more
outstanding aspects
of this
phenomenon.
Classically
the
phenomenon
we are
speaking
about was labeled “apocalyptic”
as in the title of H. H.
Rowley’s
famous book The Rele- vance
of Apocalyptic. IS
Yet,
the use of this
adjective
as a noun was unfortunate,19
and in the
past
its use
seriously hampered
the under- standing
of this
type
of
writing.
In
fact,
it led to a “semantic confusion of the first order. “2°
Only
in recent times have scholars
begun
to realize that the term
“apocalyptic”
denoted not
one,
but three
phenomena:
a literary genre (apocalypse);
a particular eschatology (apocalyptic escha- tology) ;
and a socio-religious movement-or its
ideology (apocalypti- .cism).’
These
phenomena
are
closely
related to one another and nor- mally they
occur
together.
But this need not be so and was not
always the case in historical
reality.
There have been
apocalyptic
movements which
hardly produced apocalypses (e.g.
the
Qumran
sectarians who produced only
one
apocalypse, namely 4Q
Visions
of Amram).22 Conversely,
a movement like that of Gnosticism which did not
possess an apocalypdc
eschatology,
and which is not an apocalyptic
movement, did
produce apocalypses.23
Each of these
phenomena, then,
should be defined
separately.24
And for
methodological
reasons it is best to make the term
“Apocalypse”
the fundamental notion in relation to which the
18London: Lutterworth, 1944; (second edition 1947; third edition 1963).
19So already W. Bousset in his “Die religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft chen
der jiidis-
Apokalyptik,” in K. Koch und J. M. Schmidt (eds.), Apokalyptik (Wege der
365; (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982), 132-145 (= Die jadische Apokalyptik, ihre religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft und ihre Bedeutung Forschung),
far das neue Testament (Berlin, 1903) 5-20, 52-64),
132.
20Thus M. E. Stone, “Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature,” in F. M. Cross et al. (eds.), Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God (Festschrift for G. E. Wright) (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976), 414-452, 439.
2 1 D. E. Aune, Prophecy in Early
Christianity
and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 107.1 added the clause “or its ideology.”
22J. J. Collins, “The Jewish Apocalypses,” in J. J. Collins (ed.), Apocalypse: The Morphology of
a Genre (SEMEIA 14) (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), 21-59, 48- 49. That does not mean that the other writings of Qumran do not share the outlook of the apocalypses.
230n the occasional employment of this genre by the Gnostics see C. K. Barrett, “Gnosis and the Apocalypse of John,” in A. H. B. Logan and A. J. M. Wedderbum (eds.),
The New Testament and Gnosis (Festschrift for R. McL.
T. &
Wilson) (Edinburgh:
T. Clark,
1983), 125-137,
132.
24P. D. Hanson, The Dawn
of Apocalyptic:
The Historical and
Sociological Roots
of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, second edition 1979), 428-432.
5
8
other
phenomena
are to be defined.ZS This
procedure
does not solve all problems
of definition, but it does diminish the confusion that charac- terized
previous scholarship.
The most current definition of apocalypse in contemporary scholarship is that
given by John
J. Collins and runs as follows:
‘ ,
“Apocalypse” is a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative frame- work, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both tempo- ral, in that it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, in that it involves another, supernatural world.26
This definition, which
pertains only
to form and content of the
genre, and not to its function, needed a compliment that would account for the functional
aspect
of this
type
of
writing.
Collins
provided
that
compli- ment in 1984. He stated that
(t)he genre functions to provide a view of the world that will be a source
of consolation in the face of distress and a support and authorization for
whatever course of action is recommended, and to invest this worldview
with the status of supernatural revelation
Within the
genre
it is
possible
to
distinguish
between two
subgen- res,28 one of
which has a definite
eschatological orientation.(=
the
25This principle is followed by J. J. Collins. He would argue that whatever one is
to say about the apocalyptic
genre, eschatology, imagery, movements, etc., should be based on a close
going
reading of the apocalypses themselves (See his “Intro- duction : Towards the Morphology of a SEMEIA 14
[1979] 1-20,
one has to work this genre,”
1-4).
Methodologically way, for whatever came first in historical reality (the apocalypses, apocalyptic eschatologies,
or apocalyptic movements), our primary
sources for the study of these phenomena are the apocalypses themselves. An analogy
to what is found in these other
writings may exhibit apocalyptic traits, which then may furnish us with further information about
and
apocalyptic eschatologies
movements, etc.
26J. J. Collins,
“Morphology,”
9. For an alternative definition, which is
to John’s
espe- cially applicable Apocalypse, see D. E. Aune, “The Apocalypse of John and the Problem of
Genre,” in Adela Yarbo) Collins (ed.), Early Christian
cism. Genre and Social
Apocalypti-
Setting (SEMEIA 36) (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1986), 65- 96, 86-87.
27J. J. Collins, Daniel, with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature
(FO?’L, 20) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 105-106. An alternative formulation is offered by
Adela Yarbro Collins, “Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism,” SEMEIA 36 (1986), 1-11, 7.
_
28J. Klatzkin and J. Kaufmann, “Apokalyptik,” in K. Koch and J. M. Schmidt (eds.), Apokalyptik,
228-248
(= Encyclopaedia Judaica. Das Judentum in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Berlin, 1928), Bd. 2 cols. 1142-1161), 228-229,
and the
already recognized two types of apocalypses: the prophetic (predictive)
descriptive
types, yet,
in the past did not take sufficient notice of their insight. In recent (speculative) years it was again a Jewish scholar (M. E. Stone) who brought to the attention of the inves- dgators
the fact that the apocalypses have a dual focus: eschatological and cosmolog- ical. Now Christian investigators have caught on.
Due to the circumstance that previous scholarship did not recognize the existence
–
6
“historical”
type
of
apocalypse),29
The
ogy.
When Paul D. Hanson his The Dawn of Apocalyptic very
fortunate-in
types
of
eschatology its
coming
lated the divine
plan
agency.
type),
however, human
activity.
For
9
while the other has a particular inter-
through
human
est in cosmological mysteries (the “otherworldly journey”
type
of
apoc- 1 alypse).3?
The two Biblical
apocalypses belong
to the first
subgenre.31
second
phenomenon
to be defined is that of apocalyptic eschatol-
in 1975 made this term the
key
notion of
he defined it-and this was
perhaps
not
contrast to
prophetic eschatology.
He
regards
both
as
perspectives
on the
future,
but
they perceive
of
in different
ways. According
to Hanson, the
prophet
trans-
revealed to him in terms of real
history
and concrete political
action. Thus the
plan
of God is executed
In the
apocalypses
(one might
add:
especially
in the “historical”
the divine
plan
is not translated in terms of
history
and
the
apocalyptists
it is the Lord Himself
(possibly assisted
by other supernatural beings)
who realizes His
plan.32 One of the
problems
with this definition
to the “historical”
“heavenly journey” type
is very
limited,
a
very prominent
role in these
apocalypses, although
pletely
absent.33 The notion of
apocalyptic eschatology
as such is useful
for the moment remains
problematic.
J. J. Collins defines it purely
formally
as the
eschatology
almost
exclusively
even if its definition
is the fact that it
pertains subgenre.
Its relevance for the since
eschatology
does not
play
it is never com-
found in the
apocalypses.34
nately lypses belong
of two types of apocalypses most of the older studies now appear to be quite confused and most of their conclusions primarily pertain to the “historical” apocalypse. Fortu-
for Biblical scholarship the situation is not so bad, since the Biblical
to the historical
apoca-
subgenre. _
29For a description of this subgenre see J. J. Collins, Daniel, 6-14.
301.J. Collins, Daniel, 14-22.
questions
judischen Apokalyptik,” tion has on the study of
lypses irrespective apocalyptic all, eschatology
unveiling
apocalypse
31 Most
evangelical
scholars
(e.g.
L.
Morris, Apocalyptic (Grand Itapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 76-81, 91-95; and G. E. Ladd, “Apocalyptic,” in J. D. Douglas et al.
(eds.), The New Bible Dictionary (London: IVP, 1962, 43–44, make a distinction between the Biblical and the extra-Biblical
sharp
apocalypses. One does well to realize that such a distinction is not based on
literary grounds but on
W. W.
Gasque, “Apocalyptic
in M.
Bibliology.
Literature,” C. Tenney et al. (eds.), The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), vol. I, 200-204, finds such a distinction not helpful, particularly not where is concerns
of genre. Already W. Bousset, “Die religionsgeschichtliche Herkunft der
133 drew attention to the detrimental effect that this distinc-
the apocalyptic literature.
the two definitions may be found on 11 and 12 respectively.
33John Collins insists that some form of eschatology is present in all apoca-
of the subgenre (Imagination. 5-6,9). Yet, the virtual equation of
and eschatology so common in the older studies should be avoided. After
is not the main interest of a good number of apocalypses (some of which
belong
to the earliest
specimen
of the genre). These books focus on the
of cosmic mysteries inaccessible for natural wisdom.
34J. J. Collins, Imagination. 9. Thus any form of eschatology that is found in an
is per definition “apocalyptic eschatology.” But one may ask if it really
7
10
But even
though
this definition is
logically impeccable
it is not
very informative. It
begs
the
question
as to which
types
of
eschatology may appear
in the
apocalypses.
In other
words,
which are the various kinds of
apocalyptic eschatology?
Adela Yarbro Collins lists three
types:
First that which has an
eschatological crisis,
as well as a cosmic or
political and a personal
eschatology. Second,
that which lacks an
eschatological crisis. Third, that which consists
only
of a personal
eschatology.35
For want of a better definition this will have to do for the moment.
The last term to be defined is that of
apocalypticism.
When Hanson introduced his now famous distinction between
apocalypse, apocalyptic eschatology,
and
apocalypticism,
he himself
already
admitted that the last notion in
particular
was hard to define. His own definition centered on the
concepts
of “codification of
self-identity”
and
“interpretation
of reality”
as
group
activities. He viewed
apocalypticism
as the
symbolic universe36 of an
emerging apocalyptic
movement.
Naturally,
the
partic- ular
shape
of various
symbolic
universes of different
apocalyptic movements in each case is determined
by
a number of
factors, among which the
past
traditions(of
the culture within which these movements arise) figure prominently.
But
socio-political conditions,
the ideas taken over from rival
parties
and from
foreign
cultures also
play important roles in the formation of the
symbolic
universes of the Jewish
apoc- alyptic
movements which flourished between 300 BC and the Bar Kochba
uprising
in AD 135.3? In this
way
Hanson introduced the social
makes sense to call the purely personal eschatology of the gnostic apocalypses (on these see F. T. Fallon, “The Gnostic Apocalypses,” SEMEIA 14
because these
(1979),123-158) “apocalyptic eschatology” simply writings are apocalypses? Of course, it is always possible to add more qualifying adjectives to the notion of
thus the
eschatology;
eschatology
in the
gnostic apocalypses
would be
“gnostic apocalyptic eschatology,”
but this is not really satisfactory. After all, who would be prepared to label the movement an “apocalyptic movement” simply on account of their occasional gnostic usage of the literary form of apocalypse for conveying their message?
It seems to me that we need a definition which is not merely formal, but which also takes the content of that eschatology into account. At minimum is should in- clude a canon which precludes the merely personal eschatology of the gnostic apoca- lypses
from being labeled “apocalyptic,” since the cosmic aspect of the eschatologies found in the other (not gnostic) apocalypses appears to be quite characteristic.
35Adela Yarbro Collins, “Introduction,” 5.
36For a treatment of the concept “symbolic universe” see Peter L.
Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the
IYY:
Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City, Doubleday, 1966), 88-104.
The concept may be circumscribed as the traditional ways of understanding reality in a given culture or subculture. Its origin must be sought in our objectification of social realities. Since man is essentially open to the world/reality (this is a basic anthropological datum)
he is continually
engaged
in “universe construction.” The universe he is constructing is “symbolic,” i.e, it concerns realities other than those of daily
life.
37p, D. Hanson, Dawn, 453. J. J. Collins (“Morphology” 4; Imagination, 10- 11)
has argued that just as there are different apocalypses there are different apoca-
8
11
sciences into the
study
of
“apocalyptic.”
Until
recently
not much work on the social function of
apocalyptic writings
has been
done, but
over the
past
few
years
some studies on this matter have been
published.
Yet, this area still
requires
further
investigation.38
One of the
major problems here is the scantiness of historical information on the basis of which scholars could draw a more
complete picture
of the circumstances in which
apocalyptic
movements were bom. As it is, the results of these investigations
are bound to be
quite speculative.
An
important
and much debated issue in the
scholarly
literature is the relationship
of the
apocalypses
to the Ancient Israelite
prophetic
tradi- tions.
Closely
bound
up
with this is the more
general problem
of the origin
of the
apocalypses.
The latter
problem
need not concern us
here, but the former has some
bearing
on our
topic.
Today exegetes
more or less
agree
that the Jewish
apocalypses
stand in a certain
continuity
with older Israelite traditions.
They usually
hold that the “historical”
apocalypses
are the continuation and
interpretation of the Ancient Israelite
prophetic
traditions,39 whereas
the
“heavenly journey” type
of
apocalypse
has its roots in the
(mantic)
wisdom tradi- tion. In
reality,
however,
the situation is much more
complicated
than this sketch
suggests.
For the
apocalyptists
made a considerable use of sources. From these
they
took over those elements that suited their own purposes.
Moreover, they employed
traditional ideas
quite freely,
lyptic movements. Quite obviously early Christianity was a different type of movement than the apoca- lyptic apocalyptic movement that produced Book of the Luminaries
Heavenly
38Thus J. J. Collins,
“Apocalyptic Literature,”
in R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Early
Judaism and its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press/Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 345-370, esp. 362.
39H. H. Rowley’s famous dictum (Relevance, 15) that apocalyptic is the child of prophecy yet
diverse from it, is such a gross that is becomes
The situation is far too
oversimplification
misleading. complicated to be cast in a simple formula. The most outstanding differences between prophecy and the apocalypses (especially of the “historical” type) are:
– An oral phenomenon often in the form of poetry (prophecy) vis d vis a
almost
literary
phenomenon exclusively in prose form (apocalypse).
– Primarily the speaking-forth of God’s will (prophecy) vis 6 vis the revelation of
mysteries [cosmic
or future (apocalypse)].
.
–
The
standpoint
of the prophet in history is clear to his audience vis d vis a
concealment of the apocalyptists stand in history: the readership thinks that the
book comes to him from ancient times because of pseudonymity and/or ex
eventu prophecy.
–
The prophet is a public figure vis 6 vis the apocalyptist’s
anonymity (through
pseudonymity).
–
Prophets stress what man must do vis d vis stress on what is going to of the situation and God’s happen:
worsening judging/saving activity (apocalypse).
For another list of differences see e.g. T. S. Kepler, The Book of Revelation (New York: OUP, 1957), 5-6.
9
12
adapting
them to their own situation and
combining
them with materials stemming
from
foreign cultures,
etc.4? We
see, then, that the continuity of the
apocalypses
with the older traditions is a matter of
“ingredients,” of “elements of content.”41 In the case of the Jewish “historical”
apoca- lypses
these “elements of content” stem for the most
part
from Exilic and Post-Exilic
prophecy.42
But,
undeniably,
these books also have affinities with romantic wisdom traditions.43
On the other
hand,
the
literary genre
of
apocalypse
is
something
new as
compared
to the
prophetic
books. It is a new
type
of literature be- longing
to a new
phenomenon, namely
Hellenism.44 The
emergence
of Hellenism-in the late fourth
century
BC-as a cultural
phenomenon brought
with it a new set of
questions
and
problems. Along
with it a new
literary genre,
the
apocalypse,
comes into
being.
This
genre
deals with new
questions
and
problems
and makes the inherited traditions bear on them.45 Since the
genre
of
apocalypse
is basically a Hellenistic type
of
literature,
it is not
surprising
that the
apocalypses
are not limited to Jewish literature alone, but that there are Persian, as well as
Greek, Roman,
and
Egyptian apocalypses.46
Hellenism, however, was not
just a cultural
(and urban) phenomenon,
it also had a political aspect. In this connection Jonathan Z. Smith has
convincingly argued
that the emer- gence
of the
genre
is linked to the
conquests
of the Greeks and the Romans. He thinks that when these world
powers
subdued the nations around the Eastern basin of the Mediterranean, scribes in the
conquered
40j. j.
Collins, Imagination,
26. 41 J. J. Collins, Imagination, 28.
42This has been demonstrated
by
0.
Ploeger,
Theokratie und
Eschatolgie (1WANT, 2) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
2nd edition
1962; P. Von der Osten-Saken, Die in ihrem
1959),
Apokalyptik
Verhdltnis zu Prophetic und Weis-
by heit
(ThExh, 157) (Munchen: Kaiser, 1969), [contra G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (London:
SCM Press, 1965), vol. II 306ff.] ; and by P. D. Hanson, Dawn.
In the Anglo-American tradition the link between the and the
books was for the most part upheld since the
apocalyptic writings prophetic inception of this century, due to the
pervasive influence of R. H. Charles. See E. W. Nicholson, “Apocalyptic,” in G. W.
Anderson (ed.), Tradition & Interpretation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), 189-213.
43H. P. Mueller, “Mantische Weisheit und Apokclyptik,” in
Congress
Volume Uppsala Brill, 1972), 268-293, esp. 271. In
the fourth German edition of his Theologie
(VTSuppl., 22) (Leiden:
des alten Testaments
(Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neu- kirchener, 1965), Bd. II 319, Gerhard von Rad moved somewhat closer to the views espoused by
Mueller. Note that already J. Klatzkin and J. Kaufmann, “Apokalyptik,” 231, signaled the proximity of the Jewish apocalypses to the mantic literature of paganism.
44J, J. Collins, Imagination, 28; idem, Daniel. 20. According to him the general matrix of the genre is Hellenism. This literary form was the privileged vehicle for expressing
the nostalgia for the past that characterized this era.
45So H. D. Betz, “Zum Problem des religionsgeschichtliche Verstandnisses der Apokalyptik,” Zeiischrififar Theologie
und Kirche 63 (1966) 391-409, 394.
46J. J. Collins, Imagination, 14-28.
10
13
nations began
to write
apocalypses
as a means of propaganda against the foreign
overlord.4? To this end
they
transformed the materials which were at their
disposal.
These materials consisted in the first
place
of their own national traditions-usually
those associated with the native
king- ship48-and
in the second
place
of
foreign
traditions. With these the apocalyptists
became familiar because of their
exposure
to Hellenist culture in which certain
ideas and sentiments
(stemming
from various cultures and
religions)
circulated
freely;
that is to
say,
cut loose from their
original
context.49 Thus the
apocalypses
have roots in many tradi- tions. Moreover,
they
fulfill
multiple purposes.
On one level the
apoca- lypses
serve as political propaganda, causing further alienation from and stimulating
resistance to the
occupier.50
On another
level,
and within another national literature
(e.g.
the
Jewish),
the
genre may
have served theological, pastoral
and even
apologetic
funcdons.51
We
may
conclude this section
by pointing
out that the
apocalypses were written in a period of
great change,
both
political
and cultural, but also
religious. Change, especially rapid change,
causes
feelings
of crisis. In
general,
then, it is correct to say
that
apocalypses
were written in response
to situations of
(perceived) crisis-persecution
and other- wise.52 _
IV. The
Apocalyptic Background
of John’s Millennium Amillenialistic writers are
usually quick
to
point
out that Revelation 20:4-6 is unique in the New Testament.53 Yet, the idea of a reign of the Messiah
preceding
the
Age
of Bliss occurs more often in the
apoca- lypses.
Several of these
writings
view the Messianic
Kingdom
as of this world and
preceding
the
Age
of Bliss
(which
is not of this
world).
Such an Interim
Reign (Zwischenreich)
is found in the
Apocalypse
of Weeks (I Enoch 93:1-10
and
91:12-19),
IV Esdras
(7:28-29),
II Enoch
(33); and II Baruch
(27-29, 40, 50-51).Sa
‘
Z. Smith, “Wisdom and Apocalyptic” in P. D. Hanson (cd.), Dawn, 101- 120 (= B. A. Pearson (ed.), Religious Syncretism in Antiquity. Essays in Conversa- tion with Geo
Widengren (Missoula, 1975), 131-156, 1 IG-1 11. Cf. J. J. Collins, Imagination,
27-28.
0
48J. Z. Smith, “Wisdom and Apocalyptic,” 110-111.
49J. J. Collins, Imagination, 26.
‘
50So also D. E. Aune, Prophecy, 110.
51 J. J. Collins, Daniel, 22.
52J. J. Collins, Daniel, 22. The perceived crisis can be a situation of
but
persecution,
may also situate itself on the level of culture shock, the injustice of history, the inevitability
of death, etc.
53So e.g. D. Guthrie, NT Theology, 873-874.
54D. Guthrie, NT Theology, 870, mcntions I En 91,93; Pss of Sol 17,18; II Esdr 7:28ff.; 12:34; and II Bar 29:1-8. Cf. R. W. Klein, “Aspects of Intertestamental Messianism,”
in J. Maier and V. Tollers
(eds.), op. cit,
191-203
(=
Concordia Theological Monthly,
43 ( 1972), 507-517, 198-201.
11
14
This doctrine is, on the one hand, a continuation of Ancient Jewish Messianic
expectations (cf. Ezekiel
37, 40-48 ; Isaiah 35, 60-bl; Zecha- riah
1-6;
Daniel 2, 7; I Enoch 6-36, etc.).55 These
expectations
were very
down-to-earth. On the other hand, it marks an
important develop- ment over
against
these in that the
apocalyptic writings
situate Final Salvation in the afterworld, in the
Age
to Come. Thus ultimate salvation is
something supramundane,
and the
Kingdom
of the Messiah
gradually becomes a
Heavenly Kingdom.56
Indeed,
in at least one
apocalypse (The Assumption
of Moses, 10) this
other-worldly Kingdom
is the sole locus of bliss. Yet, it seems that the
apocalyptists typically
retained some form of Messianic
Reign
in the
present
world.57 We
find, then, that even
though
the Jewish
Apocalyptists
stressed the transcendent character of salvation,
they
did not discard this world as a possible locus of salvation. This stands in marked contrast to (later) Christian
Apoc- alyptists
and Patristic
theologians
who–under influence of Gnosticism and
especially
Neo-Platonism-discarded the earth as locus for the consummation of-salvation. The
Apocalypse
of Peter, for
instance,
does not
speak
of a Millennium. It
simply
concentrates on the
blessings
that await the
righteous
and the
punishments prepared
for the wicked subse- quent
to the Lord’s
judgment.58
A similar
tendency
is
present
in the allegorical
and
spiritualistic interpretations
of John’s Millennium
by
the Fathers
(Origen,
Methodius,
and Ticonius followed
by Augustine).59 While the
apocalyptic
authors transcendentalized salvation
by
the
expec- tation that it could
only
be ushered in
through
Divine
intervention,
the later Christian
apocalyptists (Second century
AD and
after)
and Patristic authors
spiritualized
salvation
by making
it a matter of the soul. Accordingly
we find that the Ancient Christian belief in the resurrection of the
body
was more often than not translated into the Greek
philo- sophical
doctrine of the
immortality
of the souls
55D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: SCM Press, 1964), 286-290, esp. 287 n. 1; G. von Rad, II: 285-288 (ETr.).
56D. S. Russell, Method and Message, 290-291.
,
57D. S. Russell, Method and Message, 291.
58Adela Yarbro Collins,
“Early Christian Apocalypses,” 72-73:
C. Maurer and H. Duensing, “Apocalypse of Peter,” in E. Hennecke, W. Schneemalcher, R. McL. Wilson, New Testament Apocrypha, Writings Relating to the
and
Apostles, Apocalypses
Related Subjects (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), Vol. II 663-683, 667.
591. T. Beckwith, 323-325.
60See W. A. De Pater, Immortality. Its tlistory in the West (Leuven: Acco,1984). This philosopher of religion shows that the Fathers wedded the Biblical teaching of the resurrection to the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul (100-109,
meant that the latter over the
esp. 106-109). Practically,
that
prevailed
former. In Medieval times the teaching concerning the resurrection of the body suffered under the disdain for the body that developed in the monasteries as a result of the popularity of (unchristianized)
Neo-Platonism (109).
12
15
In order to understand Revelation 20:4-6
correctly,
it is important to know whether John was
transcendentalizing
salvation or rather
spiritu- alizing
it. In other words, is John closer to the Jewish
thought-world
of the
apocalypses
or to the Christian authors of later times? We think that John is closer to the Jewish
Apocalyptists,
but that is not to
say
that he is merely saying to a Christian
readership
what
they
said to their fellow- Jews. On the
contrary,
John’s use of Old Testament and
apocalyptic materials is
constantly shaped by
his Christian beliefs.
Consequently, we
may expect
that John’s use of the traditional
apocalyptic image
of the Interim
Reign
has affinities to and at the same time
diverges
from that found in the Jewish
apocalypses.
When we have a closer look at the
apocalyptic parallels
to John’s Millenium,
we find that there is not a single strict
parallel.
In each in- stance there are
important
differences.
The
Apocalypse
of Weeks is the most ancient work that has a Zwis- chenreich.61 This “book” is
part
of I Enoch which is
generally
con- sidered to be a composite work of uncertain date.62 In I Enoch 93:1-10; and
91:12-17,
world
history
is divided into ten “weeks.” From the author’s
description
of the first six it becomes clear that he
perceives
of his own
days
as part of the seventh week, which is the
age
of
apostasy. He awaits the
eighth
week in which the
righteous
will
prevail [=
the Millennial
Age (91:12)].
In the
ninth,
the world will be
judged righ- teously,
and the tenth week
(91:15)
will
bring
the final
judgment.
Then follow countless weeks for ever
(= Eternity 91:16, 17).63
Notice that there is no mention here of the
binding
and release of
Satan,
neither does the author
speak
of an
eschatological
battle, for the
reign
of the victors and the final destruction of Satan.
Of
importance
for our
investigation
are the
parallels
found in II Esdras and II Baruch. These two Jewish
apocalypses
are
roughly contempo- raneous with Revelation. That is, the three of them were
composed some
thirty years
after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.64
.
.
61111is apocalypse is considered to be a product of pre-Maccabean times. See J. J. Collins, “Jewish Apocalypses,” 31-32.
62D. S. Russell, Method and Message, 51-53. For more up to date information see J. J. Collins, Imagination, 33ff.
63D. S. Russell, Method and Message. 291-292.
64D. S. Russell, afethod and
Message,
62-65. Cf. the study of P.M. Bogaert, “Les apocalypses contemporaines de Baruch, d’Esdras et de Jean,” in J. Lambrecht (ed.), L Apecalypse johannique
et l’Apocaiyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (BETL. 53) (Gembloux: Duculot,
Leuven:
University Press, 1980), 47-68.
The author stresses the importance of comparing John’s
Apocalypse
with these two Jew:ish writings. Unfortunately,
the article contains the similarities and dissimilarities in their conception of the Messianic nothing concerning Kingdom. See also Elisabeth Schlussler Fiorenza, Priester für Gott. Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse (Münster: Aschendorff, 1972), 319-323.
13
16
In II Esdras 7:28-29 the Messianic
Kingdom
or Millennium is said to last four hundred
years.
When these will have
passed
all human
beings will die and so will the Messiah. Then, after seven
days,
a
general resurrection will take
place
which is followed
by
the last
judgment. Subsequent
to that comes a final “week” of
years
in which the Gentiles and the wicked will find themselves in the “furnace of Gehenna” while the
Jews,
i.e. the
righteous,
will
enjoy
the
“paradise
of
delight” (7 :30- 43).
This
particular passage
stands in
sharp
contrast to the so-called “Eagle
Vision”
(10:60-12:35),
in which the author
reinterprets
the Four- Kingdom
schema of Daniel
(chs. 2, 7).
In the
“Eagle
Vision” no mention is made of eternal bliss whatsoever. Here the
eschatological
event simply
consists in
the
deliverance of Israel and of
making
her
joyful until the
End,
i.e. the
Day
of Judgment arrives.65
II Baruch is best known for its materialistic
description
of the Mes- sianic
Age (29:5-7).66
But more
important
for our
investigation
is the circumstance that this work includes a variety
of eschatological
schemata. One of these is the classical
Four-Kingdom
schema of Daniel. In the view of the author, the Fourth
Kingdom
is the Roman
Empire
and after the Messiah has
destroyed it,
He will establish his
Reign
on Earth forever,
that is to
say,
for as
long
as the earth will continue to exist (39:3-40:3). Yet,
elsewhere
(chs 53-73)
the author
depicts
the Messiah as
defeating
all nations.
Thereupon
he
destroys
some of these nations but he
spares
others. Then will the
Age
of Bliss dawn
upon
the Earth. However, in
the same section of the book, in
59:10-11, the writer speaks
of a form of
punishment
that
goes beyond
mere
annihilation, for here he
speaks
of “Gehenna” and of “future tonnent.”67
Finally,
there are a number of passages in which the
transitory
nature of the Messianic Kingdom
is clearly stated, because it will be followed
by
a New World of Bliss
(40:3; 42:2; 44:12; 74:3, etc.).68
Traces of the doctrine of the Millennium
may
also be detected in the Book of Jubilees. This book-often dated in the Second
Century BC69-is is not itself an
apocalypse,
but it shares the outlook of the genre
and its 23rd
chapter
is
commonly regarded
as a short
apoca- lypse.??
A number of
passages throughout
the book
suggest
the establishment of a Messianic
Kingdom
on Earth. In contrast to most
65D. S. Russell, Method and Message, 296; J. J. Collins, “Jewish
33-34.
Apocalypses,”
66D. S. Russell, Method and Message, 294.
67D. S. Russell, Method and Message, 293-295; J. J. Collins, “Jewish
34-35.
Apoca- lypses,”
68D. S. Russell, Method and
Message, 294;
R. W. Klein,
“Aspects .of In- tertestamental
Messianism,” 200.
69D. S. Russell, Method and Message, 54.
S. Russell, Method and Message; J. J. Collins, “Jewish Apocalypses,” 32- 33.
14
17
apocalyptic writings,
in this book the Messianic
Kingdom
is not supernaturally
ushered in, but comes about as the result of a process of spiritual
maturation
(1 :29 ; 4:28; 23:26-28).
And unlike the
apocalypses it does not
perceive
of the
Age
of Bliss
coming subsequent
to the Millennium,
but sees them as
existing
side
by
side. Those
righteous ones that could not enter the Millennium because
they
were no
longer alive at the time of its establishment will be admitted into this
Eternity
of Blessedness
(1:17, 26, 29; 4:26; 23:11, 26-31).71
Our brief
survey
shows that the
eschatological teachings
of these writings
are far from
being congruous.
This state of affairs is not at all uncommon in the
apocalyptic
tradition. On the
contrary,
it looks as if the apocalyptists
knew
many
different
eschatological
schemata and felt at liberty
to reinterpret them in the
light
of the situation in their own times. In fact,they did not hesitate
simply
to juxtapose conflicting schemata in a single
work.
One of the elements which varies
enormously
from book to book is the duration of the Messianic
Reign.
We saw
already
that in II Esdras 7:28-30 that this
Reign
lasted
just
four hundred
years,
but in the Apocalypse
of Elijah
(Third Century AD)
it is said to last no more than forty years.73
In Rabbinic
eschatological speculations
one encounters a similar
variety. Here, figures
for the duration of the
Reign-of-the Messiah
range
from 40 to 365,000
years?4
John’s one thousand
years is also known from
(later)
Rabbinic
sources,
but more
important
is the fact that this
figure
is
suggested by an apocalypse
from the first
century
0 AD,75 namely
II Enoch 32-33?6 The author of this
apocalypse
sees the world as
existing
for a period of seven thousand
years (33:1). During the first six thousand the
history
of the human race runs its
course,
but then there will be a “rest”
(a Sabbath)
which will last for one thousand years.
This Sabbath is the
Kingdom
established
by
God Himself, for there is no Messiah in this
writing.
At the close of this
period
there will be a time of judgment, followed
by eternity (33:2).77
This is perhaps the closest
parallel
to John’s
conception
of the Millennium.
Yet,
here
too, there are considerable differences,
particularly
in that there is no
.
.
71D. S. Russell, Method and Message. 292-293.
72See the remarks of A. Roosen, De brieven van Paulus aan de Thessalonicenzen (Roermond: Pomen, 1971), 108;
O.
Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39 (OTL) (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 177. illustration of the of
scenarios
may
be found in D. S. Ample
diversity eschatological
Russell, Method and Message, 286-297; and G. Harder, “Eschatologische Schemata in der Johannesapokalypse,” Theologia Viatorum 9 (1964), 70-87.
73G. B. Caird, The Revelation
of St. John the Divine (New
York:
Harper
& Row, 1966), 250.
74G. R. Beasley Murray, 288-289.
75J. J. Collins, “Jewish Apocalypses,” 40.
76G.R. Beasley Murray, 289.
77D. S. Russell, Method and Message. 293. 29.
‘ ‘
15
18
connection made between the Millennium and the
imprisonment
and release of Satan as in Revelation. 20:1-10.
From the above
presentation
it becomes clear that the Messianic
Age
is mostly regarded
as
something this-worldly.
And when this
Age
is essentially
an interim
reign,
it is
invariably presented
in terms of a mundane, future,
and
cosmo-political phenomenon.
It should be recognized, however, that Ezekiel 36-48 and Daniel 7 are also
very important
elements in the traditio-historical
background
of Revelation John is clearly
inspired by
these
chapters.
He more or less
faithfully
follows the schema of events laid down
by Ezekiel,
and makes numerous allusions to the Ezekiel
chapters (but
there is not a
single
verbatim
quotation).
The author also alludes to Daniel 7:10-11. But as in the case of the extra-biblical “sources,” here, too, the parallels
are not
very
closed This is
especially
true for Revelation 20:4-6,
because in the
parallel passage
in Ezekiel
(37:10)
the
prophet foresees the resurrection of Israel as a nation and a
spiritual entity, whereas John
speaks
of the
general
resurrection of the dead. Moreover,80
neither Ezekiel nor Daniel see the Messianic
Kingdom
as an Zwischenreich.
V.
John’s Millennium
In order to arrive at a correct
understanding
of Revelation 20:4-6 one must realize that John was influenced
by
both the Biblical and extra- Biblical books mentioned. Therefore, it is wrong to dismiss the
impor- tance of the
apocalypses
in favor of the Biblical books.81 On the other hand, one should
not think that
apocalyptic
messianism alone unlocks
78G. R. Beasley Murray, 289; Elisabeth Schlussler Fiorenza, Priesterflir Gott, 316-319; and J. Lust, “The Order of the Final Events in Revelation and in Ezekiel,” in J. Lambrecht, L’Apecalypse johannique,
179-183, esp. 180 n. 5, where the author gives
a list of allusions to Ezekiel.
79Elisabeth Shlussler Fiorenza, Priesterf4ir Gott, 317,
80EIisabeLh Shlussler Fiorenza, Priester fiir Gott, 313. If J. Lust’s contention that in John’s days the order of Ezekiel 37-39 was not yet fixed and that John’s of the book may have had the same order as is found in the Greek Papyrus 967 copy (namely 38-39, 37, 40-48) then John’s first resurrection/messianic reign has no parallel in Ezekiel. In that case Ezekiel 37 would not be a parallel to John’s first, but to his second, general resurrection (see 181 of Lust’s article).
8 1 So, e.g., D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove,
Ill: IVP, 1970),
3rd edition, 964-960, who tends to minimize the connections between Revelation and the extra-canonical apocalypses and to maximize the proximity to the Old Testament
John
prophets.
Collins, Imagination, 12, warns of the
of such a
reduce the of the dangers
position. He thinks that the attempt to
strange world apocalyptists to the more familiar world of the prophets seriously hampers our understanding of the
to
apocalypses.
We think that this warning also applies (perhaps a lesser extent) to the Apocalypse of John.
16
19
the meaning
of Revelation 20.82 Nor should one think that the traditio- historical background
all
by
itself determines the
meaning
of our passage,
for the
composition
of Revelation and John’s
theology
are determining
factors as well. Thus, John takes
up
the traditional doctrine of a messianic interregnum because
it is important for his vision of the future,$3
but he does not
simply juxtapose
it with other traditional es- chatological
elements. On the
contrary,
he remolds this doctrine to make it fit his Christian views and he weaves it as a red thread
through
the entire book.84
The limited
scope
of the
present
article does not allow for a detailed exegetical
treatment of Revelation 20:1-10 and so a few observations concerning
John’s
conception
of the Millennium will have to do.
M. De
Jonge
in an
important essay
entitled “The Use of the
Expres- sion ho Christos in the
Apocalypse
of
John,”85
gives
an
analysis
of those
passages
in Revelation that contain the
expression
ho Chris- toslauto, namely
11:15
( 11:15-19), 12:10 ( 12:10-12),
and 20:4, 6 (20:4–6).
The three text-units
(indicated
between
parentheses)
in which the
expression
is found
invariably
bear an
eschatological stamp.
The first contains a proleptic proclamation about the
kingdom
of the world which has become the
kingdom
of the Lord God and his Messiah. The second comments on the
eschatological
events described in Revelation 12:1-9. The
perspective
taken in vss 10-12 is that of the fulfillment of these
happenings.
Revelation 20:4-6 is
basically
a
visionary report which narrates the fulfillment of all
promises regarding
the Messianic Reign.
It also contains a makarism about the
martyrs’ co-regency
with the Messiah for one thousand
years.
But even the
expression
ho Christos auto
( 11:15; 12:10)
itself is a Messianic title86 and is reminiscent of the more familiar “the Anointed One of the
Lord,”
which is found in both the Old Testament
(Psalm 2:2; 18:51, etc.)
and some of the
apocalypses
where it denotes the ideal
king of the future
(I Enoch
48:10: 52:4; LI Baruch
39:7; 40 : 1 ; 72:2-the latter work also uses the
expressions
“the Anointed One” and
“My
Anointed One” 29:3; 30:1; 70:9; cf. IV Esdras
12:32).87
From this we
may safely infer that in John’s
Apocalypse
the title ho Christos autou also has eschatological
overtones. This is reinforced
by
the fact that in Revelation
:
82R. W. Klein,
“Aspects of Intertestamental Messianism,” 201, is rather one- sided on this point.
83G.B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, 250-251; T. Holtz, “Gott in der Apokalypse,” in J. Lambrecht (ed.), L’Apecalypse johannique, 247-265, 261.
84Elisabeth Schlussler Fiorenza, Priesterfilr Gott, 317-318, 323, 331.
85In J. Lambrecht (ed.), L’Apecalypse johannique, 267-281. The author leans heavily
on Fiorenza’s dissertation Priester fiir Gott (see supra n. 64).
86So also T. Holtz, “Gott in der Apokalypse,” 250.
87M. De Jonge, “The Use of the Expression ho Christos in the Apocalypse of John,” 268.
17
20
the title His/the Christ is
always
combined with ho theoslho
kyrios (used
for
God)
and the root basil. The
picture
that
emerges
is that of the Messiah
executing
the
reign
of God. Thus, we find that both the content of the
passages,
as well as the title which is found in them have an eschatological
orientation.
This is confirmed
by
the fact that
structurally speaking
these text-units are interludes.88 John
regularly interrupts
the semi-concentric narrative sequence89
of his book
by
a number of proleptic visions and auditions. These interludes all
speak
about the
eschatological
future and
express John’s conviction that there exists an intimate
relationship
between the eschaton and the
present.9? Obviously,
the
visionary report
of 20:4-6 is not
proleptic.
On the
contrary
it describes the fulfillment of the events mentioned in the other interludes. Nevertheless, the makarism of 20:fr- with its
implicit
exhortation to stand firm
against
the
pressures
of the present
evil
age-expresses
that link between future and
present.
Structural
analysis
shows furthermore that Revelation 20:4-6 inter- rupts
the narrative
sequence begun
in vs 1 and which is resumed in vs 7. The
pericope
it interrupts deals with the
captivity, release,
final revolt and destruction of Satan. Yet, in vs 1 we have a new
beginning (kai eidon).
But this new
visionary report
is linked on the level of content to the
passage
into which John inserted it. For
throughout
the entire section the
figure
“one thousand” is important.91
Further, the Messianic Interregnum
and the
imprisonment
of Satan seem to be two sides of the same coin. This was also maintained
by
A. G. Kornet. But for him Revelation 20:1-6 formed one text-unit which
(in
his
opinion)
does not refer to the future but to the
past.
He
regards
this
passage
as a brief review of the entire battle between God’s
people
and the
powers
of evil throughout
the whole
history
of salvation. Thus, the Millennium would span
the
complete period
which
begins
with the
promise
of salvation
88By means of interludes John interrupts the forward movement of his narrative. Elisabeth Schlussler Fiorenza, Priester
f4r Gott, 296, distinguishes
between vi- sionary
and hymnic interludes: 7:1-17; 11:1-14; 14:1-5 and 20:4-6 make up the former
group.
The latter consists of 5:9-14; 11:15-19; 12:10-12;
15:2-4; 16:7; 19:1-8.
89The problem of sequence in Revelation is notorious. Classically two solutions have been
forward, the first of which considers the
to be linear, while the second put
progression
holds that the data are best explained by a theory of recapitulation. Both views contain elements of truth as there is progression
not
though
not in a linear fashion, and there is recapitulation, but complete repetition.
On this problem see Elisabeth Schlussler Fiorenza, “The
Composition
and Struc- ture of Revelation,” in The Book
of Revelation:
Justice and
Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 159-180 (= Catholic Biblical Quarterly
39 (1977), 344-366),
esp. 174-177; and J. Lambrecht (ed.), L’Apecalypsejohannique, 77-104
90M. De Jonge, “The Use of the Expression ho Christos in the Apocalypse of John,” 273.
9lElisabeth Schlussler Fiorenza, Priester für Gott, 296, 299.
18
21
given
in Genesis 3:15 until the Parousia of Christ.92 In this view the Millennium
does not last one thousand
years,
but much
longer.
Indeed there is no
need to
suppose
that John
employed
such a highly symboli- cal
figure (10 x
10 x
10) merely
to indicate the duration of the Messianic Reign
in
years.
For the rest it hardly needs
pointing
out that in the
Light of the
preceding,
Komet’s view is
highly improbable.
The
passage
has an eschatological and not a retrospective character.
When Revelation 20:4-6 is seen in a wider context,
namely
in relation to the
judgment
scene of vss 11-15, a somewhat hidden link between these two text unit comes to
light. Upon
closer examination
they
share the motif of judgment and stand in antithetical
parallelism
to each other. In 20:11-15 the
judgment
is described, but in vss 4-6 the reader en- counters an
anticipatory judgment,
a rehabilitation of the victims of the persecution
of the two beasts
(chs 11-12):
the
martyrs
and
unyielding believers are
given
thrones, i.e. they receive royal dignity, glory,
and honor
(cf. 20:4).93
The first resurrection is
only
for these
co-regents, but “the rest:of the dead” (20:5) will
only
be raised at the end of the thousand
years.
Even
though
John mentions the
reign
of all believers in the New Jerusalem (22:5)
the real
emphasis
on the
reign
of the Messiah and His martyrs
lies
precisely
in Revelation 20:4-6. The
coming
of the Millen- nium
brings
the fulfillment of the
promises given
in Revelation
3:21; 5:9-10; 6:9-10;
and 12:11.94 This warrants the inference that Revela- tion 20:4-6
occupies
a place of
importance
in John’s
Apocalypse.
It is important
also because it stands in sharp contrast to Revelation 12-18 in which the world is pictured as under the dominion of Satan. But in our passage
this same world is placed under the dominion of God’s Messiah and the
martyrs.95
Thus for
John,
the Millennium is a special blessing for the
martyrs,96
that is to
say,
for those in whose lives Christ’s Lord- ship
had been
triumphant
in the
period
that His
Reign
was still hidden from the world.9? But when Christ’s
Lordship
will be publicly manifest during
the Millennium, these faithful witnesses receive thrones98 and
92Komet, Die Pinksterbeweging, 134-138, 153. Some limit the period to the time between the Ascension and Parousia of Christ (e.g., D. Guthrie, NT Theology, $70-871).
93Elisabeth Schlussler Fiorenza, Priester für Gott, 304.
94M. De Jonge, “The Use of the Expression ho Christos in the Apocalypse of John,” 275.
95M. De Jonge, “The Use of the Expression ho-Christos in the Apocalypse of John,” 278.
96Elisabeth Schlussler Fiorenza, Priesterfilr Gott, 308-309.
97G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 630.
98T. Holtz, “Gott in der Apokalypse,” 265, points out the image of the of
reception
thrones stands for the reception of royal dignity and honor rather than for the active exercise of government (contra Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, 251).
19
22
share His
Reign.
In a makarism John calls such believers “blessed and
holy” (20:6).
This beatitude is clearly meant as an exhortation for John’s
flock. It relates the eschaton to the
daily reality
of the Christians in Asia
Minor.
This link between
knowledge
of the eschaton and Christian
living
in
the
present
times is
congruous
with the fact that John himself labels his
apocalyptic
vision a prophecy
(1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19; 10:11).99
John
does not follow the normal
procedure
of the
apocalyptists
who attribute
their work to a hero of faith from the distant
past.
John
speaks
to his
contemporaries
like the
prophets
used to do. He
speaks
the authoritative
word of the Lord: he
publicly
denounces sin; he warns
people
lest
they
fall under God’s
wrath;
and he exhorts believers to remain faithful in the
face of
hardships.
And like the
prophets
John foretells what the Lord
will do in the near future in
response
to human conduct in the
present.
Thus John directs the attention of his flock to the future, but with an
eye , to the present. In this
way
John
attempts
to set the
present hardships
of
his churches in a broad
perspective
which involves both
cosmological
and
eschatological reality.
This enables them to understand their
struggle
in the context of a cosmic warfare, and to determine their course in the
light
of the eschaton.
The cosmic and
eschatological
realities John
depicts
with the
help
of .
traditional
imagery,
familiar from both the Old Testament and the
apocalypses.
Part of that traditional material is the
image
of the Mes-
sianic
reign
followed
by
the
Age
of Bliss. John takes it over, relates it to
Christ and the Church, and makes it relevant for his flock.
VI. John’s Millennium and Us
John
gave Christianity
a powerful image: the Millennium. He
gave
us an
image
that
unambiguously points
towards a
glorious
future for Christ’s
people.
This
image gives hope
to believers who are
socially deprived
and
politically helpless. 100
That the
image
of the Millennium is indeed
“dynamite”
is evident from the
many
Millennarianist movements it has
generated
within the Christian
sphere
of influence.101 These movements
usually
were a mixture of
religious
and
political
elements.
99That John’s Apocalypse belongs to the literary genre named after it need not be doubted
despite
the fact that it does not contain ex eventu
prophecy
and is not pseudonymous.
On the
ground
that the book is not pseudonymous B. W. Jones, “More About the Apocalypse as Apocalyptic,” Journal
of Biblical
Literature 87 (1968), 325-7,
concluded that Revelation is not an apocalyptic book. He was refuted by
1. J. Collins, “Pseudonymity, Historical Reviews and the Genre of the Revelation to John,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977), 329-343.
10OYvonne Talmon, “Pursuit of the Millennium: the Relation between Religious and Social Change,” in L. G. Jansma and P. G. G. M. Schulten (eds.), Religieuze bewegingen (Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1981), 35-61 (= Archives Europdenes de Sociologie III, I ( 1962) 125-148),
50.
101 Talmon, “Pursuit of the Millennium…”,
50-51.
20
23
Sometimes
they
had a violent character, but at other times
they
were quietist.l? Obviously
the Millennarianism of the
Early
Pentecostals was of the latter
type. They
did not
try
to bring about the Messianic
Kingdom by
force,
for
they
believed that
only
Christ could
supernaturally
usher in that
Kingdom
of
peace
and
justice.
Nevertheless, Chiliasm was
an integral
and
important
element of the faith of Early Pentecostalism.
Some
eighty years
have
passed
since the
inception
of the Pentecostal movement.
Today
Pentecostal communities of the First and Second Worlds are not
any longer primarily
made
up
of the
underprivileged
in society.
That means that a large number of
today’s
Pentecostals
belongs to
sociological
strata that are
quite
“at home” in
society.
But more importantly, eschatological fervency
is
usually
short-lived. Yet it need not die out. It can flare
up
after a period in which it was
merely
smol- dering.103
On the basis of these facts we surmise that the Millenarianism of the
Early
Pentecostals was
qualitatively
different from that of most of us
living
near the close of the twentieth
century.
We
suspect
that the Chiliasm of the
Early
Pentecostals
possessed
a greater
motivating
force, whereas in later times it became
increasingly
an
object
of
dogmatic speculation
The Pentecostal literature like all Pre-ivlillenarianist literature tends to abound with
speculations concerning
the
“Signs
of the
Times,”
the “Great Tribulation,” and the
“Rapture.”
These
phenomena normally attract more attention than the
really important eschatological images
of the Millennium and the New Jerusalem. Moreover, this literature is not always
free from
escapism,
since is fails to relate the
eschatological realities to
present
conditions. In other words, in
spite
of the fact that one
attempts
to pry into the future, this literature lacks the
prophetism
of John’s
Apocalypse.
As a consequence, many Christians
begin
to
ques- tion the
spiritual
value of all these
speculations
about future events. They
fail to see the relevance of all that for
discipleship,
for
living
an authentically
Christian life in a secular-world-turning-religious.
In what follows we formulate a
possible strategy
to
remedy
this ailment. In it we
attempt
to restore the
prophetic quality
the
image
of the Millennium
possessed
in John’s
Apocalypse, by making
it relevant for Christian conduct. We
hope
that other Pentecostal
thinkers,
both
pastors and
laypeople,
will be stimulated to think
through
this doctrine and our dealings
with
it; and so come up
with alternative
approaches
for
making the eschatological images relevant for Christian existence.
Only
this will solve the problems of the pastors David Allen was reacting to in his
102Talmon, “Pursuit of the Millennium…”, 4’2-44, 54-57.
103Talmon, “Pursuit of the Millennium…”, 46-47. See also the article by J. F. Zygmunt, “Prophetic
Failure and Chiliastic
Identity:
The Case of the Jehova’s Witnesscs,”
in L. G. Jansma and P.G.G.M. Schunten (eds.), Religieuze
195-220
bewegingen,
(= American Journal of Sociology (1970), 926-948),196, 211, 213.
Cf. W. J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals, 417.
104This subverts further investigation.
21
24
paper.105
The
beginning
crisis
concerning eschatology
within the Pentecostal movement cannot be warded off
by “putting
the doctrine of the Millennium
quietly
to rest” but
by studying
John’s
Apocalypse and by coming
to a fresh
understanding
of how John intended his visions to function in the
spiritual
life
(which
included the socio-economic and political realms!)
of his communities. We find that he was not interested in
eschatological speculations
for their own sake. He did not intend to give
a
“blue-print”
of the future. John was a
prophet
and like the Ancient Israelite
prophets
he
only spoke
about the future in so far as it was relevant for his
contemporaries.
His vision of the future was in- tended to be one
grand
exhortation for his
people.
He wanted to inspire his flock to remain faithful to the true “God and Lord” instead of
yield- ing
to the Roman demand to
worship
the
Emperor
Domitian as “Dominus et Deus.”
They
were to resist and to be disobedient to the Roman overlord, in order to remain faithful to Christ. This
implied transgressing
the law and
being
liable to severe
punishment.
In this situation John
paints
before the mind’s
eye
of the believers the
judg-
ments of God
upon
the Roman
Empire (=
the
world) 1°6
and the bless- ings
laid
up
in store for those who remain faithful. In this world
they seem to be the losers, as
they
are
persecuted, exiled,
and
perhaps
even killed. But in reality-that is in the
escharological future-they
will turn out to be the real
victors,
for in their lives and deaths Christ’s
Reign
was already
visible. In their lives Christ’s dominion was victorious107 and hence the
martyrs
will receive thrones.
John
paints
the future in a
highly imaginative manner, employing
a great many
traditional
images
of a highly emotive character. He
depicts the future bliss of the faithful in terms of
marriage,
the
eschatological banquet,
the beatific vision, God’s
tabernacling
with
humankind,
Par- adise
regained,
the New Creation, the New Jerusalem and the Messianic Reign
which lasts one thousand
years.
The last two
appear
to be the most
comprehensive
of these
images
and seem to overlap each other.108 These
images generate hope,
and are a real force in the life of the Chris- tian as
they place
the short and vulnerable life of the believer in a larger framework. These
images effectively
link the existential
present
to that
105Sce supra section 1.
I06See Adela Yarbro Collins, “Reading the Book of Revelation in the Twentieth Century,” Interpretation
40 (1986), 229-242, esp. 241.
107The same sentiment is expressed in a Gallic document from the last quarter of the second century AD concerning
martyrs. Reproduced by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. V.1.27.
108The attempts to distinguish in Revelation 21 between the elements allegedly
to the Millennium (“Heavenly Jerusalem”) and those which belong to the New Creation (“New Jerusalem”) are misdirected. See L. Steiner and G. R. Beasley pertaining
Murray.
22
25
which is not
(yet). I’D9
Yet these
images
do not
only give hope they
also make
important statements
about the nature of Christ’s
Lordship (both
future and present).
John sees the Millennium as the
earthly-political
moment of Christ’s
Reign.110
Now Christ’s
Reign
is hidden from the
public eye.
It is
only
in the
political
acts of those who confess to Christ’s
Lordship that the
socio-political
nature of His
Reign may
become visible to the world. In short, John’s vision of the Millennium has a bearing on our political options, just
like in the
days
of John. In those
days confessing Christ as Lord was a
political
deed as well as a religious one. In our days,
it should have
political consequences,
too.
Note also that John’s vision shows a
great fidelity
to the earth. The earth is not written off as a
possible
locus for the consummation of salvation. On the
contrary,
Christ’s
Reign
is situated on this earth. Similarly
he locates the summit of
salvation, namely
God’s
dwelling with
humankind,
not in heaven but on a renewed earth
(21:1-3).
This suggests
that we too
may
show on/in a profound fidelity to the world on/in which we live.
Also the 21st
chapter
of Revelation contains
images
which
may
serve as directives for Christian conduct in other areas of our existence.
In conclusion, the
image
of the Millennium is far too
important
for our faith to be marginalized. Instead as a prime
symbol
of
hope
it may be the subject
of many of our
hymns;
as a model for
discipleship
it
may
func- tion in our
preaching
and
teaching;
and it may
figure positively
in our evangelism, attracting
not
only
those who are
hopeless
and who are marginalized,
but all those who
long
for a better life in a better world, both in the present and in the future. Maranatha!
109Cf. J. Moitmann.
Theology of Hope (London:
SCM Press,
1967), 15-36, esp.
26-32.
I 1 °ElisabetJl Schiussler Fiorenza, Priesterfiir
Gott, 331.
23
