I have three items for my write-up today on G.K. Beale's The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text.
1.
In my last two posts about this book, I have referred to Beale's view
that there is an already-but-not-yet dimension to the Kingdom of God in
the Book of Revelation----that, in a sense, the end-times were
inaugurated at Jesus' first coming. That could rebut the notion that
the author of Revelation expected the imminent end of the world in his
day, which did not materialize. In my latest reading, Beale actually
supports his claim about realized eschatology in the Book of
Revelation. He does so in a variety of places, but I'll use as my
starting-point what he says on page 182, in which he is discussing Revelation 1:
"Indeed,
what follows shows that the beginning of fulfillment and not final
fulfillment is the focus. The reference to the imminent eschatological
period (v 3b), the fact of Christ's present kingship over the world's
kings (v 5), the initial form of the saints' kingdom (vv 6, 9), and the
following 'Son of Man' reference (1:7) and vision (vv 13, 15), also
indicating initial fulfillment of Daniel 7, point strongly to this focus
and to the presence of a Danielic frame of reference...Similarly, the
allusion to 'seven lampstands,' from Zechariah 4, in vv 12, 20 and the
reference to Isa. 49:2 and 11:4 (the sword in the Messiah's mouth) in v
16 also indicate that the OT prophecies in those texts have begun to be
fulfilled. In fact, only one verse in all of Revelation 1 clearly
includes reference to Christ's last advent. And even that verse, 1:7,
refers to the progressive nature of the fulfillment of Dan. 7:13
throughout the age, which will be culminated by Christ's final
coming..."
Elsewhere in his commentary, Beale elaborates or provides other details to substantiate this thesis. On
page 198, Beale affirms that "Christ's 'coming' in 1:7 and elsewhere in
the Apocalypse is understood better as a process occurring throughout
history", and that "the so-called 'second coming' is actually a final
coming concluding the whole process of comings." To support
this claim, Beale says that in Daniel 7:13 the Son of Man's coming
relates to "his reception of authority to exercise end-time kingship
over the world", and that pertains to more than the future Second Coming
of Christ. Beale also argues (if I'm understanding him correctly) that
there is a sense in Revelation in which the saints rule right now,
amidst their suffering, but I am not clear as to what Beale means by
this. In addition, on page 72, Beale says that, in the Book of
Revelation, certain prophecies in the Hebrew Bible are presented as
already being fulfilled, such as a new temple, which Beale equates with
"the lampstands in 1:12-13, 20, [and] the exalted saints in the heavenly
temple in 6:9-11..."
Does Beale have a point? Perhaps,
but I wonder: Maybe the Book of Revelation depicts the end as already
beginning because its author had a sense that the final end truly was
near, and that's why he was stressing that things have already begun to
be fulfilled. I'm not convinced that the author of Revelation believed
that the end was beginning in his day, and that end would last for
thousands of years before the Second Coming of Christ.
2.
Revelation 1:10 says that John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.
Beale interprets this to mean that John was "in an attitude of worship
on 'Sunday' (cf. Barnabas 15:9)" (page 203). Beale disagrees
with Samuele Bacchiocchi's argument that the Lord's day is the
eschatological Day of the Lord for three reasons. First, a Greek word
in Revelation 1:10, kuriakos (or actually kuriake,
which modifies "day"), "is never used of the 'Day of the Lord' in the
LXX, NT, or early fathers." Second, the phrase is regarded as Sunday
"from the second half of the second century on..." And third, "John
understands the OT idea of the Day of the Lord as pertaining to the
restricted period of the final judgment, exclusive of the preparatory
judgments leading up to it (cf. Rev, 6:17; 16:14)."
Regarding the
third reason, I wonder if that conflicts with Beale's dismissal of
seeing the Book of Revelation as an account of how the future will
literally and chronologically unfold, as Beale instead applies
Revelation to the time between Christ's first and second comings.
I'm
not sure how to evaluate Beale's arguments, here. How can one identify
what the Lord's day is, when it only appears in the New Testament in
Revelation 1:10? Moreover, as Seventh-Day Adventists note, Jesus in
Mark 2:28 says that the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. And God in
Isaiah 58:13 says that the Sabbath is his holy day. Wouldn't these
things be relevant in attempting to decipher what the Lord's Day is?
Regarding
the church fathers, I don't want to dismiss them. But does the fact
that they considered the Lord's Day to be Sunday mean that it was?
3.
Revelation 2:13 says that the church at Pergamum lives where the throne
of Satan is. What's this mean? On page 246, Beale offers his
interpretation:
"'The throne of Satan' in Pergamum is a way of
referring to that city as a center of Roman government and pagan
religion in the Asia Minor region. It was the first city in Asia Minor
to build a temple to a Roman ruler (Augustus) and the capital of the
whole area for the cult of the emperor. The city proudly referred to
itself as the 'temple warden'...of a temple dedicated to Caesar
worship."
Beale argues that Jesus in the letters to the seven
churches wanted for Christians to be lights in such an environment, to
testify that Jesus and not Caesar was Lord. According to Beale, this
Jesus did not buy what may have been a rationalization among Christians
who participated in pagan rites, that "it was only an empty gesture that
fulfilled patriotic or social obligations and was legitimate as long as
Christians did not really believe in the deities being worshiped" (page
249).