The Scroll of Life

Appendix E: A Scroll or a Codex?

One of the major contributors to the Amillennial fantasy is Gregory Beale. After seeing many references to it by Amillennial authors, I found it on the Internet Archive site https://archive.org/.

Gregory K. Beale
The Book of Revelation
A Commentary on the Greek Text
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1949

[Here is the PDF:
G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive]

It is quite lengthy at 1245 pages.

I spent quite a bit of time with Beale’s commentary. I expected to find talking points for Amillennialism; I was not disappointed.

One controversy that I did not expect was a 2-page discussion of the question of whether, when John uses the word βιβλίον, whether he intended for us to understand a scroll or a codex.

My reaction was, Why should this even be raised?

[One of the properties that I have noticed by Covenant and Amil expositors is their tendency toward what I’ll call “let-me-impress-you-with-my-knowledge-of-ancient-documents” and “let-me-impress-you-with-my-many-words” “scholarship”.

At 1245 pages, Beale demonstrates this tendency with panache!

He fills multiple pages of commentary without really illuminating the content and meaning of Scripture (which should be the purpose of exposition in the first place). If an ancient expositor said anything about a text of Scripture, whether that person was correct or wildly off-base is irrelevant; his thoughts were included anyway. That ancient author has no intrinsic authority and should be regarded as useless.

The citation of many/dozens/scores of ancient documents may be viewed as “scholarship”, but the only ancient document that counts is the Word of God. Within Beale’s commentary is a great deal of what I considered useless discussion. Here is this process in Beale’s own words:

“The first draft of the commentary took seven years. I took an eighth year to edit it and update it with secondary literature which had come out during the prior seven years. I submitted the final manuscript in the fall semester of 1995. I have not had opportunity to take account of the vast majority of secondary literature which has been published since that time, including the first volume of David Aune’s commentary on Revelation in the Word series (when I wrote this preface, the second and third volumes of his work had not yet appeared).” [Included in the Preface]

I know that the following text is from a completely different direct context, but the principle is very much the same:

Mat 6.7
“And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.]

Beale presents several possible theories (aka., interpretations) in his commentary, including whether the scroll of chapter 5 should be regarded as a scroll or codex:

• a book of redemption (the “Lamb’s book of life”): pg 339
• the Old Testament: pg 340
• a book containing events of the future “Great Tribulation.”: pg 340
• a book containing God’s plan of judgment and redemption.: pg 340
• the book as a “testament. ”: pg 340
• the “book” in ch. 5 should be understood as a covenantal promise of an inheritance: pg 340
• the book as a testament of inheritance: pg 341
• the book as a covenantal promise: pg 341
• the decretive nature of the book [is] the purpose of history: pg 341
• the consensus of most expositors is that the book in Rev. 5-1 is a scroll: pg 343
• The inner contents of the scroll are still for the most part mysterious.: pg 343
• the book of 5:1-2 is to be understood in part against the legal background of Roman wills: pg 344
• It is also possible that John is so creative in his symbolism that [his descriptions] were not meant to be analyzed so thoroughly.: ppg 346-47
• Perhaps the book is a general symbol [and the opened seals] … [reveal the] symbolism..: pg 347

In his exposition of Rev 5.1, Beale does not take a position on the scroll: it simply exists. Beale discounts the “Lamb’s book of life” interpretation because:

“the book’s contents are revealed in the following chapters they have to do not merely with events surrounding the elect but also, and especially, with judgments on unbelievers.” [pg 339]

This is false. It is true that the seals are broken, but the content of the scroll are not revealed until chapter 20 (given that, as I show in this article, the scroll of Rev 5.1 is the Little Scroll of Life). This is even more evident that since Beale rejects the scroll being the Little Scroll of Life of Rev 20, then it is never opened and therefore its contents are never revealed.

He also states:

“This emphasis of the book in Revelation 5 is also apparent from the fact that the parallel “little book” in ch. 10 mainly contains events of judgment, which are followed by a narration of events of salvation.” [pg 339]

This is a false comparison, since we don’t know the contents of the scroll in chapter 10 either—other than the fact that when John ate the scroll as commanded it made his stomach bitter.

Beale introduces us to the (manufactured!) “problem” with the following:

“A Scroll or a Codex?
That someone must “break the seals” of the book raises the question of whether it is a rolled-up scroll or a codex (the forerunner of the modern book form). The answer could provide an interpretative key that determines one’s view of 6:1- 22:5. If it is a scroll, then, possibly, its contents cannot be revealed until all the seals are removed (at 8:1 or 8:6).” [pg 342, emphasis mine]

He then spends approximately 2 paragraphs discussing the pros/cons of the issue, finally stating:

“Nevertheless, the consensus of most commentators is that the book in Rev. 5-1 is a scroll, though many have not found it necessary to conclude from this that the contents of the book cannot be revealed until all seven seals are broken.” [pg 343, emphasis mine]

Ok, so what did we learn from this “scholarly speculation”?

• It might be possible that the scroll was sealed in such a way that the scroll is opened progressively as each seal is broken because “many” expositors say so.
• Likewise, it may not be possible!

This is the type of “buffet eschatology” we have seen, or something that one would expect from a seasoned politician:

“Let me be perfectly clear: I meant yes, unless I happened to mean no instead. You decide.”

Beale presents the “option” that we can look at the scroll in 2 different ways:

• If a scroll, then each seal must be broken before it can be opened (probably, but not absolutely).
• If a codex, then there is the possibility that each “chapter” (my term) can be viewed in an intermediate fashion (like a book), thereby producing a progressive revelation of the contents.

“There is testamentary evidence that seals (which represent witnesses) on a legal document would give the contents of the document in abbreviated fashion. Therefore, the unloosing of each seal could indicate the revelation of a detailed part of what was written in the document.” [pg 343, emphasis mine]

[I did not find the “testamentary evidence” he referenced. (I guess that we simply need to take his word for it…??)]

This “scholarly discussion” is important to the Amillennialist, since it appears that Beale’s intention here is to pave the way for at least one theory of recapitulation.

[Recapitulation is the theory that within the 22 chapters of the Revelation there are multiple sections, each section a complete presentation of the Revelation, and with each section somehow supplying more/different detail. There are many different representations of this theory, including a one which would be represented visually by a spiral!

The theory is laughable and easily rebutted from a number of different perspectives. (This will be the topic of a future article on this site.)

The reason this is important to the “Amil interpretation” of the Revelation is its difficulty handling the normal and natural reading of the sequences of:

1. the progressive breaking of the each of the seven seals leads to the sounding of the 7 trumpets;
2. the progressive sounding of each of the 7 trumpets leads to the pouring out of the 7 bowls;
3. the progressive pouring out of each of the 7 bowls leads to the Great White Throne Judgment.

This is a very simple sequence and readily understood and is the “natural” understanding given to one upon reading the Revelation of Jesus Christ. It is the principle of Occam's Razor applied to eschatology generally and the Revelation specifically.

There are a few problems for the Amil proponent (in no special order):

• the Revelation is naturally a linear and progressive sequence of 3 groups of seven;
• it disallows the Lord Christ is ruling from the throne of David in Jerusalem along with an implicit and natural understanding of the covenant the LORD made with David in 2 Sam 7;
• does not permit the normal and natural reading of Rev 20;
• makes the two judgments of Mat 25 and Rev 20 into a single ”final judgment” instead of recognizing two very different judgments;
• breaks the Amil “darling theory” of recapitulation.

Beale, therefore (“to cover his bases”?), manufactures the "possibility" that the scroll can be progressively opened as each seal is broken, thereby enabling the erroneous theory of recapitalization of some form. (That is, the seals, trumpets and bowls are now concurrent, in some manner, rather than linear and serial.)]

[My formal rebuttal of Amil eschatology, including the error of recapitulation, is left for other articles which are currently planned. It does not really belong in an article discussing the Scroll of Life. This comment will be updated when that article is posted.]