Cruz, Virgil Ambrose. The Mark of the Beast: A Study of the ΧΑΡΑΓΜΑ [CHARAGMA] in the Apocalypse. Amsterdam: Academische Pers N. V., 1973. 153 pp.

This thesis is a very important, but also quite neglected study. Cruz carefully surveys how the mark of the beast is used in Revelation.

One of the most debated issues is the earth beast’s mark, to charagma (Rev 13:16-17; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). The number of its name is given as six hundred and sixty-six (Rev 13:18). The interest in the imagery of the mark has not been comparable to the interest in the number. The only extensive investigation seems to be Virgil Ambrose Cruz’s The Mark of the Beast from 1973.

Cruz analyses four aspects, namely the question of who gives the mark, the issues of the bestowal and the reception or rejection of it, the facet of the place of the mark, and, finally, the parallels to the mark. He completes his study with a discussion of all the passages in which the charagma imagery occurs.

Cruz concludes that the mark constitutes a magnitude of threat, and that it is “the mark of God’s arch adversary, the anti-God force”, wherefore the recipients are “stigmatized as [the adversary's] followers, hence, similarly as opponents of God”. He asserts that it “becomes in its own right an enemy to be conquered by God’s people (15:2)” and “a symbol of evil” (p. 131).The mark should be understood as symbols, which nevertheless point to realities in the world (p. 132).

Cruz concludes that the charagma is “whatever decisively indicates that a man is allied with the anti-God force” and that it earns its bearers the wrath of God (p. 132).

Cruz’s analysis is a major achievement in that he pays attention to the narrative use of this motif. The mark is clearly described as a contrasting parallel to the seal of God, as is shown by the location of the seal and the mark, by the agents of this act, by the behaviour, and by the final outcome (cf. also pp. 86-100).

As regards the location, both the seal of God and the mark of the beast are to be placed on the forehead (7:3; 13:16), although the latter may also be put on the (right) hand (13:16; 14:9; 20:4) (p. 79).[1] V. A. Cruz argues that the wearing of the charagma on the forehead or the right hand is “tantamount to making a fully public confession of faith in and acceptance of the authority of the forces which are diametrically opposed to God”.[2]

With regard to the agents, the servants of God are marked by angels (7:3), probably indicating that they are approved as servants.[3]

As regards the force behind, it is explicitly said that the beast is behind the marking with the charagma (cf. kai poiei in 13:16) (pp. 7f), while it is only implied that it is God who gave order to the sealing of his servants (7:2f).[4]

As far as the behaviour is concerned, there is a clear distinction between those who dwell on the earth and the servants of God.[5] On the one hand, the whole earth follows the beast (13:3) and worships the dragon and the beast (13:4 cf. 13:8), prompted by the second beast (13:12).[6] Their names are not written in the book of life (13:8). On the other hand, the saints against whom the beast makes war (13:7) even let themselves be killed rather than worship the beast (13:15) (cf. also pp. 58-63).

As for the outcome, the two groups are quite contrastive. Those who are killed will be raised and reign together with Christ for ‘a thousand years’ (20:4) indeed forever (22:5), while those who worship the beast and receive its mark will suffer the wrath and torment of God (14:10), in fact also forever (14:11).[7]

^[4] Cruz argues, however, that “the words sphragida theou zôntos explicitly point to God as the authority behind its bestowal” (p. 87).

^[5] See pp. 56-8 for a description of the recipients of the mark of the beast.

^[6] Cruz argues that the reason why the bearers worship and receive the mark was not that it was imposed “irresistibly”, but that they were prompted to do so by the great signs, the threat of death sentence and by economic sanctions. He therefore concludes that “the bestowal of the ca,ragma is not to be taken for granted in every individual case but depends rather upon the success of the variously expressed enticements and pressures to conform” (V. A. Cruz 1973, 56).

^[7] Cf. also pp. 58. However, Cruz interprets Revelation 13 as a description of non-parousian circumstances and claims that the recipients of the mark of the beast receives “approval, membership in the cult (13:12) and exemption from economic and political sanctions applied against recalcitrants” from the dragon and the two beasts (ibid.).

Johann Albrecht Bengel, who is also known by the English rendering: John Albert Bengel, was born in Württemberg i Germany in 1687. He died in 1752. He was contemporary with Johann Sebastian Bach who lived from 1685 to 1750. While Bach was a North German, Bengel was from the South of Germany.

Bengel served as a pastor and an ecclesiastical leader in the beginning and in the end of his career. For twenty-eight years, however, he lived at Denkendorf where he headed the cloister school that prepared young men for an education for Lutheran ministry as the University of Tübingen (1714-1741).

Bengel became “the father of textual criticism” (K. Aland, cited in Weborg, p. 185). Bengel was very proficient at languages and prepared critical editions of Latin and Greek texts, including the New Testament.

Influenced perhaps by Spinoza and certainly by Francke of Leipzig, Bengel explored “the role of the feelings in interpretation” (John Weborg, p. 186, citing Bengel’s New Testament Word Studies [The Gnomon]. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel, 1978, nos. 12 and 15). Bengel “developed Cocceius’s exegesis of biblical prophecies and his chiliastic orientation” (Willem J. van Asselt, in: Trevor A. Hart, The Dictionary of Historical Theology, p. 133 [Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Paternoster Press, 2000]).

Bengel’s influence was enormous. His Gnomon was republished many times, and through John Wesley, “Bengel became part of the the confessional corpus of the Methodist church” (Weborg, p. 186). Indeed, the Lutheran Jaroslav Pelikan says that Bengel’s Gnomon “was commonplace in the libraries of evangelical pastors” (Weborg, p. 186).

Apocalyptic interests

Of most interest at this site is Bengel’s apocalyptic interests:

Bengel is noted for his apocalyptic interests. He calculated a date for the beginning of the thousand-year reign of Christ: 1836. He wrote two major books on the Book of Revelation and two works specifically coordinating time, nature and astronomy with the prophetic material. His Ordo temporum (1741) attempted to be a history of the divine economy [one of the major interests of Bengel] and a proper accounting of prophecy and how parts and whole form one story. The Cyclus (1945) especially tried to link astronomy with prophetic material, and the Explained Revelation (1740), a massive commentary on the text, concludes with six excurses detailing the history of the exegesis of Revelation. (Weborg, p. 187).

Bengel’s Explained Revelation, i.e. Erklärte Offenbarung Johannis, is now accessible at Google Books in its 3rd, 1758 edition. Bengel also published sixty devotional speeches on Revelation: “Sechzig erbauliche Reden über die Offenbarung Johannis” (1747). According to Weborg, this work has a strong “theocentric character” and “a strong emphasis on God’s glory and holiness” (p. 187).

Bengel’s interpretation of Revelation was of the historicist type, as was, e.g., Luthers. Bengel, however, lacked Luther’s reservations about the validity of this approach.

The exegete of Pietism

Bengel was “the exegete of Pietism” (J. Weborg, DMBI, p. 184). Weborg is right in mentioning the Lutheran Johann Brenz as part of Bengel’s context. One may question, however, whether Brenz would have approved of Bengel’s pietism. In fact, Bengel was criticised by Lutherans for his eschatological and apocalyptic views. When Weborg states that the critics of Bengel based “their criticism on Article 17 of the Augsburg Confession,” one may add that they did so because they were certain that this article was based on the clear teachings of the Bible. Thus, “many Lutheran scholars accused him of being either Judaistic or Anabaptistic because of his defense of an earthly millennium and literal fulfillment of prophecy” (Weborg, p. 187).

As to the significance of Bengel, see John Weborg’s concluding section.

Select online sources

More on Bengel in Wikipedia and Wikisource, and, especially, in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon.

Select bibliography:

Bengel, Johann Albrecht. 60 erbauliche Reden über die Offenbarung Johannis oder vielmehr Jesu Christi …. Stuttgardt, 1748.
________. Bengel’s New Testament Commentary. Translated by Charlton Thomas Lewis, and Marvin Richardson Vincent. [1864]. Repr. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1981.
________. Erbauliche Reden über die Offenbarung Johannis. [Berlin-Dahlem]: Der Christliche Zeitschriftenverlag, 1946.
________. Gnomon. Translated by C. F. Werner. 8. Aufl. Mit einem Vorwort von Egon W. Gerdes; und dem Vorwort von Johann Albrecht Bengel ed. Stuttgart: Steinkopf, 1970.
________. Die Offenbarung des Johannes: Nach d. Auslegung von Johann Albrecht Bengel. Translated by Berthold Burgbacher. Metzingen, Württemberg: Franz, 1975.

Mathison, Keith A., ed. When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2004. xxii + 376 pp.

This volume critiques “hyper-preterism,” the view that all prophecy in Scripture has already been fulfilled.

For more on this volume, visit Riddleblog’s “Eschatology Q & A — Are There Any Exegetical Resources Refuting Hyper-Preterism?“

Table of Contents

• The historical problem with hyper-preterism, by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. (pp. 1-62)
• Eschatology in the wake of Jerusalem’s fall, by Charles E. Hill (pp. 63-120)
• Hyper-preterism and unfolding Biblical eschatology, by Richard L. Pratt, Jr. (pp. 121-154)
• The eschatological time texts of the New Testament, by Keith A. Mathison (pp. 155-214)
• Hyper-preterism and revelation, by Simon J. Kistemaker (pp. 215-254)
• Sola scriptura, creeds, and ecclesiastical authority, by Douglas Wilson (pp. 255-286)
• Hyper-preterism on the resurrection of the body, by Robert B. Strimple (pp. 287-352)
• Editor’s conclusion (pp. 353-354)
• Contributors (pp. 355-358)
• Index of Scripture and Ancient Texts (pp. 359-370)
• Index of Subjects and Names (pp. 371-376)

Mealy, J. Webb: After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20. (JSNT.SS 70). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. 273 pp.

Mealy’s study is the first monograph on Revelation 20 since Bietenhard’s from 1955. Mealy argues in favour of a premillennial position, even though he, at first, seems to present arguments that to me (and, indeed, him) rather supports an atemporal millennialism.

Mealy proposes several new readings and points to some very important prima facie arguments which have not been recognised before Mealy.

Mealy’s study was a very important inspiration for my article on ‘the thousand years.’

Reviews (kindly provided by dr. Mealy)

• Georg S. Adamsen, Revelation Resources [this page]
• Gregory K. Beale, “Review Article: J. W. Mealy After the Thousand Years,” in: Evangelical Quarterly 66 (1994): 229-49
• Ian Boxall, in: Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 1/2 (1993): 250
• John M. Court, in: Journal of Theological Studies 44/1 (April 1993): 488
• Charles E. Hill, in: Journal of Biblical Literature 14/1 (Spring 1995): 169-72
• Martin Karrer, in: Theologische Literaturzeitung 118/10 (1993): cols. 836-38
• Russell Morton, in: Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 595-96
• Steve Moyise, in: Anvil 10/2 (1993): 164.
• Mathias Rissi, in: Interpretation (Jan. 1994): 102-103
• D.S. Russell, in: Expository Times 104/5 (February 1993): (155-)156
• John Sweet, in: Theological Book Review 6/1 (October 1993): 20.

See also the abstracts in New Testament Abstracts 38/2 (1994), 307; Theology Digest 40/2 (Summer 1993), 174.

Jack Van Deventer, “Amillennial History,” Credenda Agenda 14/2 (apparently no date): 34-35.On-line as http://credenda.org/issues/14-2eschaton.php

When looking at the Internet for information about Abraham Kuyper, I came across this very interesting article on the history of the term and concept of amillennial(ism): “Amillennial History,” by Jack Van Deventer, over at Credenda/Agenda (see here for the text and here for the notes).

The concept was not invented until the 20th century. “Having become convinced of history’s downward spiral, yet having rejected dispensationalism as unbiblical, presbyterian, and Reformed people were in need of their own theological rationale for pessimism.”

“The amillennial solution was to reassign the biblical victory passages to the heavenly or spiritual realm. The kingdom of God was allegorized, spiritualized, and explained away as other-worldly, another spiritual dimension, a land beyond time and beyond our grasp. The prophecies of doom and destruction, of course, were retained and applied to the earthly realm. In other words, keep the curses, discard the blessings. Although a younger doctrine than dispensationalism, amillennialism met the same need and fit the mood of the day.” Read it all.

Whether Van Deventer is right about the historical explanation or the underlying theological conceptions is another matter. What do you think?