[1] Bibliographical surveys have reviewed the contributions: Kraft, H., ‘Zur Offenbarung des Johannes’, ThR 38 (1973), pp. 81–98Google Scholar; Vanni, U., ‘Rassegna bibliografica sull' Apocalisse (1970–1975)’, RivBib 24 (1976), pp. 277–301Google Scholar; and ‘L'Apocalypse johannique. Etat de la question’, in L'Apocalypse johannique et l'Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. Lambrecht, Jan (Gembloux, 1980), pp. 21–46.Google Scholar

[2] Some trends may be indicated: First, studies of the distinctive tradition in Rev. 11. 1–13: Berger, Klaus, Die Auferstehung des Propheten und die Erhöhung des Menschensohn (Göttingen, 1976)Google Scholar; Bauckham, R., ‘The Martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah: Jewish or Christian?’, JBL 95 (1976), pp. 447–58Google Scholar. Second, a growing interest in the structure of Rev. and close attention to its articulated literary details: Vanni, Ugo, La Struttura letteraria dell' Apocalisse (Brescia, ² 1980)Google Scholar; Fiorenza, E. S., ‘Composition and Structure of the Revelation of John’, CBQ 39 (1977), pp. 344–66Google Scholar; Lambrecht, J., ‘A Structuration of Revelation 4,1–22,5’, L'Apocalypse johannique, pp. 77–104Google Scholar. Third, an attempt to bring to bear on the study of Rev. a keener literary sense and perceptive theological understanding: Minear, P. S., ‘Ontology and Ecclesiology in the Apocalypse’, NTS 12 (1965 f.), pp. 89–105 – largely a treatment of Rev. 11. 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barr, J. M., ‘Jewish Apocalyptic in Recent Scholarly Study’, BullJRL 58 (1975), pp. 9–35Google Scholar; Prigent, P., ‘L'Apocalypse: Exégèse Historique et Analyse Structurale’, NTS 26 (1979 f.), pp. 127–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and, among the commentators, Beasley-Murray, G. R., The Book of Revelation (Greenwood, SC, ² 1978).Google Scholar

[3] Hosts of commentators seem to debate question by question the same old issues, without ever adverting to the way the story is told. A case in point is the detailed study of Rev. 11 by Satake, A., Die Gemeindeordnung in der Johannesapokalypse (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1966), pp. 119–33.Google Scholar

[4] Disentangling strands of tradition is the point of departure for Black's, M. ‘The “Two Witnesses” of Rev. 11:3f. in Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Tradition’, Donum Gentilicum. New Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube, ed. Bammel, E. et al. , (Oxford, 1978), pp. 227–37Google Scholar. Since at least the time of the stylistic analysis by Charles, R. H., The Revelation of St. John (Edinburgh, 1920), 1, pp. 269–92Google Scholar, most commentators have admitted that the text had a prehistory. Even popular commentaries take note of the fact; cf. Collins, A. Y., The Apocalypse (Wilmington, 1982), p. 70Google Scholar. Possibly the Sitz im Leben for an apocalyptic vignette that John has reworked was a prophetic-apocalyptic utterance in a liturgical gathering like that sketched in 1 Cor. 14. 26–31.

Just to opine: vv. 1–2 originally existed as part of another piece (except for the pass. έδόθημοι); vv. 3–13, a reflective comment, were much reworked by John as he inserted w. 1–13 into the enlargement and his series of three woes.

[5] There is no evidence for a pre-Christian Jewish tradition of the martyrdom of Enoch and Elijah; cf. Bauckham, R., art. cit., pp. 453–4, 458. Cf. also n. 4.Google Scholar

[6] In the first SNTS seminar on the Apocalypse (Leuven, 1982), Matthias Rissi noted the importance of Visionsreihen; I am indebted to his remarks.Google Scholar

[7] Although I find Austin Farrer's exegesis unacceptable, I think the title of his first commentary on Rev. is brilliant: A Rebirth of Images (Westminster, 1949)Google Scholar. For a solid analysis of John's re-use of specific OT texts, illustrating his originality, cf. Vanhoye, A., ‘L'Utilisation du Livre d'Êzéchiel dans L'Apocalypse’. Bibl. 43 (1962), pp. 436–76.Google Scholar

[8] Vanni, , op. cit., p. 133Google Scholar, would extend the third woe to the end of the book. The libation-bowl series, however, is a series distinct from that of the trumpets and, accordingly, distinct from the third woe which is identified with the seventh trumpet. Much less does the third woe extend to the narrative sequel (19. 11–21. 8) of the last-plague sequence in 16. 1–21 (where this inactivated, although the last-plague sequence is interlocked with the end of the seventh trumpet, 15. 1–8), and to the scenes in which a bowl-angel gives an interpretation (17. 1–19. 10 and 21. 9 ff.) of the two cities (one eliminated, the other appearing) after the climactic moment (Γέγονεν, 16. 17; Γέγοναν, 21. 6). Cf. Giblin, C. H., ‘Structural and Thematic Correlations in the Theology of Revelation 16–22’, Bibl 55 (1974), pp. 487–504.Google Scholar

[9] Court, J. M., Myth and History in the Book of Revelation (London: SPCK, 1979), p. 82Google Scholar, following Mineai, P. S., I Saw a New Earth (Washington, 1968), p. 95Google Scholar, observes that the interludes of the sixth seal and sixth trumpet are highly significant. Nevertheless, the very term continues to be misleading. Beasley-Murray says apropos of 10. 1–11. 13 that John holds up the narrative by an intermission, as he did after the sixth seal, op. cit., p. 168. So, too, Lambrecht, J. speaks of it as a ‘retarding passage’, art. cit., p. 97.Google Scholar

[10] Beasley-Murray, G. R. excoriates such exegesis as ‘wooden’; he himself restricts the scroll to Rev. 20–22, op. cit., p. 171Google Scholar. Court, J. M., op. cit., p. 84Google Scholar, argues the contrary: ‘It is unlikely that the mighty angel would both promise the revelation by the medium of another angel and also have the text of it open in his own hand.’ Court fails to see that the revelation is not given by the medium of the seventh trumpet angel, but ‘in the days of the sound (φωνή) of the seventh angel when he is going to blow the trumpet.’ Thus, the disclosure of the book is given by John, who has assimilated it, and his disclosure begins with the sound of the seventh trumpet (15.1).

[11] The fourfold grouping φλή, γλω¯σσα, λαόςἒθνος (always in a different order) appears in Rev. five times (5. 9; 7. 9; 11. 9; 13. 7; 14. 6). In two additional instances, another term is substituted for φνή/-αί: ὃχλοι in 17. 15 (disparagingly); βασιλει¯ς πολλί in 10. 11 (probably with prophetic reference to 13. 1, explained in 17. 9–14; the use of an adjective modifying one of the four nouns is peculiar to 10. 11).

[12] The ‘commissioning’ through a prophetic experience does not always involve narrating the act of doing precisely what the prophet is instructed to do. Invariably, however, it seems to involve some explanation (either a preceding vision or a subsequent word) for the instruction or experience.

[13] The more customary explanation, since Charles, R. H., op. cit., I, p. 274Google Scholar, is that the construction is abnormal for ἓδωκέν μοι … λέγων Cf. Beckwith, I. T., The Apocalypse of John (New York, 1922), p. 596Google Scholar. Perhaps discontinuity with the correlated series of speakers in 10. 1–11 is intentional, to set 11.1–13 in relief, but not remove it from the context of the enlargement; see below, Part III; see also notes 24 and 58.

[14] Collins, A. Y., op. cit., pp. 64–70.Google Scholar

[15] It is generally admitted that the ‘measuring’ is not for destruction (e.g., Isa. 34. 11; 2 Kgs. 21. 13; Amos 7. 7 ff.) or for reconstruction (Ezek. 40–48), but rather, in line with the antithetical statement in v. 2, for protection or security. Those so protected, given the regular usage of πποσ-κυνεīν elsewhere in Rev. (esp. 4. 10; 5. 14; 7. 11; 11. 16; 19. 4), would seem to be the heavenly court; mention of the altar suggests also the presence of the faithful who have come through the test of faith (cf. 6. 9–11). To identify the worshippers as the “Church”, however (so Mounce, R. H., The Book of Revelation [Grand Rapids, 1977], p. 220)Google Scholar, only confuses the picture. For the two witnesses are not ‘outside the Church’; besides, έκκλησία in Rev. has a corporate but local sense (it occurs only in Rev. 1–3 and in 22.16).

[16] The final assault against the heavenly encampment of the saints (20. 1–10) comes after the earthly period of tribulation and is completely frustrated. This assault figures in the continuation of the hērem on Babylon. The fourfold eschatological adversaries (Babylon, the beasts, Satan, and Death and Hades themselves) are eliminated in an order inverse to that of their appearance; cf. Giblin, , art. cit., p. 501 n. 1.Google Scholar

[17] Feufflet, A., ‘Essai d'intérpretation du chapître 11 de l'Apocalypse’, NTS 4 (1957 f.), pp. 183–200, 186Google Scholar, rightly perceives a strong note of exclusion rather than mere ‘non-measurement’. He historicizes the interpretation, however, making the area pertain to the Jews. A. McNicol quite unconvincingly takes the whole passage as a Christian polemic statement against the Jews, ‘Revelation 11:1–14 and the Structure of the Apocalypse’, RestQ 22 (1979), pp. 193–202.Google Scholar

[18] Interestingly, the more clearly Christianized analogate, ‘the beloved city’, further defines the encampment of the saints (20. 9) and seems to correspond with the secure ‘heavenly temple area’ as peopled by those who have passed through the great tribulation (cp. 7. 14–15). It is not to be taken as a terrestrial place.

[19] The only ‘shorter’ period in Rev. is half-an-hour of silence in heaven (8. 1; cf. Zeph. 1. 7–9; Zech. 2. 13; Hab. 2. 20 [Wis. 18. 14?], before the ‘Day of the Lord’). Elsewhere in Rev., ὥρα always marks a decisive moment or sudden time (3. 3, 10; 14. 7, 15; cf. Matt. 8. 13) or brief time (‘one hour’, 17. 12; 18. 10, 16,19). Καιρός is used of the proper time or opportune time (1. 3; 11. 18; 12. 12; 22.10; cp. 12. 14).

[20] The ‘place’ of the Lord's death is symbolically amplified as the World City; the ‘time element’ may have been adjusted accordingly, to suggest a ‘short period’ before world-wide vindication. Else- where, even the actual “three year” period of 1 Kgs. 17. 1 ff. has been apocalyptically modified to ‘three-and-a-half’: Lk. 4. 25b.

[21] Beasley-Murray, G. R., op. cit., pp. 185–6Google Scholar, in the British allegorical tradition, calls it ‘Vanity Fair’. A New Yorker might more readily perceive it as ‘Chaos City’. More objectively, the outer court is allowed to become an immoral and idolatrous ‘World City’; it is not yet presented as Babylon.

[22] Swete, H. B., The Apocalypse of St. John (London, ³ 1909), p. 137Google Scholar, appeals to 1 Cor. 2. 13: ‘in the language of mystery or of prophecy’. Minear, P. S. chooses ‘prophetically’ instead of ‘allegorically”, art. cit., p. 94, n. 1.Google Scholar

[23] Commentators regularly take ‘Sodom’ as symbolizing immorality and ‘Egypt’ as symbolizing oppression of God's people. More appositely, with reference to the prophetic role of the two witnesses, Minear, observes, art. cit., p. 94Google Scholar: ‘It is virtually certain that by John's day Egypt had become a typological name for all anti-theocratic world kingdoms.’ Egypt was also noted for its idolatry (Isa. 19. 3; 1 QM xiv.1), a doctrinal perversion which NT apocalyptic often couples with immorality; e. g., Rev. 9. 20–21; 2.14–15; Rom. 1.18,19–22 and 24–32.

[24] The speaker begins in the first person (v. 3). But if he is assumed to be ό θεός (God the Father) the discourse is confusing, for as early as v. 46 he uses the third person of himself, cp. w. 116, 12a. Similarly, the third person reference to Christ in v. 8c excludes him as the speaker in v. 3 ff. The speaker is certainly one whom we would call ‘a divine person’ (cf. ‘my’, v. 30), not an angel. In the apocalyptic discourses of Rev. specific heavenly speakers may deliberately be obscured; cf. Giblin, C. H., art. cit., pp. 495–6Google Scholar. Something not dissimilar occurs in visual presentations (cp. 14. 14). Perhaps the answer lies in the nature of epiphanic language; cf. Van Schaik, A. P., –Άλλος ἄγγελος in Apk 14’, in L'Apocalypse johannique, pp. 217–28Google Scholar. Cp. functional identifications of the Spirit and Christ (2. 1, la, etc.; 19. 10b), and see below, n. 58.

[25] Observed also by Berger, Klaus, op. cit., p. 23.Google Scholar

[26] This period is always placed in the earthly sphere: 12. 6, 14; 13. 5. The Satanic assault in 20. 7–10 does not refer to the great tribulation; it serves as a foil for discussing Satan's complete ruin and for bringing out (for the seventh time in Rev. 4 ff.) the heavenly security of the faithful who have died.

[27] Isa. 20. 2; cf. Beasley-Murray, , op. cit., p. 180Google Scholar, who also effectively criticizes the one-sided view of Satake, A., Die Gemeindeordnung in der JohannesapokalypseGoogle Scholar; ibid. Cf. also Stählin, , TDNT 7, pp. 62–3.Google Scholar

[28] On this ‘Botenbegriff’, cf. Berger, K., op. cit., p. 29, n. 104.Google Scholar

[29] Stuhlmueller, C., ‘Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi’, in JBC § 23: 28Google Scholar; Beckwith, , op. cit., p. 593Google Scholar. The two witnesses of Rev. 11 are said to function in relation to God (as Lord of the earth, v. 46) and Christ (their crucified Lord, v. 8c). In a unified way, they may echo motifs of ‘the word of God’ and ‘the testimony of Jesus’, as Strand, K. A. urges, ‘The Two Witnesses of Rev. 11:3–12’, AndUSemS 19 (1981), pp. 127–35Google Scholar, although Strand's view surely cannot be substantiated from 11. 1–13 or from the series of three woes alone.

[30] Cf. Jeremias, C., Die Nachtgesichte des Sacharja (Göttingen, 1977), pp. 180–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[31] Berger, K. notes a Nivellierung of the priestly-royal features in function of the prophetic, op. cit., p. 28; p. 29 n. 104Google Scholar. The ‘sacral kingdom’, a salient theme of Rev. (1. 5b–6; 5. 10; 20.6), is strikingly subordinated (in at least two of the three texts) to prophecy and/or testimony (1.1–11; 20. 4). The sacral kingdom seems to be a status granted by the Lamb (1. 6; 5. 10) already and for the future; it is ‘lived out’ in the meantime through prophecy and faithful witness under trial; cf. 12. 11.

[32] Feuillet, , art.cit., p. 189 insists on the allusion to Jer. 5. 14Google Scholar, where God puts into the prophet's mouth words which are fire, and the people are wood. This kind of language sheds further light on the way the witnesses' words can be regarded by the earthdwellers as a ‘torment’ (v. 10).

[33] Θηλεω is used three times in this passage, twice of the witnesses' adversaries (vv. 5a, 5d) and once of the witnesses themselves (v. 6e). The modifications are puzzling (first, pres. ind.; second, aor. subj.; third, έάν + aor. subj.). Mussies, G., The Morphology of Koine Greek As Used in the Apocalypse of John (Leiden, 1971), p. 333CrossRefGoogle Scholar, calls the ind. in v. 5a a ‘futural’ pres., but does not explain the correlated subjunctive of v. 5d. The general progression seems to suggest possible, not actual use of force or of power.

[34] As in Minear's translation – which is otherwise quite helpful; I Saw A New Earth, pp. 328–9.Google Scholar

[35] Minear seems to have been one of the first to see this clearly; ‘Ontology and Ecclesiology in the Apocalypse’, NTS 12 (1965 f.), pp. 89–105, 96–7.Google Scholar

[36] Beasley-Murray, , The Book of Revelation, p. 184.Google Scholar

[37] The beast is introduced in Rev. 11.1–13 only in function of his being the sole power able to afflict the witnesses; he does not frustrate their testimony, nor does he impose himself on others as an object of worship.

[38] Mounce, , op. cit., p. 228, sees a perverse counterpart to Purim.Google Scholar

[39] Those dwelling on earth seem to represent ‘mankind in general’: the universal object of the eschatological test (3. 10; 8. 13; 12. 12), who persecute the faithful (6. 10), are idolators (13. 8; 12. 14; 17. 2, 8), yet are called to repent (14. 6).

[40] The term ἒμφοβοι, used in v. 13e, clearly connotes some religious disposition where it is used elsewhere in the NT (though it is used only by Luke: Lk. 24. 5, 37; Acts 10. 4; 22. 9; 24. 25). The same is true of φόβος qualified by μέγας. This idiom is proper to a context containing miracles or portents (Mk. 4. 41; Lk. 2. 9; 8. 37; Acts 2. 43; 5. 5,11).

[41] Cf. Charles, , op. cit., I, p. 291.Google Scholar

[42] Berger, Klaus, Die Auferstehung des Propheten, pp. 23, 100 n. 450.Google Scholar

[43] Ibid., p. 110. Cf. also Beasley-Murray, , op. cit., p. 187.Google Scholar

[44] Cf. Vanni, , La Struttura letteraria dell' Apocalisse, pp. 146–8Google Scholar, and Bauckham, R., ‘The Eschatological Earthquake in the Apocalypse of John’, NovT 19 (1977), pp. 224–33, 228Google Scholar. Bauckham does not, however, sufficiently distinguish the ‘theological moments’ of 11. 13 and 16. 19; ibid., p. 231.

[45] ‘Glory’ (after ‘give’ or ‘receive’) is sometimes accompanied by other terms like ‘honour’, ‘power’, etc., in which case it signifies ‘praise’ and does not connote repentance (Rev. 1. 6; 4. 9, 11; 5. 12, 13; 7. 12; 19. 1, 7). In still other instances it is used of a manifestation of God's presence (15. 8; 21. 11, 23). Nevertheless, as Dan. 4. 34 ff. indicates, praise and contrition after a humbling experience of God's power go well together in apocalyptic thought. For repentance entails true worship (15. 4); cf. Beasley-Murray, , op. cit., p. 187.Google Scholar

[46] The defining gen. ‘of heaven’ appears elsewhere in Rev. only in 16. 11, and in reference to the heathen. Cf. Swete, H. B., The Apocalypse of St. John, p. 141Google Scholar. The phrase could be used in speaking to Jews, too, as Charles points out, op. cit., I, p. 292, but the texts imply a pagan environment.

[47] John simply does not regard ‘Jews’ as a people separate from ‘gentiles/nations’, or think in terms of a dichotomy between these racial or ethnic categories. The only genuine ‘Jews’ are Christians (2. 9; 3. 9), who are made up of all peoples, races, etc. (5. 9; 7. 9). Hence, it becomes totally irrelevant to ask whether those who are converted are the Jews or the gentiles, to opt for one group rather than the other, or specifically for a combination of those two groups. Attempts to pose this irrelevant question arise from misguided efforts historically to define the ‘city’, and result in notable contradictions within a commentary; Beckwith's, is a case in point, op. cit., p. 604.Google Scholar

The phrase in v. 13d, literally: ‘names of men’(cp. Acts 1. 15), is best taken in the sense of ‘persons’; cf. Charles, , op. cit., I, pp. 81, 291.Google Scholar

[48] E.g., Beasley-Murray, , op. cit., p. 187, n. 1Google Scholar. Caird, G. B., A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine (London, 1966), p. 140Google Scholar, notes the symbolic number associated with Elijah, but does not develop the remnant motif; he appeals to the vindictive law of malicious witness (Deut. 19. 16–21).

[49] Gen. 14. 20; 28. 22; Deut. 14. 22 (δέκατον); Deut. 12. 11; 14. 28 (έπιδέκατον).

[50] Cf. Vermeylen, J., Du Prophèts Isaïe à l'Apocalyptique (Paris, Vol. 1, 1977), pp. 195–6Google Scholar; Kaiser, O., Isaiah 1–12 (Philadelphia, 1972), pp. 84–5.Google Scholar

[51] Confirmatory arguments for the remnant-typology may be derived from the use of ‘one-third’ in the trumpet-series. In Zech. 13. 8 f. it is a remnant-image, whereas Rev. employs the fraction of the part destroyed – in every portion of the septenary of trumpets (including the last, 12. 4, building on Dan. 8. 10) except for the events of the fifth trumpet – where nothing is destroyed (9. 4) and only the unsealed are harmed. The ‘remnant-numbers’ are used in Rev. to indicate that which is eliminated, so that the greater portion (or, in the case of the fifth trumpet, everything) remains ordered to face a final reckoning, which comes after the sequence of three woes (= last three trumpets) in the septenary of the last plagues. These observations should at the very least indicate that the series of cataclysms of the second, trumpet septenary is not meant to depict a process of attrition or progressive annihilation. Rather, the OT imagery of a remnant which, though pitiful, augurs hope for a rebuilt future is reemployed in Rev. to characterize a ‘judged and eliminated portion’ which prepares the way for the reckoning regarding the major pars. In short, the OT movement towards particularism (the salvation and rebuilding of a part) is remarkably reversed: the interest of Rev. lies not in the smaller part but in the larger, not as a basis for growth (for the new ‘growth’ will be an entirely new creation) but as a basis for universal judgment.

[52] See above, n. 16.

[53] Without providing such signposts, the author could not expect his reader to perceive the literary structure he employs to articulate his thought. Cf. Giblin, C. H., ‘Two Complementary Literary Structures in John 1:1–18’, JBL 103 (forthcoming, 1984).Google Scholar

[54] Cf. Wolff, H. W., Joel and Amos (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), p. 42Google Scholar. A key difference is that, in Rev., the locusts attack mankind, not God's people or their possessions or even ‘green things’.

[55] ‘Five months’ is the ‘full time’ for a locust-plague; cf. Beckwith, , op. cit., p. 562.Google Scholar

[56] Fiorenza, E. S., art. cit., p. 357Google Scholar, states (against A. Y. Collins): ‘In Revelation, the language and pattern of divine warfare appears to be subordinated to the judicial language and patterns of prophetic judgment.’ Nevertheless, the prophetic ‘Day of the Lord’ is akin to the imagery of divine warfare; cf. von Rad, G., ‘The Origin and Concept of the Day of Yahweh‘, JSS 4 (1959), pp. 97–108Google Scholar. The theme is worked out in Rev. in narrative form, which approximates the order of events in the narrative traditions of God's victory on behalf of his people (= ‘Holy War’, an abominable, modern designation, cf. Ryan, P. J., ‘Holy War: A Comparative Study of a Religious and Political Category’, Thought 58 [#229, 06, 1983], pp. 133–44)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Thus, the septet of unsealings serves as the disclosure of the oracle which makes clear the outcome and also entails the offering of prayers; the septet of trumpetings heralds the inauguration of the action and moves into the conflict itself, especially with the appearance of the palladium, the ark of the covenant; lastly, the septet of bowls effects the hērem or anathema. The converse of the moment of condemnatory judgment on the Worldly City (16. 17) is the new creation viewed as the Heavenly City where God dwells with men (21. 6). For the elements of the Holy War in narrative books of the Bible, cf. de Vaux, R., Ancient Israel. Its Life and Institutions (London, trans. McHugh, J., 1961), pp. 258–67Google Scholar. The coherence of the septets then becomes much clearer than it is according to recapitulation theories or A. Y. Collins’ schema of ‘divine warrior hymns’. Cp. also the sequence of events in 1QM, which is, of course, nationalistically belligerent: encouragement before battle (x), success foretold in a history of events (xi), prayer (xv), trumpets (xvi), utter destruction of the enemy (xviii).

[57] It seems reasonable to assume that the motif was recognizable (cf. Beckwith, , op. cit., p. 579Google Scholar, appealing to the def. art.). Given the Holy War context, the thunders could have dealt with events leading to the Day of the Lord. What they ‘said’, however, is irrelevant; the thunders serve simply to focus attention on the correlated commands given the seer (seal X, do Y, because …).

[58] The explanation may lie in a vision (1.10 ff.) or in an angelic interpretation (5. 4–5), or in a divine as well as angelic utterance (22.10–14), or simply in a divine utterance (4.1) or affirmation by the spirit (14.13). The speaker (λέγων) in Rev. 11. 1 is the Spirit.

[59] The term βιβλιαρίδιον in v. 2 is anarthrous. It may be intended to evoke the message of the scroll whose ‘contents’ were disclosed or prefigured in the unsealings, but it is not to be ‘identified’ with it. John's mind is not static, though he may restate the same or similar things anew. He intends his reader to see more clearly the scope of the unsealed scroll, the unfolding prophetic vision of the future according to what has been written and is now made known through Christ. The ‘evocative’ relationship between the two scrolls may be likened to that between the visions of the horseman in 19. 11 and in 6. 2.

[60] Curiously, John uses the aor. act. in both cases (the only instances of the active form of this verb in the NT).

[61] In 14. 6–7, John adds ‘fresh waters’, probably in view of the first four of the last plagues on the unrepentant, especially the third, with its eschatological vindication formula (so described by Collins, A. Y., ‘The History-of-Religions Approach to Apocalypticism and the “Angel of the Waters”, [Rev. 16:4–7]’, CBQ 39 ‘1977’, pp. 367–81, 369).Google Scholar

[62] Λέγονσω, pace Charles, , op. cit., I, p. 269Google Scholar, cannot be the plural of indefinite statement (= ‘people say’, ‘on dit’, as in 16. 15: ‘people see’). For it introduces an imperative which is well-integrated into the context of instructions to the seer himself.

The ‘angel’ may be a ‘stand-in’ for Christ. In the popular view, an angel could be a ‘stand-in’ for the flesh-and-blood person (cf. ‘Peter's angel’ in Acts 13. 12–15). Cp. also the presentation of the Son of Man as ‘another angel’ in Rev. 14. 14–20, and see above, n. 24.

[63] Cf. Charles, , op. cit., I, p. 269Google Scholar. 'Eπί + dat. is not necessarily to be taken in an adverse sense (cf. 22.16).

Пάλω may be taken to reiterate the seer's initial commission with further specification, some-what as πάλω in 10. 8 restates positively what was commanded in 10. 4b.

[64] Cf. Vanni, U., op. cit., pp. 125–30Google Scholar. The seventh in a series thus ‘latches onto’ what follows (‘… si estende, agganciandovisi al…’). It must be reaffirmed, however, that a distinction obtains between the ‘announcement’ and the ‘activation’ of a septenary: cp. 5. 1–10 and 6. 1 ff.; 8. 2 and 8. 6 ff.; 15. 1,8 and 16. 1 ff.

[65] Fiorenza, E. S., ‘Composition and Structure of the Book of Revelation’, p. 364 ff.Google Scholar, although she takes as the centre an ample portion of text: 10. 1–15. 4.

[66] Therefore, in the adequate context of the scenario of the seventh trumpet, 13. 8 should not be taken in a deterministic sense. If one's name can be removed from the book of life (3. 10), it can presumably be added on condition of repentance, as suggested by 3. 3.

[67] Cf. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., ‘The Apocalyptic Message of l Enoch 92–105’, CBQ 39 (1977), pp. 309–28, 312–15Google Scholar; Klassen, W., ‘Vengeance in the Apocalypse of John’, CBQ 28 (1966), pp. 300–11, 309, 311.Google Scholar