Iwan M. Whiteley, «Zechariah, Reference and the Structure of Revelation 6-8:1», Vol. 23 (2010) 93-108
This article argues that Rev 6-8:1 is structured on Zech 1-2. It first undertakes a survey of interpretational difficulties that exist in Revelation 6-8:1. It contains a survey of commentators’ views regarding the unit of discourse. Then there is a demonstration that structuring Rev 6-8:1 on Zech 1-2 solves many of the difficulties, notably the rapid shift in scenes in the text. An exploration of the issue of reference ensues with the intention of suggesting that one should import information from Zech 1-2 into Revelation. Consequently, there is an investigation into the meaning of Zech 1-2. Finally, information from this book is imported into Rev 6-8:1.
96 Iwan M. Whiteley
although the exact reason for the varying of imagery differs from
commentator to commentator.17
Mounce and Aune propose that the relationship between the sections
is ascensive. They interpret the 144 000 as consisting of the last generation
of believers, whereas the multitude is to be regarded as all believers.18 On
face value, their proposal is appealing due to the numerical difference.
Few commentators seek to explain the scenic shift from 7:17 to 8:1.
Wall says that, “…John does not provide the reader with a cipher for this
heavenly calm”19. Wall does appear to be right that 8:1 lacks explanation.
It appears that John is either being deliberately ambiguous, or he has
conveyed to the reader the significance of the seal via a source that
has not yet been ascertained by scholarship. Beale intimates that what
preceded 8:1 was an interlude because he argues that the seventh seal
picks up again where the sixth seal left off.20 Ladd and Walvoord propose
that the seventh seal is the only seal with no content and that the later
seven trumpets are the content of the seventh seal.21 Ladd and Walvoord’s
proposal is more problematic due to the lack of significant direction
markers in the text.
The seventh seal appears to be unclear; Beasley-Murray says that the
context does not provide a reason for the silence.22 The lack of clarity
leads to a wide range of interpretations of its significance. Mounce
and Kistemaker say that silence is present as all wait for the coming
judgments of the scroll after the unsealing of the final seal.23 Kiddle and
Hailey suggest that there is the presence of suspense24 while Harrington
17
G. Krodel, Revelation (Minneapolis 1989) 180. Similarly R. Lenski, The Interpretation
of St. John’s Revelation (Minneapolis 1963) 254; Smalley, The Revelation, 189; J. Sweet,
Revelation (London 1990) 151; I. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (New York 1919) 535-
39; H. Ulfgard, Feast and Future: Revelation 7:9-17 and the Feast of Tabernacles (Lund
1989) 70-79; P. Prigent, Commentary of the Apocalypse of St John (Tübingen 2001) 121-
123; C. Giblin, The Book of Revelation: The Open Book of Prophecy (Collegeville 1991)
91-92; H. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (London 1906) 97; R. Thomas, Revelation 1-7
an Exegetical Commentary (Chicago 1992) 483.
18
Mounce, The Book, 154, 161; D. Aune, Revelation II (WBC; Texas 1997) 443, 447;
similarly A. Y. Collins, The Apocalypse (Wilmington 1979) 52-53.
19
Wall, Revelation, 122.
20
Beale, The Book, 445.
21
Ladd, A Commentary, 122; Walvoord, The Revelation, 150-51, similarly M. Wilcock,
The Message of Revelation: I saw heaven opened (Leicester 1975) 84.
22
G. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (London 1974) 150.
23
Mounce, The Book, 170; S. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Grand
Rapids 2001) 219.
24
M. Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John (London 1947) 144; H. Hailey, Revelation, an
Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids 1979) 214.