You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘G. K. Beale’ category.

There is a reason why I normally put down G. K. Beale’s commentary on Revelation, and deal with other points of doctrine; because he argues his exegetical points with too much compelling force, in very alluring and persuasive ways. I am currently re-reading his voluminous section (all his sections are voluminous) on Revelation 20:1-15; in particular I am reading about allusions to Ezekiel 38 — 39 in 19:17-21 and 20:8-10. His argument (and the amil argument in general) is that 20:8-10 recapitulates 19:17-21. Both of these pericopes refer back to the battle of Gog and Magog found in Ez. 38 — 39. Beale infers that just as Ez. 39 recaptiulates the same battle in Ez. 38, that John the revelator follows this convention of recapitulation with Rev. 20:8-10 recapitulating (or restating) Rev. 19:17-21. If this is the case, then the premillennial contention that we should read this section (from Rev. 19 into 20 in particular) temporally sequentially is untenable; and thus we should read it thematically and synchronously in line with the amil argument. Beale argues that it makes no sense to read this linear/temporally-sequentially since then we end up with two battles of Gog and Magog (one in 19:17-21 and the other in 20:8-10) [he deals with apparently fanciful conceptions of how to understand this apparent conundrum provided by the premil exegetes — they do seem somewhat pressed]. There is much more to Beale’s argument (that is quite substantial), but I just wanted to draw our attention to a couple more points that have stood out to me as I’ve been re-working this section of his commentary. Here Beale notes an interesting pattern and parallel that emerges between Revelation 20 — 22 and Ezekiel 37 — 48:

[F]inally, that John has in mind a specific prophecy-fulfillment connection in Ezekiel 38 — 39 is borne out by the broader context of Revelation 20 — 21, where a fourfold ending of the book reflects the ending of Ezekiel 37 — 48: resurrection of God’s people (Rev. 20:4b; Ezek. 37:1-14), messianic kingdom (Rev. 20:4b-6; Ezek. 37:15-28), final battle against Gog and Magog (Rev. 20:7-10; Ezek. 38 — 39), and final vision of the new temple and new Jerusalem, described as a restored Eden and sitting on an exceedingly high mountain (21:1 — 22:5; Ezek. 40 — 48). [G. K. Beale, “The Book of Revelation, NIGTC,” 977]

And then an interesting (rough) chiastic structure found in the last section of the book, chapters 17 — 22; note:

A judgment of the harlot (17:1 — 19:6)

B the divine Judge (19:11-16)

C judgment of the beast and the false prophet (19:17-21; cf. Ezekiel 39)

D Satan imprisoned for 1,000 years (20:1-3)

D’ the saints reign/judge for 1,000 years (20:4-6)

C’ the judgment of Gog and Magog (20:7-10; cf. Ezekiel 38 — 39)

B’ the divine Judge (20:11-15)

A’ vindication of the bride (21:1 — 22:5; cf. 19:7-9) [pg. 983]

The point of all this being, of course, if that it can be proven that Rev. 20 recapitulates chptr. 19; then the temporal-sequential ordering that premils must have crashes down like a house of cards. The question, is, of course, which interpretive schema is going to provide the greatest explanatory power with the least amount of inovation in answering the problems (one of those problems being how do we relate two references to the battle of Gog and Magog? One found in chptr. 19 and then chptr. 20. — does premil temporal sequentiation provide for the least cumbersome response, or does the amil thematic/symbolic approach answer that conundrum with more ease)?  Thus far, and this is why I dislike reading Beale, his case is very solid. I have Robert Mounce’s standard premil exegetical commentary on Revelation at hand as well. I have also read his exegesis on this section (Rev. 19 — 20) in the past. I will have to reread his argument some time tomorrow (maybe I’ll offer a post on that as well).

Maybe you can think of some questions or objections to Beale’s points in the comment section here. I have not yet completed his analysis of chapter 20, in toto, yet; but I have already read enough to know that Beale has strong answers, exegetical answers for every objection that can be proffered. It is dangerous for me to be doing this right now, but I like danger 😉 .



Hello my name is Bobby Grow, and I author this blog, The Evangelical Calvinist. Feel free to peruse the posts, and comment at your leisure. I look forward to the exchange we might have here, and hope you are provoked to love Jesus even more as a result. Pax Christi!

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 545 other followers

A Little Thomas Torrance

“God loves you so utterly and completely that he has given himself for you in Jesus Christ his beloved Son, and has thereby pledged his very being as God for your salvation. In Jesus Christ God has actualised his unconditional love for you in your human nature in such a once for all way, that he cannot go back upon it without undoing the Incarnation and the Cross and thereby denying himself. Jesus Christ died for you precisely because you are sinful and utterly unworthy of him, and has thereby already made you his own before and apart from your ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.” -T. F. Torrance, The Mediation of Christ, 94.


“A deep brokenness requires a deeper theology.”

Philosophy of Blogging

“I count myself one of the number of those who write as they learn and learn as they write.” - St. Augustine cited by John Calvin

“We must always keep in mind that the reason the Son of God came down from the hidden throne of the eternal Father and revealed heavenly doctrine was not to furnish material for seminary debates, in which the display of ingenuity might be the game, but rather so that human beings should be instructed concerning true knowledge of God and of all those things which are necessary to the pursuit of eternal salvation.” Martin Chemnitz, Loci theol. ed., 1590, Hypomnemata 9 cited by Barth, CD I/1, 82.


Blog Stats

  • 675,500 hits