South Woods Baptist Church

Is Recapitulation a Valid Option for Interpreting the Revelation of John?

Introduction
What Is the Issue?

When reading though The Revelation, it is not long before one encounters major interpretive decisions while attempting to understand the place of certain visions.  Underlying, though, any of these interpretive decisions is a very basic evaluation that one either consciously or unconsciously makes with regards to the framework of the book.  From the time most people first begins to read, they are taught to read from left to right and front to back of a book, never questioning whether the author meant for them to read any other way; and in doing so, one expects the book to read in a chronological order of progression, unless led to believe otherwise by specific, recognizable means of communication.  It would be odd for an author to write a chronologically disjunctive book without first imparting some sort of knowledge about how one is to interpret what he is writing.  Some may even argue that the author must not wish for anyone to understand what he is writing if he makes interpretation such a confusing task.

These observations are especially relevant when interpreting Scripture.  For example, the aforementioned question of clarity and confusion is part of the synoptic problem controversy that has raged in the past century.  Can we acknowledge an account of Jesus' life as inerrant if it differs from two other accounts that we also recognize to be inerrant?  What about John?  He does not include much of what the other Gospel writers have written; he does include much that they do not; yet we still claim that his Gospel is as inspired and inerrant as the others?  Can one arrange a book thematically and out of chronological order (i.e., Mark) and it still be just as without error as those who do order their writings in chronological order? 

These same types of questions can and should be asked of The Revelation.  If not a progression of events, then how did John structure this text?  Most who do not hold to a chronological progression hold to a recapitulation (or reiteration) theory of interpretation of The Revelation.  This theory says that John's writings are not chronologically ordered from front to back; rather they tell the same story in different ways throughout the book with regards to chronology and subject matter.  It is important, then, to gain a clear understanding of these two theories and distinguish what is in accordance with Scripture and what should be discarded.

Why Is It Important?

The means by which one interprets the Word of God is always an important topic of discussion.  This fact is especially true when one is dealing with such a literature that lends itself to being misinterpreted (i.e., prophetic and apocalyptic literature).  Subsequent to one's realization that proper interpretation is important, though, one must ask what is so crucial about whether the visions in The Revelation progress chronologically or recapitulate chronologically and thematically.  The importance of this discussion is mainly found in the results to which each option of interpretation leads, that of the millennial views.

The view of chronological progression leads straight to premillennialism.  If one tends to read The Revelation from prologue to epilogue as one reads a timeline of history, then without a doubt, premillennialism is the correct interpretation of the text.  Rev. 4-19 then will detail the judgment that will be poured out on the ungodly either throughout the history of the church or during the great tribulation, depending on how you interpret the text.  Once the "tribulation" is over, Ch. 20 describes Christ's inauguration of a thousand year earthly reign over the world, which will be ended by a revolt of Satan, along with those who follow him, and their subsequent defeat by Christ.

The view of recapitulation leads to one of two interpretations: amillennialism or postmillennialism.  If one reads the same text of The Revelation, yet while keeping in mind a hermeneutic of recapitulation, then one will possibly interpret the millennium as being not a future state, but actually the present state, which is amillennialism.  Amillennialists note that the only place in scripture that specifically speaks of a thousand year period is Rev. 20.  In their scheme of recapitulation, though, Rev. 20:1 begins a new recapitulation of history starting at the incarnation of Christ, thus recognizing the present age as the millennium. 

Recapitulation may also lead one to the view of postmillennialism.  In this view the progress of the gospel and the growth of the Church will gradually increase, so that a larger and larger proportion of the world's population will become Christians.  This influx of believers will have a great effect on society resulting in a "millennial age" of peace and righteousness on the earth.[1] 

 

Leading Alternative Positions

Before entering into the hermeneutical and exegetical discussions surrounding these matters, it is important to understand that this topic is not necessarily an issue of orthodoxy.  One's millennial position should not be an issue brought up for church discipline.  If one is attempting to better understand the literary genre and communication of The Revelation of John, even if it does not coincide with a "plain, normal" reading of the text, then it should be understood that this is not a matter of heresy.  That stated, it is important to rightly understand the issues and come to a clear understanding of the text so that one does not fall into an issue of orthodoxy, such as denying the second coming of Christ at all, or reading into the text divisions and allusions that are simply not there.  These are the issues of orthodoxy, not the hermeneutical issues with which we are about to deal. 

 

Chronological Progression

The first alternative position with which to deal is chronological progression.  When first reading The Revelation, this view of interpretation is probably the one that would be used.  It makes perfect sense.  One starts with the first chapter and read through Ch. 22, so surely John had this same numerical walk in mind, right?  This view does seem to be the simplest approach of evaluating this book on the cursory reading, and for the proponents of this position, it is the best approach even after detailed study.  There are two main indicators that lead one to interpret The Revelation in a manner of progression: literary indicators and contextual indicators.

Literary indicators.  The literary indicators are those markers that are most often unnoticed when interpreting this book because of the flowing style of John's writing.  They are most easily seen in the phrases "then," "after these things," and the simple conjunction "and."  It seems as though there is a great drive in John's writing from the first to the last verse: "I saw ..., then ..., and after these things ..., and then ..."  It is difficult to envisage how one could read this book any other way but a great thrusting progression from beginning to end given these literary indicators.

Another literary indicator is John's use of numbered sequences in describing what he saw.  Numbers are not only used to count things (i.e., the churches in Ch. 2-3), but they are also used to show a progression in the sequence of events.  A chronological sequence provides the most natural reading of John's numbering those things he saw in his visions from one to seven, such as the seals, trumpets, and bowls.  This is also observed in his naming of the last three trumpets as the woes.  This idea of "woes" does not show up in the writing before or after the section of the last three trumpets, so it seems that these three trumpets/woes were a one-time occurrence in history.  Another chronological indicator involved with these numbered sequences is the five-month period of the duration of the fifth trumpet's impact.  This judgment had a defined time period in which it was to occur, with the sixth only occurring after it was over.[2]

This sequential progression does not necessarily mean, though, that each judgment must end before the next begins.  In the sequence of the seven bowls, the effects of the first bowl (malignant sores) is apparently still present during the outpouring of the fifth bowl because men are still suffering these sores (16:11).  This leads to the conclusion that the events mentioned can be not only a broken sequence of events where each event begins and ends before the next event starts, but they can be sequentially cumulative as well.[3]

Contextual indicators.  Whereas the literary indicators revolved around the grammatical markers in the text that show the progression of events, the contextual indicators are a reflection of the subject matter found in the text.  The main contextual indicator is the intensity that seems to grow through out the series of seals, trumpets, and bowls.  The seals are not to be taken lightly, but when compared with the wrath poured out in the bowls, the seals seem to be no comparison.  This is observed in the fourth seal in 6:8 where authority was given to Death over one-fourth of the earth, "to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth."  Then in the trumpet series, the dominant number of the earth affected was one-third and can be seen in 8:7, 9, 10-11, 12, and 18.  Then in the bowl series, there is no fraction involved - everything and everyone are affected (16:3, 4, 8, 10, 17).  Thus it is easy to see the increase in severity from series to series.[4]

Closely related to the progression of intensity is the fact that each sequence of judgments is diverse from the other sequences, and even where they are similar, the content shows a lack of correspondence.  This point can be mainly seen in the similarity between the trumpet and bowl judgments.  For example, both the fourth trumpet and fourth bowl affect the sun.  In the trumpet series, though, one-third of the sun is darkened (8:12), while in the bowl series the sun is given to scorch men with fire and fierce heat (16:8-9).[5] 

Another example of contextual progression is found in the sounding of the fifth trumpet.  The judgment of this trumpet is shown to be the locusts loosed from the bottomless pit and are told to only hurt those who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.  What seal?  For this fifth trumpet judgment in 9:1-11 to have the context of the seal of God, 7:1-4 must necessarily happen first in sequence.  Similarly, the first bowl of wrath is poured out on those having the mark of the beast (16:2), but without the former context of the giving of the mark in 13:16-18, this judgment would not make much sense.  So, the best possible understanding of the context is to see the sealing in Ch. 7 as happening before Ch. 9, and the marking in Ch. 13 as occurring before Ch. 16, thus making chronological progressions a necessity.[6]

Structure.  Now that the indicators have been presented, one may speculate as to how this view takes shape with regards to its structure.  There are many structural patterns and schemes that have been offered up over the history of interpretation, the most basic of which demonstrates the seventh seal is the first trumpet, and the seventh trumpet is the first bowl, and the seventh bowl is the prelude to the coming of Christ.[7]  This structure, though, does not do the text full justice.  "And when He broke the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.  And I saw the seven angels who stand before God; and seven trumpets were given to them...And the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound them." (8:1-2, 6).  These verses seem to clearly show that if one holds to chronological progression, it is not the first trumpet that is the completion of the seventh seal, but all seven trumpets. 

This inconsistency being the case, the best possibility of a chronologically progressive structure is the scheme of "telescoping" or "dovetailing."  This view sees the seventh seal as containing the whole of the seven trumpets, and the seventh trumpet as containing the whole of the seven bowls.[8]  The support for this view can be found in the fact that when the seventh seal is broken and when the seventh trumpet is sounded, there are no judgments given.  In fact, there is no outpouring of wrath after the seventh seal until the seven angels with the trumpets prepared and sounded them.  In the same way, most chronological progressionists would argue that there is no wrath poured out on the earth after the seventh trumpet is sounded until the seven bowls are initiated in judgment.[9] 

Ladd does attempt to argue that this inclusion of a series of judgments into the seventh judgment of the preceding series is a minor form of recapitulation.  He writes, "(The seventh trumpet declaring the inception of the kingdom on the earth) requires us to recognize some measure of recapitulation, when the narrative backs up and recovers some of the same ground."[10]  This seems to be a misleading use of the term recapitulation by Ladd in that recapitulation is not just "overlapping," but a returning to a previously stated event or time to review those things already covered.[11]  Truly Ladd does hold to a strict chronological progression of the seals, trumpets, and bowls, and is the best argued version of that interpretation.  His use of the phrase "backs up and recovers some of the same ground" is at odds with the rest of his argumentation in the context of that passage.[12]

 

Chronologically Progressive Parallelism

This view seeks to combine the best parts of the progression and the recapitulation views.  Those who hold to this understanding recognize most of the same literary and contextual indicators as those in the strict progression camp.  The main difference is found in how they perceive the seals, trumpets, and bowls to be related.  While the strict progressionist will read these three series and see one sequence occurring after the other, the parallel progressionist will see the progression among the different series as being true, but noting that each judgment does not necessarily end before the next begins.[13]  This results in a dynamic structure that can be subjectively changed at the interpreter's will, arbitrarily deciding when to start and stop each judgment series. 

Another chronologically progressive parallel view takes note that the end of each series of judgments seems to bring the reader to the eschatological End.  This view is similar to the telescoping view mentioned above.  In this parallel understanding, though, each numbered series is chronologically progressive in that they occur in sequence, i.e., seals, trumpets, and bowls, but that all three series also end at the same time.[14]  This may seem identical to the telescoping view at first glance, but it does dissimilate after further study. 

No one disputes that the seventh bowl judgment is the direct prelude to the Parousia.  This can be clearly established by the inclusion of the words from the throne after the last bowl, saying, "It is done" (16:17).  But both the seals' and the trumpets' seventh judgments seem to have some of the same qualities as the seventh bowl.  After the seventh seal, there were "peals of thunder and sounds and flashes of lightning and an earthquake" (8:5).  After the seventh trumpet, there were "flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm" (11:19).  Then after the seventh bowl, there were "flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake, such as there had not been since man came to be upon the earth...and huge hailstones" (16:18-21).  The strict progressionist reads these events as being quite similar, but still one notices the progression in intensity that is obvious from the seals to the bowls.  The seventh trumpet shows to be more severe than the seals in that hailstones are added to the judgment, while the seventh bowl is much more severe even still in that not only are there hailstones the weight of a talent (100 lbs. each), but there is an earthquake the like which there never before was since man was on the earth.  The parallel progressionist understands this argument, but provide an alternative explanation by using an illustration in describing their view.  Imagine John as an art gallery guide showing a group of students a large mural.  They first look from a distance so that they can take in the whole of the work, and only then does he bring them in closer to view the detailed hand of the artist.[15]  In the same way, John shows the broad outline for the last judgment in the seventh seal, and then intensifies the detail in the trumpet, and then ultimately in the seventh bowl.[16]

Another argument for parallel progression is that interludes (or intercalations) are placed between the sixth and seventh seal and trumpet, but not the sixth and seventh bowl judgment.  The parallel progressionist would explain this fact by pointing to the argument stated above, that the last judgment in each series finds completion at the same time.  This distinctive way of setting off the seventh seal and trumpet from the rest of their series is explained by the proposal that John set them apart because they did not follow their sequential order in their own series, but were parallel to one another.[17]  In the case of the bowls, though, there is not separation of the sixth and seventh judgment, because they do occur in sequential order.

One more piece of evidence supporting this view is that the seventh trumpet actually announces the coming of Christ and portrays its effect, rather than introducing the bowl judgments.  When the seventh trumpet is sounded, a loud voice in heaven was heard, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever" (11:15b).  The word egeneto, translated "has become" in the NASB, is an aorist verb, which when used with such a stating verb, frequently emphasizes the entrance into the state.[18]  "The impression given is that the seventh trumpet introduces the Parousia and the consummated kingdom, rather than merely the time when they are about to be actualized."[19]

This understanding of the seventh trumpet is at odds with Ladd's interpretation, which, as stated above, is the seventh trumpet has no content of its own, but instead envelopes the whole of the seven bowls.[20]  It appears, though, that the seventh trumpet (also, the third woe) does have content of its own when the twenty-four elders fall down on their faces and say, "Thy wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged ...and to destroy those who destroy the earth" (11:18).[21]  This does seem to be content-ful enough to fulfill the third woe.

 

Conclusion

In summing up the arguments for chronological progression, and its divergent form of chronologically progressive parallelism, it should firstly be remembered that there are good arguments for both of these views.  Many great theologians follow these lines of argument, and may be right in their interpretations of them.  The methods of reasoning behind the literary and contextual indicators do seem to point to chronological progression and are very convincing.  There are, though, other indices that seem to attest otherwise.  These indicators and lines of argument, some of which are similar to those argued above, are best seen in light of the view of recapitulation.

 

The Recapitulation View

When compared with the progression views, recapitulation appears to have a great burden of proof to overcome when arguing for the position.  For centuries, though, theologians have continued to fight against the idea that The Revelation is a chronological history from Ch. 4ff, and have championed the view of recapitulation.  The two best means of interpreting their arguments are to quickly view the similarities in the consummations of the judgment series (seals, trumpets, and bowls), and to see the relationship between 19:11-21 and 20:1-10.

Similar Consummations of Series

Most who hold to recapitulation find similarities in the series of judgments to be an example of recapitulation to some degree.  The fact that every seventh judgment in each series brings the reader to the seemingly same consummation is very telling of the purpose of John's use of series.[22]  Those holding to a progressive parallelism notice this fact and it is the main reason why they move away from strict progression to at least some form of parallelism, as noted above.[23]  The strict progressionist who sees the judgments as having substance in themselves, would disagree that the seventh seal and trumpet describe the consummation because of the progression in intensity from the seventh seal to the seventh bowl, but as argued above, progression of intensity does not necessitate chronological progression, nor does it exclude the possibility for recapitulation.[24]

 

Relationship Between 19:11-21 and 20:1-10

Recapitulation can also be seen in the relationship between 19:11-21 and 20:1-10.  Those who hold to the chronological progression view see the coming of Christ in 19:11 and the doom of the beasts in 19:20 as occurring before the binding of Satan and the reign of Christ in Ch. 20.  The recapitulationist finds errors, though, in the progression view, and seeks to point them out by highlighting the discrepancy between 19:11-21 and 20:1-10 and the recapitulation of 19:11-21 in 20:7-10.

Discrepancy between 19:11-21 and 20:1-10.  The first line of argument for the recapitulationist in understanding the relationship between 19:11-21 and 20:1-10 is that there is a discrepancy between the depicted events.  Specifically, the discrepancy is found between 19:11-21 and 20:1-3 when they are read as a chronological history of what will take place.  The inconsistence of these passages is brought out when one bears in mind that the latter passage speaks of actions taken to keep Satan from deceiving the nations who had already been destroyed in the former passage because of their deception by Satan (16:13-16).[25]  It makes no sense to speak of protecting the nations from deception by Satan in Ch. 20 if they have already been 1) deceived by Satan in Ch. 16, and 2) destroyed by Christ at His return in Ch.19.

Few progressionists note this discrepancy.[26]  The ones who do deal with it solve the problem by conjecturing that the nations in 20:3 are survivors of the battle in 19:19-21.[27]  The fact is, though, that "the rest (i.e., the followers of the beasts) were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat upon the horse" (19:21).  There were no survivors.  The vision John saw was of the completeness and totality of their destruction by Christ.  "If any are to survive the day of Christ's coming, they will be able to do so precisely and only because they have been redeemed from among the nations and placed within the Divine Warrior's kingdom-protectorate (5:9-10)".[28]  So, it is illogical given the events in the text to interpret these passages as being chronologically successive.

Recapitulation of 19:11-21 in 20:7-10.  A second line of argument for the recapitulation view in understanding the relationship between 19:11-21 and 20:1-10 is that there appears to be a recapitulation of 19:11-21 in 20:7-10.[29]  The premillennialist may point to the kai otan ("and then") clause that begins 20:7 and say that this proves that the events found after this are historically preceded by the events prior to vs. 7.  This phrase, though, does not speak definitively to whether or not the temporal relationship is with all of the events prior to 20:7, or to just a certain number of them.  Content and context can be the only indicators of this temporal association.

To gain a better insight as to the relationship of these passages, there are a few considerations to ponder, the first of which is the use of Ezek. 38-39 in Rev. 19:17-20 and 20:7-10.[30]  In 19:17-20, John writes of the great supper of flesh for the birds of midheaven that will occur when Christ returns, and the beast along with the kings of the earth and their armies assemble to make war.  The angel who announces this feast is making reference of Ezek. 39:17-20, which describes the resulting end of men after the war against Gog and Magog.  This would seem to perfectly sync if not for John referring to the war of Gog and Magog as occurring in Rev. 20:7-10.  John also says that the weapon used by God to destroy the opponents in this war is fire from heaven, which is the same as is used in Ezek. 38:22 and 39:6 to consume the enemies of God.  As a result of these direct correlations, John describes both the war in 19:17ff. and 20:7ff. by referencing the same war in Ezek. 38-39.[31] 

If John would have wanted us to understand either 19:17-21 or 20:7-10 when referencing Ezekiel, would he not have used different references?  Surely he would not have used the same war in Ezek. 38-39 to describe both wars in Rev. 19 and 20 unless he expected and desired the reader to understand them as being one in the same event.[32]  This detail gives added proof of the recapitulation of 19:17-21 in 20:7-10.

Another consideration of the recapitulation view is seen in John's presenting "the war" in both 16:14, 19:19, and in 20:8.  The use of the definite article with the noun polemon ("battle, war") in all three verses should be noted.  This point may seem insignificant, unless one also notices that the other word occurrences of polemon in The Revelation are anarthrous, and when compared with the occurrences with the article, the anarthrous uses speak of general warfare, but the articular uses refer to a specific episode of war.[33]  It should also be noted that John uses almost the exact same wording when referring to the war in 16:14 as he does in 20:8 ("sunagagein autous eis ton polemon"), and nearly the same wording in 19:19 ("sunegmena poiesai ton polemon").  If one understands 19:19ff. as the war announced in 16:14-16, as do most commentators on both sides of the issue, then it does appear that the war of Armageddon and the war of Gog and Magog are one in the same war.[34]

Another factor pointing to recapitulation in 20:7-10 of 19:11-21 is the end of God's wrath in 15:1.[35]  This verse makes reference to the ending of God's wrath with the consummation of the seven bowls of wrath about to be poured out onto the earth.  "And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angles who had seven plagues, which are the last, because in them the wrath of God is finished" (15:1).  If, as according to both the progression and recapitulation views, the war of Armageddon was the result of the last bowl of wrath, then it is the completion of God's wrath according to 15:1.  But if one understands the war of Gog and Magog to be after the millennial reign of Christ, as do the progressionists, and God again pours out His wrath on them, then there seems to be a break in logic.[36]  God's wrath cannot have ceased and yet still continue.  The only way, then, to understand the two visions of war depicted in Ch. 19 and in Ch. 20 is to see the war of 20:7-10 as being in the stated time frame for the ending of God's wrath, i.e., by the time of 19:21.

Still another argument for recapitulation can be found in the accounts of cosmic destruction that resound throughout the entirety of The Revelation (6:12-17; 16:17-21; 19:11-21; and 20:9-11).[37]  In these accounts of cosmic destruction, there is a distinct pattern that reoccurs all throughout the book when Christ comes to judge.  John tells us of the dissolution of the earth (6:14; 16:20; 20:11), the arrival of the great day of wrath (6:17; 16:14; 19:15; 20:9), and the appearance of Christ (6:16, 19:11-16; 20:9,11).[38]  This thematic similarity appears to be another indication that John is looking at the same events by way of multiple visions.

Conclusion

These arguments by no means comprise the extent of views of recapitulation, because that would take the space of a book.  These were, though, choice arguments for certain aspects of recapitulation, selected for their concise reasoning and clear insights to the view.  It is also true that if recapitulation can be shown in one area of The Revelation, that one case can be the basis for a fuller understanding of John's message.  The strengths of these arguments are best shown when tested against objections to them.

Objections to Recapitulation

It would be foolish to deny that the above arguments made the case open and shut.  There are in fact good arguments against some of the above points that should be observed before a conclusion is made whether progression, recapitulation, or some combination of the two is the better means of interpreting The Revelation.  The first disagreement that a strict progressionist would have with the arguments above is that the judgment series do not end with the same event in view; rather they are different, chronologically separated events.  They would point to the growing intensity from seals to trumpets to bowls, and understand the difference between the judgments as being the clue to their disharmony.  In answer to this, as argued above, progression in intensity does not necessitate progression chronologically, nor does it disprove recapitulation.[39]  The recapitulationist would see the mounting intensity of these judgments as revealing new information about the same final judgments.[40]

Another progressionist objection to the previously stated recapitulation views is that 20:1-10 could not be a recapitulation of 19:11-21 because there is a literary indicator that shows 20:1 as being chronologically preceded by the events in 19:11-21.  This indicator is the presence of kai eidon ("and I saw") at the beginning of 20:1.  Harold Hoehner argues that this phrase must indicate historical sequence in 19:11-20:3 because it introduces "a rapid succession not only of visions but also of the unfolding developments in history" in 19:11, 17, and 19.[41]  It is true that kai eidon introduces historically sequential events in 19:11, 17, and 19, but it is not the presence of this phrase that makes these sections sequential; rather it is the content of their message the shows them to be related chronologically.[42]    The converse is also true in 20:1, in that although kai eidon is present, the context shows that this verse is not related chronologically to the previous section.[43]

The next objection of the progressionist to recapitulation is that ta ethne ("the nations") do not by definition have to be a reference to the same group of people.  The nations destroyed in 19:19-21 consist of only the wicked of the nations, thus the nations that are mentioned in 20:3 are the saints of the nations.[44]  It is true that every person of the nations will not be destroyed in the events of 19:19-21 and that the saints will be saved.  The question is, though, whether or not ta ethne is a reference to the saints of the nations in 20:3.  In only four of its twenty-one occurrences in The Revelation (15:4; 21:24, 26; 22:2) ta ethne clearly refer to the saints.  These references, though, are only ascertained by the context, which shows the actions of the nations to be those of the saints.  In the other sixteen occurrences in addition to 20:3 (2:26, 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:2, 9, 18; 12:5, 13:7; 14:6, 8; 16:19; 17:15; 18:3, 23; 19:15), ta ethne is clearly distinguished from oi agioi ("the saints"), showing oi agioi to be redeemed from ta ethne.[45]  

With regards to the recapitulationist argument that Ezek. 38-39 is related to both Rev 19:17-20 and 20:7-10, the progressionist would point out some differences in interpretation.  Some have argued that the war of Gog and Magog in the Ezekiel passage correspond well with Rev 19, while the Gog and Magog in Rev 20 are not the same as those cities in Ezekiel.[46]  To prove this point, the progressionist would argue that Gog and Magog in Rev 20 indicate the nations of the earth and not to Ezekiel's "enemy from the north" or "prince and land" (Gog and Magog, respectively).  In the recapitulationist view, though, Gog and Magog are represented as the nations at the war in 19:15.[47]

The progressionist may also argue that Rev. 20 refers to a different Gog and Magog because in Ezek. 39:4, 17, Gog and Magog are killed "on the mountains of Israel," while in Rev. 20:9 "fire came down from heaven and devoured them."[48]  This is a true observation.  What is not exposed by the progressionist, though, is that Ezek. 38:22 and 39:6 fire is sent down from heaven as judgment against Gog and Magog, while in 38:21 and 39:17-21 they are killed with the sword on the mountains of Israel.[49]  With this in mind, then, it is easy to see how John could have used Ezek. 38-39 to inform both accounts of war in Rev. 19 and 20.

The progressionist may also disagree with the above argument concerning the "the war" and the use of the term in 16:14,19:19, and 20:8.[50]  Hoehner contends that the articular noun does not always "mean the same thing in different settings."[51]  This statement is presuppositionaly biased towards the progressionist view because it assumes that the passages discussed do not share the same setting.  It should also be noted that polemon in itself does not make the case for context being the same; rather it is the context that makes the case for polemon being the same event.[52]

Taking into consideration the argument for recapitulation that asks how could God's wrath again be poured out after it is explicitly said to be finished, the progressionist would exclaim that the context of wrath in 15:1 is not meant to make a blanket statement for the remainder of history.  Instead, the bowl plagues, which resume the wrath stated in 15:1, are the completion "of his wrath in the particular context of the plagues which anticipate the final judgment."[53]  This is a solid objection if one holds to the view of chronological progression.  From this view, you would be able to put contextual parentheses around the bowl judgments and have a sound case for your view.  But the same can be said of the recapitulationist who says 20:9 is a recapitulation of the wrath poured out in 19:20-21.  So ultimately, this argument can neither prove nor disprove the case, only add further support to the other arguments.

A final issue that may be raised by a progressionist against the arguments for recapitulation concerns the references to cosmic judgment that resound throughout The Revelation.  Though it is true that the accounts of destruction in 16:17-21, 19:11-21 and 20:9-11 are quite similar and almost exact, that similarity of accounts does not prove their identity.  It is also true, though, that there must be dissimilarities to refute their similarity.[54]  Since the only proof that could be produced for either case would be based on the presumed progressionist or recapitulationist background, this is another case that is neutral for arguments sake, only adding confirmation when the arguments are concluded.

Conclusion

The above arguments are not meant to be the conclusive knockout blow to the progression nor the recapitulation views, and doubtless they would not be able to succeed if they were.  This is a bout that has been fought for centuries, and surely will go on for many more.  Recapitulation, though it is not decisively the winner, does prove to be a valid option for interpreting The Revelation of John.  As mentioned in the introduction, these issues are not a test of orthodoxy, so they should not be the center of our preaching and teaching by and large.  Since, though, the question does arise, in Scripture primarily, and also in our congregations, it is important to have a well thought Biblical answer to those queries.  It is the hope of the present author to have well represented the different lines of reason, and then have offered fair and helpful commentary and argumentation for and against the views.  May God be blessed through the striving for truth.

 

APPENDIX

POSSIBLE STRUCTURES OF
THE REVELATION OF JOHN

 

Simple Progression View[55]

          

Telescoping Progression View[56]

 

 

 

 

 

Chronologically Progressive Parallel View[57]