Eamon Younis: An Analysis of the Seventh Bowl of the Apocalypse

By Robert L. Thomas

Professor of New Testament

The extent and structure of the seventh bowl of Revelation have not been completely clear. The angelic agent who shows the new Jerusalem and the structural pattern of the two major intercalations regarding Babylon and the new Jerusalem indicate that the bowl extends from 16:17 all the way through 22:5. A number of miscellaneous indications—including two dramatic announcements of the end, the battle of Armageddon, the final judgment of Satan, and the finality of the last of the last plagues—confirm this extended nature of the bowl. Potential objections to that conclusion have satisfactory answers. The core happenings of the bowl have their descriptions in eight scenes in 19:11–21:8, with the two major intercalations before and after them. This definition of the seventh bowl allows for it to have a nature similar to the seventh seal and seventh trumpet, provides for a proper literary structure of the book as a whole, and confirms the premillennial return of Christ.

* * * * *

Throughout most of the visional portion of Revelation (4:1–22:5), the prevailing anticipation looks toward the establishment of a kingdom on earth over which God Himself will rule.[1] John reaches the climax of his expectation in a series of bowl judgments that issue from the last of seven trumpet Judgments which, in turn, result from the seventh of seven seal judgments.[2] The spotlight of the present study is on the last of the seven bowl judgments with the goal of discovering the extent of the account describing that bowl, examining the structure of that special part, and deriving implications based on what is discovered.

The Extent of the Seventh Bowl

The earliest word about the seventh bowl is in Rev 16:17–21. The pouring of that bowl in the air leads to a loud voice out of the temple from the throne, proclaiming, “It is done,” or better, “It has been and remains done” (Γεγονεν [gegonen]). The action with its announcement indicates that the climax has come to be and remains so now and forever.[3] The storm theophany, including the greatest earthquake yet, follows the utterance of that voice (cf. 6:12; 8:5; 11:13, 19)[4] The great city, probably Jerusalem,[5] undergoes a division into three parts, and the cities of the Gentiles fall. But an announcement that God has appointed Babylon to incur His intense wrath is the worst news of all for the earth. The flight of the islands and the disappearance of the mountains along with a pelting by unbelievably large hailstones conclude the initial announcement. The result is human blasphemy against God because of the plague of hailstones.

Most exegetes feel that the seventh-bowl description does not terminate at the end of chap. 16, but continues into chaps. 17–18 with a detailing of Babylon’s downfall.[6] Just how far it continues beyond that is, however, a point of obscurity. A definitive analysis of this issue from any perspective is hard to come by, so the present investigation, rather than evaluating several proposals to reach a decision, will advance what is hopefully an exegetically cogent theory with its supporting argumentation.

The thesis to be defended is that the text all the way from 16:17 through 22:5 constitutes a description of the seventh bowl judgment. The following rationale supports this thesis.

The Angelic Agent for Showing the New Jerusalem

The angel delegated to reveal special features of the descending holy city in 21:9–10 is one of the angels of the seven last plagues, another name for the seven bowls.[7] The same identity holds for the angelic revealer in 17:1 where some would like to see him as the seventh of the seven bowl-angels because of the relevance of his revelation to Babylon, the main object of the seventh bowl.[8] The wording does not provide sufficient information to tell which of the seven it was in 17:1 or in 21:9, however. Nor does t identify the two with each other. The information can only tie these two revealers to the seven last plagues in a general way.

As noted above, the vast majority have endorsed that tie-in for the angel of 17:1 because of the immediate context.[9] Those willing to attach the account of the new Jerusalem in 21:9–22:5 as part of the seventh bowl have been more scarce, however, probably because of the contextual distance between 16:17 and 21:9.[10] Nevertheless, one of the angels commissioned to dispense the seven last plagues also had the charge of portraying divine love and fellowship in the heavenly city upon the new earth.[11]

This forges a strong link in the chain connecting the end with the beginning in the larger context of 16:17–22:5.

The Structural Pattern of the Two Major Intercalations

Few if any have overlooked the major antithesis between two women in the closing chapters of the Apocalypse.[12] The harlot Babylon receives detailed treatment in 17:1–18:24, and the bride of the Lamb in 21:9–22:5. Another element, a structural one, also marks the two major sections as parallel to one another, however. The wording of the introductory and concluding formulas for the two intercalations are to a remarkable degree either identical or nearly identical. These striking correspondences have been largely unnoticed or inoperative in analyses of the last chapters of the book.[13]

The introductory formulas to the sections contain twenty identical words in the same order and then five identical words in the same order followed by an analogous antithetical development: πόρνη (pornē, “harlot”)—γυνή (gunē, “woman”) / πόλις (polis, “city”); νύμφη (numphē, “bride”)—γυνή (gunē, “wife”) / πόλις (polis, “city”).[14] The extreme similarity of the introductions is evident in the following alignments of texts:

Rev 17:1	Καὶ ἦλθεν εἶς ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων τῶν ἐχόντων τὰς
Rev 21:9	Καὶ ἦλθεν εἶς ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ ἀγγέλων τῶν ἐχόντων τὰς
	(Kai ēlthen heis ek tōn ēepta angelōn tōn echontōn tas
	(Kai ēlthen heis ek tōn ēepta angelōn tōn echontōn tas
	(And one of the seven angels who had the
	(And one of the seven angels who had the
	ἑπτὰ φιάλας, καὶ ἐλάλησεν μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ λέγων, Δεῦρο, δείξω σοι
	ἑπτὰ φιάλας,…καὶ ἐλάλησεν μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ λέγων, Δεῦρο, δείξω σοι
	hepta phialas, kai elalēsen met' emou legōn, Deuro, deixō soi
	hepta phialas,…kai elalēsen met' emou legōn, Deuro, deixō soi
	seven bowls came, and spoke with me, saying, “Come, I will show you
	seven bowls came, and spoke with me, saying, “Come, I will show you
	τὸ κρίμα τῆς πόρνης τῆς μεγάλης τῆς καθημένης ἐπὶ ὑδάτων πολλῶν
	τὴν νύμφην τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ ἀρνίου
	to krima tēs pornēs tēs megalēs tēs kathēmenēs epi hudatōn pollōn
	tēn numphēn tēn gunaika tou arniou
	the judgment of the great harlot who sits beside many waters”
	the bride, the wife of the Lamb
…Rev 17:3	καὶ ἀπήνεγκέν με εἰς ἔρημον ἐν πνεύματι
Rev 21:10	καὶ ἀπήνεγκέν με ἐν πνεύματι ἐπὶ ὄρος μέγα καὶ ὑψηλόν
	kai apēnegken me eis erēmon en pneumati
	kai apēnegken me en pneumati epi oros mega kai hupsēlon
	and he carried me away into the wilderness in the spirit)
	and he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain)

As apparent, the first twenty words of 17:1 are the same as the first twenty of 21:9. Five words agree in form and order between 17:3 and 21:10, with the prepositional phrase εἰς ἔ̓́ρημον (eis eremon, “into the wilderness”) preceding ἐν πνεύματι (en pneumati, “in the spirit”) in 17:3 and ἐπὶ ὄρος (epi oros, “upon a mountain”) following the same phrase in 21:10.

Certain parts of the concluding formulas exhibit a similarity almost as striking. Both have beatitudes, though the substance of the two is different (19:9a; 22:7b). The following layout reflects verbal concurrences of the Greek text:

Rev 19:9	…καὶ λέγει μοι, Οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι ἀληθινοὶ
Rev 22:6a	Καὶ εἶπέν μοι, Οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί
	(kai legei moi, houtoi hoi logoi alethinoi tou theou eisin
	(Kai eipen moi, houtoi hoi logoi pistoi kai alēthinoi
	(and he says to me, “These words are the true [ones] of God.”
	(and he said to me, “These words are faithful and true.”
Rev 19:10	καὶ ἔπεσα ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ προσκυνῆσαι
Rev 22:8	…ἔπεσα προσκυνῆσαι ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν τοῦ ἀγγέλου τοῦ δεικνύοντός μοι ταῦτα
	kai epesa emprosthen tōn podōn autou proskunēsai
	…epesa proskunēsai emprosthen tōn podōn tou angelou tou deiknuontos moi tauta
	and I fell before his feet to worship
	…I fell to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things
	καὶ λέγει μοι, Ὅρα μὴ: σύνδουλός σού εἰμι καὶ τῶν
Rev 22:9	καὶ λέγει μοι, Ὅρα μὴ: σύνδουλός σού εἰμι καὶ τῶν
	kai legei moi, hora mē; sundoulos sou eimi kai tōn
	kai legei moi, hora mē; sundoulos sou eimi kai tōn
	and he says to me, “See that you do not [do this]; I am the fellow-slave of you and
	and he says to me, “See that you do not [do this]; I am the fellow-slave of you and
	ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν ᾿Ιησοῦ
	ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν τηρούντων τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτοῦ
	adelphōn sou tōn echontōn tēn marturian Iēsou
	adelphōn sou tōn prophētōn kai tōn tērountōn tous logous tou bibliou toutou
	your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus;
	your brethren the prophets and of those who keep the words of book;
	τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον.
	τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον.
	tō theō proskunēson.
	tō theō proskunēson.
	worship God.”
	worship God.”
	ἡ γὰρ μαρτυρία ᾿Ιησοῦ᾿ ἐστιν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας.
Rev 22:6	καὶ ὁ κύριος, ὁ θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων τῶν προφητῶν
	hē gar marturia Iēsou estin to pneuma tēs prophēteias.)
	for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.)
	and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets.)

The first five words of 19:9b and 22:6a agree exactly with the subsequent concurrence of ἀληθινοί (alēthinoi, “true”). Five words of 19:10a are the same as five words of 22:8b, with a variation of word order. The first thirteen words of 19:10b and 22:9a are identical. Three words of 19:10c and 22:9b coincide exactly, and “the spirit of prophecy” in 19:10d is conceptually similar to “the spirits of the prophets” in 22:6b. The summation of 22:6ff appropriately concludes 21:1–8 and its elaboration in 21:9–22:5, just as 19:9b–10 summarizes and concludes 17:1–19:8.[15]

The resemblances are too close and too many to be accidental. Of course, the tactic of attributing the similarity to a later editor who copied one or the other from its companion passage[16] is a way to explain the correspondences, but endorsing the whole book to be the work of John as historically received has much greater plausibility than differing theories that partition the book into segments assigned to different scribes or editors. Those who respect the integrity of the Apocalypse must recognize the introductory and concluding formulas as intended to mark off the antithetical sections that elaborate on the background and destiny of the two women, both of whom relate to the seventh last plague.

In the closing formula of 22:6–9 two main obstacles seem to impede this otherwise clear-cut structural arrangement, however. The first consists of elements in the formula that make it a conclusion to the whole book rather than to just the vision of the heavenly city. To list a few, these include the expression δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει (deiksai tois doulois autou ha dei genesthai en tachei, “to show His slaves things that must happen soon”) which refers back to the first verse of the book;[17] the statement ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ταχύ (idou erchomai tachu, “behold, I will come soon”) that fits the tone of imminence in the book’s earlier chapters (cf 1:3; 2:5, 16; 3:11) and in the rest of the epilogue (cf. 22:10, 12, 20);[18] and the expression “the words of the prophecy of this book,” a clear reference to the whole Apocalypse (cf. 22:9, 10, 18, 19). If this formula parallels 19:9–10 as the conclusion to one of the two “woman-visions,” why do these features project beyond the boundaries of the vision of the Lamb’s bride in 21:9–22:5?

The apparent answer is that the author intends the words to accomplish both functions, i.e., to conclude the vision of the bride and to initiate the conclusion of the whole book too. He amplified this final formula so that it could perform a dual function.[19] The resemblances to 19:9–10 on the one hand and to the rest of the book on the other, reflect this double intention.

The other obstacle to the absolute symmetry of the proposed structural arrangement is an apparent change in speakers in the closing formula of 22:6–9. The phenomenon of frequent unannounced changes in spokesmen in 22:6–21 is well known.[20] Agreement on who speaks at the beginning of 22:6 is not unanimous. Proposals have encompassed the Angelus Interpres who has been the general agent of revelation (cf. 1:1; 21.5)[21] and even Christ Himself because of the first-person promise of His coming in 22:7a,[22] but the most probable identification is the angel who began speaking in 21:9–10.[23] In other words, it is still one of the angels who had the seven bowls.

The complication comes with the statement of 22:7a, “Behold, I will come soon”—clearly a statement of Jesus that is introduced simply by καί (kai, “and”). The first impression is that the speaker from v. 6 is continuing his conversation, but this poses the necessity that Jesus be the subject of εἶπέν (eipen, “he said”) at the beginning of v. 6—an impossibility.

A possible solution to this dilemma is a phenomenon observable elsewhere in the Apocalpyse, the “escalation” of an angelic spokesman to the role of a divine mouthpiece.[24] A good example of this comes when the angelic spokesman of 11:1–2 (cf. 10:9) continues in 11:3 after a simple introductory καί (kai, “and”) by using δώσω (dōsō, “I will give”) and a first-person pronoun μου (mou, “My”) as though God were the speaker.[25] Another possibility is to see this as an occasion when a prophet injected an utterance of God into his prophecy without the customary “thus saith the LORD” (e.g., Isa 16:10 [end]; 61:8; cf. Rev 1:8).[26]

Whichever is correct, the fact remains that one of the “seven last plague” angels is the primary spokesman, leaving the formula intact as a conclusion to the “bride” vision in 21:9–22:5. This resolution of matters leaves at least one other unanswered structural question: does the formula 22:6–9 combine with 21:9–22:5 as part of the intercalation (on the order of 19:9–10), or does it combine with 22:6–21 as part of the epilogue to the book? The answer to this does not significantly affect the goal of the present study, but the ties to the epilogue appear stronger. The formula is actually a bridge between the two, so that grouping it with either part is feasible.

Miscellaneous Indications that 16:17-22:5 Is a Unit

At least four other aspects solidify the conclusion that the seventh bowl encompasses all of the prophecy from 16:17 through 22:5: the two perfect tenses of γίνομαι (ginomai, “I become”), the battle of Armageddon with its final judgment of the beast, the final judgment of Satan, and the finality of the last of the last plagues.

The two perfect tenses of γίνομαι (ginomai, “I become”). Two proclamations from God Himself,[27] γέγονεν (gegonen, “it is done”) in 16:17 and γέγοναν (gegonan, “they are done”) in 21:6, sound the note of finality in conjunction with this bowl. The former term refers to the whole series of plagues, of which the seventh bowl is a part.[28] With the pouring out of the seventh bowl, the series has come to an end. This has been taken to refer to the final act of God before the second coming of Christ,[29] but that does not satisfy the ultimacy of the pronouncement. No such limitation is appropriate, because these are the last plagues. When they are done, all is complete. Yet the declaration must be proleptic to account for the sequence that when the announcement comes, the seventh bowl has yet to run its course.[30]

Similarly, γέγοναν (gegonan, “they are done”)]31] (21:6) signals finality, but at a later stage, at the conclusion of the summarizing introduction of the new creation. Whether the subject of the plural verb be taken as οὖτοι οἱ λόγοι (houtoi hoi logoi, “these words”) (21:5),[32] or πάντα (panta, “all things”) (21:5),[33] the coverage of its action reaches back to the proleptic γέγονεν (gegonen, “it is done”) of 16:17. In either case the announcement is about the final days of the old creation and the bringing in of the new creation. The words just spoken have been fulfilled, and the state of completion now obtains. Since 21:9–22:5 is an expanded description of the new Jerusalem foreseen in 21:2,[34] the gegonan extends its coverage to that section too. So the gegonen of 16:17 anticipates the gegonan of 21:6, which in turn looks back to the gegonen of 16:17.[35] Between the two is the action of the seventh bowl judgment.

The battle of Armageddon. A consideration of the battle of Armageddon is of further help in fixing the extent of the seventh bowl (16:16). Recognition of the sixth bowl judgment as preparatory for this climactic confrontation is the regular interpretation.[36] The drying up of the Euphrates River and the mission of the three unclean spirits (16:12–15) pave the way for the battle of the great day of God Almighty.

The former action facilitates passage to the battle scene for the kings from the east, and the latter involves the kings of the whole earth in conflict.

Yet preparation for battle is as far as the sixth bowl goes. It does not include the battle itself. It is a function of the seventh bowl to furnish a prophecy of the engagement itself. Stated in another way, the seventh bowl cannot terminate until after the description of the actual battle. A fixing of this point in the text is another means for determining how far the seventh bowl extends.

Dominant exegetical opinion correctly looks to the context of 19:17–21 as the culmination of the battle for which the sixth bowl prepares.[37] It is there that “the kings of the earth and their armies” (16:19) confront the warrior-king and His army and go down in ignominious defeat. If the seventh bowl fails to include this battle, the bowl-series as a whole is incomplete. As other considerations have already shown, however, it does encompass the account of that battle—an indication that the seventh bowl description extends at least through the end of chap. 19.[38]

But that is not all. A significant part of the battle of Armageddon is the assignment of the beast (i.e., the first beast of Revelation 13) to the lake of fire at the battle’s conclusion (19:20). This must come under the scope of the bowl series in light of the fifth bowl’s destination, which is the throne of the beast (16:10). That bowl has its own torment, judgments against the demonic civilization of the last times,[39] but it is only temporary. The afflicted ones blaspheme God and do not to repent of their evil works (16:11). Such a blasphemous response must have its supreme recompense before the series of “last” plagues ends. The leader of this God-defying element is especially deserving, and so has special recognition as he meets his final judgment (19:20). In this way, anticipatory implications of the fifth bowl corroborate that the seventh must extend at least through the end of chap. 19.

The final judgment of Satan. As part of the sixth bowl, the unholy trinity—the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet—plays a major part in the preparations for Armageddon (16:13). They are the ones who use the three unclean spirits to assemble a huge army for the battle of that great day. Revelation 12–13 shows decisively that Satan is the leader and energizer of this trio (cf. 13:2 especially).[40] Yet Satan’s final judgment does not happen in connection with that of the beast and false prophet. For providential reasons, it occurs separately at a point after the thousand years of 20:1–6.

The seven “last” plagues are not over until this major instigator of rebellion is in his eternal place, the lake of fire and brimstone (20:10). Divine wrath has not finally quelled human and diabolic rebellion until it has dealt the death-blow to the final great revolt after the millennium (20:7–9). So the seventh of the seven plagues must span at least through Rev 20:10.[41] In this final encounter Satan escapes the doom of the armies he has mustered, only to face a more awful immediate end.[42] Here he receives his final and fatal blow as he joins his two cronies in reaching a destiny long appointed for him (cf. Matt 25:41).[43]

Once again, the extended nature of the seventh bowl finds confirmation. Rather than excluding the dragon from this plague, this explanation involves him along with the beast and false prophet as part of the series whose climax includes a description of his doom.

The finality of the last of the last plagues. The text is reasonably explicit in its identification of the seven last plagues with the seven bowls (15:6–8; 21:9). If the angels with the seven last plagues are recipients of the seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God, the conclusion is inevitable that the bowl judgments and the last plagues are two ways of referring to the same series (cf. 15:1, 6–8; 16:1). Therefore, a study of the seventh bowl is also an examination of the last of the seven last plagues.

Expanding the seventh bowl to include the judgment of the great white throne at the end of Revelation 20 is the only way to do justice to the heavy emphasis on this plague series as being the very last one (15:1). Efforts to circumvent the plain statement about these being the ultimate, absolute, and universal termination of divine wrath (15:1) have rested on a predisposition to limit the text’s meaning—to find the plagues’ fulfillment in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem,[44] to interpret them in connection with the opening of the nineteenth-century French Revolution,[45] to limit their duration to the period just before the second coming,[46] or to employ some similar restriction. But no contextual features furnish hints to support any type of limitation. If the descriptive “last” (15:1) applies to the plagues, the meaning must be that no more are to follow. If they are the termination of God’s wrath (15:1), the sequence of wrathful visitations ends only when they end. This comes with the relegation of all blasphemers (16:9, 11, 21) to the lake of fire in 20:12–15.

The ultimacy of the last of the last plagues is noticeable in another connection. The introductory announcement of the seventh bowl refers to the flight of every island and the disappearance of every mountain (16:20). The two verbs used, φύγειν (phugein, “to flee”) and [οὐχ] εὑρεθῆναι ([ouch] heurethēnai, “not to be found”), occur nowhere else—not even in 6:12–17—to describe a cosmic event except in 20:11 (cf. 21:1) where they speak of the vanishing of the old earth and heaven.[47] So the introduction to the seventh bowl presages the complete disappearance of this creation.[48]

Since the removal of the old earth and heaven is in conjunction with the vision of the great white throne (20:11), another evidence for the broader range is in place. This is the fourth miscellaneous indication to verify the lengthened extent of the seventh bowl. It is the final element in an overwhelming case for concluding that 16:17–22:5 is the author’s prophetic description of the seventh bowl judgment.[49]

Potential Objections to the Seventh Bowl’s Magnitude

Weaknesses of this theory must wear the label “potential” because its exposure to criticism has been so limited that objections have not had opportunity to materialize. Giblin’s inauguration of this theory in 1974[50] has either been unnoticed by its would-be opponents or has met with approval by its supporters.[51] One can only speculate on what direction those objections will take when they do arise.

One point probably to become an issue is how the millennia] kingdom (20:4–6) and the new creation (21:1–22:5) can partake of the nature of a bowl judgment or a last plague. How can they be part of the outpouring of God’s wrath? An answer could point to the consignment of the devil to the lake of fire (20:8–10) as the reason for including the millennial account under the heading of divine wrath. It could also recognize the barring from the new Jerusalem of all who are in the lake of fire (21:8, 27; 22:15) as an explanation for the new creation’s inclusion as part of a bowl of wrath.
Another rejoinder to the theory of extending the seventh bowl into chap. 22 may be an objection to merging temporal punishment with eternal punishment. The seals, trumpets, and bowls deal predominantly with inflicting suffering on mankind in this life, but this theory extends the scope of the bowl to include punishment beyond this life. These two types of punishment differ in nature and do not belong in the same matrix of revelatory disclosure. An answer to this observation could call attention to the possibility that this account of the end of human history is of a special type. Eventually a time will come when God’s temporal dealings with mankind will shift to an nontemporal basis as He prepares to instigate His new creation.
A further possible problem for extending the seventh bowl into the last chapter of Revelation is its erasing of an exact parallelism with Dan 9:24–27 and the prophecy of Daniel’s seventieth week. The climax of the seventieth week comes in chap. 19 with the coming of the Son of Man. If this climax was determinative in John’s structural scheme, this too could mark the close of the seventh bowl judgment.[52] This does not allow the bowl to extend beyond chap. 19. An answer to this objection acknowledges John’s heavy dependence on Daniel 9 for earlier parts of his structure, but asserts John’s freedom to depart from that structure when the nature of his visions carries him beyond anything revealed in Daniel. The millennium, the eternal state, and other aspects of Revelation 20–22 augment the prophecy of Daniel, so John’s structural scheme had to allow for this additional revelation.
A further potential objection comes in 19:4. Worship before the throne in heaven comes back into view in that verse, giving an indication that, in light of 15:8, the seven last plagues have come to an end. The indication of 15:8 is that no one could enter the heavenly temple until the termination of these plagues.[53] An answer to this objection notes that 19:4 is part of an intercalation that does not follow the chronological sequence of the numbered-bowl series of which it is a parenthetical part. This act of worship could have been proleptic, preceding the temporal beginning of the bowl series, much the same as the announcement of Babylon’s fall in 14:8. This then would not contradict the restriction on heavenly access placed in 15:8.

Each of these potential objections is worthy of attention, but none is as strong as the considerations supporting extending the seventh bowl through 22:5.

The Core of the Seventh Bowl

So far this examination of the seventh bowl has identified the introduction to the bowl description (16:17–21), two lengthy pictures of the harlot and the bride as supplemental background to the bowl (17:1–18:24; 21:9–22:5), and between the two intercalations a body of visional material with a number of ties to the seventh bowl that prove it to be an integral part of that bowl (19:11–21:8). It remains to examine that body of material which constitutes the “action” portion of the seventh bowl. This is the part that corresponds to the earthly outworking of the earlier bowls, trumpets, and seals.[54]

The section consists of eight visions, each of which has καὶ εἶδον (kai eidon, “and I saw”) to introduce it. In order, they are: (1) the return of Christ (19:11–16), (20 the invitation to the birds of prey (19:17–18), (3) the defeat of the beast (19:19–21), (40 the binding of Satan (20:1–3), (5) the millennium and the final defeat of Satan (20:4–10), (60 the great white throne (20:11), (7) the judgment of those not in the book of life (20:12–15), and (8) the new heaven and the new earth (21:1–8). The far-reaching question is whether the sequence of these visions represents the sequence of their fulfillment.

Some have lodged objections to chronological sequence in these scenes. (1) One negative way of responding to such a sequence is to insist that the series deals with the complexity of Christ’s second coming as a simple event and does not chart a series of events over a lengthy period of time.[55] Each event portrays a separate aspect of that coming victory, like an eschatological art gallery with seven [or eight] pictures of that victory at the end of history.[56] (2) Another reason for non-chronological fulfillment is the observation that the same Gog-Magog terminology occurs in the scene of 19:17–18 as it does in the scene of 20:8.[57] (3) A further rationale for denying temporal sequence of fulfillment of the eight visions is to note the existence of nations in 20:1–3 after the same have died in the battle of 19:21.[58]

Proposed answers to the last two objections to consecutive fulfillment have already appeared.[59] The first objection is very presuppositional in nature and has little exegetical force.

Support for the successive fulfillment of these eight visions is of an exegetical nature. Putting aside earlier evidence for progression rather than recapitulation in this book,[60] one may use a thematic basis to present a good case for chronological sequence. A comparison of various pairs and combinations of scenes points inevitably to a consecutive trend in the visions:

The return of Christ (1) must happen first, or else the invitation to the birds of prey (2) is pointless.
The invitation to the birds (2) must occur before the defeat of the beast (3) in order for the birds to be present when the slaughter occurs (19:21b).
The binding of Satan (4) must transpire before the millennium and his release at the end (5) to account for his inactivity during the millennium.
All the first five scenes must take place before the appearance of the great white throne (6), because they relate to the old earth and heaven which depart when that throne appears.
The great white throne (6) must be in place before it can be a scene for judging those absent from the book of life (7).
The judgment of the lost (7) must come before the new heaven and the new earth (8) to explain the absence of all evil from the new creation.
More broadly speaking, the second coming of Christ (1) is clearly the earliest of the series in its fulfillment, with the new creation (8) coming conspicuously last.
The millennium and its associated events (4 and 5) are obviously antecedent to the events of the great white throne (6 and 7) because they pertain to the present creation.

For about the last 1700 years, the question has been, however, whether the second coming of Christ (1) and the battle of Armageddon (2 and 3) precede or are partially simultaneous with the millennium (4 and 5). Chronological fulfillment in every other comparison of this series makes temporal precedence in 19:11–21 very probable. To add to this probability, one might argue that the beast’s defeat and consignment to the lake of fire (3) must come before the binding of Satan (4) to explain the absence of the beast from the earth during the millennium.

The debate 6 is one-sided in favor of chronological sequence in these eight scenes.[61] This characteristic of the seventh bowl coincides with conclusions reached in another study dealing with the sequential fulfillment of events of the seventh seal and the seventh trumpet.[62] The difference here is, however, that the scenes are unnumbered.

Resultant Structure of the Seventh Bowl

If the above analysis of the seventh bowl is correct, the structural pattern of the seventh bowl is as follows:

Announcement of the emptying of the bowl’s contents (16:17–21)

[No direct inflicting of wrath occurs in this introductory announcement, only a number of terrifying phenomena that move men to blaspheme God. The central focus of the announcement is the proclaiming of the fall of Babylon (16:19c)]

a. Intercalation #1: Detailed description of Babylon, her past, present, future (17:1–19:10) [The city whose destruction is foretold in the initial announcement is representative of a system of false religion and opposition to God and His people (chap. 17) and of godless materialism (chap. 18)]

The doom of religious Babylon (17:1–18)
The doom of commercial Babylon (18:1–24)
Heavenly rejoicing over the removal of Babylon and the institution of God's kingdom on earth (19:1–10)

b. Events of the seventh bowl (19:11–21:8)
[Now comes a series of eight scenes that furnish in sequence the steps in the chronological implementation of the seventh bowl-judgment]

Second coming of Christ (19:11–16)
Summons of the birds to a human feast (19:17–18)
Slaughter of Christ's human opponents (19:19–21)
Satan's imprisonment (20:1–3)
Satan's release and final defeat (20:4–10)
Setting of the Great White Throne (20:11)
Sentencing to the lake of fire (20:12–15)
Sketch of the New Jerusalem (21:1–8)

c. Intercalation #2: Detailed description of the new Jerusalem (21:9–22:5)
[The new Jerusalem as part of the new creation is the divine counterpart to Babylon which was destroyed under this same seventh bowl]

The city's physical features (21:9–21)
The city's illumination (21:22–27)
Paradise restored (22:1–5)

Implications of the Seventh Bowl

Several observations growing out of the conclusions of this study of the seventh bowl will provide further corroboration.

Parallel to the Other Seventh Members

First, the extended nature of the seventh bowl prophecy corresponds with the extended nature of the seventh seal and seventh trumpet. An earlier study has concluded on exegetical grounds other than those cited here, that the seventh seal consists of the seven trumpets, and the seventh trumpet includes the seven bowls.[63] It is altogether fitting that the seventh bowl should embody a series of its own.

The previous seventh members each had seven parts, but the seventh bowl has eight scenes. The first seven of these scenes pertain directly to the infliction of divine wrath on those in rebellion against God, corresponding to seven parts of the parallel segments. The eighth scene changes tone to sound the note of divine blessing in the new creation. This is the new beginning. The old creation has now been purged and replaced.

So the seventh-bowl account is compatible with earlier comparable portions of the Apocalypse.

Rational Integrity and Literary Concinnity of Revelation

Students of Revelation have leveled a substantial number of aspersions against the logical merit of the book.[64] The understanding of the seventh bowl proposed here adds a significant factor to show, contrary to these criticisms, the complete reasonableness of this work of prophecy. It does so by providing closure to a literary plan laid out in Revelation 4–5.

Those two chapters supplied the design for the visional portion of this book when they described the throne room and introduced the seven-sealed scroll whose contents only the Lamb could divulge. This scroll purportedly contained all that John was to see regarding the destiny of the earth. Because the seventh bowl is part of the seventh trumpet which is part of the seventh seal, the interpretation of that bowl in the above discussion provides for the achievement of that objective by incorporating within the bowl events leading all the way into the eternal state of the future new creation.

Literary elegance and rational harmony in the Apocalypse thereby receives verification as the bowl that ends the visional portion matches the introductory portion, providing as a concluding wrap-up the revelatory data that the introduction promised it would.

Confirmation of the Premillennial Return of Christ

Prominent elements in the events of the seventh bowl, as outlined above, are the second coming of Christ and the millennium. Since these are also part of the last of the seven last plagues, another name for the bowl judgments, thev too wear the attribute of “last.” Few would dispute the futurity of Christ’s return,[65] but if they do, they face the hopeless task of explaining how a returning warrior-king in the past is the last of the last plagues that prepare the way for the new creation.[66] If the second coming is future as it surely is, then the millennium must possess the same quality of “lastness” that belongs to the second coming.[67]

As a companion part of the last of the last plagues, the millennial description of 20:1–10 tells of the commitment of Satan to his eternal doom. Even apart from the validity of the above conclusion regarding the chronological sequence of the eight scenes of the seventh bowl, the millennium must belong to the future, or else the term “last” would not accurately apply to it. It would be unfortunate to view any aspect of the present era as being the last of the seven last plagues in which the wrath of God is terminated. An apologetic for such a concept would be hard to construct. One would have to look for subtle or indirect clues and allow them to override what is plain exegetical data like that advanced in the discussion above.[68] A quest for such esoteric meanings is unnecessary and even harmful to the cause of accurate biblical exegesis.

So the millennium fits into the apocalyptic plan for the future, not the present, a judgment based on criteria different from that furnished in an earlier study.[69] It is then that the returning Christ will reign as King over the whole earth of the present creation. Freedom from Satanic interference and immediate divine rule will make it the most ideal period of world history since the fall of man.

Notes

See Robert L Thomas, “The Kingdom of Christ in the Apocalypse,” TMSJ 3/2 (Fall 1992):117-40, for details of how this anticipation expresses itself.
Robert L Thomas, “The Structure of the Apocalypse: Recapitulation or Progression?” TMSJ 4/1 (Spring 1993):45-66, for an elaboration of the case to support progression as the overarching scheme of Revelation’s structure. The present discussion of the seventh bowl does not depend solely on conclusions of this earlier study, but assumptions based on it will inevitably surface here and there.
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation (Columbus, Ohio: Lutheran Book Concern, 1935) 482.
Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (London: Macmillan, 1906) 210.
James Moffatt, “The Revelation of St. John the Divine,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (W. Robertson Nicoll, ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.) 5:449; J. Massyngberde Ford, “The Structure and Meaning of Revelation 16, ” ExpTim 98/11 (August 1987):329.
E.g., Swete, Apocalypse p. 213; Walter Scott, Exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Swengel, Pa.: Bible Truth Depot, n.d.) 340; Martin Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John (HNTC; New York: Harper, 1940) 337; G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (NCB; Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1978) 248; Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation,” in EBC (Frank E. Gaebelein, ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 12:554; Robert W. Wall, Revelation (in New International Biblical Commentary, W. Ward Gasque, ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991) 204.
M. Robert Mulholland, Revelation, Holy Living in an Unholy World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) 276.
Friedrich Düsterdieck, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Revelation of John, in Meyer’s Commentary (Henry E. Jacobs, trans. and ed.; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1887) 428; Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (4 vols.; London: Longmans, Green, 1903) 4:704.
See note 6 above.
E.g., William Lee, “The Revelation of St. John,” in The Holy Bible (F. C. Cook, ed.; London: John Murray, 1881) 4:819; Mulholland, Revelation, p. 276.
Lee, “Revelation” 4:819.
Lee (“Revelation” 4:820), A. T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament [6 vols.; Nashville: Broadman, 1933] 6:470), and Mulholland (Revelation 293) are among many who comment on the contrast between the two women. Richard Bauckham has also noted this contrast as well as the broad structural conclusions reached in this section (“The Economic Critique of Rome in Revelation 18, ” in Images of Empire [Loveday Alexander, ed.; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991] 47-48).
Cf. Charles H. Giblin, “Structural and Thematic Correlations in the Theology of Revelation 16–22, ” Bib 55/4 (1974):488-89. Most have noted some of the similarities, but only with isolated comments (e.g., Alford, Greek Testament, 4:739; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977] 307 n. 1; Mulholland, Revelation 26-30,276). It has been extremely rare for any to trace the extent and implications of these correlations.
Giblin, “Structural and “Thematic Correlations” 489; cf. Lee, “Revelation” 4:735; Wall, Revelation 205. The statistics pertain to the Greek text, of course.
Cf. Moffatt, “Revelation” 5:478.
Moffatt, “Revelation” 5:489; R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John (2 vols., ICCI, New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1920) 2:128–29.
Lee, “Revelation” 4:837,839; Wall, Revelation 262.
Düsterdieck, Revelation 490; Swete, Apocalypse 303; Robertson, Word Pictures 6:482.
Cf. Giblin, “Structural and Thematic Correlations” 493.
E.g., see Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (New York: Macmillan, 1919) 774.
Lee, “Revelation” 4:837; J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation (Philadelphia: Westminster, Pelican, 1979) 314; Homer Hailey, Revelation, an Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 425.
Charles, Revelation 2:217.
Swete, Apocalypse 302; Beckwith, Apocalypse 772; Robertson, Word Pictures 6:481; Beasley-Murray, Revelation 334.
Giblin, “Structural and Thematic Correlations” 497; cf. Alford, Greek Testament 4:745; E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse or “The Day of the Lord” (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, n.d.) 678.
Düsterdieck, Revelation 490.
Beckwith, Apocalypse 774.
Swete, Apocalypse 210; Lee, “Revelation” 4:726; Robertson, Word Pictures 6:425,468.
Swete, Apocalypse 210; Robertson, Word Pictures 6:425.
John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966) 240.
Alford, Greek Testament 4:702; George E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 217.
Various mss have differing endings for this verb—third person singular and first person singular as well as the third person plural. The third person plural is the choice for the correct reading because of being the hardest reading and because of respectable support from Alexandrinus and other authorities (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [New York: United Bible Societies, 1971] 767).
Beckwith, Apocalypse 752.
Alford, Greek Testament 4:737.
Bullinger, Apocalypse 646; Robert Govett, Govett on Revelation (2 vols., 1981 reprint; Miami Springs, Fla.: Conley & Schoettle, 1861) 365; J. B. Smith, A Revelation of Jesus Christ (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 1961) 281; Walvoord, Revelation 318; Johnson, “Revelation” 12:595.
Giblin, “Structural and Thematic Correlations” 502–8.
E.g., Beckwith, Apocalypse 682,685; Ladd, Revelation 212; Kiddle, Revelation 323; J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation (vol. 38 of AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975) 263-64.
E.g., Moffatt, “Revelation” 5:469; Beckwith, Apocalypse 734; Mounce, Revelation 349.
Beasley-Murray, Revelation 277.
Ladd, Revelation 212.
Swete, Apocalypse 206; Robertson, Word Pictures 6:423; Lenski, Revelation 473; Michael Wilcock, The Message of Revelation in The Bible Speaks Today (John R. W. Stott, ed.; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1975) 147.
Giblin also uses the disposal of these three major adversaries to demonstrate the unity of the larger section 19:11–21:8, but with a slightly different approach (“Structural and Thematic Correlations” 500–1).
Swete, Apocalypse 270.
Lee, “Revelation” 4:801; Robertson, Word Pictures 6:462; Johnson, “Revelation” 12:588.
David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance (Fort Worth, Tex.: Dominion, 1987) 383-84.
E. B. Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae (4 vols., 4th ed.; London: Seeleys, 1851) 3:448ff.
Düsterdieck, Revelation 408; Walvoord, Revelation 226; Ladd, Revelation 204; Mounce, Revelation 285 n. 1.
Giblin, “Structural and Thematic Correlations” 502; cf. Swete, Apocalypse 211,271; Robertson, Word Pictures 6:463.
Ladd, Revelation 218.
Wilcock, Revelation 150; Chilton, Days of Vengeance 418.
Giblin, “Structural and Thematic Correlations” 488–89.
E.g., Bauckham, “Economic Critique” 47–48.
John Andrew McLean, “The Seventieth Week of Daniel 9:27 as a Literary Key for Understanding the Structure of the Apocalypse of John” (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1990) 231,255–58.
Hailey, Revelation 375.
Swete and Moffatt divide a roughly comparable portion into three divisions (19:11–21; 20:1–6; 20:7–10), but do so on thematic rather than structural grounds (Swete, Apocalypse 246; Moffatt, “Revelation” 5:466). Wall arrives at seven divisions by combining 19:17–18 and 19:19–21 into one section (Revelation 227).
Wall, Revelation 227.
M. Eugene Boring, Revelation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, John Knox, 1989) 195.
Lee, “Revelation” 4:787.
R. Fowler White, “Reexamining the Evidence for Recapitulation in Rev 20:1–10, ” WTJ 51 (1989):321.
See Thomas, “Kingdom of Christ” 134–35 nn. 54, 58.
See Thomas, “Structure of the Apocalypse” 45–66.
Düsterdieck, Revelation 467–68; Charles, Revelation 2:116; Beckwith, Apocalypse 98-100,735; Walvoord, Revelation 289–90; Ladd, Revelation 261; Mounce, Revelation 353; Beasley-Murray, Revelation 287,290; Johnson, “Revelation” 12:580–81.
See Thomas, “Structure of the Apocalypse” 52–53.
Ibid.
Ibid.; Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7, An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992) 23-29. Grant R. Osborne’s hermeneutical scheme of combining historicist, idealist, and futurist perspectives on Revelation and of seeing the book as both cyclical and linear lends itself to attributing to it irrationality in the handling of details (“Theodicy in the Apocalypse,” Trinity Journal 14/1 (Spring 1993):65. Osborne’s scheme typifies the theories of commentators who take the additional step of demeaning the logical merit of Revelation.
Among those few are Chilton, who interprets 19:11–16 as an invitation to the church to have communion with Him and the progress of the gospel in the world (Days of Vengeance 240,481-82), and Mulholland, who views the scene as picturing Christ in the midst of a rebellious order following His first advent (Revelation 299).
Chilton brushes aside the finality of the terminology of 15:1 with the words, “There is no reason to assume that these must be the ‘last’ plagues in an ultimate, absolute, and universal sense” (Days of Vengeance 383–84). He does so by limiting the purpose and scope of Revelation as a whole to the Jewish people in the period of the first century A.D.
In his argument for recapitulation in Rev 20:1–10, White uses 15:1 to prove that 20:7–10 is a recapitulation of 19:11–21, both being thereby relegated to the future (White, “Evidence for Recapitulation” 330–31). But what he fails to appreciate is that the millennium with the associated binding of Satan is also a part of that last of the seven last plagues. To be consistent with himself, he must agree to a future millennium rather than argue for a present one as he attempts to do through his theory of recapitulation.
Vern Sheridan Poythress likes White’s recapitulatory alternative to the premillennial position, but admits that it depends on contextual clues that are “subtle or “indirect” (“Genre and Hermeneutics in Rev 20:1–6, ” JETS 36/1 [March 1993]:53). In contrast to searching for obscure, “subtle,” or “indirect” evidence, however, straightforward exegesis accepts the millennium as part of the last of the last plagues as mandated by the text of the Apocalypse.
See Thomas, “Kingdom of Christ” 118–23.

Eamon Younis

Saturday, 11 January 2020

An Analysis of the Seventh Bowl of the Apocalypse

No comments:

Post a Comment