Iwan M. Whiteley, «Cataphora and Lack of Clarity in the Book of Revelation», Vol. 21 (2008) 75-90
This article argues that John adopts a lack of clarity as a strategy for communication in the Book of Revelation. This lack of clarity can be identified in his use of the asyndeton, καί, anarthrous nouns and cataphora. His use of cataphora is investigated in three areas; in Revelation 1, in his use of
ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι and the colours of the horses. The conclusion is that exegetes should not impose readings on passages in Revelation that are, in themselves, inherently unclear. Instead, they should wait until John clarifies his own ambiguity so that the full rhetorical force of the text can be provided.
Cataphora and Lack of Clarity in the Book of Revelation 81
Charles, Chilton, and Morris are more cautious in this position realising
that the book does not conform exactly to this format. In fact, Carrington
notes that six of the letters to the churches refer to the future coming of
Christ28. It seems more likely (bearing in mind John’s adoption of the
conjunction και,29) that Rev 1:19 is communicating30:
ἃ εἶδες
ἃ εἰσίν ἃ μέλλει γενέσϑαι
Consequently, this verse suggests that the whole book is a disclosure
of what things are and what things are about to take place. But this does
not clarify what is about to take place; yet again, the subject is notably
absent and the reader is left unsure of the correct direction to ascertain
referential significance to the phrase.
John teases the mind of his readers by potentially removing ambiguity
with language that is very unclear in 4:1, ‘…I will show you what things
must take place after these things,’31 Aune argues that this is phrase is a
redactional addition ‘that the author has inserted to unify a complex se-
quence of visions…’32 Since it is inevitable that the author has added this
to direct the reader, the choice of the term redaction may be misleading
and Aune’s words do not explain the referential direction of the phrase.
Press Ltd, 1968) 57; U. Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation (Maryland:
Review and Herald Publishing, 1972) 343-344; Charles, A Critical, 33; Chilton, The Days,
79; L. Morris, The Book of Revelation (Leicester: Eerdmans, 1987) 56; J. Walvoord, The
Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966) 48; H. Hailey, Revelation (Michigan:
Baker, 1989) 114; G. Krodel, Revelation (Augsburg Commentary on the NT; Minneapolis;
Augsburg, 1989) 98; Hal Lindsey, There’s a New World Coming (Condon: Coverdale House
Publishers, 1973) 29-30; H. Ironside, Revelation (New Jersey: Loizeaux, 1996) 33; Swete,
The Apocalypse, 21; P. Barnett, Apocalypse Now and Then (Australia: The Anglical
Information Office, 1989) 46; J. Van Impe, Revelation Revealed (London: Word Publishing,
1982) 22.
P. Carrington, The Meaning, 95; also J. Sweet, Revelation (London: SCM Press, 1990)
28
19; G. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (London: New Century Bible, 1974) 68;
Caird, The Revelation, 26; Roloff, The Revelation, 45.
Καί by its very nature does not connect mutually exclusive clauses, each clause con-
29
nected by καί, requires semantic overlap. See K. Titrud, ‘The Function of καί, in the Greek
New Testament and an Application to 2 Peter,’ in D. Black, ed., Linguistics and New Testa-
ment Interpretation, Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
See Whiteley (Whiteley, A Search, 191-194) for further explanation. Similarly Aune,
30
Revelation, 67; Beckwith, The Apocalypse, 443; Mounce, The Book, 62; Caird, The Revela-
tion, 26.
καὶ δείξω σοι ἃ μέλλει γενέσθαι μετὰ ταῦτα.
31
Aune, Revelation, 283.
32
FOLLOW US