The Ending of the Canon: A Canonical and Intertextual Reading of Revelation 21–22 9780567657947, 9780567657961, 9780567657954

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

526 Formerly Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

Editor Chris Keith

Editorial Board Dale C. Allison, John M.G. Barclay, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Catrin H. Williams



THE ENDING OF THE CANON

A Canonical and Intertextual Reading of Revelation 21–22

Külli Tõniste

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2016 © Külli Tõniste, 2016 Külli Tõniste has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi¿ed as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury Academic or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN:

HB: ePDF:

978-0-56765-794-7 978-0-56765-795-4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Series: Library of New Testament Studies, volume 526 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications Ltd (www.forthpub.com)

CONTENTS List of Tables Preface Acknowledgements Abbreviations Chapter 1 TOWARD A METHODOLOGY FOR A THEOLOGICAL READING OF REVELATION 1. Introduction 2. Need to Recover the Unity of Scripture 3. Toward a Holistic Methodology a. Canonical Approach (1) Brevard Childs’ Canonical Approach (2) Criticisms of Childs’ Approach (3) Sanders’ ‘Canonical Process’ and Childs’ ‘Canonical Approach’ (4) Beyond Childs and Sanders (5) A Proposal for a Path Forward b. Literary Criticism in Biblical Studies (1) Reader-Oriented Approaches in Biblical Studies (2) Intertextuality and Its Role in Biblical Studies 4. A Survey of Literature a. Theologies and Commentaries That Promote the Unity of the Canon b. Studies on the Use of the Old Testament in Revelation c. Studies on the Canonical Placement of Revelation 5. Conclusion Chapter 2 GENRE AND LITERARY STRUCTURE OF REVELATION 1. Introduction 2. Genre of Revelation 3. Structural Elements and Themes of Revelation a. Overall Structure b. Sets of Seven

1

ix xi xiii xv

1 1 2 4 5 5 6 8 10 14 17 17 20 29 31 33 39 41 42 42 42 51 53 57

vi

Contents

c. Opening of Heaven d. Call to the Prophetic Task e. Visions of Cosmic Combat (1) Woman and Dragon (2) Sea Beast and Earth Beast f. Sealed for Life or Marked for Death g. The Tale of Two (or Three) Cities h. Worship i. Conquering and Rewards j. Final Judgment k. Coming of the Lord 4. Conclusion Chapter 3 INTERTEXTUAL VORBILD OF REVELATION 1. Introduction 2. Primary Intertextual References in Revelation a. Isaiah in Revelation (1) Visionary Experience and Language (2) Christological Titles and Descriptions (3) Eschatological Judgment (4) Eschatological Salvation b. Daniel in Revelation c. Ezekiel in Revelation (1) The Call of the Prophet (Rev. 1; Ezek. 1–3) (2) Throne Visions (Rev. 1, 4; Ezek. 1; 10) (3) The Two Scrolls (Rev. 5; 10; Ezek. 2.8–3.3, 14) (4) The Judgment of Earth (Rev. 6–8; Ezek. 5; 7; 9) (5) The Babylon Visions (Rev. 17–18; Ezek. 16; 23; 26–28) (6) Gog and Magog (Rev. 19–20; Ezek. 38–39) (7) The Restoration Promise (Rev. 21.3; 7.13-17; 11.11; Ezek. 34; 37) (8) Temple and City (Rev. 21.9–22.5; 11.1-2; 3.12; Ezek. 40–48) d. Jeremiah in Revelation e. Zechariah in Revelation (1) The Seven Spirits of God (Rev. 1.4; 3.1; 4.5; 5.6; 11; Zech. 4) (2) The Two Witnesses (Rev. 11; Zech. 4; 6.11-13) (3) Pure Garments (Rev. 2.17; 3.17-18; 6.11; 7.9, 13-14; 19.13-14; 22.14; Zech. 3) (4) The Four Horsemen (Rev. 6; Zech. 1.7-17) 1

60 62 64 66 67 68 70 72 74 76 78 79 81 81 81 86 87 87 87 88 89 94 98 98 99 100 102 106 106 107 108 111 114 115 117 118

Contents

(5) Jerusalem and the Temple (Rev. 11.1-2; 21; 22; Zech. 2.1-5; 8; 14) (6) Babylon and the Nations (Rev. 17–19; Zech. 2.6-9; 9; 14.12-19) (7) Other Uses of Zechariah f. New Testament Writings in Revelation (1) General Observations (2) Coming of Son of Man (3) Coming Like a Thief (4) Summary 3. Conclusion

vii

120 121 122 123 126 126 127 129 130

Chapter 4 REVELATION 21–22 AS THE ENDING OF THE CANON 1. Introduction 2. Function of an Ending 3. Primary Intertextual References in Revelation 21–22 a. The Structure of Revelation 21–22 b. Revelation 21.1-8 (1) New Creation (2) Marital Covenant (3) Promised Inheritance c. Revelation 21.9-21 (1) City-Temple: External Perspective d. Revelation 21.22–22.5 (1) City-Temple: Internal Perspective e. Revelation 22.6-21 (1) Coming of the Lord 4. Conclusion

132 132 132 138 139 141 141 146 153 157 158 171 172 184 184 193

Chapter 5 SUMMARY

199

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

204 214 231

1

YLLL



LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 The Structure of Revelation

54

Table 3.1 Intertextual References in Revelation

85

Table 3.2 New Testament Allusions in Revelation 3.3

128

Table 4.1 Narrative Parallels Between the Beginning and the Ending of the Canon

135

Table 4.2 Intertextual References in Revelation 21–22

197

[



PREFACE The full theological potential of the book of Revelation can only be recognized in the context of the biblical canon as a whole. Assuming the unity of the Bible as a necessary ground for theological reflection, this work explores the book of Revelation as a literary ending of the canonical collection. Methods of canonical and literary criticism are discussed and integrated for the study of Revelation. Attention is given to approaches that fit the character of Revelation: intertextuality, narrative approach, and consideration of the canonical location. The study reveals that the primary intertextual references ties Revelation to the OT prophetic books, which calls for recognition of John as a prophet. It also recognizes Ezekiel as the primary groundwork for Revelation. An overview of the use of other major sources (Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Zechariah) is also provided and some allusions to the NT writings are detected. These also need to be integrated into the canonical readings of Revelation. The entire book is outlined visually in terms of its literary structure and its intertextual layout. The intertextual references are prioritized based on their role as either primary or supporting. The study concludes with the reading of Rev. 21–22 as the ending of the canon. The reading based on this integrated methodology unlocks the metaphors used in John’s vision of renewal in the light of the twotestament canon and demonstrates how Revelation provides narrative closure to the canon story by reflecting the original harmony of God and creation.

1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This investigation is a major revision of my Ph.D. thesis, which was accepted by London School of Theology in 2010. Many have contributed directly or indirectly to the preparation and successful completion of this study. Among those who deserve to be singled out as people to whom I am most indebted are: Dr. Charles Killian, who believed in my ability to tackle post-graduate studies in the ¿rst place and directed my attention to the program at London School of Theology. The loving people of the Lexington First United Methodist Church, who were willing to enbrace me in their fellowship and fund the majority of my studies. I could not have done it without your encouragement and ¿nancial support. My husband Douglas Robb Childress and my family (in the North America and in Estonia), who have labored alongside to see this long journey completed. Their sacri¿ces of love, patience, and time have made it possible for me to complete this work. Thank you! My children Karl, Kristofer and Kalev, who remind me daily of the most important things – that life is a marvelous gift, that every morning is a new adventure, and that we are meant to have fun. Thank you, guys, for making sure I get to laugh every day! My colleague Dr. Kelvin Friebel at Houghton College, who believed in me and who took time to read my work and provide insightful feedback from the depths of his expertise. Dr. Joel B. Green, my advisor, who challenged me to aim higher, dig deeper and sharpen my focus in all issues involved. I am grateful for the way he has patiently endured with me through the journey of joy, of discovery, and of occasional despair. It has been an honor to learn from his expertiese, work ethic, character, and skills. Finally, Dr. Steve Motyer and Dr. Steve Moyise, who oversaw my examination at the London School of Theology. Dr. Moyise’s works on intertextuality have greatly inspired me. H ÏŠÉÀË ÌÇı ÁŧÉÀÇÍ `¾ÊÇı ļÌÛ ÈŠÅÌÑÅ. (Rev. 22.21)

ABBREVIATIONS 1 En. 2 Bar. 2 En. 2 Esd. AB ACNT ACT AJT An. ANF Ant. AThR BDAG

BECNT BETL BFCT Bib BibInt BNTC BR BTB CC CH ChrCent Comm. Apoc. Dial. EvQ ExpTim FC GBS Haer. HB HBT Hist. eccl. IBS ICC Int IVPNTC

1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse) 2 Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse) 2 Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse) 2 Esdras Anchor Bible Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament Ancient Christian Texts Asia Journal of Theology Tertullian, De anima Ante-Nicene Fathers Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Anglican Theological Review Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago, 2000. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Black’s New Testament Commentary Biblical Research Biblical Theology Bulletin Continental Commentaries Church History Christian Century Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse Justin Martyr, Dilogue with Trypho Evangelical Quarterly Expository Times Fathers of the Church. Washington, D.C., 1947– Guides to Biblical Scholarship Irenaeus, Adversus haereses Hebrew Bible Horizons in Biblical Theology Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary Interpretation IVP New Testament Commentary

xvi JETS JPT JPTSup JSNT JSNTSup Jub. Lat. LNTS LXX MT NA26 NASB NCB NCBC NIBCNT NIGTC NIVAC NovT NPNF2 NRSV NT NTL NTS OT OTL OTS PNTC Poet. PTL RB RBL RivB SBL SBLDS SBT Sib. Or. SNTW SP StABH T. Benj. T. Dan TDNT Tob. TU UBS4 VTSup WBC WUNT 1

Abbreviations Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Pentecostal Theology Journal of Pentecostal Theology: Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series Jubilees Lateranum Library of the New Testament Studies Septuagint Masoretic Text Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 26th ed. New American Standard Bible New Century Bible The New Cambridge Bible Commentary New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary NIV Application Commentary Novum Testamentum Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d Series New Revised Standard Version New Testament New Testament Library New Testament Studies Old Testament Old Testament Library Old Testament Studies Pelican New Testament Commentary Aristotle, Poetica Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature Revue biblique Review of Biblical Literature Rivista biblica italiana Studies in Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Studies in Biblical Theology Sibylline Oracles Studies of the New Testament and its World Sacra pagina Studies in American Biblical Hermeneutics Testament of Benjamin Testament of Dan Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Tobit Texte und Untersuchungen The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 4th ed. Supplement to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

Chapter 1

TOWARD A METHODOLOGY FOR A THEOLOGICAL READING OF REVELATION

1. Introduction The theological richness of the book of Revelation is best revealed when it is read in its literary unity, and in the context of the whole canon. The present work integrates approaches from the ¿eld of literary criticism and canonical criticism for a better methodology for reading Revelation and applies this approach to Rev. 21–22. A canonical approach as proposed by Brevard S. Childs provides a starting point for such a methodology.1 The intended framework of interpreting any biblical book, including the book of Revelation, as Christian Scripture is the two-testament canon. From the ¿eld of literary criticism intertextuality has a great potential to advance Revelation studies and has until recently been underemployed. Perhaps more than any other biblical book, Revelation is tied strongly into the story of the whole Bible through a network of intertextual references. Without formally citing, it alludes and echoes many parts of the canon. It is vital to explore these connections and the theological meanings they create. Finally, the canonical location of Revelation as an ending deserves more attention. The early church assigned to the Apocalypse a particular canonical location (the end) and literary function (to be an ending). Therefore, Revelation should be approached as a canonical ending with an expectation that it completes the canonical narrative. In short, the purpose of this work is to propose a methodology for a canon-centered reading of Revelation and to demonstrate it in an interpretation of Rev. 21–22. 1. Brevard S. Childs’ main works include Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), and Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).

2

The Ending of the Canon

2. Need to Recover the Unity of Scripture The issue of the unity of the Scripture has been one of the most crucial problems in biblical theology. By the unity of Scripture I mean that all parts of Scripture form one canonical story. All parts of Scripture should be viewed as equally inspired, and used as a primary source for Christian theology and practice. Any part of the Scripture should be read in the light of the whole, with the understanding that the whole story is being unwrapped progressively from a beginning to an ending.2 In the early centuries of Christianity and beyond the Reformation, the unity of Scripture was largely assumed in both the churches and the academia.3 However, since historical criticism came to dominate biblical studies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it has become increasingly dif¿cult to speak of the unity of the Bible. Biblical studies have divided into the study of the OT and of the NT; from there it subdivided into the study of the Pentateuch, historical literature, Prophets, Synoptics, and Pauline and Johannine literature, to name a few. One can even specialize on the study of the purported sources of certain canonical books, such as J, E, P, D, or Q, L, M. It is beyond the scope of the present work to describe all the philosophical reasons and historical circumstances that caused this fragmentation. Suf¿ce to say that the guild of biblical studies is still recovering from the consequences.4 Gerald Bray writes that ‘[t]he separation which was made at the beginning of the nineteenth century on theological grounds is now a practical necessity, because of the vast amount of material involved. We may not have reached the stage where each book of the Bible has its own specialist department, but that day is nearer now than it ever was in the past.’5 In this atmosphere most scholars gave up on the idea of scriptural unity, partly because the discipline became so specialized, and partly because there was no theoretical basis to argue for unity. 2. 2 Tim. 3.16; Lk. 24.25-27. 3. There were exceptions. Marcion challenged the unity of the Scripture already in the second century. The development of the Christian canon was provoked in part by his challenge. For canon formation and related issues, see Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Signi¿cance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997); Lee M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1995); and Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972). 4. See Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). 5. Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present (Leicester: Apollos, 1996), 476. 1

1. Toward a Methodology

3

The point of departure from scriptural unity into historical-critical study of the biblical materials is marked by the inaugural lecture given by Johann Phillip Gabler at the University of Altdorf on March 31, 1787.6 According to Gerhard Hasel, this date ‘marks the beginning of Biblical Theology’s role as a purely historical discipline, completely independent of dogmatics.’7 Gabler claimed that what the writers thought about God and salvation must be determined through historical and grammatical inquiry, followed by a determination of what in the Bible is useable raw-material for dogmatics. Over time, biblical scholars took on the role of historians ‘overstanding’ the biblical materials rather than theologians understanding the Scriptures. And consequently ecclesia and academia went their separate ways.8 They were both still interested in the Bible, but for different reasons.9 Scholars perceived it as a source material for studying development of religions;10 the church considered it primarily as an instrument of moral and theological teaching. As is often the case, over time academic ideas ¿lter into the church through the academic training of its clergy. Consequently, German Protestantism of the nineteenth century was heavily inÀuenced by historical-critical studies. The Church of England, Roman Catholics, and even the Orthodox, although to a lesser extent, had eventually to face the same crisis.11

6. The text of the lecture can be found in Werner Georg Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 98–100. Johann Philipp Gabler is building on ideas of Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791), and Gotthilf Traugott Zachariä (1729–1777). On Gabler and his predecessors, see Henricus Boers, What Is New Testament Theology? The Rise of Criticism and the Problem of a Theology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 23–4. 7. Gerhard Hasel, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 22. 8. While an increasing numbers of writers are now calling for the recovery of scriptural unity, there are others who in the spirit of Gabler and Wrede advocate that biblical theology should be a discipline where the faith commitments and ecclesial interests would be laid aside for the purposes of the wider secular scholarly audience that is interested in historical treatments of the Bible. See Heikki Räisänen, Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and Programme (2d ed.; London: SCM, 2000), 8. 9. Robert W. Wall writes: ‘the methodological interests of historical criticism demote the church’s more theological intentions for the Christian Bible’ (‘Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context’, in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation [ed. Joel B. Green; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 372). 10. See Hasel, New Testament Theology, 23–4. 11. See Robert Morgan and John Barton, Biblical Interpretation (Oxford Bible Series; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 52. 1

4

The Ending of the Canon

The loss of focus on the unity of Scripture and the high level of departmentalization within the discipline of biblical studies resulted in a vast amount of material written on the Bible that is data-oriented but lacking theological focus. For those seeking theological understanding of the Bible it became obvious that more than historical and linguistic data are needed for a satisfying biblical interpretation in churches and seminaries.12 There is a need to work out a more holistic yet scholarly approach to the literary collection that a majority of Christians traditionally consider as Scriptures, and therefore the normative basis of their faith and life. 3. Toward a Holistic Methodology In the early atmosphere of dissatisfaction with historical criticism, Childs proposed an alternative in his canonical approach, an approach which reinforced the idea of the unity of the canon. His method signaled a major and enduring shift in biblical studies.13 His proposal is still being re¿ned, with such scholars as Charles J. Scalise, Robert W. Wall, Mark G. Brett and others criticizing, modifying, and building on Childs’ methodology. Another development in biblical studies that has sought a more holistic approach to the Bible is literary criticism. Literary criticism is concerned with the Bible as literature and concentrates on the aesthetic aspects of its language, imagery, form, and content. Literary criticism pays close attention to issues of genre, context, and intertext – analyzing the acts of writing and reading while bringing the experience gained in the wider literary ¿eld into the study of the Bible. Literary critics do not necessarily work with theological goals in mind, but their theories can contribute to biblical interpretation. From the wide variety of literary studies methodologies narrative criticism, reader-response criticism, and intertextuality have made waves in biblical studies. The narrative approach has the potential to take seriously the unity of the canon. That is, it provides the vocabulary and conceptual framework for discussing an overarching biblical narrative. It mitigates historical-critical hegemony by focusing on the story of the 12. It should not be assumed that only historical criticism has a potential to disturb the canonical unity (neither is it true that it always will). Some radical forms of reader-response criticism also privilege the reader’s ideology over the canon’s. See Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ‘The Reader in New Testament Interpretation’, in Green, ed., Hearing the New Testament, 265–6. 13. Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 490. 1

1. Toward a Methodology

5

Bible in the ¿nal form of the text. Reader-response criticism too can contribute to our goal of reading Revelation canonically and theologically. Reader-response criticism accounts for how different readers ‘hear’ the same texts differently and how readers ¿ll in ‘gaps’ that texts naturally have. It may also become important to account for readeroriented interpretation for the reason that readers and not authors formed the canon and determined its sequence. How the text was heard/read by the hearers/readers has become part of how the text was transmitted to us. Finally, intertextuality draws attention to the relationships that texts have with other texts. Reading and hearing the text in the light of its intertextual references ties the text into a company of other texts. Canonical criticism and these branches of literary criticism are important building blocks for my integrated methodology. a. Canonical Approach (1) Brevard Childs’ Canonical Approach Brevard Childs introduced the canonical approach to critical biblical study. In his Biblical Theology in Crisis Childs announced that biblical theology was in need of change. His 1979 work Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture proposed the change, a new methodology, now called ‘canonical criticism’.14 In the 1960s, Childs, who had his training in the areas of form and tradition criticism, realized that these methods were not doing justice theologically to Scripture. Seminary-trained pastors had dif¿culty in preaching and teaching the Bible since their education supported critical and corrective views of the Scripture, unhelpful in church contexts where the Bible is typically read as normative for faith and life in its canonical form. The irony was that the theological education did not provide models for the theological reading of the Bible. The discipline of biblical theology had become a purely historical, analytical discipline with no faith commitments necessary. In this context, Childs discerned a growing tension between historically oriented approaches to biblical studies, and the church’s need for normative Scripture. Childs decided to respond to the problem by providing an alternative to the historical-critical method. 14. It was James A. Sanders who ¿rst used the term ‘canonical criticism’, in his work Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972). Childs rejected it as misleading. See his ‘The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature’, Int 32 (1978): 46–55; and James A. Sanders, ‘Scripture as Canon for Post-Modern Times’, BTB 25 (1995): 60. Childs prefers to call his method a ‘canonical approach’. The academy has, however, accepted the phrase ‘canonical criticism’, and I use both terms interchangeably. 1

6

The Ending of the Canon

He writes in retrospect, ‘I became convinced that biblical theology could not be done, as it were, by adding a layer of icing on the historical critical Introduction’.15 What was needed, in Child’s opinion, was not a mild correction, but a new kind of approach to Scripture. Childs wanted to bridge the gap between academic study of the Bible and the church’s use of the Scripture; for him, this could be done by focusing on the canon. The essence of this new approach is well described by James L. Mays as ‘a shift in value from the notion “original” toward the notion “¿nal” ’.16 Since the Enlightenment, scholars had been tirelessly pursuing the sources, identifying the redactions and recovering the original. For Childs, however, the ¿nal product of that process is authoritative for the church and theology. Without denying the reality of historical processes underneath the text, for Childs only the canon in its entirety and sequence is the word of God authorized by church: ‘It is only in the ¿nal form of the biblical text in which the normative history has reached an end that the full effect of this revelatory history can be perceived’.17 The whole is greater than the sum of its parts and adding a book into a canonical collection alters the way that work is to be interpreted. With the term ‘canon’, Childs refers to ‘that historical process within ancient Israel – particularly in the post-exilic period – which entailed a collecting, selecting, and ordering of texts to serve a normative function as Sacred Scripture within the continuing religious community’.18 This de¿nition that involves both the ¿nal product (Scripture) and the historical and theological processes of reaching that product seems to be wider than Childs’ own work often indicates. In practice, Childs stresses the canon as the result of the process of ‘collecting, selecting and ordering’ the texts.19 (2) Criticisms of Childs’ Approach Various biblical scholars, from historical critics to fellow canonical critics, have criticized Childs’ methodology. The primary criticism comes 15. Brevard S. Childs, ‘A Response’, HBT 2 (1980): 206. 16. James L. Mays, ‘What Is Written: A Response to Brevard Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture’, HBT 2 (1980): 159. 17. Childs, ‘Canonical Shape’, 48. 18. Brevard S. Childs, ‘The Exegetical Signi¿cance of Canon for the Study of the Old Testament’, in Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977 (ed. J. A. Emerton et al.; VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 67. 19. James Barr in particular has criticized Childs for this ambiguity (Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983], 76–7). 1

1. Toward a Methodology

7

from two directions: ¿rst, those who question the ¿nal product of the canonization process as the basis of theology; and second, those who see in Childs’ method a threat to the historical referent of biblical texts and thus to the historical ground of the biblical events.20 The ¿rst type of criticisms can be seen in the work of David P. Polk, who is dissatis¿ed with Childs’ conclusion that, since there is no scholarly consensus about the earlier stages of the text, we must therefore work with what we have, namely, the canon. In Childs’ method, history has to give room for theology and meaning. Polk’s position is that Childs has not made it clear why ‘the foundation for theology [must] be the end product of a theologizing process’.21 The second type of criticism is heard in the writings of John Oswalt, who is concerned that Childs’ approach would force one to reconsider one’s understanding of the inspiration of Scripture. He writes that, in Childs’ view, inspiration does not come to an author; rather, it comes through the believing community which wrestles with an issue over hundreds, even thousands, of years, telling and retelling its traditions until ¿nally those traditions express so well what the community is that the traditions begin to shape the community. Thus it can be said that the canonical form of the text is the only one in which full inspiration resides.22

Oswalt raises the question whether evangelicals are willing to give up the assumption that inspiration resides in an author and instead posit that it resides in the text that was canonized by the community. Oswalt also criticizes Childs for devaluing history. Oswalt avers that, for Childs, it almost does not matter to one’s view of the authority of the text whether there is a historical event behind the story. Disregarding historical factuality and accepting the conclusion (Scripture) is a defective logic of canonical critics, in Oswalt’s opinion. Oswalt summarizes his response to Childs’ method by stating, In that canonical criticism calls us to interpret a book in no less than its literary wholeness, it is a most welcome development. Furthermore, in that it challenges us to consider the signi¿cance of the way in which books and

20. A detailed overview of Childs’ debate with scholars is found in Samuel Cheon, ‘B. S. Childs’ Debate with Scholars about His Canonical Approach’, AJT 11 (1997): 343–57. 21. David P. Polk, ‘Brevard Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture’, HBT 2 (1980): 170. 22. John N. Oswalt, ‘Canonical Criticism: A Review from a Conservative Viewpoint’, JETS 30 (1987): 318. 1

8

The Ending of the Canon collections of books are arranged, it is commendable. However, in that it suggests that we can now bypass the vexed question relating to the historical validation of the revelation, it is dangerous.23

Bruce C. Birch, following Douglas A. Knight, raises a different historically oriented question, namely, whether the discernible stages in the pre-history of a text should be identi¿ed as God’s word. In his opinion, too, Childs does not give proper value to the historical context, but this time to the historical context that gave rise to the traditions. Birch proposes that a historical survey of the levels might be helpful in understanding the ¿nal shape. ‘Is the canon only the record of a destination or is it also a record of the journey?’, asks Birch.24 (3) Sanders’ ‘Canonical Process’ and Childs’ ‘Canonical Approach’ James A. Sanders is probably the second most widely known scholar associated with canonical criticism. His two related works are Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism and From Sacred Story to Sacred Text.25 Sanders acknowledges that Childs has responded to a real need in biblical studies, reminding the scholarly world that theology can only be done successfully within the framework of faith, not within the framework of scholarly objectivity, and that the unity of Scripture has to be taken into account in doing biblical theology. Both testaments ‘witness independently and together to the one purpose of God’.26 Sanders also approves of how Childs has helped to liberate the Bible from the hands of Enlightenment-inÀuenced scholars and made it accessible to the ecclesial community. However, Sanders is critical of anyone who seeks for meaning outside the tradition. Using theological categories more at home in 1980 than today, Sanders writes: Liberals and conservatives alike have done the same: the one simply attributes less of a text to the early ‘author’ than the other. They both located authority almost solely in individuals and original speakers: conservatives claim the individual said all the words of a book or passage while liberals peel away accretions. But they have both by-passed the communities in one way or another.27 23. Ibid., 325. 24. Bruce C. Birch, ‘Tradition, Canon and Biblical Theology’, HBT 2 (1980): 122. 25. James A. Sanders, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), and From Sacred Story to Sacred Text (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). 26. James A. Sanders, ‘Canonical Context and Canonical Criticism’, HBT 2 (1980): 174. 27. Ibid., 183. 1

1. Toward a Methodology

9

Although Childs and Sanders have much in common, their approaches to canonical criticism have signi¿cant differences.28 Sanders emphasizes tradition history, that is, the process through which the writings were passed on through the community of faith until they reached the present form. This ‘canonical process’ is an ongoing task of the church and theology. Sanders believes the Holy Spirit has been at work not only in inspiring the writers of Scripture, but ‘all along the path of the canonical process: from original speaker, through what was understood by hearers; to what disciples believed was said; to how later editors reshaped the record, oral or written, of what was said; on down to modern hearings and understandings of the texts in current believing communities’.29 According to Sanders the canonical process will never reach an end. The canon is still open and being (re-)created. He debates the traditional theories such as the closing of the canon and claims that the Qumran scrolls and Nag Hammadi ¿nds witness to an open canon with Àexibility and pluralism within the community of believers.30 For Sanders, the closure reached in the fourth century did not make much difference in the ongoing canonical process. In this he differs radically from Childs, for whom the closure was, and the ¿nal form of the text is, all-important to hermeneutics. For Sanders, ‘the canonical process began way back at the ¿rst repetition/recitation in oral tradition and continues beyond closure till today; the function of Scripture as canon is to provide the paradigm whereby the process is discerned and whereby it continues in believing communities till now’.31 Sanders’ method allows room for relativism, but this is what Childs wants to avoid by attaching ¿nal authority to the ¿nal form of Scripture. According to Childs, the process of canonization is ¿xed; nothing can be taken away or added to Scripture. The fact that the early church distinguished sharply between apostolic tradition and later church tradition supports Childs’ argument.32

28. Sanders presents an extensive criticism of Childs’ proposal in his ¿ve-part article, ‘Canonical Context’. He also dedicates a chapter in his book From Sacred Story to Sacred Text to his differences with Childs. 29. Sanders, Canon and Community, xvii. 30. Ibid., 12. Martin Hengel suggests that at least the OT canon is still an openended matter for the Christian church. He asks whether the church really needs a strictly closed OT canon since the NT is its conclusion, goal, and ful¿llment (Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon [Old Testament Studies; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2002], 125–6). 31. Sanders, ‘Scripture’, 62. 32. Sanders, ‘Canonical Context’, 202. 1

10

The Ending of the Canon

Sanders sees the biggest dif¿culty in Childs’ method in the fact Childs needs to choose a text that is the ¿nal form of stabilized Scripture; he has chosen the MT.33 Sanders ¿nds this problematic because the MT is ‘postChristian’ and ‘very rabbinic’ and therefore unrelated to the Christian communities until comparatively late. Focus on the MT ignores the early church’s use of the LXX as their Scripture. ‘Canon, by its very nature, is adaptable, not just stable. One must keep in mind all the texts and all the canons and all the communities’, argues Sanders.34 Another difference is that Sanders is more appreciative of higher criticism and considers it ‘a gift of God in due season. It is only when it is abused or taken as an end in itself, or when it does not keep issues of authority clear, that it generates problems.’35 He sees canonical criticism as a logical sequel to other forms of criticism. Sanders seems con¿dent that biblical studies will self-correct and any wrong roads will be abandoned sooner or later. Childs seeks safer territory and ¿nds it in the ¿xed form of a text. It seems fair to say that Childs is looking for meaning from the written canonized text and Sanders from the community behind and alongside the text. Whereas Childs must struggle with the issue of whose canon and what text, Sanders must struggle with the question of what community and whose interpretation. Both scholars appeal to the providence of the Holy Spirit who has preserved the biblical text and guided the interpretative communities throughout history. (4) Beyond Childs and Sanders Mark G. Brett attempts to modify the canonical approach in the light of the contemporary discussions on hermeneutics. He engages with newer developments in literary theory and social sciences, among which are ‘intratextual’ theology as developed by Hans Frei, George Lindbeck, and Ronald Thiemann.36 He suggests that biblical scholars should use canonical criticism as one among many approaches to the Bible and not as a replacement for historical criticism. That is, Brett is a pluralist who seeks to provide an additional approach for postmodern theology and sees potential in canonical approach. He distinguishes sharply between a canonical approach as developed by Childs and canonical criticism as 33. Ibid., 188. Sanders has a multitude of allies in this point. See, e.g., McDonald, Formation, 299–309. 34. Sanders, ‘Canonical Context’, 187. 35. Ibid., 192. 36. See Mark G. Brett, Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical Approach on Old Testament Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 156. 1

1. Toward a Methodology

11

developed by Sanders. His preference belongs with Sanders’ theory, which he considers more developed, intellectually stimulating, and pluralistic. He sees in Childs’ approach a tendency toward oversimpli¿cation and views Childs’ emphasis on the ¿nal form of the text as too dogmatic. Brett considers Childs a ‘hermeneutical monist’ who accepts historical-critical method in exegesis only where it helps to illuminate the ¿nal form of the text.37 Robert Wall and Eugene Lemcio try to advance canonical criticism in their book The New Testament as Canon.38 They too mostly support Sanders’ version of the theory. In the introduction to this reader Wall stresses the ongoing relationship between canon and community and struggles with ‘how the Bible, in its canonical form, should be received and read by the church in light of its role as rule of faith, by which Christian faith and life are both de¿ned and nurtured for this generation of believers into the next’.39 Wall and Lemcio have ecclesiological interests in mind while they attach importance to canonical order, titles, and prologues that were added to biblical writings during the canonical process to guide the church’s reading of these texts as the rule of faith. Wall also emphasizes the importance of studying the interpretative strategies found in the Bible itself, because ‘the hermeneutics that helped authors fashion their biblical texts may very well continue to guide the modern interpreter of those same texts’.40 Wall further explains his approach to canonical criticism in his ‘Canonical Context and Canonical Conversation’.41 He is reacting against historical criticism and af¿rms the role of Scripture as the property of the church. He feels that scholars hold Scripture captive to academic rather than religious ends.42 He states further that the intended meaning of the text is not the property of its author, but of the church.43 For Wall, 37. Ibid., 42. 38. Robert W. Wall and Eugene E. Lemcio, eds., The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism (JSNTSup 76; Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1992). 39. Robert W. Wall, ‘Introduction’, in Wall and Lemcio, eds., The New Testament as Canon, 16. 40. Ibid., 17. Finding the hermeneutical approaches represented in the writings of the biblical authors themselves and using this as a guide in our own interpretations has also been an interest of I. Howard Marshall in his book Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004); especially relevant is his essay ‘The Search for Biblical Principles’, 55–79. 41. Robert W. Wall, ‘Canonical Context and Canonical Conversations’, in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (ed. J. B. Green and M. Turner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 165–82. 42. Ibid., 168. 43. Ibid. 1

12

The Ending of the Canon

hermeneutics is a community task, whose goal is to ¿nd God’s intentions for the given community. He views the authority of Scripture as intimately connected to its function and its use in church, and the word truly becomes Scripture once it is actualized in our lives. He further distances himself from the historical task by stating that Scripture’s interest is to introduce people to God, not to the ancient world of its authors. I appreciate Wall’s pastoral approach to Scripture and his reaction is a needed correction. I wonder if he has gone too far though, when he writes: ‘the interpretive presumption of my account of canonical criticism is that current readers will not draw out the very same meaning from a composition that might have been intended by its author or understood by his readers. Times and places change the signi¿cance of texts for new readerships.’44 Should it not be desirable to pursue the intended meanings where they can be discerned? To me historical study, with its focus on the original audiences, has its value alongside a canonical reading. What is needed, though, is certain realism in what can be known via historical research and humility about the limits of our knowledge of the original circumstances. Limited and changing reconstructions of the original historical circumstances cannot serve as the criteria for reading Scripture. From the exploration of the historical circumstances of the book one can, however, deduce something of the impact that the book would have had in its original setting, and we can draw some inspiration of this intended inÀuence for our own reading experience. Wall has provided, however, a criterion that Sanders lacked, one aimed at guiding our exegesis. He ¿nds it in the church’s regula ¿dei:45 ‘No interpretation of Scripture can contribute to the church’s theological formation unless it coheres to this Rule’.46 Wall also attaches importance to the notion of intertextuality. For him intertextuality is kind of a proof that the authors of Scripture ‘did not place a wedge between what their Scripture meant and what it now means’.47 As authors used the text they considered canonical (the HB), they also wrote a new text that became canonical (the NT). Wall sees that as a dynamic engagement with the living word of God. For him, intertextuality as a critical method is not only literary but also theological: ‘Certain texts, which are initially associated together because of their literary resemblance, are given signi¿cance by the 44. Ibid., 174. 45. Ivor J. Davidson, The Birth of the Church: From Jesus to Constantine, A.D. 30–312 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 168–70. 46. Wall, ‘Canonical Context’, 173. 47. Ibid., 169.

1

1. Toward a Methodology

13

biblical writer because they are thought to be theologically analogous as well’.48 Intertextuality is not a source-inÀuence concern, and nor is it a mere literary exercise; rather, it is a guide map for following the theology of the canon. Intertextuality does not question the literary unity of a document, but rather explores connections between documents and their implications for theological interpretation. Intertextuality is not a source criticism in disguise. Charles J. Scalise, also building on Childs’ methodology, seeks to develop a postcritical canonical hermeneutics that would take seriously both traditional historical-critical approaches to biblical interpretation and an evangelical doctrine of Scripture. He calls it a ‘postcritical evangelical theology’.49 He seeks to bridge the gap between the traditional precritical biblical interpretation and historical-critical interpretation. Scalise criticizes and modi¿es Childs’ methodology and proposes a more integrated approach that would include dimensions from literary criticism and theories of Paul Ricoeur.50 He attempts to push evangelical theology away from locating authority in a personal experience or in a dogmatic view of inspiration. He proposes a different locus for authority and suggests that, ‘humanly observed…, the authority of the Bible rests upon the ways in which it has functioned and continues to function as Scripture within the Christian community. To describe the matter from a theocentric perspective…, the authority of Scripture rests upon the purpose for which God gave the Scripture.’51 The authority of Scripture, according to Scalise, lies in its use, not in its (¿nal) form. Like Wall, Scalise also calls for a greater recognition of the intertextuality of Scripture. Scalise sees the importance of intertextuality in that it ‘provides a connection with traditional (precritical) biblical hermeneutics, which simply assumed the unity of Scripture as a hermeneutical axiom’ and integrates the modern literary-critical hermeneutics, especially Paul Ricoeur’s dialectical theory of reading, into biblical study.52 Scalise believes that intertextuality will play a key role in new literary approaches to biblical interpretation. Donn F. Morgan has pointed out that the believing community does not usually approach Scripture in a holistic manner. He observes that, in churches, Scripture is read and studied in small pericopes, sometimes 48. Wall, ‘Introduction’, 18 (emphasis original). 49. Charles J. Scalise, Hermeneutics as Theological Prolegomena: A Canonical Approach (StABH 8; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1994), 76. 50. For Scalise’s criticisms of Childs, see ibid., 43–74. 51. Ibid., 90–1. 52. Ibid., 92. 1

14

The Ending of the Canon

even presented as proof texts. A holistic reading of the canon is not common among the faith community to whom the canon belongs. There are portions of Scripture that have not even been included in some lectionary cycles (such as the book of Revelation, which is virtually never read in the service of the Eastern Orthodox Church).53 But this is not the problem Morgan makes of it. After all, a public reading in small portions does not preclude a lack of awareness of, or even explicit reference to, the biblical story as a whole. Morgan seems to come to a similar conclusion: ‘A holistic reading may serve as a control or context for the reading of “parts” or “snippets”. That is, the canon provides a mandatory context for understanding smaller sections, indeed it creates the necessity for interrelating the diverse messages within particular books as well as relating the books to each other.’54 (5) A Proposal for a Path Forward It is clear that a canonical approach is an important change of focus for biblical studies and will continue to be inÀuential. However, this approach has some questions to answer. The primary and immediate question is, What text should one choose as the canon for Christian theology? Three answers have been proposed to that question in the past. First, it has been proposed that the original text is the authoritative ground for theology. This was the assumption behind historical criticism. The search for the original text of the Bible was initiated already during the Reformation and peaked in the historicalcritical era.55 As a result, we have today a reconstructed biblical text that is probably more complete and accurate than any text with which Medieval or Reformation theologians worked. But the best reconstruction is still a reconstruction resting on scholarly opinions and theories that continue to evolve. If only the original text conveys the true story, then we have to admit that our certainty about this text is an ongoing challenge. Second, it has been suggested that the text in all its stages is authoritative. Sanders suggested that every generation is involved in the process of recreating the canon and interpreting it. There is a measure of truth in 53. Donn F. Morgan, ‘Canon and Criticism: Method or Madness?’, AThR 68 (1986): 93. Revelation is read in the Eastern Orthodox Church only as part of the All Saints’ Day liturgy, which is hardly ever performed. 54. Ibid., 93. 55. For the contribution of such scholars as Nestle and Aland, see Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986 (2d ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 35–64.

1

1. Toward a Methodology

15

this; the question is one of boundaries. While every generation of readers approaches the Bible with different questions we must take care that we approach as listeners and worshippers and not allow our contemporary concerns to overpower the canonical story.56 If we accept Sanders’ proposal of canonical process, we must de¿ne the boundaries. Third, it has been suggested that only the ¿nal form of the text is authoritative.57 This is Childs’ proposal. That theory too has a problem: it must specify which text exactly is this ‘¿nal form’. Childs defended the MT as the text of the OT. Sanders argued that the LXX was the Bible of Jesus and the early church, and therefore more important. The argument itself indicates that to some extent both scholars are working with the assumption that we have to agree on one text. Perhaps we should consider Morgan’s proposal that, ultimately for canonical criticism, either text could be chosen as long as the interpreter is aware that this choice will lead to different results in interpretation. The real methodological issue is not which ¿nal text is chosen, but that a ¿nal and complete text is chosen. ‘The concern is to provide a holistic interpretation of the canonical biblical text since that text is functional within the religious community’.58 Bruce Metzger has also observed that even though the early church perceived that the canon was closed, this did not lead to ‘a slavish ¿xing of the text of the canonical books’.59 There are a number of textual variations and choosing between them is our continuing historical-theological assignment, and even with the ¿xed canon we are still in some process of change. Indeed, it should be borne in mind that the production of more modern, ‘better’ Bible translations is an ongoing concern. The recognition of the role of a reader is an important contribution made by Sanders. Different readers and communities that have read and interpreted the biblical text over the centuries and over vast geographical areas should not be overlooked. However, I ¿nd Sanders’ notion of 56. Presently we witness a proliferation of biblical versions which attempt to alter our readings of the canon, such as The Green Bible: Understand the Bible’s Powerful Message for the Earth (New York: Harper Collins, 2008). 57. See McDonald, Formation, 302. 58. Morgan, ‘Canon and Criticism’, 87. It is clear that churches operate with several versions of the ¿nal form of the text (MT, LXX, Peshitta, Vulgate, Protestant Canon), most of them backed by signi¿cant church authorities. I would allow that there will be some different readings as a result of the different canonical sequences, textual variants and even additional books in some of these canons, but the differences in these texts and the resulting theologies are by no means so vast that a dialogue across faith-traditions is impossible. 59. Metzger, Canon, 269. 1

16

The Ending of the Canon

recreating the canon in each generation confusing; what does Sanders actually want to allow? Apart from boundaries, which Sanders has not provided, the practice could lead to the dissolution of the ecclesial community comprised by historic de¿nitions of the two-Testament canon. After the de facto closing of the canon, it seems more appropriate to speak of a hermeneutical process rather than a canonical one. From the works of Childs and Sanders we have learned that a canonical approach means that a scholar should choose a complete and ¿nal text and respect its composition and unity; the scholar should realize that this text is the property of an ecclesiastical community who has read and possessed it for a considerable amount of time, and has both shaped it, and been shaped by it; and ¿nally, the scholar should respect the authority and function that this text has for the community. We should also learn from Wall and Lemcio, who have emphasized that the Bible is the property of the church and its interpretation should happen primarily in an ecclesial context. Their writings, as well as Morgan’s, help to tie canonical criticism in with the newer approaches of literary criticism, such as intertextuality, and thus provide some new dimensions to pursue. Morgan, already in 1986, recognized the plurality of approaches to canonical criticism and sought to bring some methodological clarity. As a result, he put forth some guidelines for a student of canonical criticism: One does begin with a ¿nal form of the biblical text. One does, with the help of other critical methods and their controls, evaluate the internal structures of particular canonical books. At a further level, utilizing the results of a study of smaller units, the student of canon can engage in a more creative endeavor, exploring the sequences of books and the implications of their juxtaposition, and the relationships between various parts of the canon (e.g., Torah and Prophets).60

Likewise, in my approach I will choose a ‘¿nal’ form of the text. I will evaluate the internal structures of the book as a whole; I will study one smaller unit of the book, namely chs. 21–22; and I will explore the importance of its canonical location for the biblical story, as well as its intertextual relationship to other parts of the canon. As a Christian belonging to a Protestant tradition, I have chosen the content and book order of the Protestant canon as my ‘¿nal’ form of the text. With its roots in the church of Alexandria, this canon has existed and (at least the NT part of it) has been authorized by the majority of the Christian church since Athanasius’ Festal Letter in 367.

1

60. Morgan, ‘Canon and Criticism’, 90.

1. Toward a Methodology

17

Because of my tradition, those parts of the LXX that are not accepted as canonical by Protestant churches do not function as Scriptures to me. Although the parts of the LXX that overlap with HB and are used by the NT writers are certainly accepted and also incorporated in my interpretation. I acknowledge, however, that there are a series of historic, geographic, and other reasons that have led to the acceptance of slightly different canons in other traditional Christian communities. This method would allow them to use those different canons wherever a reasonable historical argument for the authenticity of their content and composition exists. Practice of a canonical approach need not abandon historical-critical methods, as long as the unity of the canonical narrative structure is uncompromised. The study of the original circumstances, historical setting, and material ¿nds from the communities of Asia Minor enrich interpretation of Revelation. b. Literary Criticism in Biblical Studies From these recent advancements in canon studies it appears that a canonical approach could bene¿t from the developments in literary criticism that allow for more attention on the formal features of the text itself as well as the role of a reader and recipient of the canonical text. Developments under literary criticism – such as narrative criticism, reader-response, and especially intertextuality – provide for new ways to integrate the book of Revelation more thoroughly into canonical discourse. (1) Reader-Oriented Approaches in Biblical Studies Mark Allan Powell has observed that ‘[t]he ¿eld of biblical studies presently seems to be divided into two general camps: author-oriented scholars who use historical criticism and reader-oriented scholars who use literary criticism’.61 The main difference between these approaches is the amount of hermeneutical freedom they allow the reader. Historicalcritical approaches seek the one, true meaning of the text, which is understood as the meaning intended by the author. Reader-oriented approaches insist that a text is open to many interpretations. While historical-critical approaches have been dominant for the past two centuries, literary approaches are slowly gaining in popularity.

61. Mark Allan Powell, Chasing the Eastern Star: Adventures in Biblical Reader-Response Criticism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 1. 1

18

The Ending of the Canon

Adaption of narrative criticism in biblical studies is another shift away from author-oriented historical approach. Narrative criticism was born in the 1970s, when it grew out of such disciplines as narratology, Russian formalism, French structuralism, and American New Criticism. It is essentially an eclectic methodology that has been adapted to biblical studies as scholars became interested in the Bible as literature. Its major contribution to biblical studies is that it establishes the surface narrative of a text as a legitimate object of study. Narrative criticism focuses on plot, structure, themes, motifs, characters, setting, and other features that make up the world of the text. Narrative criticism started out as a text-oriented approach, but there are many ways in which narrative criticism is applied today. Some scholars remain text-oriented and view the text as rather self-contained in terms of meaning.62 They engage in close readings of the textual features, such as, words, syntax, and structure, with little focus on the reader’s response, authorial intention, or historical and cultural contexts. Others take more interest in the role of a reader.63 It is still unclear which approach will be preferred in the future.64 One of the leading and most nuanced philosophers in narrative studies is the French literary critic Paul Ricoeur. In his essay ‘Toward a Narrative Theology: Its Necessity, Its Resources, Its Dif¿culties’, Ricoeur has laid out the basic need and method for using a narrative approach in biblical theology. He sees a need for a narrative theology, which would provide an alternative to purely speculative theology (which ignores the tradition that involves stories about Israel, Jesus, and the early church), to morally oriented theology (which limits itself to seeking atemporal teachings of ethical monotheism), and to existential theology (which is 62. James L. Resseguie, in his Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), maintains a more text-oriented approach. So also David Rhoads, ‘Narrative Criticism: Practices and Prospects’, in Characterization in the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism (ed. David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni; JSNTSup 184; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1999), 264–85 (272). 63. As an example of a more reader-oriented focus of narrative criticism, Powell’s later works would be characteristic. Powell shows that reader-response criticism and narrative criticism are increasingly merging into one. See Powell, Eastern Star, 67. However, Powell’s earlier What Is Narrative Criticism? (GBS; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) is more text oriented. 64. E.g. Petri Merenlahti presses for a more integrated hermeneutical reÀection and reconsideration of the whole framework of biblical interpretation (‘The Future of Narrative Criticism: A Paradigm Shift’, in Poetics for the Gospels? Rethinking Narrative Criticism [SNTW; London: T. & T. Clark, 2002], 115–30). 1

1. Toward a Methodology

19

oriented to faith and indifferent about history).65 Narrative theology allows for the tradition and stories to speak in their integrity (not by subjecting them to source-critical analysis or other forms of criticism that start with reconstructing the biblical text). It also allows for complexities in the biblical story and does not simply extract timeless morals.66 The hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur af¿rms the underlying unity of the Scripture in spite of the plurality of its books and genres. Ricoeur assumes the canon as the primary context of interpretation. In his essay ‘Biblical Time’, he contrasts the historical-critical methodology (where in order to interpret a story one must ¿rst reconstruct its original Sitz im Leben by taking the text apart into different layers belonging to different times) with his idea of Sitz im Wort (where one accepts the text as it is in its textual existence, apart from the original circumstances). According to that focus on Sitz im Wort, different times and events are made contemporary in the act of reading. Ricoeur calls his approach a synchronic reading, and further an intertextual reading – as opposed to the diachronic approach of historical criticism. A diachronic reading is not complete without the synchronic reading.67 Ricoeur holds that historicalcritical study can reveal the probable historical occasions that generated the literary traditions, but only study of the literary text gives us the meaning that these literary traditions have within the Bible. Ricoeur’s idea of Sitz im Wort preserves the unity of the text and the notion that the text gets its meaning from its interaction with the reader. This emphasis on the Sitz im Wort also seems to give importance to the canonical ordering of the material, for the meaning of a text is dependent on where the text is located within its literary context. While Ricoeur takes much guidance from the features of the text, his hermeneutic is leaning towards being reader-oriented. As a leading postmodern philosopher, he recognizes that readers are not neutral

65. Paul Ricoeur, ‘Toward a Narrative Theology: Its Necessity, Its Resources, Its Dif¿culties’, in Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination (ed. M. I. Wallace; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 236. 66. However, the one area that has proven dif¿cult for narrative theologians is the relationship between faith and history. Ricoeur noted that it is dif¿cult to determine the relationship between story and factual history in biblical narratives. Unlike some narrative theologians (like Hans Frei and his school at Yale), Ricoeur does not consider the issue of history irrelevant. Although he does not arrive at clear conclusions, he at least raises the issue. See ibid., 244. For Hans Frei and his approach to narrative theology, see William C. Placher, ‘Hans Frei and the Meaning of Biblical Narrative’, ChrCent 106 (1989): 556–9. 67. Paul Ricoeur, ‘Biblical Time’, in Wallace, ed., Figuring the Sacred, 171. 1

20

The Ending of the Canon

observers, but come to the text with agendas, criticisms, and suspicions. Ricoeur has developed what he calls a hermeneutics of suspicion, which means that one has to be a critical reader, evaluative reader, and cannot pretend that one is a neutral reader. But also, there should be an openness to be changed and shaped by the text.68 He, therefore, rejects the more radical forms of reader-response criticism. Ricoeur also sees reading Scripture as an imaginative process where all fragmented selves can ¿nd meaning in an overarching narrative (or a master story) and ‘weave themselves into the wider cloth of the biblical tapestry’.69 This work of imagination should change the reader’s life. In Ricoeur’s hermeneutic, reading should also always lead to application. It is not dif¿cult to see the usefulness of Ricoeur’s hermeneutic to the study of the canon as Christian Scripture that is to be embraced and lived out by the church. It is also not dif¿cult to see how his synchronic reading will not be a method of choice for those whose interest is solely historical-critical analysis and authorial intention. (2) Intertextuality and Its Role in Biblical Studies Literary criticism has also brought to our attention the notion of intertextuality. The theory of intertextuality and its functions deserve some further attention, as the term is used in a wide variety of ways and contexts. Intertextuality became a focus in literary studies primarily through the work of Julia Kristeva, who ¿rst formulated the term ‘intertextuality’ in 1967.70 Kristeva credited Mikhail Bakhtin with introducing this concept into literary theory, but she was the ¿rst to give a systematized description of the phenomena. ‘Intertextuality’ refers to the basic concept that a text is bigger than the sum of its words, in that every text consists of other texts and those also consist of other texts, and so forth – much like a network. Roland Barthes

68. In the 1970s and 1980s Paul Ricoeur developed his idea of a hermeneutical arc, which became the backbone of his philosophy and theological interpretation. See Dan R. Stiver, Theology After Ricoeur: New Directions in Hermeneutical Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 56–7. 69. Mark I. Wallace, ‘Introduction’, in Wallace, ed., Figuring the Sacred, 32. 70. Julia Kristeva’s classic work on this topic is Semeotike: Recherches pour une semanalyse (Paris: Seuil, 1969). See also Patricia K. Tull, ‘Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality’, in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications (ed. S. L. McKenzie et al.; Louisville: John Knox, 1993), 166. 1

1. Toward a Methodology

21

has described it through the metaphors of ‘tissue’ or ‘weaving’.71 Every text is woven out of the threads of countless other texts.72 Intertextuality assumes that texts have relations between each other. Some scholars suggest that, whether explicit or implicit, there is always a power play between texts. Peter Miscall, following Harold Bloom’s theory, suggests that ultimately every text seeks to replace previous texts. As an illustration Miscall researches relations between Isaiah and Genesis to see the impact of some associations between them. He reads Isaiah (e.g. Isa. 65.1-25) as an attempt to displace Gen. 1.1–2.4a.73 Kristeva talks about the neutralization that takes place where texts meet.74 This means that every text (as well as ¿lm, social practice, and cultural object) is a conÀict of surfaces. Or as Aichele and Phillips put it, ‘the intersection of texts is the battle ground not just of conÀicting texts and authorial intentions but of competing semiotic systems and ideologies’.75 It seems that among the earliest literary critics, the intertextual relationship was primarily de¿ned as the conÀict where the new text was seeking to replace the old. However, the idea of conÀict as the primary relationship between texts can be overdrawn. Patricia K. Tull shows that texts can have relationships that exceed the idea of conÀict. Tull quotes Michael Baxandall: In relation to an older work of art, he says, a new work may ‘draw on, resort to, avail oneself of, appropriate from, have recourse to, adapt, misunderstand, refer to, pick up, take on, engage with, react to, quote, differentiate oneself from, assimilate oneself to, assimilate, align oneself with, copy, address, paraphrase, absorb, make a variation on, revive, continue, remodel, ape, emulate, travesty, parody, extract from, distort, attend to, resist, simplify, reconstitute, elaborate on, develop, face up to, master, subvert, perpetuate, reduce, promote, respond to, transform, tackle… Everyone will be able to think of others.76 71. Roland Barthes, ‘The Death of the Author’, in Image Music Text (trans. S. Heath; New York: Hill & Wang, 1977), 145. See also George Aichele and Gary A. Phillips, ‘Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis’, Semeia 69/70 (1995): 8. 72. For Kristeva, intertextuality is a complex concept that brings together, among other things, sociology, politics, semiotics, art, and literature. It seems impossible to use Kristeva’s concept without some simpli¿cation. 73. Peter D. Miscall, ‘Isaiah: New Heavens, New Earth, New Book’, in Reading between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (ed. D. N. Fewell; Louisville: John Knox, 1992), 47. 74. Kristeva, Semeotike, 113. 75. Aichele and Phillips, ‘Introduction’, 10. 76. Tull, ‘Rhetorical Criticism’, 159; cf. Michael Baxandall, Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), 58–9.

1

22

The Ending of the Canon

One can see that the new text does not always seek to replace or oppose the old, but may, in fact, be seeking to copy or revive it. Modern writers typically value originality of ideas and one may strive to replace authorities (previous texts). Among ancient authors it was considered admirable to be a perfect imitator of the great classics.77 Biblical writers appear to fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum, they neither seek novelty nor do they seek to copy. The goal of the NT authors appears to be to ¿t the story of Jesus into the story of Israel and show it ful¿lled. Whatever the relationship or level of dependence, the commonality of all texts is that they are inseparable from other texts and ‘no text is an island’. Another important aspect that literary scholars have recently brought back to our attention is the role of the reader. The concept of intertextuality suggests that the text by itself does not simply contain meaning, but meaning ‘is assigned to the text by intertextual reading in accordance with the function of the intertexts of the focused text’.78 A reader must be a good listener of the text and texts behind the text. The reader is also an interpreter and is him/herself full of ‘texts’. ‘The reader is a bundle of hermeneutics, as it were, engaging a text that is itself a bundle of hermeneutics.’79 The original concept of intertextuality, as developed by Kristeva and Barthes, carries with it a proclamation of the death of the author and total irrelevance of any authorial intent. A text has its own life and, beyond the act of writing, the author becomes irrelevant to the meaning. As Roland Barthes has put it: Classic criticism has never paid any attention to the reader; for it, the writer is the only person in literature. We are now beginning to let ourselves be fooled no longer by the arrogant antiphrastical recriminations of good society in favour of the very thing it sets aside, ignores, smothers, or destroys; we know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author.80

Most biblical scholars have not accepted this radical ‘killing off’ of an author in order to give the reader greater hermeneutical freedom. 77. Ellen Van Wolde discusses how different historical periods have different criteria for evaluating texts (‘Trendy Intertextuality?’, in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel [ed. S. Draisma; Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989], 43–5). 78. Willem S. Vorster, ‘Intertextuality and Redaktionsgeschichte’, in Draisma, ed., Intertextuality in Biblical Writings, 26. 79. James A. Sanders, ‘Intertextuality and Dialogue’, BTB 29 (1999): 38. 80. Barthes, ‘The Death of the Author’, 148. 1

1. Toward a Methodology

23

Authorial intent is typically still being discussed when applying intertextuality in biblical studies. This is an important modi¿cation of the original concept of intertextuality. This kind of modi¿cation was so frustrating for Kristeva as it threatened the ontology of her concept that in her later works she actually started to use a new term in place of intertextuality – transposition.81 Intertextuality found its way into biblical studies through Redaktionsgeschichte. Willem S. Vorster compares these two methods in his article ‘Intertextuality and Redaktionsgeschichte’: ‘Whereas [Redaktionsgeschichte’s] interest lies with the intentions of the redactors and the ways in which they edited tradition, proponents of intertextuality focus on texts as networks pointing to other texts, not to the intentions of the author’.82 There is a difference in focus: Redaktionsgeschichte is interested in the composition of the texts, while intertextuality focuses on the relationship between the texts. Many have accused biblical scholars of doing source-inÀuence studies under a new fashionable label ‘intertextuality’. Thomas R. Hatina explains that the concept of intertextuality inherently carries an ideology that the text has within itself what it needs for its interpretation. Historically oriented biblical scholars have increasingly started to use this term in their search for new methods (which, according to Hatina, are not really new methods, but just a new label for ‘source-inÀuence studies’) and through this interdisciplinary move from literary studies to biblical studies the term ‘intertextuality’ has shifted its meaning. Hatina suggests, ‘Either historical critics would have to adopt the ideology of poststructuralism and in the process forfeit their own distinctiveness, or they would have to subvert poststructuralism and in the process annul the distinctive meaning of “intertextuality”. Both sides seem to be separated by an unbridgeable chasm.’83 Irrespective of whether biblical scholars have sometimes used intertextuality as a label for Redaktionsgeschichte, I cannot agree with Hatina’s notion that, when those in biblical studies want to use the term ‘intertextuality’ they must also adopt a poststructural ideology and perhaps even agree to ‘the death of the Author’. There is nothing extraordinary about borrowing a methodology from a different ¿eld and appropriating it in a new fashion. This shift is the essence of every 81. Julia Kristeva, Revolution in Poetic Language (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 59–60. Also see William Irwin, ‘Against Intertextuality’, Philosophy and Literature 28 (2004): 229–30. 82. Vorster, ‘Intertextuality’, 22. 83. See Thomas R. Hatina, ‘Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is There a Relationship?’, BI 7 (1999): 36, 42. 1

24

The Ending of the Canon

fruitful synthesis. Therefore, this work proceeds by using the term intertextuality with the understanding that we have parted ways with Kristeva and Barthes. Yet we maintain that intertextuality is also distinct from source-criticism in the fact that its goal is always to maintain narrative unity and it relies signi¿cantly on reader’s competence to discern texts within the text. Richard B. Hays in his Echoes of Scripture in The Letters of Paul has articulated some terminology and criteria for applying intertextuality in biblical studies.84 I am largely accepting his terminology since it is widely used by a growing number of biblical scholars. Dealing with intertextuality in Pauline epistles, Hays uses the terms quotation, allusion, and echo. A quotation is an intertextual reference with an explicit quotation formula. Allusion and echo are terms that mark the different degrees of certainty with an intertextual reference in a text without an explicit quotation formula. Allusion is a term for a more obvious intertextual reference, echo for a subtler one.85 It is often very hard to determine where the allusion or echo takes place. Hays writes, The volume of intertextual echo varies in accordance with the semantic distance between the source and the reÀecting surface. Quotation, allusion, and echo may be seen as points along a spectrum of intertextual reference, moving from the explicit to the subliminal. As we move farther away from overt citation, the source recedes into the discursive distance, the intertextual relations become less determinate, and the demand placed on the reader’s listening powers grows greater. As we near the vanishing point of the echo, it inevitably becomes dif¿cult to decide whether we are really hearing an echo at all, or whether we are only conjuring things out of the murmurings of our own imaginations.86

Hays has suggested at least ¿ve possibilities where an intertextual echo can take place. He lists these possibilities when it comes to the study of Paul; I have adjusted them here to apply to most any biblical book: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

the hermeneutical event occurs in the mind of a biblical author, the hermeneutical event occurs in the original readers, the intertextual fusion occurs in the text itself, the hermeneutical event occurs in my act of reading, the hermeneutical event occurs in a community of interpretation.87

84. Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989). 85. Ibid., 29. 86. Ibid., 23. 87. Ibid., 26.

1

1. Toward a Methodology

25

Hays states that his own method is not to accept any of the hermeneutical schools represented by these ¿ve options, but to keep them all together in ‘creative tension’.88 These ¿ve possibilities cover a lot of ground: they can potentially satisfy both author- and reader-oriented readings. The source critic would focus on the ¿rst three; a literary critic would focus primarily on the last three. However, I wish to raise some practical questions: How might we be able to judge whether the original readers detected an instance of intertextuality (no. 2)? It seems speculative for us to determine how they would have heard the text. Only where the history of interpretation or tradition has preserved a record that the original readers detected an echo would we be able to know. Regarding Hays’ third point, what would it matter if the intertextual fusion occurs in the text itself if there is no reader to acknowledge it? For our reading of the text, it seems to boil down to three things: judging from the textual features, did the author intend to echo a source, has the community of interpretation noticed the echo, and do I as a reader hear the echo? Hays has also worked out seven criteria to test claims of intertextual echoes. First, he presents the criterion of availability. This criterion asks whether the source was available to the author at the time of his writing and requires some historical background study to establish a case for that. Second, volume looks for the degree of explicit repetition of words and syntactical patterns in the text. Are there enough similar elements between the texts to establish a relationship? Third, recurrence deals with how often the author alludes to the same Scripture elsewhere. Fourth, thematic coherence asks whether the echo ¿ts in the author’s line of the argument. Fifth, historical plausibility asks whether the author could have intended this effect and whether his readers would have possibly understood it. Sixth, history of interpretation probes whether there have been other interpreters who have heard the same echoes. Finally, satisfaction asks whether the proposed reading makes sense. In other words, does the proposed intertextuality explain the text or make it more confusing and incomprehensible?89 Some have combined these criteria and boiled them down to two most basic items: availability and volume.90 Although availability and volume 88. Ibid., 27. 89. Ibid., 29–32. Hays is developing these criteria for the study of Paul, but the same categories can be used for my purposes in dealing with the book of Revelation. 90. See Robert L. Brawley, Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke–Acts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995), 50. 1

26

The Ending of the Canon

are the most basic of the seven criteria, the other ¿ve (recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility, history of interpretation, and satisfaction) help the reader to test an echo further. For example, there may be a phrase from a source that was available to the author and the phrase seems to have some intensity to the ear of a reader, but if the author never uses that source elsewhere and the context does not bear any other signs of similarity to the source, nor does this intertext contribute to meaningful interpretation, it can be excluded as ‘noise’. Hays admits that even when using these criteria, there is and can only be ‘shades of certainty’ about the scriptural echo. The more criteria that support it, the better argument we can build. According to Hays, the strongest claim for intertextuality is made when it can be credibly demonstrated that the intertextuality occurs in the ‘literary structure of the text’ and that it can be ‘plausibly ascribed to the intention of the author and the competence of the original readers’.91 This problem of discerning authorial intention when determining the use of Scripture in Revelation has also been a focus of Beale. He writes: One of the dif¿culties which we have encountered throughout the study is that of the being able to determine whether an apocalyptic author (1) is consciously alluding to an O.T. text, (2) is making an unconscious reference via his ‘learned past’, (3) is merely using stock apocalyptic phraseology, or (4), in case of visionary writers, is referring to an actual experience which has parallels with an O.T. text.92

The second problem that Beale points out is the problem of discerning the validity of OT allusions. Beale recommends that in order to test the validity of an allusion, one is to look at the original context of the reference – is it reÀected in the new context? If it is, then the intertext is probably a valid allusion. Also, one is to see if the allusion appears together with other similar allusions. If it does, the probability of having a valid allusion increases. Beale writes, ‘A de¿nite and demonstrable connection between two documents can be shown when the following elements are found together: similarities of (1) theme, (2) content, (3) speci¿c constructions of words, and (4) structure. In addition, (5) a reasonable or persuasive explanation of authorial motive should be given.’93

91. Hays, Echoes, 28. 92. G. K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (London: Lanham, 1984), 306. 93. Ibid., 308.

1

1. Toward a Methodology

27

Beale uses slightly different categories. He omits echo, but instead has these three gradations for an allusion: clear for almost identical wordings; probable where idea, wording, or structure of the passage is uniquely traceable to the OT text; possible where the concepts or language exhibit only general likeness to the source text.94 What Beale calls possible allusion seems to fall under Hays description of echo. Even when using all of the above criteria, the case will only be cumulative. The more criteria that are satis¿ed, the better; but there is no ¿nal certainty. Therefore Beale warns us against falling into ‘parallelomania’,95 which is seeing allusions everywhere with little or no evidence to back them up. While authorial intention would support a claim for intertextuality, it is not a necessary condition for Hays for establishing an intertextual reference.96 Since the intertextual fusion may occur in the text itself or in the reader. The author could have subconsciously used the language from the OT without a conscious intention to refer to the context, which results in us hearing an echo. Our problem is that we cannot inquire from the ancient author whether he/she meant to echo another passage or not.97 This is where Beale is more author-oriented in his approach and 94. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 78. Beale considers these criteria applicable in recognizing allusions to sources other than the OT (ibid., 79). 95. Beale, The Use of Daniel, 309. 96. Hays has been criticized for the hermeneutical freedom he allows the reader. E.g. Richard N. Longenecker, in the Preface to the second edition of his Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), expressed his skepticism toward Hays’ method and practice of intertextuality. For Longenecker, only the explicit quotations and veri¿able allusions could be in the focus of interpretation. He maintains an author-oriented approach, as he believes that the goal of exegesis is to uncover (via historical-critical exegesis) the central proclamation of the early Christians (ibid., xxxiv–xxxix). 97. Joel B. Green wrestled with this question of authorial intentionality when he wrote in an essay co-authored with Hays, ‘On the one hand, one might inquire into how a NT writer like Paul has worked deliberately to invite his audience into a kind of echo chamber so as to hear in the current text reverberations of other texts… On the other hand, one cannot simply inquire into the intentionality of the author, as though Paul knew at every point where he was dependent on the OT and purposely wove that dependence into the text. Readers – especially contemporary readers less well trained in the Scriptures of Israel, but also ¿rst-century Christian audiences – may miss Pauline echoes of the OT, but they may also hear echoes Paul did not explicitly propose’ (Richard B. Hays and Joel B. Green, ‘The Use of the Old Testament by New Testament Writers’, in Green, ed., Hearing the New Testament, 228–9). 1

28

The Ending of the Canon

somewhat more connected to the methodology of source criticism. Hays allows more interpretative freedom for the reader. With that said, Hays and Beale largely agree in their practice of intertextuality. I agree with Hays that the reader is the one who ultimately determines whether there is an echo or allusion present. This does not mean that we cannot also speak of authorial intentionality, especially when allusions seem to reach the level of structure of the text. When dealing with what Beale calls clear and probable allusions, we can speak of authorial intentionality. When speaking about possible allusions and echoes we should exercise caution. However, they still have validity if they are widely shared in the reading community. The practice of intertextuality requires some discipline and prioritizing of the texts. We should not seek for an echo behind every word, and we should avoid creating ‘noise’ that can only distract the reader from the meaning of Scripture. However, intertextuality as a method is not entirely dependent on our ability to trace the authorial intentionality or the precise path of sourceinÀuence. The intertextual method makes it possible also to pursue allusions to the NT writings as well as the OT as they are a part of the canonical context of Scripture. If readers hear allusions to NT texts, then an interpreter should consider the interplay of these textual surfaces and the meanings that they generate. The above criteria will apply for evaluating NT allusions in Revelation. When intertextuality is employed in the context of canonical approach, there should be attention given to both OT and NT allusions. A faithful reader who detects an intertextual reference will need to determine how much of the previous textual ¿eld it preserves, how much of the original intent is transported into the new context, and how the inclusion of this intertext shapes the argument of the present text. Once one has discovered the intellectual purpose of the echo, the reader must also account for the kind of emotional impact created by the use of the intertext. I see intertextuality as a signi¿cant unifying literary feature that weaves the canon together into one narrative; without these cross-references between the OT and NT we would miss the christological focus of the canon. Without intertextuality the canon would indeed seem an arbitrary collection. All in all, disciplined and systematic study of intertextuality in Revelation has a great potential to open up the theological depths of this fascinating book. I will now assess what has already been accomplished in Revelation studies considering the above methodological developments. 1

1. Toward a Methodology

29

4. A Survey of Literature Historically, Revelation has received less scholarly attention in comparison to the rest of the NT literature. John Calvin never wrote a commentary on Revelation and Martin Luther in his 1522 Preface to Revelation declared that the book is neither apostolic nor prophetic and overall of lesser value because of its visionary nature and ‘Christ is neither taught nor known in it’.98 This neglect and contempt was lifted somewhat after the discovery of the vast apocalyptic library at Qumran. The contemporary NT theologies usually include a separate chapter on Revelation, however some authors are unsure whether or where it belongs on the theological landscape. The critical consensus on the work’s authorship do not allow it to be grouped with the Johannine literature, but since it does not seem to ¿t elsewhere, it gets connected to Johannine materials loosely and apologetically. I. Howard Marshall wrestles with this issue as he writes, ‘A problem is posed by the book of Revelation. It stands apart by reason of its genre and its sui generis’. He then connects the book apologetically to the Johannine school, but raises the question ‘is Revelation closer to the Johannine writings than to any other? Where does it ¿nd its place on a theological map?’99 Others cover the book only very brieÀy, sometimes grouping it with the ‘other writings.’100 Often the canonical location of the book gets overlooked in these arrangements, and with that the theological potential and authority of the book suffer as well. Scholars who do give Revelation its due attention sometimes hesitate to go beyond historical-critical and source-inÀuence research and enter the realm of theological reÀection. For example, David E. Aune’s threevolume commentary illustrates the historical-critical source-inÀuence 98. Martin Luther, ‘Preface to the Revelation of St. John [1522]’, n.p. Online: http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html (cited December 29, 2014). Also Hans Conzelmann makes no references to the Apocalypse in An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (NTL; London: SCM, 1969), 373. 99. I. Howard Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004), 567, 570. Georg Strecker considers the book a pseudonymous work. He, therefore, places it in the context of Jewish apocalyptic and discusses the traits of such literature. He connects the book loosely to the Johannine school but recognizes the problems that it creates. See Strecker’s Theology of the New Testament (Louisville: John Knox, 2000), 422. 100. Walter C. Kaiser, in his The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), devotes just six pages to Revelation (382–7). 1

30

The Ending of the Canon

approach to Revelation.101 While the work provides a host of encyclopedic and linguistic data, it is of limited value for those seeking a theological interpretation of the book. Aune’s analysis breaks the book into sources and disturbs its narrative structure. Yet, while many valuable observations are made along the way, there is no attempt to recover the theological message of Revelation.102 Additionally, Aune’s sourcecritical interests seem to detract from work in the area of the OT allusions in Revelation.103 This is not to say that Aune’s work has no value or that critical study is entirely Àawed. Instead, this approach needs to be supplemented by methods that focus on the literary unity if one seeks to approach Revelation as Scripture. Future studies of Revelation should aim at accomplishing more than historical and linguistic detail and tie the book into the story of the entire canonical narrative to which Revelation connects through a grid of intertextual references. The tight-knit literary structure and intertextual nature of Revelation invite us to appreciate its unique contribution to the canonical literary composition. The following is a representative selection of the major works interested in a theological reading of Revelation. I ¿rst note some NT theologies and commentaries that work with the assumption of the unity of canon. I list these works as examples of directions that future Revelation studies should follow. I then turn to studies that explore Revelation with regard to its intertextual relationship to a particular OT book. These studies provide the building blocks for writing better commentaries and theologies in the future. Finally, I will mention a few works that consider the canonical placement of Revelation as the ending of the Bible. As the limited number of works in that category shows, there is more work to be done in the area of exploring the implications of canonical placement.

101. David E. Aune, Revelation (3 vols.; WBC 52; Dallas: Word, 1997–98). 102. E.g. Jon Paulien writes: ‘This very wealth of detailed information is also, however, the greatest weakness of the book… It is focused directly on the individual trees that make up the Apocalypse, one rarely gets a glimpse of the forest as a whole’ (‘The Book of Revelation and the Old Testament: Thoughts on David Aune’s Approach’, BR 43 [1998]: 62). Similarly, Cameron Afzal writes: ‘The breadth and depth of the commentary represents both the great strength and perhaps something of the weakness of this set of books. It is sometimes dif¿cult to see the forest for the trees on any given issue’ (‘Review of David E. Aune, Revelation’, RBL [http:// www.bookreviews.org] [2000]: 3). 103. Cf. Paulien, ‘The Book of Revelation’, 61, 66. 1

1. Toward a Methodology

31

a. Theologies and Commentaries That Promote the Unity of the Canon Richard Bauckham’s Theology of the Book of Revelation as well as his Climax of Prophecy have made a signi¿cant contribution – ¿rst, in recognizing and developing the theological signi¿cance of the book of Revelation for the Christian canon, and second, in locating John’s message ¿rmly in the context of OT prophecy.104 Bauckham removes Revelation from the company of the non-canonical apocalypses, and emphasizes its continuity with the OT prophetic traditions. Although Bauckham does not use the term ‘intertextuality’, he places Revelation ¿rmly into the context of OT and NT. His work is profoundly theological and provides a big-picture canonical reading. Of the NT theologies that have made advances in the study of Revelation I would like to highlight Frank Thielman’s Theology of the New Testament, which provides a canonical approach.105 He places himself between the NT theologies that are theological histories of early Christianity and those that stick to the concerns of the NT canon. Thielman takes seriously both Wrede’s concern with history and Schlatter’s sympathy for reading with faith commitments to the Bible as God’s inspired word.106 His historical focus requires re-organizing the biblical materials in a chronological fashion, which, from a canon perspective, is somewhat of a weakness of the book. However, he attempts to draw attention to canonical sequence in some of his synthesis. The result is still a very readable approach to Revelation. The text of Revelation is dealt with in its literary integrity, while augmented with rich details describing its historical and social setting. These historical considerations do not hinder him from dealing also with the literary features of the book and employing its OT references to draw out deeper meanings of its passages.107 In this way the book is a synthesis of historical and literary method. 104. Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), and Climax of Prophecy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993). 105. Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 612–50. See also Frank J. Matera, New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity (Louisville: John Knox, 2007). Matera acknowledges that ‘the eschatological vision of Revelation makes it a ¿tting conclusion to the New Testament and to the entire Bible’ (422). 106. Thielman, Theology, 9. 107. For example, Thielman draws signi¿cantly on the context of Joel 2 when discussing the locust plague (Rev. 9.1-12) and on Jer 51 when dealing with the meaning of Babylon (Rev. 17–18) (ibid., 624, 642). 1

32

The Ending of the Canon

David Barr has provided a unique commentary titled Tales of the End in which he calls his readers to forget whatever they have heard about the meaning of the book and start over with a fresh focus on the story.108 His work is a refreshing deployment of a literary approach. He pays a great deal of attention to literary features such as symbols, characterization, point of view, genre, structure, and plot. He sees the action of the Apocalypse moving in several stages through two frame devices (letter and vision report) and presented through three story lines: a letter scroll (1.1–3.22), a worship scroll (4.1–11.18) and a war scroll (11.19– 22.21).109 Barr shows some appreciation for the book’s intertextuality and occasionally considers it in his interpretation.110 Barr gives attention to how the beginning and closing of Revelation work together and how the story arrives at a unique closure, though he does not consider how the book also functions as the closure to the canon. Nevertheless, Barr’s narrative literary approach helps to read Revelation theologically. Among the commentaries, James L. Resseguie provides a literary narrative approach.111 He assumes both the organic unity of John’s story, as well as the unity of the canon. He draws on the strengths of narrative criticism in helping the reader to ‘see what John sees and to hear what he hears’.112 He focuses on the textual features like the structure, rhetoric, setting, characters, point of view, plot, and the narrator’s style. He views intertextuality as part of the repertoire of John of Patmos. The historical, social and cultural contexts, as well as the political and ideological point of view of the narrator, ¿nd some consideration.113 Resseguie has provided one of the most helpful overviews of the use of rhetorical elements in Revelation, such as metaphors, similes, two-step progressions, verbal threads, chiasm, inclusio, numbers and numerical sequences.114 By using the tools of literary criticism he effectively unpacks the rhetorical impact of John’s story. Whereas many Revelation commentaries outline a variety of interpretative possibilities but never seem to reveal their preferences, Resseguie’s work is refreshing; he proposes readings, which usually can be classi¿ed as idealist readings, but he commits to them and points 108. David L. Barr, Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Santa Rosa, Ca.: Polebridge, 1998), x. 109. Ibid., 149. 110. See ibid., 37–8. 111. James L. Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009). 112. Ibid., 17. 113. Ibid., 18. 114. Ibid., 18–32. 1

1. Toward a Methodology

33

to the narrative elements that drive his convictions. There is a signi¿cant amount of theological thinking involved. Although this commentary has so many possessed strengths, it could nonetheless be improved by some additional methodological considerations. First, while Resseguie views intertextuality as important, he only points out the most obvious intertextual connections and does not draw out their full potential. He sees the intertextual references in isolation of each other. Second, while he acknowledges the book’s function as the ending of the canon and as part of the great ‘masterplot’ of the Bible, he never speci¿cally draws on this notion of ending or closure in his exegesis of Rev. 21.1–22.21.115 Greg Beale’s gigantic commentary in the NIGTC series has been helpful in giving to Revelation the theological signi¿cance that it deserves. Here, and elsewhere, Beale attends to the intertextuality of the book of Revelation.116 He frequently includes whole sections to discuss either the OT backgrounds of a particular image or the theological implications of the OT allusions in a particular segment.117 However, Beale’s hermeneutic is strongly author-oriented and he seems to distrust more contemporary methods of literary criticism, such as even conservative forms of reader-response.118 In the very magnitude of the project, Beale’s work can be only compared to Aune’s, which I discussed above. Unlike Aune, however, Beale is able to keep the canonical text intact and build pathways for theological interpretation of Revelation. Beale’s project shows that historical-critical analyses and canonical-literary approaches can complement each other. b. Studies on the Use of the Old Testament in Revelation In his 1984 work, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John, Greg Beale studied the use of Daniel in Revelation. Originally his University of Cambridge doctoral dissertation, this work is concerned with ‘the usage of Daniel in early Jewish and Christian apocalyptic in order to obtain a better interpretative understanding of those writings and to observe any possible relationships that 115. Furthermore, Resseguie does not deal with the remarks that John should not seal up the book (Rev. 22.10), nor the so-called curse (Rev. 22.18-19). See ibid., 251–60. 116. See G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (JSNTSup 166; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1998). 117. E.g. G. K. Beale, Revelation, 220–22, 297–301, 366–9, 402–4, 465–72. 118. See John M. Court, ‘The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation: A Review of Two Books by G. K. Beale’, in New Testament Writers and the Old Testament (ed. J. M. Court; London: SPCK, 2002), 27–8. 1

34

The Ending of the Canon

might exist among them’.119 He was interested not only in establishing allusions (which he classi¿es as either clear allusions or possible allusions) and echoes, but also in determining to what extent the author brought the original OT context into the focus. In his search for Revelation’s exegetical and theological models, he determined that Daniel was the structural base or the so-called overarching midrashic Vorbild for Revelation.120 While I challenge his ¿nal conclusion regarding the extent of Daniel’s inÀuence on Revelation, I ¿nd Beale’s study of the use of Daniel in Revelation to be a valuable tool for Revelation research. Steve Moyise offers some of the most in-depth analysis of the OT references in Revelation in his The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation and subsequent works.121 Moyise’s uniqueness is found in his interest not only in authorial intentionality in the use of certain intertexts, but also in the kind of impact the allusions might have on readers. By asking how the intertextuality inÀuences readers, Moyise has begun to bridge the gap between author- and reader-oriented approaches. Moyise positions himself between what he sees as the two alternatives: Beale’s reproductive approach, which focuses on the signi¿cance of the original OT context and seeks how that context is carried into the NT, and Schüssler Fiorenza’s more eclectic approach, which has suggested that the OT words, images, phrases, and patterns are used merely as ‘the language arsenal’, with the original contexts of the allusions having no theological importance in the interpretation of Revelation.122 Moyise moves away from both Beale and Schüssler Fiorenza by suggesting that the reader is to struggle with an intersection of textual surfaces where the question is no longer a matter of an author’s respect (or lack thereof) for literary context; instead, the reader asks, ‘How does the OT context interact with the NT context?’123 Moyise has also contributed by offering more speci¿c terminology for speaking of intertextuality (and distinguishing it from source criticism, Jewish midrash, typology and ‘inner biblical exegesis’). He offers the following sub-categories: (1) intertextual echo, 119. Beale, The Use of Daniel, 2. 120. Ibid., 313–16. 121. Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1995); idem, The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction (London: Continuum, 2001); idem, ed., Studies in the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2002). 122. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 135. 123. Moyise, Old Testament, 19. 1

1. Toward a Methodology

35

(2) dialogical intertextuality, and (3) postmodern intertextuality.124 However, beyond developing the outlines of his method and identifying the intertextual echoes in Revelation, Moyise does not draw out any theological implications of the allusions he has identi¿ed. The question of how the intertextual references function also remains largely unanswered.125 Jan Fekkes has provided an important study of the inÀuence of Isaiah on the book of Revelation. His work evaluates both the validity of particular suggested allusions to Isaiah and their importance for our theological understanding of the Apocalypse. He also draws conclusions concerning how the author of Revelation used the OT, whether merely borrowing its vocabulary and imagery or interpreting the Scriptures in a new way. He considers it just as important ‘to weed out dubious parallels’ as to substantiate which texts of the OT are actually being used by the author of Revelation.126 David Mathewson’s study of Isaiah in Revelation follows Fekkes’s outline, in which he identi¿ed Revelation’s use of Isaiah’s visionary experience and language, and Revelation’s borrowing Isaianic language for its Christology, its judgment scenes (especially the oracles against nations), and its vision of eschatological salvation (which is especially inÀuential in Rev. 21).127 His article mostly identi¿es Isaiah’s inÀuences 124. For further evaluation of Moyise’s work, see Robby Waddell, The Spirit in the Book of Revelation (JPTSup 30; Dorset, UK: Deo, 2006), 73–83. 125. Moyise has also edited The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel series, which focuses on the contribution of particular OT books in the NT, as well as authored numerous articles on the topic of intertextuality and Revelation. Volumes published in the series include several volumes edited by Steve Moyise and Maarten J. J. Menken: Psalms in the New Testament (The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004); Isaiah in the New Testament (The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel; New York: T&T Clark International, 2005); and Deuteronomy in the New Testament (The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel; New York: T&T Clark International, 2007). Moyise’s articles include ‘Intertextuality and the Book of Revelation’, ExpTim 104 (1993): 295–8; ‘Does the New Testament Quote the Old Testament Out of Context?’, Anvil 11 (1994): 133–43; ‘The Old Testament in the New: A Reply to Greg Beale’, IBS 21 (1999): 54–8; and ‘Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament’, in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. L. North (ed. S. Moyise; Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 2000), 25–32. 126. Jan Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and Their Developments (Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1994), 15. 127. David Mathewson, ‘Isaiah in Revelation’, in Moyise and Menken, eds., Isaiah in the New Testament, 189–210. 1

36

The Ending of the Canon

and shows how echoes have transferred from the original HB to the Greek of Revelation, often via the inÀuence of the LXX. Due to the format and purpose of the article, it does not concern itself with theological implications for the interpretation of Revelation or the canon. Mathewson has also provided a monograph titled A New Heaven and a New Earth, in which he explores the use of OT in Rev. 21.1–22.5.128 He sees this vision as the climax of Revelation and unpacks its deeper intertextual and intratextual substructure. The result is a helpful combination of a technical study and a commentary. Mathewson goes beyond merely recognizing the intertextual allusions and categorizing them, and asks also how the intertextuality functions, how the new and old contexts interact, and consequently how that interaction impacts the meaning of this passage.129 I particularly appreciate his focus on larger textual ¿elds. He gives priority to the inÀuence of Ezek. 40–48, but sees also Isa. 40– 66 and Zech. 14 as the essential building blocks of the climactic vision of Revelation.130 My reading of Rev. 21–22 has been developed independently of Mathewson’s, and while there is some overlap in terms of our shared interest on the impact of intertextuality, there are some methodological differences as well. Mathewson is less conscious about developing a methodology or discussing the function of Revelation as an ending of a canonical collection. While I wish he would have further clari¿ed his method, I appreciate the focus on the exegesis, which is without a doubt a signi¿cant contribution and an example of how considering the original context of the allusions may lead to better interpretations. Albert Vanhoye studied the use of Ezekiel in Revelation from a source critical point of view.131 He identi¿es the certain and probable references to Ezekiel and seeks to determine whether they come from the LXX or from the MT. He holds that the author of Revelation used primarily the LXX, probably a version that was more faithful to the original Hebrew text.132 His work as a whole is more of a technical survey concerned with the OT as a source for Revelation and does not address how those intertextual references inÀuenced the book’s theology in its canonical context. 128. David Mathewson, A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21.1–22.5 (JSNTSup 238; New York: Shef¿eld Academic, 2003). 129. Ibid., 23. 130. Ibid., 234. 131. Albert Vanhoye, ‘L’utilisation du livre d’Ezechiel dans l’Apocalypse’, Bib 43 (1962): 436–77. 132. Ibid., 461. 1

1. Toward a Methodology

37

Jeffrey Marshall Vogelgesang also focused on Ezekiel’s references in Revelation.133 He argues that understanding the interpretation of Ezekiel in Revelation ‘provides a key to overall understanding of this book’.134 He shows that Ezekiel and Revelation share common motifs, perspectives, verbal similarities, and order. For Vogelgesang, Ezekiel provides the Vorlage for the Apocalypse, but despite this literary dependence, Revelation also reinterprets and universalizes Ezekiel’s vision of restoration of Israel (Ezek. 40–48) applying it to his vision of the redemption of all humanity. Vogelgesang also believes that John not only accessed Ezekiel directly, but that he also critically interacted with his contemporary apocalyptic interpretations of Ezekiel such as the merkavah traditions. He suggests that John rejected this esoteric tradition as he wanted his vision to be open and accessible to all readers. In this sense, he argues, that Revelation is an anti-apocalypse.135 Vogelgesang’s thorough look at the textual, thematic and structural parallels between Ezekiel and Revelation has bene¿tted our study, and his outline will be followed when I discuss the use of Ezekiel in Revelation. He has also started an important conversation on whether Revelation should be viewed in the context of the apocalyptic literature, or whether it would be better to take seriously the signi¿cant differences that set Revelation apart from its contemporary apocalypses and tie it more ¿rmly to prophecy.136 Jean-Pierre Ruiz’s Ezekiel in the Apocalypse is a detailed 600-page study on the use of Ezekiel.137 Across 180 pages he surveys numerous works on the OT use in Revelation.138 133. Jeffrey Marshall Vogelgesang, ‘The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation’ (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1985). 134. Ibid., iii. 135. Ibid. 136. Vogelgesang highlights ten characteristics that set Revelation apart from the ordinary apocalyptic tradition: self-designation as prophecy; self-designation as apocalypse; lack of pseudonymity; absence of ex eventu prophecy; anti-esotericism; use of hymnic and doxological materials; the changes in angelic protocol; the partially realized eschatology; view of equality of the Christian community; and use of epistolary genre (Ibid., 281–96). 137. Jean-Pierre Ruiz, Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16.17–19.10 (European University Studies: Series 23, Theology 376; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1989). 138. Ruiz reviews the commentaries by Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1908), and Robert Henry Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920), as well as the studies that deal with the use of OT in Revelation by Adolf Schlatter, Das Alte Testament in der johanneischen Apocalypse (BFCT 1

38

The Ending of the Canon

While Ruiz’s exegesis only covers Rev. 16.17–19.10, he does give close to 100 pages of exegesis for each chapter with which he deals, plus hermeneutical-methodological remarks and conclusions. Ruiz shows that Ezekiel is the foundation (i.e. provides the structural framework) of the narrative of Revelation, though Revelation is not a commentary on Ezekiel, or indeed on any other OT prophet. John’s use of Ezekiel shows considerable departures from the source, as well as reshaping of its materials. In a way, John ‘swallowed Ezekiel’s scroll in order to write one of his own’.139 Notably, Ruiz is moving beyond source criticism when he shows how John is in dialogue with Ezekiel. He also allows the author to set the agenda on how his book should be read by investigating the ‘hermeneutical imperatives’ present in the text (1.3; 22.7, 18-19; 2.7, 11, 17, 29; 3.6, 13, 22; 13.9-10, 18; 17.9; 1.20; 10.7; 17.5, 7, respectively). Following those hermeneutical imperatives, Ruiz concludes that John has used the OT prophetic language in order to speak to its audience with the highest possible prophetic authority and with the divine approval, and that although John is never in the text called a prophet, he acts and wants to be viewed as such. Ruiz also emphasizes that the 16; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1912), and his commentary, Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament. Dritter Band. Die Briefe des Petrus, Judas, Johannes, an die Hebräer, des Jakobus. Die Offenbarung des Johannes (Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1910), and M. É. Boismard ‘ “L’Apocalypse”, ou “Les Apocalypses” de Saint Jean’, RB 56 (1949): 507–41; and idem, ‘Notes sur L’Apocalypse’, RB (1952): 161–81. He also surveys the studies on the use of particular books or groups of literature in Revelation, such as Vanhoye, ‘L’Utilisation’; Beale, The Use of Daniel, and Vogelgesang, ‘Ezekiel’. Ruiz comments on Angelo Lancellotti, ‘La tradizione profetico-apocalittica dell’ A.T. nell’Apocalisse di S. Giovanni’, in L’Apocalisse. Studi biblici pastorali dell’Associazione Biblica Italiana (Brescia: Paideia, 1967), vol. 2, 37–46 (Lancellotti focuses on the inÀuence of OT prophetic books on apocalyptic traditions); Attilio Gangemi, ‘Vom prophetischen zum apokalyptischen Visionsbericht’, in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979 (ed. D. Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 413–46 (Gangemi focuses on the use of Second Isaiah); Benito Marconcini, ‘L’utilizzazione del T. M. nelle citazioni Isaiane dell’Apocalisse’, RivB 24 (1976): 113–36 (Marconcini focuses on the use of Isaiah); Giovanni Deiana, ‘Utilizzazione del libro di Geremia in alcuni brani dell’Apocalisse’, Lateranum 48 (1982): 125–37 (Deiana studies the use of Jeremiah); Michael D. Goulder, ‘The Apocalypse as an Annual Cycle of Prophecies’, NTS 27 (1981): 342–67 (Goulder focuses on the use of Ezekiel), and Johan Lust, ‘The Order of the Final Events in Revelation and Ezekiel’, in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Noveau Testament (ed. J. Lambrecht; BETL 53; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980), 170–83 (Lust focuses mostly on Ezekiel). 139. Ruiz, Ezekiel, 526–7. 1

1. Toward a Methodology

39

privileged locus for reading Revelation is a liturgical setting, which was also the ¿rst setting in which Revelation was read/heard. Thus, Revelation may teach us something about the use of Scripture in Christian worship.140 Ruiz points out that his study af¿rms the unity of the text, not as an assumption, but as a result of his research on Rev. 16.17–19.10, the judgment of Babylon. His work also challenges some of the views discussed above, such as Beale’s notion that Revelation is midrash on Daniel, and Vogelgesang’s suggestion that Revelation is an anti-apocalypse.141 The work provides a mixture of detailed work with the features of the text as well as a theological interpretation of the message of Rev. 16.17–19.10. The works of these authors and others will be referenced in our study of the intertextual layout of Revelation in Chapter 3.142 c. Studies on the Canonical Placement of Revelation What would be the implications of reading Revelation as the ‘conclusion’ of the Christian Bible? Although this question has usually been overlooked in Revelation study, a few works have queried the signi¿cance of reading Revelation as the last book in the canon. Robert W. Wall outlines what he believes to be the essential elements for a canonical reading of Revelation in his essay, ‘Apocalypse of the New Testament in Canonical Context’.143 He believes that the main bene¿t for reading Revelation canonically is that it makes the book relevant for the faith and life of today’s church and provide a corrective to both sectarian readings that tend to push the book’s message to an inde¿nite future ful¿llment of its end-time prophecies; and the scholarly readings that are concerned with the ¿rst-century setting only. For Wall, canon includes the notion of ecclesial authority; to include a book into a canon was to determine that the book has ongoing relevance and value for shaping church’s faith and practice.144 Wall is also concerned with the canonization process, and after a brief historical survey, he concludes, that the creation of the NT canon and assigning Revelation its current canonical location was the product of an 140. Ibid., 539. 141. Ibid., 517–18. 142. Other works could be included: e.g. Dieter Sänger, ed., Das Ezechielbuch in der Johannesoffenbarung (Biblische Studien 76; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2006), is a collection of essays on the relationship of the OT and the NT along with discussions of structure, text form and interpretation. 143. Robert W. Wall, ‘Apocalypse of the New Testament in Canonical Context’, in Wall and Lemcio, eds., The New Testament as Canon, 274–98. 144. Ibid., 274–75. 1

40

The Ending of the Canon

intentional process and not an arbitrary decision.145 Wall argues that the canonical location of Revelation should impact the way we read this book. He recognizes that this function endows Revelation with added signi¿cance. Together with Genesis, Revelation creates a kind of biblical inclusio. According to Wall, ‘Read as the Bible’s inclusio, Revelation gives theological coherence to the Christian Scriptures: everything from Genesis to Revelation should be interpreted by a “canon-logic” which asserts that a faithful Creator God has kept the promise to restore all things for the Lord and for good’.146 Wall also believes that a reader should pay attention to the relationship between different parts of the canon and recognize that Revelation’s canonical location suggests a ‘special relationship’ with the collection of the NT epistles. For him, Revelation is a particular kind of epistle, one which shares some common functions with other examples of the epistolary genre. Placed alongside the NT epistles, Wall maintains, the prophetic-apocalyptic elements of Revelation will help to highlight these same elements within some of the epistles. Thus the canonical placement and sequence has mutual impact on reading individual texts.147 Wall also gives signi¿cance to canonical/traditional titles that attribute Revelation to John the Apostle. Even though Wall favors the critical opinion that attributes Revelation to a prophet named John who was someone distinct from the author of the Fourth Gospel, he believes that the canonical titles should be recognized as the church’s theological perspective on its writings. Because of this canonical attribution, Wall seems to suggest that it is appropriate to draw parallels between Revelation and the rest of the Johannine literature.148 Beyond a couple of brief exegetical examples of how John himself interprets the OT canon, the essay does not provide major examples of how this methodology is applied to reading of the text. Still, Wall has outlined some important steps what should be involved in the study of Revelation as the last book of the Christian canon and boldly raised the issues of the signi¿cance of the canonical location and titles. William J. Dumbrell in The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament inquired why these chapters are such an appropriate conclusion, not only for the book of Revelation, but also for the story of the entire (Christian) Bible.149 His method is biblical-theological, 145. Ibid., 279. 146. Ibid., 280. 147. Ibid., 282–3. 148. Ibid., 282–6. 149. William J. Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Lancer, 1985).

1

1. Toward a Methodology

41

and his presupposition is that the ‘rich diversity of Scripture serves its profound unity’; further, Dumbrell sees the whole Bible as moving toward a common goal and therefore essentially ‘eschatological’.150 He presents his study in ¿ve parts: the New Jerusalem, the New Temple, the New Covenant, the New Israel, and the New Creation. He sees these as the major themes in John’s vision in Rev. 21–22 and as windows into the entire structure of the Bible. His study investigates how these themes were developed in the OT and shaped by the NT, as well as how these ¿ve storylines are brought to a conclusion in the great ¿nale of Revelation. His work is less concerned with the methodology, and more interested in exegesis of these themes in the light of Revelation’s function as the ending of the canon.151 5. Conclusion Although Revelation is making a comeback into mainline biblical scholarship and we can no longer speak of the neglect of this book, there are still commentators who work with methods that deconstruct the canonical text. Though some new and exciting paths have been opened up in recent decades, the survey of literature reveals that there is more to do in the following areas: ¿rst, articulating a methodological basis for reading Scripture as a uni¿ed whole; second, incorporating more fully the particular studies on the OT use in Revelation into our exegesis; and ¿nally, considering Revelation as the ending of the canon. These three areas – canon studies, intertextuality, and signi¿cance of the canonical placement – need to become more consciously integrated in the study of Revelation. While signi¿cant advancements have been made, this integration has not yet fully taken place. It is in this area that the present work strives to make a contribution. My purpose is to demonstrate this integrated canonical methodology through my reading of Rev. 21–22.

150. Ibid., n.p. 151. Mathewson’s work is largely built on the themes outlined by Dumbrell. He provides stronger textual connections for many of these (A New Heaven, 7–8, 216). 1

Chapter 2

GENRE AND LITERARY STRUCTURE OF REVELATION

1. Introduction One cannot speak of a holistic and canon-centered reading of a particular text without honoring the book in which the text occurs as a literary whole. Reading Revelation in the context of the canon begins with ¿rst seeing John’s work as a literary unit. The context of the book provides the primary hermeneutical framework to understand his message. Therefore, the canonical reader must be familiar with the genre and internal structures of the book in order to be in a position to evaluate how the intertextual allusions and echoes function in service of the book. 2. Genre of Revelation Revelation comprises the following genres: apocalypse, prophecy, and epistolary genre. In addition, John also refers to his work as a book. We will look at how these four features help us to unlock the literary nature of Revelation. In Rev. 1.1 John called his book an apocalypse of Jesus Christ (ÒÈÇÁŠÂÍÐÀË ¾ÊÇı ÉÀÊÌÇı). But what does it mean? Between 200 B.C. and A.D. 200 there were multiple apocalypses in circulation, of which some were by Jewish authors, some by pagan authors, and a few by Christian authors.1 The Society of Biblical Literature Seminar on Apocalyptic Literature has studied a myriad of such literature and reached an overall working de¿nition of apocalypse: ‘a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world’.2 1. See James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–85). 2. John J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979), 9.

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

43

This de¿nition, although widely cited, lacks among other things a description of the function of the apocalypse. What did this genre seek to accomplish? Hence, the Uppsala Colloquium in 1983 proposed that the function of apocalypses is usually hortatory, seeking to encourage endurance in faith.3 Another aspect where this de¿nition is lacking is its failure to include any emphasis on justice and theodicy, which appear to be major motifs of apocalyptic literature, and which are certainly featured in John’s Apocalypse. In Rev. 1.2; 22.7, 10, 18 and 19, John also called his book a prophecy (ÌÇİË ÂŦºÇÍË ÌýË ÈÉÇξ̼ţ¸Ë) and he probably saw himself as a prophet rather similar to the OT prophets (cf. Rev. 22.9). In fact, much of his material is borrowed from the OT prophetic literature, especially Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah. However, John is a Christian prophet, and as such Christ’s advent, passion, and resurrection are central to his literary creation (e.g. chs. 1, 5, 12, 19, 21). John’s ability to speak of Jesus in the OT prophetic language is perhaps one of his greatest literary and theological accomplishments. As we will see further, it is dif¿cult and impractical to distinguish too carefully between the genres of apocalypse and prophecy as the former grew out of the latter in the exilic era, which intensi¿ed questions of theodicy and divine justice. I agree with Beale, who has suggested that apocalypse is prophecy intensi¿ed.4 Prophecy and apocalypse share much in common – both rely on otherworldly mediation and both involve some transcendent reality. As it is dif¿cult to de¿ne the apocalyptic genre, so it is also dif¿cult to achieve an all-inclusive de¿nition of prophecy. Prophecy is a phenomenon that reaches across many cultures and over long periods of time and includes various forms. Ben Witherington has tried to cover the progress of prophecy from ‘Mari to Montanus’. He cites the de¿nition suggested by L. L. Grabbe: ‘A prophet is a person who speaks in the name of a god (usually Yahweh) and claims to pass on a revelation from that god. Divine revelation is a sine qua non of prophecy.’ Witherington clari¿es, based on that de¿nition, that ‘divination is not prophecy, and neither is what has come to be called literary prophecy (ex eventu prophecy)’.5 3. Lars Hartman, ‘Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre’, in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World (ed. D. Hellholm; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 332–9. 4. Beale, Revelation, 37. 5. Ben Witherington III, Jesus the Seer: The Progress of Prophecy (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), 398; citing L. L. Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1995), 83.

1

44

The Ending of the Canon

A prophetic experience is the starting point of prophecy. In the case of the OT prophets, we are often given a story of the prophet’s call (e.g. Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Ezekiel). ‘Call’ indicates the divine initiative to which the prophet is responding by giving himself/ herself in the service of God. The prophets were not mere interpreters of the Scriptures. Even as the reader is guided through much OT Scripture, the author of Revelation claims a larger reality of unique revelatory experience, as he frequently reminds the reader through the use of the phrase ëÅ ÈżŧĸÌÀ in all major segments of the book (1.10; 4.2; 17.3; 21.10), as well as the use of the language of seeing and hearing. For example, ¼ċ»ÇÅ is used 44 times in Revelation, always referring to John’s visionary experience.6 Similarly, ôÁÇÍʸ, ‘I heard’, occurs 26 times.7 Hence, even though the structure of Revelation follows closely the structure of Ezekiel (or as Beale has suggested, Daniel), Revelation should not be considered a commentary on Ezekiel (nor a midrash on Daniel).8 Accordingly, source materials inÀuence, but do not determine, Revelation’s plot or genre. John’s work is guided by his own prophetic call depicted in Rev. 1.9-20; 4.1–5.14 and 10.1-11. In the history of Israel as attested in the HB, the prophets emerged more prominently at times of national crisis. They often worked alongside the king, being therefore an integral voice in local and international politics. Theologically speaking, Israel’s fate was decided by its response to the prophetic proclamation. When Israel and Judah lost their independence and were taken into exile, prophecy took on a new, more apocalyptic form. Apocalyptic-type prophecy was characterized by emphases on oppression and perceived injustice. Righteous suffering, leading to an ultimate reward, seems to be one of the key themes in this prophetic trend. This trend, which started with Daniel, continues through the period of the Second Temple into the Christian era.9

6. Revelation 1.12, 17; 4.1; 5.1, 2, 6, 11; 6.1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12; 7.1, 2, 9; 8.13; 9.1, 17; 10.1, 5; 13.1, 2, 11; 14.1, 6, 14; 15.1, 2, 5; 16.13; 17.3, 6; 18.1; 19.11, 17, 19; 20.1, 4, 11, 12; 21.1, 2, 22. 7. Revelation 1.10; 4.1; 5.11, 13; 6.1, 3, 5, 6, 7; 7.4; 8.13; 9.13, 16; 10.4, 8; 12.10; 14.2 [×2], 13; 16.1, 5, 7; 18.4; 19.1, 6; 21.3; 22.8. 8. Beale, Revelation, 137–41. 9. The more classical forms of prophecy were practiced in the NT church. In the manner of Elijah, the prophet Agabus from Jerusalem predicted a great famine in the region (Acts 11.28), and 1 Cor. 14 describes the role of prophets in the church. See Witherington, Jesus the Seer, 381–97. David Aune offers an overview of Early Christian prophecy in Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 189–232. 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

45

Revelation is often classi¿ed as an apocalypse, but its genre is more accurately described as apocalyptic prophecy, with emphasis on the word prophecy. This is important for several reasons. First, it accounts for apocalyptic as an outgrowth of the prophetic genre. Grabbe suggests we should focus on continuities rather than differences and consider apocalyptic a subdivision of prophecy: ‘we are making a rod for our own backs by trying to make a clear distinction between prophecy/prophetic writings and apocalyptic/apocalypses’.10 He further highlights some common characteristics. Apocalypses and prophecies both: 1. present themselves as delivering a divine message to human recipients; 2. address the contemporary audience with regard to their current situation and offer hope, advice, and perspective; 3. presuppose mythical worldview in which the unseen but very real heavenly world determines what will happen on earth and in the affairs of humans; 4. look forward to an ideal age in which earth and/or heaven will be transformed and the righteous will live in peace and happiness; 5. contain signi¿cant paranetic material, warning, advising and admonishing the reader not only for the present but also for the future; 6. might be the product of a community or a single individual; 7. have a large element of pseudepigraphic material.11 Grabbe is adamant that prophecy and apocalyptic both share a mythical world view and seek to bring change to this world. He points out that in the past scholarship habitually described the prophets as special individuals and fearless preachers who sought to change this world for the better, while it described the apocalyptists as lonely dreamers who made up mythical apocalyptic scenarios and focused predominately on personal afterlife. The evidence is overwhelming that such divisions are arbitrary.12 Second, the typical categorization of Revelation with non-canonical apocalypses draws Revelation out of its canonical context for the 10. Lester L. Grabbe, ‘Introduction and Overview’, in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and Their Relationships (ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak; JSPSup 46; New York: T&T Clark International, 2003), 22. 11. Ibid., 23. 12. See Grabbe, ‘Prophetic and Apocalyptic’, in Grabbe and Haak, eds., Knowing the End from the Beginning, 112–18.

1

46

The Ending of the Canon

purposes of interpretation. The placement of Revelation in the Christian canon and the strong intertextual network that ties it to the company of the OT prophets invites us to read it in the context of the OT and NT writings, and not primarily in the context of non-canonical apocalypses.13 The over-emphasis on the latter has often resulted in misunderstandings of the book. As Vogelgesang has stated: If Revelation has remained a ‘seven-sealed book’, it is because of its usual interpretation as a normal apocalypse, which has not been at all helpful in the discussion of John’s message and theological intent, because of the overlooking of the crucial role of Ezekiel, and because of the failure to recognize John’s critical hermeneutical principle, which determines John’s message as well as the consistency of individual details of ‘the words of the prophecy of this book’.14

Vogelgesang’s comparative survey observed how John signi¿cantly departs from the apocalyptic genre of his time and better ¿ts in the company of the OT prophets. There are a few possible intertextual references to non-canonical apocalypses in Revelation, but many of these are debated.15 Those instances of intertextuality that seem more likely tend to be drawn from books that had near-canonical status in their communities. For example, 1 Enoch was popular in some corners of Judaism, and it is possible that, for a brief time, it achieved something close to scriptural status. That the author calls his work both an apocalypse and a prophecy and overwhelmingly turns to the OT prophets for inspiration invites his readers to follow his lead. Bauckham (who also prefers to call Revelation either as apocalyptic prophecy or a prophetic apocalypse) writes: 13. I do not suggest that the intertexts used in a book can by themselves determine the genre of that book. One can cite epistles extensively while writing a historical narrative; this does not make one’s book an epistle. However, John refers to his work as both an apocalypse (1.1) and as a book of prophecy (22.10, 19), while it also has epistolary features (1.4, 11; 22.21). There has been over-emphasis on the book’s apocalyptic features in the past. The survey of its intertextuality can be one element that helps us to recover some emphasis on John’s identity as a NT prophet. 14. Vogelgesang, ‘Ezekiel’, 398–9. 15. With 25 manuscripts found, 1 Enoch is the third most popular book among the DSS, after Psalms and Deuteronomy. It is possible that, as Pilchan Lee has suggested, Rev. 22.2 reÀects some knowledge of 1 En. 24.3-5; 25.4-6, but he would probably agree that it is more likely that both John and the author of 1 Enoch were inÀuenced by Ezek. 47.12 (The New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation: A Study of Revelation 21–22 in the Light of its Background in Jewish Tradition [WUNT 129; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001], 291). Likewise, it is possible that the idea of a Lamb with horns comes from 1 En. 90.6-12, 37, but it is much more likely that both texts draw independently from Dan. 7.7–8.24 (Beale, Revelation, 351). 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

47

The book of Daniel, which was one of John’s major Old Testament sources, he would certainly have regarded as a prophetic book. If he knew some of the post-biblical apocalypses, as he most probably did, he will have seen them as a form of prophecy. The forms and traditions which Revelation shares with other works we call apocalypses John will have used as vehicles of prophecy, in continuity with Old Testament prophecy.16

Bauckham points out two further aspects that Revelation shares with the apocalyptic tradition. First, it gives a heavenly perspective on this world (a message mediated through angels and Christ), and second, it focuses on issues of justice (the judgment of evil and the eschatological salvation of God’s people).17 But Revelation also departs from typical apocalyptic writings in the following formal aspects. First, Revelation includes more visionary material than other apocalypses, which seem to focus more on the interpretation of the visions and dialogues between the revealer and the seer. Second, the author of Revelation reveals his name while most authors of apocalypses are anonymous.18 Moving beyond issues of de¿nition, it is appropriate to see how Revelation views itself as an apocalypse. Revelation unveils (ÒÈÇÁŠÂÍÐÀË) what is happening on the earth from the perspective of God. This viewpoint is given to John in a vision via an angel to show what is going to happen ëŠ̊ϼÀ, ‘soon’ or ‘speedily’. It is no coincidence that an apocalypse is ‘shown’ (1.1), that is, it is full of visionary material, and in Revelation we encounter symbols and imagery that reveal an unseen world – for example, God’s throne room, eschatological battles, and the world renewed and perfected. Even every-day, familiar phenomena are sometimes described using metaphors in order to emphasize their inner qualities beyond what can be seen with physical eyes: the church becomes the bride (Rev. 19, 21), and Rome the whore of Babylon (Rev. 17). The imagery does not have to be consistent throughout the book, but it can take different forms to emphasize various aspects of what is described. Therefore Christ can simultaneously be both a slain Lamb (5.6, 12) and a lion of the tribe of Judah (5.5). Apocalyptic imagery by nature is allusive and lacks speci¿city; it is the overall effect that matters, not the speci¿c details or even consistency. As Brent Sandy put it, ‘Apocalyptic is the impressionism of biblical literature’.19 Much like impressionist paintings, such literature is best interpreted from a certain distance, absorbing the overall emotive effect. 16. Bauckham, Theology, 5. 17. Ibid., 7–9. 18. See ibid., 9–12. 19. D. Brent Sandy, Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002), 197.

1

48

The Ending of the Canon

Unlike the authors of some other apocalypses who prefer to remain anonymous or pseudonymous, John claims authorship of this apocalypse – though he sees himself as the mediator rather than the initiator of the material. He associates with his audience. He calls himself a ‘brother’ and ‘fellow partaker in the tribulation’ to whom the revelation came from God and from Jesus via an angelic being while he was exiled to Patmos, ‘because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ (Rev. 1.9). There he experiences things and writes them down. He does not take credit for the revelation, but he emphasizes that it came to him. Not even the mediating angel is given credit for the revelation, but only God; and the author emphasizes this twice by recording how the angel rebukes him for falling at his feet in adoration and reminds him to worship God alone (19.10; 22.9). Revelation is endowed with great authority for the one who reads and those who hear and obey will be blessed for doing so (1.3), and those who disobey or distort its message will be cursed (22.18). The truthfulness and seriousness of the message (1.2; 22.6) is emphasized by the fact that it came from a faithful source: from Jesus who is the faithful witness (1.5). Jesus seems to be both the revealer and the revealed as the genitive construction ÒÈÇÁŠÂÍÐÀË `¾ÊÇı ÉÀÊÌÇı remains ambiguous. It is ‘the Revelation of Jesus Christ’ in the sense that Christ is the revealer of the Revelation and in some cases its interpreter (1.20). But it is also ‘the Revelation of Jesus Christ’ in the sense that Jesus appears in Revelation as its central ¿gure. For example, in the opening vision of the book (1.12-20) he appears as the Son of Man (cf. Dan. 7.13-14). Although some scholars have debated it, Revelation seems to presume a time of crisis and persecution in the church.20 It is not to claim that all 20. Leonard L. Thompson, Adela Yarbro Collins, and others have argued that the persecution that gave rise to the Apocalypse was not a physical persecution, but that Christians felt alienated because their expectations of Christ’s parousia and putting the world ‘right’ had not come true. There was a chasm between the way things were and the way they ought to be that caused them inner suffering and catharsis that leads John to escape into the fantasy world. Thompson argues that Revelation scholars have misread the biblical and non-biblical accounts of the status of Christians in the Roman world and that sources other than Revelation show that the Christians of Asia Minor lived quiet lives not much different from other provincials. He writes: ‘the book of Revelation presents a minority report on how Christians relate to the larger Roman society. The seer is apparently advocating attitudes and styles of life not compatible with how most Christians were living in the cities of Asia’ (The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire [New York: Oxford University Press, 1990], 132). Thompson’s study covers the sources over a very long period of time (even to Tertullian) and seems to argue against a straw man. No one suggests that the persecution John envisaged constituted nonstop violence against Christians. Rather, sporadic waves of terror are in view. There were times of peace and times when one 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

49

Christians to whom Revelation was addressed experienced persecution or that they did so continuously. We see from the description of the church in Laodicea (3.14-22), for example, that John envisaged some churches as living in relative comfort. However, persecution for faith was the experience or expectation of some: Smyrna (2.8-11), Pergamum (2.1217), and Philadelphia (3.7-13). The possibility of persecution was known enough for Christians in Asia Minor to be concerned. Revelation mentions martyrs, who have been executed for their testimony of Jesus, asking God for revenge and justice (6.9-11). At times like this, the church needed encouragement. Revelation is full of veiled or even coded language: beastly and grotesque imagery to symbolize political powers (Rev. 13, 17, 18), symbolic numbers to indicate names and the nature of rulers (13.18), and so on. Such language is a characteristic of apocalypse. Apocalypses function like political satire, they critique the ruling powers (outsiders) from the point of view of an oppressed minority. At the same time Revelation cautions its audience (insiders) against collaboration with such powers and warns of the danger of becoming just like one’s oppressors. Compromise with the ungodly state is equated in Revelation to idolatry using rather disturbing apocalyptic images.21 The fact that Revelation concerns issues of theodicy and justice has caused some scholars to believe that, among the other genres to which Revelation relates, Jewish sapiential tradition ought to be included.22 Witherington argues that apocalyptic is a ‘hybrid of wisdom and prophetic materials’.23 Although Revelation may exhibit traces of the wisdom genre due to some common elements between wisdom, prophetic, and apocalyptic genres, my intertextual study has detected no signi¿cant use of wisdom sources in the Apocalypse. Grabbe has suggested that Revelation has much in common with mantic wisdom, which seeks the divine will and esoteric knowledge by a had to be concerned for one’s life. But real, physical persecution was an experience of at least some Christians. The author of the Apocalypse was himself exiled by the oppressive empire. Of course, Thompson deserves credit for starting a conversation over how strongly apocalyptic literature should be associated with an experience of crisis and persecution. See also Adela Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 153. 21. Beale discussed this kind of shock-effect function of the apocalyptic language (e.g. Rev. 17.6-7) in We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2008), 248–52. 22. See, e.g., Ben Witherington III, Revelation (NCBC; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 33; and idem, Jesus the Seer, 216–45. 23. Witherington, Jesus the Seer, 291. 1

50

The Ending of the Canon

variety of means of divination (dreams, visions, auditions). ‘Both prophecy and apocalyptic ¿t quite comfortably under the rubric of divination’, writes Grabbe. He struggles to ¿nd a better term and correctly points out that many will likely object to such terminology.24 Finally, Revelation is also an epistle. The book begins and ends as a letter to churches. Revelation 1.3 indicates that the writing is to be read out loud, which makes sense for its identity as a genuine letter, and 1.4 offers a standard epistolary greeting: ÏŠÉÀË ĨÄėÅ Á¸Ė ¼ĊÉŢž.25 After the opening vision there is a command to write down the message and send it to seven churches in Asia Minor: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (1.11). Even though these particular churches are not mentioned beyond ch. 3, they appear again in a general remark in 22.16: ëºĽ `¾ÊÇıË ìȼÄи ÌġÅ Óºº¼ÂŦÅ ÄÇÍ Ä¸ÉÌÍÉýʸÀ ĨÄėŠ̸ı̸ ëÈĖ ̸ėË ëÁÁ¾Êţ¸ÀË. Revelation 22.12 mentions ‘the reward’, and this seems to recall the remarks to the seven churches who are promised their rewards if their deeds are worthy according to the word written to them (2.7, 10-11, 17, 26-28; 3.5, 12, 21). The book maintains its letter-like character to the end, which includes an epistolary ending in 22.21. However, Revelation is more than a letter; it is also called a book (¹À¹ÂţÇÅ) in 22.7, 9, 10, 18, 19. This seems to indicate that its signi¿cance goes beyond the seven churches to which it is addressed, that it was meant to be published and read by churches beyond those seven mentioned in the book. Gamble has suggested that the author of Revelation could have been the most textually self-conscious Christian writer of the early period.26 This is seen in three aspects. First, from the beginning John emphasizes that he wants his book to be read (1.1-3). Second, the author is also concerned with the preservation of accuracy of the content (22.9), not a small matter in a world where manuscripts were easily and frequently altered by scribes. Finally, sending the book in the form of a letter to seven central locations in the Asia Minor, where the author was probably well known and loved, ensured that the book would be published and spread around the region of Asia Minor and beyond. Based on the above characteristics, I conclude by de¿ning the genre of Revelation as a book of apocalyptic prophecy in an epistolary 24. Grabbe, ‘Introduction and Overview’, 24. 25. E.g., Rom. 1.7; 1 Cor. 1.3; 2 Cor. 1.2; Gal. 1.3; Eph. 1.2; Phil. 1.2; Col. 1.2; 1 Thess. 1.1; 2 Thess. 1.2; 1 Tim. 1.2; 2 Tim. 1.2; Tit. 1.4b; Phlm. 3; 1 Pet. 1.2b; 2 Pet. 1.2; 2 Jn 1.3. 26. Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 104–5. 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

51

framework.27 This designation is somewhat similar to Bauckham’s conclusion: ‘an apocalyptic prophecy in the form of a circular letter to seven churches in the Roman province of Asia’.28 However, by calling his work also a book the author implies that its signi¿cance reaches beyond the circumstantial nature of an epistle. 3. Structural Elements and Themes of Revelation As part of its literary character John’s apocalypse contains abundant ‘repetitions, doublets, and arti¿cial constructions’.29 Scholars trained in source criticism have suggested that this is a sign of redaction activity. For example, some have argued that Revelation was compiled of various messages that were sent to the churches and these tracts were eventually compiled into the book that we have today.30 Others have composed even more intricate source-critical theories that show how the ¿nal composition was achieved.31 One of the most elaborate theories is David Aune’s. He has suggested a threefold development of the book over a period of twenty to thirty years – with stage one generated in the 50s by a 27. Such hybrid genres have other parallels in the canon. Deuteronomy, for instance, is a compendium of genres – primarily a book of law, it takes the form of a series of farewell speeches that follow the pattern of a covenant renewal ceremony. 28. Bauckham, Theology, 2. He also emphasizes that Revelation is not seven letters, but one letter containing special prophetic messages to seven particular churches. It is a circular letter to be taken from one church to another to be read there. I am highlighting the fact that from the beginning John’s intention is that this letter will be read and published as a book. In addition to these genre designations that are claimed by the text itself, literary critics have suggested others. For example, Leland Ryken has written in detail about how Revelation, with its plot of a cosmic battle between good and evil, portrays some characteristics of epic (Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987], 141–3). He also points out elsewhere that the layout of Revelation as a succession of scenes and visions is characteristic of an ancient drama. See ‘Revelation’, in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible (ed. L. Ryken and T. Longman; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 463. Revelation is a diverse literary work, and it cannot be adequately characterized with a single genre designation. It is a compendium of biblical literary forms, as Ryken also writes: ‘[a]pocalyptic writing, prophecy, vision, epistle, pastoral, satire, encomium, lyric, heroic narrative, and epic all ¿nd their place in this encyclopaedic work’ (The Literature of the Bible [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974], 342). 29. Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 160. 30. For an overview of such theories, see R. H. Charles, Studies in the Apocalypse (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913; repr., Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 1996), 59–75. 31. For a useful cataloging of these source-critical theories, see G. R. Osborne, Revelation (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 27–8. 1

52

The Ending of the Canon

Jewish convert into Christianity, involving a collection of previously independent visions; a second stage, accomplished between 69 and 74, which included an introduction and narrative seams; and stage three, dated to the end of the ¿rst century, which framed the book in its present epistolary form.32 Such theories ¿nd little support today, since most scholars ¿nd that the inner structure of Revelation is so tightly knit that independent layers are dif¿cult to discern.33 Our methodological goal is to read the book in its canonical ¿nal form. A tightly knit literary structure consisting of four major sequences of seven (churches, seals, trumpets, and bowls) holds together the major part of Revelation. Other markers indicate the beginning of a new segment and we will turn to them shortly. First, I should observe that, though scholars have tended to agree that Revelation comprises a literary whole, they have also found that the book does not lend itself to the identi¿cation of a clean-cut outline. The dif¿culty is that there are many overlapping sections that serve both as a conclusion of a previous segment and as an opening of a new segment. There are also several interruptions of the sequence, as well as delays.34 Scholars have proposed multitudes of possible outlines.35 Revelation’s abundant intertextuality also has some impact on the structure of the book. Bandy has proposed three layers that require attention: the surface structure of major and minor divisions, the layer of intertextual parallels, and the layer of intratextual connections that link the book together through the use of its own particular terms and metaphors.36 Here I have focused on what Bandy would call the surface 32. Aune, Revelation 1–5, cxviii–cxxxiv. It is perhaps in contrast with works like Aune’s that the different goals of intertextuality and source criticism become most obvious: the latter divides the text into layers, while the former assumes literary unity. 33. On Revelation’s literary unity, see, e.g., George R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974); Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Gerhard A. Krodel, Revelation (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989); M. Robert Mulholland, Revelation: Holy Living in and Unholy World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); Robert W. Wall, Revelation (NIBCNT; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991); Jürgen Roloff, Revelation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy; Beale, Revelation. 34. Many scholars have included in their outlines segments called ‘preludes’ or ‘interludes’ to deal with these. I have avoided this terminology as it may imply that these parts are not as essential to the message of the book. These ‘interludes’ carry the signi¿cant theme of the book – the theme of prayer, worship and allegiance to God – and are hardly peripheral. See Beale, Revelation, 131. 35. See Beale, Revelation, 108–70, for a thorough overview of the possibilities. 36. Alan S. Bandy, ‘The Layers of the Apocalypse: An Integrative Approach to Revelation’s Macrostructure’, JSNT 31 (2009): 469–99. 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

53

structure and I have included some of the features of the intratextual layer (repeated words, phrases, images that appear to be providing structure). The intertextual layout of the book will be addressed in Chapter 3. In outlining a book there is a danger on the one hand of oversimplifying and, on the other hand, of being so detailed that the overall structure is lost. To balance the need for a big picture and meaningful detail I have provided a visual chart (see Table 2.1, overleaf), along with the following further analysis of these structural elements. a. Overall Structure Based on the fourfold use of the phrase ëÅ ÈżŧĸÌÀ, ‘in spirit’ (1.10; 4.2; 17.3 and 21.10), the book of Revelation consists of four major segments: 1.9–3.22; 4.1–16.21; 17.1–21.8 and 21.9–22.5.37 These segments are framed by an introduction (1.1-8) and a conclusion (22.6-21). I have also set apart 19.11–21.8, although it does not begin with ëÅ ÈżŧĸÌÀ. This segment serves multiple purposes: ¿rst, it concludes the vision of Babylon’s fall (chs. 17–18); second, it concludes the eschatological judgment theme that was brieÀy introduced in 4.1 (and more fully developed in 6.1) and executed through the seals, trumpets, and bowls; and, third, it builds a bridge into the vision of the new heaven and new earth that will be the focus of the next segment (21.9–22.5). It is likely, because of these ¿rst two backward-pointing functions, that the author has refrained from using the phrase ëÅ ÈżŧĸÌÀ. However, this segment division is still supported by the use of two other powerful markers: ¿rst, an ‘opening scene’ in 19.11, which invites us to notice a development from the Babylon vision into something new, and second, the use of ºšºÇżÅ/ºšºÇŸŠin both 16.17 and 21.6, which concludes the judgments and suggests a progression into a new scene.38

37. Some examples of the advocates of ëÅ ÈżŧĸÌÀ as a major segment marker include Ernest-Bernard Allo, L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean (Paris: Gabalda, 1933), lxxxv–xcvi; Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, 3; George E. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 14–17; Frederick D. Mazzaferri, The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective (New York: de Gruyter, 1989), 302–03; Christopher R. Smith, ‘The Structure of the Book of Revelation in Light of Apocalyptic Literary Conventions’, NovT 36 (1994): 373–93; Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation: A Reasonable Guide to Understanding the Last Book of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 32–4; Waddell, Spirit, 138–50. Against this view, see Pierre Prigent, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 94–7. 38. Beale (Revelation, 110, 123) and Bauckham (Climax of Prophecy, 7) are among the many who see ºšºÇżÅ/ºšºÇŸŠfunctioning to mark the end of a sequence. 1

54

The Ending of the Canon Table 2.1. The Structure of Revelation

Segments ch. 1 (1.1) 1.9 (1.10),

THE STRUCTURE OF REVELATION Introduction to the Book of Apocalyptic Prophecy (1.1-3) and Epistolary Greeting (1.4-8) Calling of Prophet John (1.9-11) OPENING VISION: CHRIST AMONG SEVEN LAMPS/CHURCHES (1.12-20) Messages to Seven Churches (2.1–3.22)

(1.19)

Ephesus 2.1-7

Smyrna Pergamon Thyatira Sardis Philadelphia Laodikeia 2.8-11 2.12-17 2.18-28 3.1-6 3.7-13 3.14-22 VISION OF THE THRONE, THE SCROLL AND THE LAMB (4.1–16.21) INTRODUCTION TO JUDGMENT (4.1–5.14) Vision of the Throne (4.1-6a) and Worship of the Creator (4.6b-11) Vision of the Scroll and the Lamb (5.1-5) and Worship of the Lamb (5.6-14) SIX SEALS (6.1-17) White horse Red horse Black horse Green horse Martyrs Day of bow, crown sword scales death to 1/4 crying out wrath

ch. 4 Heaven opened 4.1 (A) 4 (4.1) (4.2) Thunder (4.5)

6.1-2 6.3-4 6.5-6 6.7-8 6.9-11 6.12-17 Servants of God Sealed (7.1-8) and Servants Worship God and Lamb (7.9-17) Silence in heaven (8.1) Thunder (8.5)

Temple opened 11.19 (B) Thunder (11.19)

Temple opened 15.5 (B )

(16.17) Thunder (16.18-21)

ch. 17 (17.1) (17.3)

11.15 third woe? (12.12)

15

1/3 of earth 8.6-7

SEVENTH SEAL = SIX TRUMPETS (8.1–9.21) Prayers of Saints (8.1-5) 1/3 of sea 1/3 of water 1/3 of light Locusts 8.8-9 8.10-11 8.12-13 9.1-12 Conclusion to Six Trumpets: No Repentance (9.20-21)

VISIONS OF COSMIC COMBAT (11.15–14.20) Seventh Trumpet Introduced; 24 Elders Worship God (11.15-19) Woman and Dragon (12.1-18) Beasts and People Marked with 666 Worship the Dragon (13.1-18) Lamb and People Sealed with His Name Worship the Lamb (14.1-13) Proclamation of the Final Judgment (14.14-20) SEVENTH TRUMPET = SEVEN BOWLS (15.1–16.21) Conquerors Worship God and Lamb, God’s Glory Fills the Temple (15.1-8) Sores Sea Water Sun Darkness Euphrates The city on like like scorches dries falls people blood blood 16.1-2 16.3 16.4-7 16.8-9 16.10-11 16.12-16 16.17-21 unrepentant curse God war with curse God God

VISION OF A WOMAN: HARLOT/BABYLON (17.1–19.10) Fall of Babylon and Lamentation of Kings, Merchants and Shipmasters (17.1–18.19) Servants of God Rejoice and Worship, John Worships (18.20–19.10) VISION OF VICTORIOUS CHRIST; THE FINAL JUDGMENT (19.11–21.8)

21.9 (21.9); (21.10)

VISION OF A WOMAN: BRIDE/NEW JERUSALEM (21.9–22.5)

(22.6)

1/3 of men 9.13-19

CALL TO THE PROPHETIC TASK (10.1–11.14) Vision of the Little Scroll (10.1-7) and Call to Prophecy Again (10.8-11) Two Witnesses/Prophets Killed and Resurrected (11.1-13)

19.11 Heaven opened 19.11 (A ) (21.6)

22.6

1

8 rst woe (8.13– 9.12), second has passed third is soon (11.14)

Conclusion of the Book/Epistle: John Worships, Proclamation of Coming (22.6-21)

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

55

Thus, the book as a whole consists entirely of seven major segments, which seems appropriate for a book that so strongly favors this number. These seven segments (1.1-8; 1.9–3.22; 4.1–16.21; 17.1–19.10; 19.11– 21.8; 21.9–22.5; 22.6-21) are presented in the left column ‘segments’ on the structure chart. Segment 1.1-8 serves as the introduction to the book of apocalyptic prophecy as well as an epistolary greeting, while segment 22.6-21 forms an epilogue to the book and serves as the epistolary closure. The main focus of the book is the section 4.1–16.21: ‘Vision of the Throne, the Scroll, and the Lamb’. This body of the book is itself organized through using ‘opening scenes’ and eschatological ‘thunder’ as textual markers that divide it into four major sub-sections: 4.1; 8.1; 11.15; 15.1. Two important sequences are left outside of the framework of this main vision: 1.9–3.22 and 17.1–21.8. The sequence of 1.9–3.22, which includes the call of John, the opening vision of Christ, and the messages to seven churches, is separated from the main vision for the following reasons: ¿rst, there is a shift from epistolary prophetic material to apocalyptic prophecy (4.1); second, there are new structural markers introduced, such as the ‘opening’ scenes (4.1) and eschatological thunder (4.5), that are not used in the opening vision; third, the ‘Vision of the Throne, the Scroll and the Lamb’ has a separate long introduction (4.1– 5.14) and conclusion (17.1–21.8; whereas the epistolary features do not get re-introduced or the churches mentioned until 22.6).39 At the same time I do not want to disconnect 1.9–3.22 from the book. The main vision actually continues the opening vision as is pointed out through the use of phrase × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À ļÌÛ Ì¸ı̸ at 1.19 and again at 4.1 to remind the reader that we are returning to the vision of Christ after the seven messages to churches have been uttered. Also there are several intertextual continuities between the visions of Christ in chs. 1 and 4. The sequence of 17.1–22.5 consists of three visions: the ‘Vision of a Woman: Harlot/Babylon’ (17.1–19.10), the ‘Vision of a Woman: Bride/New Jerusalem’ (21.9–22.5), while the ‘Vision of Victorious Christ: The Final Judgment’ (19.11–21.8) is sandwiched in between. The beginning of this sequence is set apart by the marker ëÅ ÈżŧĸÌÀ in 17.3. It is also distinct from the rest of the structure as it is, in a way, the culmination of all the judgments portrayed in the seals, trumpets, and bowls. Beale has pointed out: ‘all the main characters previously intro39. The introductory function of chs. 4–5 means that they are not only the introduction to the seven seals, but to the entire segment from 6.1–16.21; this reading is supported by Beale (Revelation, 114). 1

56

The Ending of the Canon

duced in the book either undergo ¿nal judgment or receive a ¿nal reward (Babylon and the beasts, 17.1–19.21; Satan, 20.1-10; unbelievers, 20.1115; believers, 21.1-8)’.40 Although I have drawn a division between 16.21 and 17.1, I have also attempted to show the element of continuation through darker background color. The color marks the judgment theme that extends from 4.1 (with the 4.1–5.14 serving as an introduction) to 21.8.41 The segment 21.9–22.5 with its description of the restored creation and new Jerusalem forms the ¿nal coda that brings literary closure to the visionary part of the book. The break at 21.9 is supported by the use of the textual marker ëÅ ÈżŧĸÌÀ in 21.10 and by the use of the phrase »¼ıÉÇ »¼ţÆÑ ÊÇÀ in 21.9. The same phrase was also used to introduce the vision of Babylon in 17.1, showing the reader that these visions should be viewed in comparison. Revelation 22.6 shifts to ¿nal exhortations and testimony, indicating that the visionary part of the book is concluded. The use of the phrase × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À ëŠ̊ϼÀ in 22.6 further indicates that the author is bringing closure by mirroring the beginning of the book (1.1).42 40. Ibid., 110–11. 41. The section 21.1-8 is dif¿cult to place, and most commentators give 21.1-8 its own segment. However, they disagree whether the break at 21.1 is major or minor. This struggle is caused by the overlapping function of the segment: it both concludes the sequence of judgments, and also advances into the description of the new creation. Because of the textual marker ëÅ ÈżŧĸÌÀ in 21.10, I have decided to draw the division at 21.9. However, in my exegetical section I will include 21.1-8 in my reading of the ending of Revelation as it is thematically hard to separate. Commentators who draw a major break at 21.1 include: Beale, Revelation, 1039; Mounce, Revelation, 35; W. J. Harrington, Revelation (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1993), 23; M. Eugene Boring, Revelation (Louisville: John Knox, 1973), 31; Ian Boxall, The Revelation of Saint John (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006), 20. Those who keep 19.11–21.8 together include: Witherington, Revelation, 239; Aune, Revelation 1–5, civ; and Waddell, Spirit, 138, 149. 42. Beale has suggested that × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À ļÌÛ Ì¸ı̸ (1.1, 19; 4.1; 22.6) serves as the major structural marker that divides the book into four major sections: 1.1-18; 1.19–3.22; 4.1–22.5; 22.6-21. He does not deny the importance of other markers, but he emphasizes this one as primary. Since the phrase × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À ļÌÛ Ì¸ı̸ is an allusion to Dan. 2.28-29, Beale argues that the entire book is a midrash on Daniel. See Beale, Revelation, 111. I will present a more thorough critique of this point later. Here I would like to point out that although this phrase is often used as a division marker, it is not always used as such. The division at 1.19 is not supported by any other markers, and there the function of × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À ļÌÛ Ì¸ı̸ should be seen as a reminder for the reader that the vision of the Lamb that starts in ch. 4 is a continuation of the opening vision of Christ in ch. 1 from which John departed in order to record the seven messages to churches. (Its literary function at this particular instance is, therefore, similar to the function of the three woes, which is to unite the 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

57

Beyond this basic seven-fold structure, other structural elements serve to order the narrative of Revelation. In the following I offer a discussion of these main elements and themes (intratextual connections). b. Sets of Seven The four sets of seven are probably the most noticeable organizing feature in Revelation. They start from 2.1 and continue until 16.21 and include: 2.1–3.22 – seven messages to seven churches 6.1–7.17 – seven seals 8.1–9.21 – seven trumpets43 15.1–16.21 – seven bowls44

Seven is a symbolic number that represents completeness and perfection. Other than the Apocalypse, the use of seven as an organizing structure can be found in two other biblical books. First, the Gospel of John organizes the ministry of Jesus around seven signs.45 Second, the Gen. 1 creation story organizes the creation of the world into seven days. Other than these two, it seems to be a unique feature of the Apocalypse.46 material that is separated by a long delay.) Beale admits that his proposal is controversial and has included in his commentary a section titled ‘The Disputed Signi¿cance of Revelation 1.19 as an Interpretative Key to the Book’ (Beale, Revelation, 152–70). 43. Trumpets ¿ve, six, and seven are called the three woes: 8.13; 9.12; 11.14; 12.12. 44. In addition to the four sets of seven that I mention, others have sometimes included ‘the seven great signs’ (12.1–14.20) and ‘the seven events of ¿nal judgment and consummation’ (17.1–22.5), suggesting therefore that the book includes six sets of seven scenes. As an example, see Ryken, The Literature, 336–37. E. R. Wendland’s ‘7×7 (×7): A Structural and Thematic Outline of John’s Apocalypse’, Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 4 (1990): 371–87, is notorious for its far-reaching application of sets of seven on the structure of Revelation. There is a danger in superimposing a complex pattern on Revelation. Theories that grow too complex usually lack support. 45. Of the seven signs, only the ¿rst two are actually numbered by the author: the turning of water into wine in Cana (2.11), the healing of the of¿cial’s son (4.54), the healing of the lame man, the feeding the 5000, Jesus’ walking on the water, the healing of the blind man, and the raising of Lazarus. This seven-fold structure of John is well recognized; however some skip the walking on water and include Jesus’ resurrection instead. 46. The number ‘seven’ appears several other times in the book of Revelation. In addition to the sets mentioned above, we read about seven lampstands and stars standing for angels and churches (1.20), seven Spirits of God (1.4; 3.1; 4.5), seven horns and eyes of the Lamb (5.6), seven thunders (10.3), seven heads of the dragon 1

58

The Ending of the Canon

The ¿rst set, the messages to the seven churches, follow a distinct strict sub-structure: 1. an address to the angel of the particular church; 2. the ÌŠ»¼ šº¼À formula; 3. a descriptive statement about Christ, drawn from the opening vision; 4. a word of commendation for the church, if appropriate; 5. the word of warning introduced by formulaic statement ‘but I have one thing against you’ and followed by an exhortation to repent; 6. warning of judgment if the church does not repent; 7. statement of ‘he who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches’; 8. promise of a reward for conquering.47 In Revelation the sets of seven elements are used to insist both on a literary progression in the story and also to add a cumulative element. The ¿rst set (seven churches) stands somewhat separate from the rest, as it is part of the introduction to the main vision of judgment that follows. The remaining three sets (seals, trumpets, and bowls) are organized in a manner such that they build toward a culmination with the seventh. The seventh judgment is always the most anticipated, the most feared, but also delayed. In the case of the seals and trumpets, the seventh has no content of its own, but instead opens up a new series of horrors. Only in the last septet (the bowls), the seventh element is mentioned to have content: the city (Babylon) falls (16.17-21). The sevens in Revelation probably do not suggest a chronological sequence, but instead overlap for a cumulative rhetorical effect.48 Beasley-Murray has shown how particularly the trumpets and bowls have both been modeled on the Exodus plagues and even follow roughly the same sequence.49 Beale also suggests that the similarities between the septets outweigh the differences and he has proposed his own model of synchronous parallel structure of the three septets.50 (12.3), seven heads of the beast (13.1), seven plagues (the same as the seven bowls) (15.1), seven mountains and seven kings (17.9-10), and 7000 killed (11.13). These ‘sevens’ are not developed and do not function as structural elements. 47. Adapted from Witherington, Revelation, 91. 48. Some futurist and dispensational models interpret the sets of sevens as a linear chronological progression of historical events. See, e.g., R. H. Gundry, Church and Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 75. 49. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 238–9. 50. Beale, Revelation, 128. 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

59

When interpreting this literary feature, our focus should not be as much on the particular content of a particular seal trumpet or bowl, as on the characters of the book, their positions, reaction, and fate. One should focus on the point that God’s people are secure from judgments, as is made clear early in the narrative; while the ungodly fall, they are able to stand the wrath of God and the Lamb because they are sealed with his name (6.17; 7.1-8). There is a speci¿c comment at the end of the trumpets sequence stating that people under the judgments did not repent (9.20-21), as well as comments on people’s reaction at the end of each of the last four bowls of wrath (16.8-21): they curse and wage war against God. These characters with their actions, inactions and reactions, rather than the particular contents of the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments, provide the clue for appropriate reader-response. Interpretations that give too much attention to the particularities of the judgment have a tendency to become speculative theories that often miss the most obvious point: repetition is used primarily as a rhetorical device to urge the readers to de¿ne their relationship with God.51 Within this progression toward the seventh judgment, the pattern is always interrupted after the ¿rst four judgments. For example, the ¿rst four seals are rather uniform descriptions of four horsemen (6.1-8), but the ¿fth and sixth seals break the sequence. The ¿fth seal includes a vision of saints crying under the altar of God and asking for justice (6.911), and the sixth seal speaks of God’s great day of wrath (6.12-17). Likewise, the ¿rst four trumpets all involve one third of the earth, sea, water, and light (8.6-13), while the ¿fth introduces a new element – a woe (8.13–9.12); then the sixth returns to describe the destruction of one third of humankind (9.13-19). The break in sequence after the fourth element is less obvious in the bowl sequence (16.1-21), but even there a new element is introduced in the ¿fth bowl – people curse God (16.11). This interruption serves as a rhetorical device with the purpose of slowing the reader down to focus on the judgments yet to come. The reader cannot settle with a familiar structure, but must continue to stay alert as the sequence progresses.

51. The cumulative and sequential views do not have to be mutually exclusive. Revelation is neither entirely sequential, nor entirely repetitious. I largely agree with the position of Resseguie, who has stated that ‘The progression is primarily a literary progression and not a chronological progression, although the broad contours of a chronological progression may be embedded in the literary format’ (Revelation Unsealed: A Narrative Critical Approach to John’s Apocalypse [BibInt 32; Leiden: Brill, 1998], 166). 1

60

The Ending of the Canon

Except for the sequence of the bowls, there is always a longer delay before the seventh judgment; for example, between the six seals and the seventh seal there is a vision of the sealing of the saints, a scene of worship, and a vision of saints praying (7.1-8; 7.9-17; 8.1-5). These sections (often referred to as interludes) draw the reader’s attention to what is the appropriate reader-response. The reader is invited to identify with the people of God. This delay is particularly lengthy between the sixth and seventh trumpet, and the author has to use an additional device of three woes (8.13; 9.12; 11.14, and an unnumbered woe in 12.12) to remind the reader that the sequence will still be completed despite the long delay. The author inserts a story of the church’s prophetic task and the cosmic battle with evil, which reaches over ¿ve chapters (chs. 10–14), and then returns to the judgment sequence. In the ¿nal sequence there is no such delay between the sixth and the seventh; instead the seventh bowl progresses into a more detailed description of Babylon’s fall and the ¿nal episodes of God’s victory and ¿nal judgment (17.1–21.8). c. Opening of Heaven A sequence of ‘openings’ forms an important structural grid for Revelation: the door of heaven is opened (4.1), the temple is opened and the ark of the covenant revealed (11.19), the temple of the tabernacle of testimony is opened (15.5), and ¿nally, heaven is opened (19.11). In 8.1 there is a note about a scene of ‘silence in heaven for about half an hour’, which includes some functional similarities with the opening scenes. We are here dealing with a chiastic structure where notes about the heaven being opened create the beginning and the end of a sequence, and the center focuses on the temple of God being open: 4.1

A

¿ŧɸ óżĿºÄšÅ¾ ëÅ ÌŊ ÇĤɸÅŊ óÅÇţº¾ ĝ ŸġË ÌÇı ¿¼Çı ĝ ëÅ ÌŊ ÇĤɸÅÑ Á¸Ė ĵο¾ ÷ ÁÀ¹ÑÌġË ÌýË »À¸¿ŢÁ¾Ë ¸ĤÌÇı ëÅ ÌŊ ŸŊ ¸ĤÌÇı 15.5 B‫މ‬ óÅÇţº¾ ĝ ŸġË ÌýË ÊÁ¾ÅýË ÌÇı ĸÉÌÍÉţÇÍ ëÅ ÌŊ ÇĤɸÅŊ ÌġÅ ÇĤɸÅġÅ óżĿºÄšÅÇÅ.52 19.11 A‫މ‬ 11.19

B

52. Although commentators frequently point out the repetition of the phrase, it is not always recognized as a textual marker to organize this section into a chiastic structure. This is the only place where I apply a chiasm to the structure of Revelation. In Revelation scholarship there has been a tendency to go overboard with chiasms. For instance, Schüssler Fiorenza (Revelation, 175–6) has suggested a chiastic macro-structure to Revelation. So also Barbara W. Snyder (‘Combat Myth in the Apocalypse: The Liturgy of the Day of the Lord and the Dedication of the Heavenly Temple’ [Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union and University of 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

61

The downside of this chiasm is that it does not easily accommodate the ‘silence in heaven’ scene (뺚żÌÇ ÊÀºü ëÅ ÌŊ ÇŧɸÅŊ ĸË óÄÀŪÉÀÇÅ) (8.1). It seems, however, that the silence functions as a break in the sequence of openings at a crucial point before the seventh seal. Its function is similar to the pause between each sixth and seventh element in the sets of judgment scenes: it slows the narrative down and provides room for the reader to respond. This pause suggests that there are greater and more horri¿c things to follow and provides an opportunity for repentance. If one accepts this chiastic structure, then we should seek for the structural center of Revelation in the climax of this chiasm between 11.19 and 15.5: the central highlight of Revelation would fall on the ‘Visions of Cosmic Combat’ (11.15–14.20). I will further discuss the importance of this section below. The structural importance of the opening scenes is further emphasized by the fact that all the scenes, including the silence in heaven (with a possible exception of the ¿rst opening scene), are preceded by the scenes of worshipping saints (7.9-17 before 8.1; 11.15-18 before 11.19; 15.1-4 before 15.5; and 19.1-10 before 19.11).53 Further, all the opening scenes (except for the last), are followed by an eschatological formula, which I have summarized on the structure chart as ‘thunder’, that occurs in 4.5; 8.5; 11.19, and 16.18-21. With each subsequent appearance the phrase adds extra elements that make it more intense: 4.5 8.5 11.19 16.18-21

ÒÊÌɸȸĖ Á¸Ė ÎÑŸĖ Á¸Ė ¹ÉÇÅ̸ţ ¹ÉÇÅ̸ţ Á¸Ė ÎÑŸĖ Á¸Ė ÒÊÌɸȸĖ Á¸Ė ʼÀÊÄŦË ÒÊÌɸȸţ Á¸Ė ÎÑŸĖ Á¸Ė ¹ÉÇÅ̸ţ Á¸Ė ʼÀÊÄŦË Á¸Ė ϊ¸½¸ ļºŠÂ¾ ÒÊÌɸȸţ Á¸Ė ÎÑŸĖ Á¸Ė ¹ÉÇÅ̸ţ Á¸Ė ʼÀÊÄŦË Äšº¸Ë Á¸Ė ϊ¸½¸ ļºŠÂ¾54

California, Berkeley, 1991], 84). Beale has suggested a chiasm in the arrangement of seven letters to churches (Revelation, 226–7). David A. deSilva has offered a critique of overusing chiasm in the structure of Revelation and calls for methodological caution in applying chiasm to an ancient text (‘X Marks the Spot? A Critique of the Use of Chiasmus in Macro-Structural Analyses of Revelation’, JSNT 30 [2008]: 343–71). 53. One could argue that even the ¿rst opening scene is preceded by worship. Even though 4.1 is immediately preceded by the messages to the seven churches, just before them there is a scene of John falling on his face in the presence of Christ (1.17-18). Through worship John was assigned the task of mediating the message to the churches, and then the revelation and invitation to enter through the open heaven follows. 54. See the discussion of this formula in Waddell, Spirit, 143–4. 1

62

The Ending of the Canon

The last opening scene (19.11) does not have this reference, but instead it describes Christ appearing as the leader of the heavenly armies (19.1116). The reader may imagine the sound of this approaching heavenly cavalry to take the place of the thunder and earthquake.55 d. Call to the Prophetic Task The prophetic task of John and the church is highlighted in the following sections: ¿rst, the ‘Calling of Prophet John’ (1.9-11); second, in the ‘Messages to Seven Churches’ (2.1–3.22); third, in the ‘Introduction to Judgment’, where the scroll is ¿rst introduced (4.1–5.14); fourth, in the ‘Call to the Prophetic Task’, where the theme of prophecy reaches its crescendo (10.1–11.14); ¿nally, at the end of the book (22.6-21). The focus of our attention is on the sequence lasting from 10.1–11.14. This sequence is located between the sixth and seventh trumpet and functions as an important delay before the seventh trumpet. It gives the reader another glimpse into the role of the church in the middle of judgment. The sequence includes the ‘Vision of a Little Scroll’ (10.1-7), ‘Call to Prophecy Again’ (10.8-11), and the ‘Two Witnesses/Prophets Killed and Resurrected’ (11.1-13). This sequence has been one of the most enigmatic and dif¿cult to interpret. I support the observations made by Waddell, who has argued that the two scrolls of Revelation (the seven-sealed scroll introduced in ch. 5 and the little scroll mentioned in ch. 10) are closely linked, if not entirely identical.56 Both references in Revelation rely on the prophetic call narrative in Ezek. 1.1–3.11 (esp. Rev. 5.1 and Ezek. 2.9-10). When God opens Ezekiel’s scroll and instructs him to eat it (Ezek. 2.10), the prophet consumes the scroll (Ezek. 3.3). Revelation includes the same elements, but expands on Ezekiel’s narrative by inserting a narrative of the opening of the scroll by the Lamb, and then John consumes the scroll as well (Rev. 10.10).57

55. In the canonical context, the language of thunder and earthquakes evokes powerful memories of the Mt. Sinai theophany (Exod. 19.16). The Sinai event is also reÀected in the NT eschatological context of Heb. 12.18-29. Earthquake imagery is used also in Rev. 6.12-17; 16.18-20; and 20.11. In these locations the statement does not appear to be used as a structural marker. 56. Ibid., 153, 161. Waddell is supported in identifying the two scrolls by John P. M. Sweet, Revelation (PNTC; London: SCM, 1979), 176; J. Ramsey Michaels, Revelation (IVPNTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997), 133–4; Beale, Revelation, 530–2; Osborne, Revelation, 395; Adela Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1976), 19–43. 57. Waddell, Spirit, 150–61. 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

63

Waddell also observed that in Revelation the angel who delivers the scroll is both times referred to as ‘mighty angel’ (5.2; 10.1), and characterized by Christ-like attributes (wrapped in a cloud, rainbow over his head, face like sun, legs like pillars of ¿re [10.1]; voice like a lion roaring [10.3]) while never completely identi¿ed with Christ. He concludes (¿nding support from the intertextual references to Ezekiel, where God is the source of the prophetic scroll) that in Revelation the angel should be identi¿ed with the Spirit of Christ, and the mighty angel is, in fact, ‘a theophany of the Spirit’.58 In this way John has maintained a very close connection with Ezekiel’s narrative, where the Spirit of God is referred to as the revelatory agent (Ezek. 2.2; 3.12, 14, 24; 11.1; 43.5).59 If this identi¿cation holds true, then what we have in 10.1-11 is essentially a continuation of John’s call narrative (4.1–5.14), and it forms another backbone in the overall structure of Revelation. The segment should not be diminished as just another ‘interlude’. John has purposefully located this episode next to the center of the book, the ‘Visions of Cosmic Combat’ (11.15–14.20), and has thus made it part of the core of the book. The role of the Spirit in Revelation is that of the Spirit of prophecy. The segment of ‘Two Witnesses’ highlights the theme of the church’s prophetic ministry. The church is anointed by the Spirit to bear witness of Jesus to the world (11.4) and given special authority to ful¿ll this task (11.6). Waddell observed that in Revelation there are only two appropriate responses to God: worship and witness. He writes, On the one hand, worship is directed toward God and the Lamb. Although never depicted as a recipient of worship, it is not insigni¿cant that the Spirit (i.e. the seven spirits) is the only character in the throne room that does not engage in worship. On the other hand, witness is directed toward the world as the church bears witness to the reality of Jesus Christ.60

Revelation 11.1-13 invites the church to participate in a faithful pneumatic witness even if that should cost one’s life. The resurrection is awarded for such faithful ministry. The section 11.1-13 starts with the scene of measuring the temple, altar, and the worshippers (11.1-2). The measuring promises divine restoration of the people of God. Its roots are in the narrative of Zech. 2.1-5. The reference to the nations who will 58. Ibid., 164. 59. Ibid., 160. This identity of the angel as the Spirit of Christ is further supported by the fact that in the hearing formula in the seven letters it is clear that Christ speaks to the churches. However, at the end of each letter, it is stated that they must hear ‘what the Spirit is saying to the churches’. 60. Ibid., 191. 1

64

The Ending of the Canon

trample the outer court of the temple likely echoes Dan. 8.11-14 and perhaps also Zech. 12.3 LXX, which speak of the brief eschatological time when the nations will overrun the temple and Jerusalem. The reference in Rev. 11.2 to 42 months is the equivalent of Daniel’s ‘time times and half a time’ (Dan. 7.25; 12.17) during which sufferings will fall upon the temple.61 In the midst of some inevitable but limited sufferings God also is looking out for the church and promises it restoration. The narrative then somewhat abruptly shifts to the description of the two witnesses/prophets (11.3-13). However, the shift will not seem out of place if we understand the two witnesses as simply another reference to the church.62 The church has authority for 1260 days to prophecy wearing sackcloth (11.3) – this also amounts to 42 months.63 The witnesses are given a limited time to prophesy (11.3), their ministry is similar to those of Moses and Elijah (11.5-6), they will be rejected and killed (11.7-10), and ¿nally they are resurrected and ascend into heaven (11.2) in the manner of Elijah (2 Kgs 2.11) and Christ (Acts 1.9).64 The ministry of the church closely resembles the ministry of the greatest biblical heroes, as well as that of Christ. It is possible that John created this double image for the single referent – the church – to emphasize the trustworthy nature of its witness. To establish the truth, the Jewish court required two or three witnesses (Num. 35.30; Deut. 17.6; 19.15; Mt. 18.16; Jn 8.17).65 The intertextual backgrounds of this image will be discussed further below, in the section ‘Zechariah in Revelation’ (pp. 113–25). e. Visions of Cosmic Combat The chiastic arrangement of the ‘opening’ scenes suggests that the central drama of Revelation must fall between 11.19 and 15.5. This makes ‘Visions of Cosmic Combat’ the key focus of the book.66 Thematically, it is a climactic point where key characters (God, Satan, angels, humanity) are in elevated action and the war in heaven and the 61. Likewise, the beast’s authority is limited to 42 months (13.5; cf. 11.2). 62. To be a witness of Christ’s resurrection was central to the identity of the early church (Acts 1.8; 2.32; 3.15; 4.20). A canonical reader can draw this connection. 63. Later in 12.6 the woman also is protected for 1260 days. 64. Some Jewish traditions speculated based on the fact that Moses’ grave was never found that Moses also ascended into heaven (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.423-26). 65. Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, 274. 66. As also argued by Dan Lioy, The Book of Revelation in Christological Focus (Studies in Biblical Literature 58; New York: Lang, 2003), 65; and, although for slightly different reasons, by Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth. 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

65

war on earth are at their peaks. If this is the center, then it would put the book strongly into christological focus.67 Further, it would also draw together several key elements of the canonical story: fall, exodus, and Christ’s redemption.68 The seventh trumpet is introduced and followed by a throne room worship scene in 11.15-19. This anchors the entire scene of war in the sovereign rule of the triune God. The combat vision consists of two similar episodes: the scene of the woman and the dragon (12.1-18) and the scene of the beasts (13.1-18). The overlapping nature of these scenes may serve to reÀect the doubles in the previous section of the two witnesses (11.1-13). If the two witnesses highlighted the church’s task of witness, then the cosmic combat scenes highlight the church’s task of worship. The importance of these visions is highlighted by the use of the unusual introductory phrase ʾļėÇÅ Äšº¸ ĵο¾ ëÅ ÌŊ ÇĤɸÅŊ (‘a great sign appeared in heaven’) in 12.1 and a similar phrase in 12.3. This phrase occurs elsewhere only in 15.1, where it is somewhat unclear as to whether it refers to the seven angels with seven plagues or to the saints who sing the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb. Usually John prefers Á¸Ė ¼ċ»ÇÅ (‘and I saw’) or ĵο¾ (‘appeared’) to introduce and carry forward his visionary narrative.69 Here the author is drawing attention to this text, which lies at a crucial location between the seventh trumpet announcement (11.15) and the bowl judgments starting at 15.1. In these two scenes we see ancient Near Eastern combat myths incorporated and reworked into the visions of Revelation.70 The intertexts of these stories point back to Genesis, Exodus, and Daniel. 67. Lioy, Christological Focus, 45–91. 68. John probably wrote Rev. 12.1-17 with Gen. 3.14-16 in mind. See also Paul Sevier Minear, Christians and the New Creation: Genesis Motifs in the New Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 98. 69. ¸Ė ¼ċ»ÇÅ and ĵο¾ are some of John’s most frequently repeated phrases. For example, these are used seven times in 12.1–15.4 and again seven times in 19.10– 21.8. Yarbro Collins (The Combat Myth, 14–16) has argued, based on these, that John uses these as markers to further divide the section into seven unnumbered episodes. 70. Some have suggested Greco-Roman parallels. See G. B. Caird, The Revelation of Saint John (London: A. & C. Black, 1966), 147–8. It is more likely that John borrows from the ancient Near Eastern sources as they were incorporated into biblical narrative (Genesis, Exodus, Daniel). Beale writes: ‘None of the pagan stories from Babylon, Persia, Egypt, or Greece has all the essential elements found in Revelation 12, so John may be reÀecting on them collectively and interpreting them through the lens of the OT and Jewish tradition’ (Revelation, 624). 1

66

The Ending of the Canon

(1) Woman and Dragon Chapter 12 talks about two signs appearing in heaven (12.1, 3): ¿rst, a woman giving birth to a baby, and, second, a great red dragon (12.3), ‘the serpent of old, who is called the devil and satan’ (12.9; cf. Gen. 3.1) seeking to swallow the baby as soon as he is born, but the baby is safely born and immediately lifted to God’s throne (12.6, 14). The woman escapes to the desert where she is fed for 1260 days (12.6), or for a time and times and half a time (1 + 2 + 0.5 = 3.5 years) (12.14), and protected from harm. Then the dragon starts to wage war with the rest of the woman’s offspring (12.17). The male child born to the woman is identi¿ed with the Messiah, as he is described as the one ‘who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron’ (12.5; cf. Ps. 2) and he is later referred to as Christ (12.10) and the Lamb (12.11), and in 12.17 the offspring of the woman are identi¿ed as those ‘who hold to the testimony of Jesus’.71 Verses 7-8 describe a heavenly war waged between the dragon and his angels and Michael and his angels, as a result of which the dragon with his host is expelled from heaven (cf. Dan. 10.13, 21). In 12.4 it was stated that a third of the stars were swept from heaven, but in 12.9 we learn further that the stars were satanic angels. Satan is thrown out of heaven and this is the victory of God and God’s people (12.10-12). The weapons by which the victory has been won were the blood of the Lamb, the word of the witness, and dedication even to die for the witness of Christ (12.11). The Lamb has overcome the dragon! Satan is defeated in heaven, but in his ¿nal efforts he is causing trouble on earth by pursuing the woman’s offspring who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus (12.12, 17). This combat story evokes many images of Exodus where Pharaoh killed the sons of the Hebrews, but through God’s providence Moses was born and preserved, ¿nally, to arise and defeat the Pharaoh (Exod. 1.15– 2.10). Echoes of Matthew are also evoked. The dragon is similar to Herod, who sought to kill the Messiah child born to Mary, and ends up killing the children of Bethlehem while Jesus is taken to refuge in Egypt (Mt. 2.13-23). The desert where the woman is protected further evokes the imagery of Exodus. In the wilderness, Israel endured temporary 71. The hectic and repetitive nature of the story has suggested to some the possibility that the images change meaning, so that the woman and child mean something different in the second mentioning. The double or even triple meaning is possible. The child refers certainly to Jesus in 12.3, but may represent the early church in 12.13. The woman may represent God, the nation of Israel, Mary, or the church. Mulholland (Revelation, 215) adds that the woman has been identi¿ed with Wisdom, Israel, heavenly Jerusalem, the church, and the Virgin. 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

67

dif¿culties in order to be led eventually into the Promised Land. With this central combat myth, which reÀects the two central acts of salvation – God’s acts through Moses and God’s acts through Jesus – Revelation is tied ¿rmly into the canonical story. (2) Sea Beast and Earth Beast Chapter 13 is closely linked to the previous scene. However, John moves away from Exodus and the birth narrative to Dan. 7 as his major source of inspiration. The combat of the dragon against the woman’s offspring is still the larger context of the scene. The main characters are the same. However, the dragon is now operating through the emerging beasts that persecute the offspring of the woman. The function of this scene is to reveal the nature of the dragon, his goals with humanity, and mode of operation. There are three major characters in this scene: the dragon, the sea beast, and the earth beast. All three fantastic beings make up a kind of unholy trinity.72 Their goal is to form humanity into their likeness by leading them to worship the dragon. They try to rule all nations and deceive them by their blasphemous speech and miracles. Ultimately, they are trying to mark the people as their belongings. The mark of the beast does not seem to be anything but the negative of the imago Dei in Gen. 1.26-27. The author af¿rms that the power of the beasts is limited in time and encourages the readers to remain loyal to the true God. The beasts have their origins in the four beasts of Dan. 7, but the four Danielic beasts have been merged together in Rev. 13. As in Daniel, the beasts here represent political powers, while the dragon represents the embodiment of rebellion and the serpent of old (Rev. 12.9; 20.2; cf. Gen. 3.1-5, 14-15). The beasts receive their authority from the dragon (Rev. 13.4). As in Dan. 7.3, one of the beasts emerges from the sea.73 Revelation 13 highlights that humanity is involved in heaven’s war. Personal and economic choices of the individuals and political decisions of the rulers are all part of the great cosmic battle between God and Satan. Humanity cannot claim neutrality: everyone from the greatest to the smallest, from the rich to the poor, from free men and women to the slaves, are involved (13.16-17). 72. Mounce, Revelation, 244. 73. In Revelation sea is the origin of cosmic evil or rebellion over which saints will dominate (12.18; 13.1; 15.2), and it is also mentioned as the place of the dead (20.13). In the OT Yahweh organizes, and sometimes opposes, the sea/waters (Gen. 1.9-10; Job 7.12; 12.15; Ps. 29.3; Isa. 19.5; Jer. 5.22; 51.36; Ezek. 30.12; Nah. 1.4; Hab. 3.8). In the NT Jesus stills the sea (Mk 4.35-41) and walks on water (Mk 6.4552), and in the new creation the sea will be no more (Rev. 21.1). 1

68

The Ending of the Canon

Cosmic combat sparked by Satan’s deception of the humans in the garden of Eden, ¿nds its culmination and resolution in the Apocalypse. When viewed in the light of the NT, God’s proclamation, that the woman’s offspring will crush the head of the snake while the snake will crush his heel (Gen. 3.15), becomes not only a prediction of an ongoing battle between God and Satan, but also a promise of a victory over Satan. The victory is achieved by Christ, but the witnessing and worshipping humanity will play a signi¿cant part. Revelation 12 shows the fall of the dragon and his host and the victory of the woman’s offspring. The ¿nal combat will come to a conclusion in 19.11–21.8 when the serpent is ¿rst bound for a thousand years, then brieÀy released, and ¿nally cast into the lake of ¿re. f. Sealed for Life or Marked for Death The seal of God and the mark of the beast comprise one of the most famous themes of Revelation. The function of a seal/mark in Revelation is to expose one’s character and de¿ne one’s destiny. The people deceived by the beasts are marked for destruction and the holy people are sealed for eternal life. These two contrasting groups become models for the reader to choose from. We are ¿rst introduced to the saints who are sealed in 7.4-8 where we are told that a total of 144,000 were sealed, composed of 12,000 from every tribe of Israel. These people stand safe in the midst of sufferings caused by the trumpet judgments (9.4). We meet these people again in 14.1-5, where the 144,000 who are sealed with the Lamb’s and Father’s name on their foreheads are explained to be virgin men who have not de¿led themselves with women, an image that should be understood as a metaphor for holy war.74 These people are faithful and God can count on their allegiance in the war against the dragon. 74. Feminist theologians have found this one of the most offensive passages in the Bible as it excludes women as part of God’s redeemed people. Instead, here and elsewhere female ¿gures tend to be portrayed in negative light in Revelation. See Gilbert Desrosiers, An Introduction to Revelation: A Pathway to Interpretation (New York: Continuum, 2000), 79–80; Alison Jack, ‘Out of the Wilderness: Feminist Perspectives on the Book of Revelation’, in Studies on the Book of Revelation (ed. S. Moyise; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2001), 149–62. The image of 144,000 virgin men needs to be explained by taking seriously the symbolic nature of Revelation, and the OT backgrounds of the image. It appears that Revelation has ‘upgraded’ the OT ritual abstinence from sexual relations before the battle to full virginity (Deut. 23.9-10; 1 Sam. 21.5; 2 Sam. 11.8-11). Sexual purity was also required from people prior to the covenant-making ceremony at Mt. Sinai in Exod. 19.15. Virginity remains a metaphor for the unde¿led nature and complete devotion of the servants of God. 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

69

John has taken his inspiration for the seal from Ezek. 9.4 where all those who grieved over the sins of Jerusalem were marked by a God’s messenger on their forehead to protect them from the coming judgments.75 Just as the seal of God gave the privilege of protection, so the mark of the beast had its own bene¿ts: it enabled one to participate in the idolatrous economy of Babylon, whereas others did not have access to ‘buy or to sell’ (Rev. 13.16-18). The receiving of the mark of the beast is a voluntary choice, and that choice is connected to the worship of the beast (14.9). Accepting the mark of the beast upon one’s forehead or hand brings the full strength of God’s wrath and ultimate punishment in ¿re (14.10-11). The plagues that are released in 16.1-21 are released upon those with the mark of the beast and who worshipped his image. Similarities exist between the seal and the mark: ¿rst, they both had privileges – privilege of protection or privilege of economic welfare; second, they both were connected to the name – the seal of God was the name of the Lamb and the name of his Father (14.1), and the mark of the beast was the number of his name, 666 (13.17); third, they both were referring to the human’s choice of worship and loyalty.76 Differences between the two are also evident, especially through the use of different terms. ŠÉ¸ºÄ¸ means ‘mark’ or ‘stamp’, ‘thing formed’, or ‘image’, and is used exclusively for the mark of the beast (13.16, 17; 14.9, 11; 15.2; 16.2; 19.20; 20.4).77 It is a word that can carry a notation of an image or idol. It was also used for the emperor’s seal on business contracts and the impress of the coins.78 ÎɸºţË is used exclusively for the seal of God. It can mean both the seal as the instrument with which 75. Mounce suggests (Revelation, 157, following Krodel, Revelation, 182) that this mark may have been the Hebrew tau, which was in the shape of an X or +. John would have understood it as either Greek chi the ¿rst letter in the name of Christ or the sign of the cross. For this to be possible, one must assume that John accessed Ezekiel in Paleo-Hebrew script. In addition to Ezek. 9.4, it is possible that Isa. 44.5 has also contributed to this image of the protective mark. 76. John invites his reader to ‘calculate’ the number of the beast (13.18), this is an invitation to apply gematria. Throughout history there have been many proposals for the meaning of the number of the beast, but the most popular has been ‘Nero Caesar’, which would both ¿t the context of chs. 13 and 17 as critique of Rome, and account for the fact that some Western manuscripts include the mark of the beast as 616 (instead of 666). However, none of the ancient commentators suggested this interpretation. See the discussion in Mounce, Revelation, 262. 77. See Bauer, ‘ϊɸºÄ¸’, BDAD, 1077. 78. Beale, Revelation, 715. ŠÉ¸ºÄ¸ is closely related to the word ϸɸÁÌŢÉ, found also in a positive sense in Heb. 1.3 for Christ, who is the exact representation of God. 1

70

The Ending of the Canon

one seals (a signet) (7.2) and the impression that the seal leaves (9.4). It carries notions of attestation, con¿rmation, and certi¿cation.79 It implies ownership and approval. Beale notes that it was a common practice in the Roman Empire to mark one’s slaves on the forehead to indicate who owned them.80 The people shared the same fate as their master. Those who bear the seal of God share the life of Christ and reign with Him for a thousand years (20.4). The fate of those with the mark of the beast is the fate of the beast (19.20-21). g. The Tale of Two (or Three) Cities The tale of two cities occupies a signi¿cant part of the book (17.1–22.5). The theme emerges gradually with the brief ¿rst proclamation of the fall of Babylon in 14.8, then continues with the more thorough description of judgment of the great whore-Babylon in chs. 17–18, and ¿nally culminates with the description of new Jerusalem, the Lamb’s bride, in chs. 21–22. The author has set up a comparison between the two cities by using a formulaic statement in their introduction »¼ıÉÇ »¼ţÆÑ ÊÇÀ in 17.1 and 21.9. The vision of Babylon and her fall is also linked to the main judgment vision, as it seems to be a more thorough description of the seventh bowl. With the statement ºšºÇżŠin 16.17, the author marked the ending of the bowls sequence; however, the city of which 16.17-21 speaks can only be the metaphorical Babylon. The fact that at 19.11 we have the last of the ‘opening scenes’ (and so far all of these have marked the beginning of a new section) also supports counting that vision (17.1–19.10) as the further description of the seventh bowl judgment. The author wants us to focus on the contrast of the two cities and, therefore, it is left outside the main judgments sequence. The tale of two cities forms the culmination of the book, with the segment on the decisive victory of Christ (19.11– 20.15) inserted in the middle. Revelation shows a transition of power from the unholy Babylon to the saints of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 19–20). Babylon, the political and economic center of the world, which is strongly associated with the dragon and his beasts, falls. Only then will the saints rule with God and the Lamb in new Jerusalem. There is a bizarre battle scene in 19.11-21: the combat does not consist of ¿ghting between the two armies (as one would expect); rather it has the saints following Christ who conquers with the sword of his mouth (19.15, 21). The means of their victory is

1

79. See Bauer, ‘ÊÎɸºţË’, BDAG, 980–1. 80. Beale, Revelation, 411.

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

71

their refusal to worship the beast and their choice to remain steadfast in their allegiance to God and the Lamb (chs. 19–20).81 It is commonly held that ‘Babylon’ is a code for the hostile, oppressive, and immoral Roman Empire.82 Babylon is also referred to as ‘the great city’ (17.18; 18.10, 16, 18, 19, 21) and ‘Babylon the great’ (14.8; 16.19; 17.5; 18.2). The historical Babylon was an old enemy and persecutor of God’s people (Jer. 50–52). John has taken this prototype and applied it to his contemporary Rome that persecuted Christians and sent him into exile.83 In the larger canonical context, Babylon refers to Rome also in 1 Pet. 5.13, which also deals with many persecutions that Christians faced in living within the Roman Empire. I want also to suggest a subtle contrast between the old earthly Jerusalem and the new heavenly Jerusalem. The former is referred to by a less-than-Àattering ‘Sodom and Egypt’ (11.8), while the latter is called ‘holy’ (21.2).84 The earthly Jerusalem had failed in her allegiance to God several times. Its temple was destroyed by Babylonians because of her idolatry. According to the Gospels and Acts, Jerusalem was where the Lord was rejected and cruci¿ed, and many disciples martyred. This Jerusalem is

81. Waddell’s title for 19.11–21.8, ‘The Climax of the Story: Between Babylon and Jerusalem’, calls attention to this transition and the role of the church during the time when Babylon is judged and the new Jerusalem is not yet realized (Spirit, 149). 82. Beale, Revelation, 755; Boring, Revelation, 169; Boxall, Revelation, 207; Harrington, Revelation, 150; Mounce, Revelation, 271; and many others hold to this interpretation, though they do not exclude the possibility that John sees other applications to the role of Babylon in the eschatological future. 83. The use of the codeword Babylon for Rome does not necessarily mean that the book must have been written after A.D. 70 when Rome acted in a manner of ancient Babylon in destroying the temple. Babylon’s signi¿cance is more than this destruction. It was also a symbol of oppression for God’s people (Isa. 47; Dan. 5; cf. Rev. 19) and the place of exile (Ps. 137.1; cf. Rev. 1.9). Boxall writes, ‘It is possible, that a Jewish-Christian prophet prior to 70 could have chosen to describe Rome in such terms, particularly in the turbulent times of the late 60s with the outbreak of the Jewish revolt against the empire and with the Christian memory of Nero’s persecution still raw’ (Revelation, 9). 84. The reference to Jerusalem as ‘the great city’ in 11.8 is controversial. Mounce argues that it refers to Rome since ‘the great city’ always refers to Rome elsewhere (17.18; 18.10, 16, 18, 19, 21), while others usually accept the reference to ‘where their Lord was cruci¿ed’ to mean that it refers to Jerusalem. See Mounce, Revelation, 220–21. I agree with those who identify 11.8 with Jerusalem. Jerusalem is occasionally referred to as ‘the great city’ in the OT (e.g. Jer. 22.8; Lam. 1.1). 1

72

The Ending of the Canon

not called ‘holy’ in the NT. This city has to hear the words of judgment; it is a spiritual Sodom sized up for sudden and devastating destruction.85 While the end and culmination of the Bible refers to Jerusalem, this is the new Jerusalem, adorned as a bride, coming down from heaven (Rev. 21.2, 8). New Jerusalem is the culmination of the entire book. The idea of a new and holy Jerusalem was in the prophetic imagination before Revelation (Isa. 52.1; Ezek. 40–48). John has blended ancient prophetic imagination with christological hopes. h. Worship Scenes of worship practically frame Revelation and provide a structural thread. As mentioned earlier, the worship scenes introduce each scene of opening and of heavenly silence (8.1). Through worship people reveal their inner nature and allegiance. Worship divides the human characters of Revelation. The heaviest concentrations of worship in the book occur, ¿rst, in the introduction to the judgment scene, where John sees the heavenly worship and the Lamb being worshipped in Rev. 4–5. To this heavenly worship, which is tailored after Ezek. 1, John returns periodically. Second, at the center of the book, in the visions of cosmic combat (Rev. 13–15) where the people on earth worship, we see both worship and anti-worship: 85. ‘Sodom’ became a metaphor for any exceedingly sinful place that will face sudden destruction. Jeremiah uses it for Edom (Jer. 49.18) and Babylon (Jer. 50.3540); Isaiah applies it to both Jerusalem (Isa. 1.9-10; 3.9) and Babylon (Isa. 13.19). The most elaborate use of Sodom metaphor is in Ezek. 16, which is kind of a parable of the sins of Jerusalem. Ezekiel condemns Jerusalem’s idolatry by speaking passionately of how the beloved bride of God became a shameless harlot. Jerusalem was no better than its origins: the Hittite people, the land of Canaan, her sisters Samaria and Sodom (Ezek. 16.3, 45-46). She has been worse, and the prophet announces both her earned punishment and undeserved future redemption. This appears to be the source of Rev. 11.8. Yet there is also some NT uses of this metaphor. Jesus refers to Sodom in connection with a city that rejects the Son of Man as some Galilean cities did. Judgment will come upon such cities (Mt. 10.15; 11.23-24; Lk. 10.12). In Lk. 17.28-37, Jesus states that the revealing of the Son of Man will be like the sudden judgment of Sodom. In the same passage he seems to be referring also to the destruction of Jerusalem. ‘Egypt’ as a label for Jerusalem is unusual, and I do not know of any canonical parallels. Perhaps it is a hint that the old Jerusalem, by rejecting the Messiah, had in a way returned to slavery in Egypt. Waddell has suggested, following Minear, that ‘the great city’ in 11.8 is an intertextual compound of the ¿ve (Sodom, Egypt, Babylon, Rome and Jerusalem) – an entirely symbolic and ‘trans-historical’ designation of those who persecute the people of God (Spirit, 182). 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

73

worship of God and worship of the dragon. Finally, worship is highlighted at the end of the judgment sequence as the saints rejoice over the fall of Babylon (19.1-10). Worship, therefore, leads into God’s acts of judgments, is the means by which the saints ultimately conquer the dragon and the beasts, and is also the culmination of the judgments. The worship of the saints has been further described as the Song of Moses (15.3) and the Song of the Lamb (15.3), which highlights the two central acts of canonical salvation history: the exodus from Egypt and the cross of Christ. The believers are also said to sing to God a new song (14.3). John is portrayed as a model worshipper (1.10, 17), but it is clearly de¿ned that all worship belongs only to God, whereas angels or other celestial beings are not the objects of worship (19.10; 22.8-9). Revelation uses many liturgical elements.86 This has led some interpreters to turn to early Jewish and Christian liturgies as the sources behind Revelation, and the fact that the John states he ‘was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day’ (1.10) has led some to suggest that the Apocalypse actually reÀects the early church’s worship (either the Sunday service or Easter liturgy).87 The invitations to eat with Christ and participate in the ‘marriage supper of the Lamb’ may reÀect the setting of the Eucharist (3.20; 19.9). Whether consciously based on a model of liturgy or not, Revelation invites readers to join in worship, as worship is portrayed as the only appropriate response to God’s actions in salvation and judgment. In contrast to worship scenes, Revelation also provides scenes of lamentation. The kings of the earth (18.9-10), merchants (18.11-16), sailors (18.17-19), and ‘those who dwell in the earth’ lament the destruction of Babylon. They mourn the loss of the ungodly structure that provided their riches and position. As a contrast to kings, merchants, and sailors, saints are told to rejoice over the coming of the kingdom and God’s righteous judgment of Babylon. They worship in a joyful hallelujah chorus (18.20-24; 19.1-10).

86. Revelation includes liturgical elements such as prayers (1.7; 5.14; 6.10; 7.12; 8.3-4; 19.4; 22.20-21), hymns (4.6-8; 19.1, 3, 4, 6; 15.3), doxologies (1.6; 4.11; 5.9, 12-13; 7.12), and benedictions (1.3-4; 22.7, 14, 21). 87. E.g. M. H. Shepherd, The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse (Richmond: John Knox, 1960). See also Otto A. Piper, ‘The Apocalypse of John and the Liturgy of the Ancient Church’, CH 20 (1951): 10–22; Ugo Vanni, ‘Liturgical Dialogue as a Literary Form in the Book of Revelation’, NTS 37 (1991): 348–72. Richard Bauckham, ‘Prayer in the Book of Revelation’, in Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament (ed. R. N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 252–71. 1

74

The Ending of the Canon

i. Conquering and Rewards Closely related to the cosmic combat is the theme of conquering and rewards. The present active participle ĝ ÅÀÁľÅ, ‘who conquers’, is used in some form in all of the seven messages to the churches, urging them to action against Satan and encouraging them to active holiness toward God (2.7, 11, 17, 26; 3.5, 12, 21 [×2]).88 There are speci¿c rewards promised to each who conquers, which will be distributed when the eschatological combat is over. The verb ÅÀÁŠÑ, ‘conquer’, also appears with its different subjects in 5.2 – lion/Lamb; 6.2 (×2) – ¿gure on the white horse; 11.7 – beast; 12.11 – saints; 13.7 – beast; 15.2 – saints; 17.14 – Lamb. In 5.2, Christ, the lion that is from the tribe of Judah and the root of David, is described as the conqueror who is worthy to open the seven-sealed book (5.5). The Lamb is also the subject of the verb ‘conquer’ in 17.14, where he is shown as the victor when the kings and the beast wage war against God. In the opening of the ¿rst seal (6.2) we encounter a mysterious ¿gure on a white horse to whom was given a crown. This ¿gure went out ‘conquering and to conquer’. Some have suggested that this is the same ¿gure that appears as Christ in 19.11-16. Others hold that this is an antichrist-like ¿gure.89 There are several problems with the identi¿cation of the ¿gure as Christ: ¿rst, the ¿gure on the horse bears a bow, but Christ bears the sword of his mouth; second, the ¿gure on the horse wears a victor’s wreath, but Christ is crowned with many crowns/ diadems; ¿nally, the initial reader who reads the book sequentially, would not make this association with Christ without ¿rst knowing of Rev. 19.11-16.90 The intertext leads us in a different direction in identi88. The language of victory is also frequent elsewhere in the Johannine tradition: 1 Jn 2.13, 14; 4.4. Similarly to 1 John, Revelation urges the church to engage in combat against Satan and to defeat him. The nature of the church is that it overcomes the devil. See also Boxall, Revelation, 51. 89. The identi¿cation of the ¿gure as Christ is traced back as far as Irenaeus, Haer. 4.21.3; argued also by William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1944), 113–17; and Eugene H. Peterson, Reversed Thunder (San Francisco: Harper, 1988), 75–7. For the suggestion that the ¿gure is antichrist, see Mathias Rissi, ‘The Rider on the White Horse: A Study of Revelation 6,1-8’, Int 18 (1964): 405–18; and R. F. Robbins, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Nashville: Broadman, 1975), 103. 90. I see the King of kings and Lord of lords in 19.11-16 functioning as a contrast ¿gure to the army of the kings of the earth mentioned in 19.18, which in turn is modeled after prince Gog’s army of numerous horses adorned for battle in Ezek. 38.4. 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

75

fying the ¿gure. The scene of four horsemen in Rev. 6 is derived from Zech. 1.8 and 6.1-8. The intertexts suggest that it is one of God’s unique agents (patrols) who are released on earth to inaugurate judgment.91 Twice the beast is mentioned as the ‘overcomer’ (11.7 and 13.7). On both occasions the victory is only temporary. God vindicates his witnesses through resurrection and ascension (11.11-12) and the beast is only allowed a limited time to operate (13.5: 42 months). The beast’s authority is given by God and is not inherent to the beast, as indicated by the divine passive in 13.7. God’s victory is never in question in the entire book. The end of the book shows the ¿nal victory of Christ and his followers, which sees the beast and the false prophet captured and thrown into the lake of ¿re (19.19-21). Resurrection is the promise for Christians as the greatest reward and involves coming back to life and reigning with Christ. As Christ was raised, so also Christians will be to eternal life. The two faithful witnesses in 11.11, who were raised back to life, symbolize what will happen to all faithful witnesses. Resurrection at some level involves all: martyrs, believers, and unbelievers. There seems to be an understanding of an in-between state in Revelation, as the martyrs under the altar are dead, but they nevertheless have access to plead with God (6.9-11). They are given robes before their wishes can be satis¿ed. Resurrection is shown in Revelation as bodily: earth, sea, and hades will return their dead, and they will be made alive and judged according to their deeds (20.13).92 Revelation talks about two resurrections and of two deaths. The ¿rst resurrection is the resurrection of the righteous (20.4-5). Saints who are raised from the dead will rule with Christ for a thousand years. The second resurrection is the resurrection of the unrighteous, who are raised for judgment, and who receive the second death. The ¿rst death is natural death. The second death is the judgment in the lake of ¿re (20.14, 10). Everyone whose name is not found in the Lamb’s Book of Life will end up in the lake of ¿re. Death and hades (the realm of the dead) will itself ‘die’, that is, it is thrown into the lake of ¿re (20.14).

91. Historically speaking this ¿gure has been associated with Parthian archers who won a victory against the Roman Empire in A.D. 62 (see Witherington, Revelation, 133; Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 63). 92. N.T. Wright has dedicated his book to clarifying language of resurrection as a bodily phenomenon (The Resurrection of the Son of God [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003]). 1

76

The Ending of the Canon

God and saints are warring in order to conquer the dragon and his beasts. The path to victory leads through severe sufferings when, occasionally, the saints are overcome by the beasts who have power over them for a limited time (11.7; 13.7). But the saints are never broken and will ¿nally be rewarded for their endurance. As for the Lamb and the two witnesses, they will rise again, and they will continue their witness and worship, and share in the victory of Christ. As Boring observed: As the summary accomplishment of Jesus’ work on earth can be expressed simply that he ‘overcame’/‘conquered’ (3.21; 5.5), so the faithful Christian life can be summarized as ‘conquering’/‘overcoming’. As revealed in Jesus, the meaning of ‘winning’ is dramatically reversed.93

j. Final Judgment Revelation 14 includes two images of ¿nal judgment: the imagery of the grain harvest (¿¼ÉÀÊÄŦË, 14.14-16) and the imagery of the grape harvest that involves the wine press (¾ÅŦË, 14.17-20). It appears that the ¿rst image is referring to the positive judgment of the righteous (a kind of ingathering of the ¿rst fruits, 14.4), and the second, to the negative judgment of the unrighteous. However, it is possible that both are images of negative judgment.94 The grain harvest is carried out by the Son of Man crowned with a golden crown and sitting on a cloud. Other than the fact that the earth is reaped, there is no further note about what will happen to the grain. Can the reader perhaps assume that the grain is safely stored in a storehouse? Or is the imagery threatening, in that the grain is cut off? The grape harvest is carried out by an angel from the temple, who, after harvesting the grapes from the vines of the earth, throws them into ‘the great wine press of the wrath of God’ (v. 19). This vision culminates with the trampling of the grapes in the wine press ‘outside the city’ and 93. Boring, Revelation, 90–1. 94. Louis Arthur Vos supports the ¿rst option based on the use of the teachings of Jesus in this segment. He believes that the ¿rst image is based on Jesus’ teachings on ¿nal judgment. Vos argues that Joel 4.13 and other OT harvest imagery do not carry the notion of the ¿nal judgment. ‘It is primarily in the sayings of Jesus that the ¿nal judgment is ¿guratively depicted in harvest terminology’ (The Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse [Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1965], 151; also Bauckham, Theology, 94–8). Beale admits that the ¿rst harvest is ambiguous and may involve the harvest of the righteous only, or the general harvest, but he favors the view that both harvests carry the theme of judgment and form a doublet: ‘God’s destruction of the impious is as thoroughgoing as one mowing down the ripe harvest and crushing grapes in the winepress’ (Revelation, 773–6). 1

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

77

the blood covering the earth up to the horse’s bridles for a distance of 1600 stadia.95 This is an incredibly violent image and there is no doubt that the judgment of the ungodly is meant. If the reader hears the ¿rst harvest image (14.14-16) in the context of Jesus’ sayings, especially Mt. 13.24-43 (and parallels), then this judgment will either involve the righteous, or both the righteous and the unrighteous.96 According to the parable of wheat and tares, there is some time during which all things are allowed to grow. But after allowing all the harvest to ripen, it is time to collect the tares for burning and the wheat to be stored. These are two separate actions. When speaking of the ¿nal judgment, Jesus used contrasting imagery: wheat and tares (Mt. 13.24-43) and sheep and goats (Mt. 25.31-46). We do not know the extent to which John would have had access to the written Gospels. Nevertheless, we can rather con¿dently assume John’s familiarity with Jesus tradition.97 Vos has argued that Revelation shows that John was as familiar with Jesus’ teachings as he was with the OT Scriptures and used them with the same skill and freedom.98 If, however, John is not following the separating pattern of Jesus, but instead is utilizing double imagery (as he does on other occasions – e.g. two witnesses, two beasts), then both harvests are negative, as the wine press is without exception a negative metaphor in the OT. This would mean that Joel 3.13 is the primary intertext for both harvest images. 95. The reference to ‘outside the city’ is interesting. What city? Since the grape harvest is the image of punitive judgment of the unbelievers, the eschatological new Jerusalem is the best option. The only dif¿culty is that, up to this point in narrative, the new Jerusalem has not been appropriately introduced beyond a brief note in 3.12. However, Joel 4.2 mentions the valley of Jehoshaphat nearby Jerusalem as the site of punishment. 96. In the NT, harvest imagery is used for both the present situation where the followers of Christ are compared to workers harvesting for the kingdom (Mt. 9.3738) and the future judgment day when the righteous and unrighteous are ¿nally separated (Mt. 13.24-30; explained in Mt. 13.36-43). In some sense this separation began already at the time of Jesus; for instance, for Luke, the harvest is revealed in people accepting or rejecting the seventy that are sent to them (Lk. 10.2-24); John also views the eschatological harvest as already having begun in the ministry of Jesus and the disciples (Jn 4.34-38). 97. Jesus also spoke of Himself as the Son of Man who will be seated on clouds and who comes and executes judgment both of the unrighteous and the righteous (Mk 13.41; 14.62; Mt. 24.30-31; Lk. 21.27-28; 22.69-70). Angels are used to execute judgment in Mt. 13.39, 41. 98. Vos, Synoptic Traditions, 152. Vos argues that John accesses these traditions primarily through the oral witness of Jesus’ sayings. Besides the occasional references to the passion narratives (11.8) and birth narratives (12.1-6), Revelation does not use narrative material from the Gospels (Synoptic Traditions, 217-19). 1

78

The Ending of the Canon

Joel includes the following elements in common with Revelation: God who is seated, the sickle, the proclamation that the harvest is ripe, the wine press, and the overÀow of the wine press. It is not too dif¿cult to see how the parallel invitations could inspire two harvest images: ‘Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe. Come, tread, for the wine press is full.’ Beale has pointed out, that Joel LXX also includes plural ‘sickles’, »ÉšÈ¸Å¸, which would allow further development by John.99 Isaiah also used the violent image of crushing grapes as the picture of God’s wrath (Isa. 63.1-6). Elsewhere, the author of Revelation demonstrates both familiarity and heavy use of the last chapters of Isaiah. It is possible that he had this image in mind: God wearing a bloody red robe, trodding, trampling, and crushing his enemies like grapes. As in the Apocalypse, the image concludes with the lifeblood of the nations poured out on the earth (v. 6). Revelation softens this image a bit by using the passive voice (the wine press ‘was trodden’ [ë̸ÌŢ¿¾]) leaving the precise subject ambiguous (v. 20). Revelation uses Isaiah’s vision also in 19.11-16, where Christ is wearing the bloody robe and treading the wine press of ¿erce wrath of God. Whereas I see Joel as the primary intertext for these harvest images, the ¿rst image is tinted by Jesus tradition, and the second evokes images from Isaiah. k. Coming of the Lord In the beginning of the Apocalypse God is introduced as ĝ ĵÅ Á¸Ė ĝ öÅ Á¸Ė ĝ ëÉÏŦļÅÇË, ‘the one is who was and who is to come’ (1.4, 8; 4.8). The message of the coming Lord functions two ways: as a warning to the seven churches to remain faithful (2.25; 3.3, 20) and as an encouragement that that God will reward the faithful. The book ends with a prayer of hope: ‘Come, Lord Jesus’ (22.20). Such highlighting of this concept reveals the intention of the author to urge his readers to be ready and prepared for the Lord’s coming. This language of coming seems to be reminiscent of the OT understanding of the visitation of Yahweh. Numerous passages (such as Isa. 35.3-6, 10; 40.3-5, 9-11; 59.15-17, 19-21; 62.10-11; 63.1, 3, 5, 9; 64.1; Zech. 14.1-5, 9, 16; Mal. 3.1-4; Pss. 50.3-4; 96.12-13; 98.8-9) speak of Yahweh’s return to Zion. The ‘visitation of Yahweh’ or the ‘Lord’s coming’ carry speci¿c meaning in the OT. God comes in order to settle accounts with his servants and to bring all things to a completion. The visitation of Yahweh has elements of both salvation and judgment: the wicked are judged, the enemies are defeated, and the rewards of the saints are paid out.

1

99. Beale, Revelation, 775.

2. Genre and Literary Structure of Revelation

79

The visitation of God is also part of numerous parables of Jesus where a master returns to his servants unexpectedly (e.g. Mt. 25.14-30; Lk. 19.11-27). N. T. Wright has argued that Jesus enacted in his person Yahweh’s return to Zion in both judgment and salvation.100 This is not to deny the appropriateness of speaking of the second coming of Christ, as it is also a deeply biblical concept (Rom. 8; 1 Cor. 15; Rev. 21–22). The parables, as well as the OT backgrounds, can serve as theological models of Jesus’ second coming. The Gospel writers certainly saw the parables as relevant to their readers as they have placed them into an eschatological context of tireless expectation so as to encourage the future generations of Christians (e.g. the parables of waiting in Mt. 24.36– 25.46). In Revelation ‘the coming of the Lord’ has all the OT connotations of Yahweh’s visitation, though it refers exclusively to the second coming of Jesus. This concludes the discussion on the major structural elements.101 4. Conclusion In terms of its genre, I concluded that Revelation presents itself as a hybrid: it draws from apocalyptic and prophetic backgrounds, and it combines the epistolary form with the book form. It is indeed a unique biblical writing, which may be de¿ned as a book of apocalyptic prophecy in an epistolary framework. In its multifaceted nature Revelation ¿ts well with the overall nature of the canon collection, one that itself involves so many genres and forms. The canon reader who started reading from Genesis has been introduced to all these forms before he/she encounters Revelation. Thus, even by its genre, Revelation becomes a suitable canon ending, as it allows the reader to revisit even in the experience of genre the previous texts. In terms of its structure, Revelation is a tight-knit whole with many narrative themes that are developed from the beginning of the book to the end. The author has communicated his book through a series of repetitions (four sets of seven), through strategic breaks in this pattern (that delay the end), and through the use of contrast (e.g. seal and mark, bride and whore). The main themes that run through the book carrying its message include the cosmic battle, in which humans are participating 100. N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999), 116–18; and N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 2; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 612–53. 101. Beale, Revelation, 132, suggests other themes and repeatedly used phrases.

1

80

The Ending of the Canon

through their choices of loyalty, the prophetic role of the church as witness to Christ, the theme of judgment (the main focus of the scroll sequence), and the visions of open heaven as a place from which divine verdicts and rewards originate and which provide a sense of serenity and peace – God is worshipped in heaven, and is in total control of what happens on earth. The book serves to enlarge the vision of the suffering church to a more universal understanding of God’s rule, and provide the motivation for their continued witness to the world and holiness of life.

1

Chapter 3

INTERTEXTUAL VORBILD OF REVELATION

1. Introduction In this chapter I offer an intertextual outline of Revelation and an overview of the contribution of each major source for Revelation. This corresponds somewhat to what Bandy refers to as the intertextual layer in the structure of Revelation. Study of the intertextual layer searches for the relationships between the structures of the OT books and Revelation.1 By learning what sources John draws from, and in what contexts, we can also discover something of John’s literary world and theological framework. We will survey in the following pages some in-depth studies on the use of a particular book in Revelation. These observations learned in the macro-level of the book will guide us later as we approach Rev. 21–22 in detailed exegesis. 2. Primary Intertextual References in Revelation Steve Moyise, in his work The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation, used an approach of ¿rst determining the primary OT references, and then other references that modify those primary references by means of additions, omissions, and/or changes made by the author.2 His terminology will be used in this work, though instead of other references I will use the term supporting references. In this section I focus predominately on the primary references and their location in Revelation. I have provided a visual presentation of the references in Table 3.1, ‘Intertextual References in Revelation’. Some supporting references will also be noted on my chart, but there is less discussion of these in this chapter. Chapter 4, which includes my reading of Rev. 21–22, includes a detailed discussion of both the primary references and supporting references in Rev. 21–22. It will be clear, that what is merely a supporting reference in the macro-level of the book can be a major player in the exegesis of a smaller segment. Thus the 1. Bandy, ‘Layers’, 481–87. 2. Moyise, Old Testament, 38.

82

The Ending of the Canon

designation of primary and supporting should not be equated with signi¿cant and insigni¿cant. Primary simply means that the reference is ‘loadbearing’ from the standpoint of the book’s overall structure. I will also follow Richard Hays’ de¿nitions when speaking about quotations, allusions, and echoes. Since in Revelation there are no actual quotations, we can only properly speak about allusions and echoes. In the cases of those, it is often dif¿cult to discern whether we are dealing with intentional attempts to evoke scriptural allusions or with echoes due simply to shared Jewish or Christian tradition and worldview. With respect to the question of authorial intentionality there can be only degrees of certainty. However, authorial intentionality is not a necessary component for intertextuality. It is, after all, the reader’s detection of an echo that will shape the reader’s interpretation of the text (intertextuality is reader-oriented method). If our goal is to become better readers then we will be textually guided readers, ones who evaluate the echoes we hear in the light of the evidence and in community with other readers. Although it is likely that the primary references reveal intentions of the author, and I sometimes use this language when speaking of those, we should always precede with caution. I consider as primary the intertexts that seem to provide more than just verbal echoes (similar wording), believing that the resonance between the texts reaches the deeper levels of theme, structure, and sequence and brings a larger textual ¿eld with it. In other words, primary echoes carry a higher volume, based on Hays’ criteria. I have placed what I see as the primary intertexts on the left side of my outline of Revelation, and other supporting intertexts on the right.3 Following the outline, I proceed with a more thorough discussion of how Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Zechariah are used in Revelation. These are chosen based on both the number of references that can be traced back to these sources. According to the ‘Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels’ appearing in UBS4, the verbal parallels in Revelation are distributed as follows: Isaiah – 74, Ezekiel – 58, 3. Although others have attempted to organize intertextual references in Revelation, I have not seen a chart that would attempt to show the primary references and supporting references separately. For example, there is an extensive listing of references organized by the chapters of Revelation in Judith Kovacs and Christopher Rowland, Revelation (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2004), 284–95. However, that listing is simply a better organization of the references on the margins of the NA26, and no attempt has been made to prioritize the texts. For the study of intertexts in Revelation, the amount of references provided there is neither helpful nor userfriendly (e.g. more than 200 references to Isaiah alone). I have attempted to provide a more selective listing. 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

83

Daniel – 41, Jeremiah – 37, and Zechariah – 22. Other statistically signi¿cant sources include: Psalms – 69, Exodus – 24, Genesis – 10, Deuteronomy – 10, and Joel – 9. Mark Wilson has calculated that 13 percent of the OT references in Revelation come from the Law, 24 percent from the Writings, and an overwhelming 63 percent from the Prophets.4 It is clear from these calculations that Revelation places itself in the company of the Prophets, especially those from around the exilic era; this is the primary background to which any reader should turn in order to interpret Revelation faithfully in its scriptural context. The UBS4 index quotes 69 references to Psalms. While this is statistically impressive, I am not dedicating a separate section to the use of Psalms. References to Psalms in Revelation have been studied by Steve Moyise who identi¿ed some faint echoes (which he does not discuss), seventeen ‘contributing’ passages (Pss. 69.29; 75.8; 99.1; 106.48; 115.47, 13; 137.8; 141.2; 144.9; 23.1-2; 7.10; 47.9; 62.13; 78.44; 79.1; 96.13; 119.137, respectively) and four ‘unmarked quotations’: (1) Ps. 2.8-9 occurs three times (Rev. 2.26-27; 12.5 and 19.15); (2) Ps. 2.1-2 in Rev. 11.15, 18; (3) Ps. 86.8-10 in Rev. 15.3-4; and (4) Ps. 89.28, 38 in Rev. 1.5.5 Among these, the suggestion of Ps. 89.28, 38 in Rev. 1.5 I would classify as an echo. Of the seventeen contributing references I ¿nd just one to be plausible (Ps. 23.1-2 in Rev. 7.17). The overall threshold for a passage to reach the level of an ‘unmarked citation’ or even ‘contributing’ passage seems too low. Most of the ‘contributing’ passages often show stronger inÀuences from the other parts of the OT. In my opinion, while numerous, the references to Psalms are usually not unique or 4. Mark Wilson, Charts on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 120. Wilson’s calculations need a minor clari¿cation. He has included Daniel and Lamentations within the Prophets, but these books are grouped in HB in the Writings. This changes the percentages to the following: 13 percent from the Law, 35 percent from the Writings, and 53 percent from the Prophets. The primary signi¿cance of the Prophets is still evident. Daniel also remains a signi¿cant source of inspiration for Revelation. Wilson’s statistical data do not reÀect on my chart of primary intertexts. He takes his pool of data from UBS4, which calculates 403 verbal parallels. I take my data from my own reading of the text. Just because there is a verbal echo does not necessarily identify that text as a primary (or even supporting) intertext for the reader. Some verbal similarities are likely to be coincidental. The extent of intertextual inÀuence is not best evaluated through this statistic; rather, references must be weighed for their importance. 5. Steve Moyise, ‘The Psalms in the Book of Revelation’, in Moyise and Menken, eds., The Psalms in the New Testament, 232–6. In this study Moyise is establishing important dialogue between himself, Beale, Bauckham, Aune and others and these ¿ndings will likely be better categorized and more re¿ned in future. 1

84

The Ending of the Canon

weighty enough to raise to the level of primary intertext, and Revelation shows no sign of being structurally impacted by the Psalter. Moyise’s concluding observation that the author of Revelation regards Psalms as ‘prophetic’ af¿rms that John presents himself as a prophet.6 John draws attention to Psalms where he wishes to point out Christological ful¿llment (as is the case with Ps. 2). Yet, despite the high number of counted verbal references, the evidence is very limited to draw lasting conclusions and one runs a risk of saying too much based on too little.7 Exodus, Genesis, Deuteronomy and Joel are important contributors in certain episodes. For example, Exod. 15–17 has contributed to Rev. 12 episode of the woman in wilderness; Joel 2 has inspired the army of locusts in Rev. 9 and some of the apocalyptic judgment imagery; Deuteronomy has probably inspired the warning in Rev. 22.18-19; and Genesis is felt in the background of Rev. 12 and 21–22. Yet, however, in the overall macro-structure these books are not loadbearing and therefore do not warrant a special section. Genesis will receive some attention in Chapter 4, where I deal with the interpretation of Rev. 21–22. We should note, however, that only a small portion of Genesis is used and the allusions do not rise to the level of a primary reference. With that said, while these sources do not feature much in the foreground, like the other books, they deepen the background and should always be considered in a close reading of a segment. Much more complicated is the question of hearing NT echoes in Revelation. I have no statistical data to offer as there are few who dare to explore this ground. Methodologically speaking, a truly canonical intertextual reading should not be con¿ned to considering only OT echoes. If echoes or verbal parallels present themselves and they happen to be from the NT writings, I see no need to discriminate against these.8 The criteria developed by Hays and Beale remain useful, and I will cautiously offer a segment on the use of NT writings in Revelation at the end of this chapter to encourage continued research that would deepen the understanding of Revelation within its canonical context. 6. Ibid., 245. 7. Moyise arranged his ¿ndings on use of Psalms in Revelation into four categories: (1) judgment of the idolatrous nations by God; (2) the salvation of the nations; (3) images of salvation for the people of God; and (4) attributes of God and his Anointed. Ibid., 240–1. However, only the ¿rst category is fully substantiated. 8. By the term ‘New Testament writings’ I refer to all the books that alongside Revelation were accepted to the Christian canon and now constitute the NT. At the time of the writing of Revelation no such collection yet existed. The canonization of the NT is usually dated to A.D. 367. Therefore I cannot speak of the use of NT, but only tentatively of the possible use of NT writings. 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

85

Table 3.1. Intertextual References in Revelation Seg. 1.1 Dan. 2.28 1.9 Ezek. 3.12 Dan. 2.28

Primary Intertexts Who is was and is to come (Exod. 3.14) Coming, rule (Dan. 7.13-14) Son of Man, mourning (Mt. 24.30) Looking at the pierced one (Zech. 12.10) Exile, visionary experience (Ezek. 1.1) Spirit (Ezek. 3.12, 14, 24; 8.3; 11.1, 24; 37.1; 43.5); Son of Man (Ezek. 1.26; Dan. 7; 10.5-6); prophet worships (Ezek. 1.28) Messages to seven churches (2.1–3.22): Lots of original material, much OT and NT vocabulary, but no leading intertext can be established Throne of God (Ezek. 1) Scroll from God (Ezek. 2)

Supporting Intertexts Blessing on hearing (Lk. 11.28). Seven Spirits (Zech. 4.2, 10). Kingdom, priests (Exod. 19.6; Isa. 61.6; Zech. 6.9-15; 1 Pet. 2.5, 9). Son of Man (Mt. 26.64; Mk 14.62; Lk. 22.69). Alpha and Omega (Isa. 41.4; 44.6; 48.12) Golden lampstand(s) (Zech. 4.2); two-edged sword (Heb. 4.12). The rst/the last (Isa. 41.4; 44.6; 48.12); the living one (Ezek. 1). Key of David (Isa. 22.22); Book of Life (Exod. 32.32; Dan. 7.10; 12.1); Amen (Isa. 65.16); tree of life (Gen. 2.9); hearing (Ezek. 3.27; Isa. 6.9-10; Mt. 11.15, 13.9ff., 43); lampstand (Zech. 4); Balaam (Num. 22); manna (Exod. 16); stone (Zech. 3.9; Exod. 28.9-11); rod (Ps. 2.8-9); new name (Isa. 65.15; 62.2); enter (Lk. 12.35ff.); thief (Mt. 24.42-44); throne (Mt. 19.28 par.)

Seven aming torches = seven Spirits Zech. 4.2. Elders worship (Isa. 24.23); visionary language; throne; holy, holy, holy (Isa. 6.1-4); six wings (Isa. 6.2) Sealed vision (Isa. 29.11); book opened (Dan. 7.10) Root of David (Isa. 11.1, 10); Lamb (Isa. 53.7); Lamb with seven horns/eyes = seven Spirits of God (Zech. 4.2, 10) Kings/priests (Exod. 19.6; Isa. 61.6; 1 Pet. 2.5, 9; Zech. 6.9-15) Four horsemen (Zech. 1) War, famine, pestilence (Jer. 14.12; Mt. 24.6-8) War, famine, pestilence (Ezek. 5; 7; 14.21) How long? Zech. 1.12. Earthquake, lights (Isa. 2.19; 13.10; Four corners of earth (Ezek. 7.2) 24.21; 34.4; 50.3; Ezek. 32.7f.; Joel 2.30f.); seal (Exod. 12) Multitude sealed (Ezek. 9) No hunger/tears (Isa. 25.8; 49.10); shepherd (Ezek. 34; Ps. 23.1f.) Throne room worship (Ezek. 1) Seven trumpets (Josh. 6; Joel 2.1, 15; Zech. 9.14) Fire from altar (Ezek. 10.2) Water poisoned with wormwood (Jer. 8.14; 9.15; 23.15) Plagues (trumpets) (Exod. 7–11 [Gen. 19]) No repentance (Jer. 25.4) 1/3 of… (Ezek. 5 [Zech. 13.8-9]) Locusts/cavalry (Joel 1–2) John eats the scroll (Ezek. 3) Elijah and Moses (2 Kgs 2.11; Deut. 34.5-6; Mk 9.4) Measuring (Zech. 2.1-5 [Ezek. 40–43]) Rising up of witnesses (Ezek. 37; Acts 1.9) Two witnesses (Zech. 4) Serpent (Gen. 3.1); woman’s child (Gen. 3.15-16); rod (Ps. 2.8f.); Throne room worship (Ezek. 1) 1260 days/time, times, half a time/42 month (Dan. 12.7, 11) Messiah’s birth (Exod. 1–2; Mt. 1–2) Woman nourished in wilderness (Exod. 15–17) Beasts, worship of beast (Dan. 2; 7–8) Son of Man (Dan. 7; Mt. 13.41; 24.30f.; Mk 14.62) Throne room worship (Ezek. 1) Judgment (Isa. 63.1-6; Mt. 24.30f.; 13.24-43; Mk 13.27) Harvest, vintage (Joel 3.13) Fallen Babylon (Isa. 21.9); its smoke (Isa. 34.10); new song Throne room/temple worship (Ezek. 1) (Ps. 149.1); of Moses (Exod. 15; Deut. 32; Ps. 86.8f.); Plagues (bowls) (Exod. 7–11) Euphrates (Jer. 51.36); coming thief (Mt. 24.43; 1 Thess. 5.2-4; 2 Pet. 3.10) Harlot woman (Ezek. 16; 23) Babylon as harlot (Isa. 23.17) Beast that the woman rides (Dan. 7) Book of Life (Dan. 12.1) Cup of wrath, sins of Babylon, lament, Fallen and desolate Babylon (Isa. 13.21; 21.9; 34.11-14) sinking Babylon like a millstone Come out from Babylon! (Isa. 48.20; 52.11); Babylon’s (Jer. 50–51) con dence (Isa. 47.8-9); merchants (Isa. 23.8); smoke (Isa. Fall of Babylon, cargo, merchants (Ezek. 34.10) 26–28) Throne room worship (Ezek. 1) Praise chorus (Pss. 146–150) Winepress, warrior (Isa. 63.1-3; 11.4; 49.2) Rod (Ps. 2.8-9) Gog, Magog, defeat, birds (Ezek. 38–39) Beast(s) defeated, judged, burned (Dan. 7.11-12) Resurrection, books, rewards (Dan. 12) New creation (Isa. 65.17-20; 43.18-19) Creation (Gen. 1.1) Marriage (Isa. 52.1; 49.18; 54.5f.; 61.10; Beginning and the end (Isa. 41.4; 44.6; 48.12) 62.4-5); God’s people (Ezek. 34; 37.27; Water of life (Isa. 55.1) 48) Temple/city, measuring (Ezek. 40–48) Garden/city: water, tree, fruit, no curse (Gen. 1–2) God’s city, its light and wealth (Isa. 60) Foundation, gates, walls (Isa. 54.11, 12); nothing unclean (52.1)

4.1 Dan. 2.28 Ezek. Vision of throne, scroll and Lamb 3.12 (4.1–5.14): Ezek. 1–2 is enhanced with details from multiple sources. (6.1)

8.1

11.15

15.1

17.1 Ezek. 3.12

19.11

21.9 Ezek. 3.12 22.6 Do (not) seal up (Dan. 12.9; 8.26) Dan. Do not add or take away (Deut. 4.1f.) 2.28 1

Rewards (Mt. 16.27); other brief references, no new material

86

The Ending of the Canon

a. Isaiah in Revelation Isaiah is by far the most cited OT prophet in the NT, and also the most frequently referenced book in Revelation. Mark Wilson (using UBS4) has counted 74 verbal references to Isaiah.9 Jan Fekkes worked through a list of possible allusions and narrowed it to ¿fty certain and probable allusions.10 Although frequent in verbal allusions, which occasionally reach almost the volume of citations, the Isaian intertexts remain random and scattered throughout the book. It is only a small exaggeration to state that Isaiah is for John like a dictionary of prophetic language. There is no pattern to Isaiah’s references. This is unlike the use of Ezekiel, and even Zechariah, where sequential use suggests signi¿cant inÀuence on structure. Only in Rev. 21, in the vision of renewal (perhaps also in the visions of judgment in 14.14-20; 19.11-16), do we sense that Isaiah reaches the volume of primary reference, and reveals some sequential use. This is not to say that Isaiah was used completely randomly—quite the opposite. Fekkes has shown that in the majority of cases there is a correspondence between the OT text and its use in Revelation: When John wants to emphasize his own prophetic status and authority or illustrate his throne-room vision, he draws on the well-known experiences and examples of earlier prophets. And when he comes to describe the New Jerusalem, he builds on a biblical substructure of OT prophecies relating to the future glori¿ed Jerusalem. Political oracles correspond to political oracles; prophecies of judgment to prophecies of judgment; and promises of salvation serve as the basis for promises of salvation.11

This holds true also for the use of Isaiah. Fekkes has pointed out four major themes where John borrowed from Isaiah: visionary experience and language (Isaiah’s inÀuence in this category is faint compared to the use of Ezekiel); Christological titles and descriptions (the use of Isaiah is strong in this category); eschatological judgment (some inÀuence), and eschatological salvation (strong inÀuence).12 David Mathewson has followed Fekkes’ fourfold classi¿cation in his essay, which focuses on the meaning and function of the allusions and echoes to Isaiah in Revelation, and he has dealt with many of those allusions and echoes in greater detail.13 He has demonstrated that John is familiar with both the LXX and Hebrew texts of Isaiah. However, in a book that does not quote but only alludes, it is hard to say anything more conclusive. I have

1

9. Wilson, Charts, 120. 10. Fekkes, Isaiah, 280. 11. Ibid., 102. 12. Ibid., 70–103. 13. Mathewson, ‘Isaiah in Revelation’.

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

87

followed the works of Fekkes and Mathewson (with modi¿cations) to create the listing of passages where Isaiah is heard. (1) Visionary Experience and Language Overall Revelation relies mostly on Ezekiel for its visionary language; Isaiah is usually used as supporting intertexts. Revelation 4.8a 4.8b

having six wings crying holy, holy, holy

Isaiah 6.2 6.3

(2) Christological Titles and Descriptions Christological titles and descriptions are perhaps the most signi¿cant areas of Isaiah’s contribution. Frequently, John has taken the titles that Isaiah has used for God and applied them to Jesus, resulting in some of the most vivid portrayals of Christ in the NT. Revelation 5.5; 22.16 19.11 19.15 1.16; 2.12, 16; 19.15, 21 3.7 1.8; 21.6; 22.13 1.17; 22.13 21.6; 22.13 19.13, 15 3.14

root and offspring of David he judges with righteousness he will smite the nations sword of mouth who has the key of David Alpha and the Omega the ¿rst and the last the beginning and the end description of the warrior Christ the Amen, the true witness

Isaiah 11.1, 10 11.4 11.4 11.4; 49.2 22.2214 44.6; 41.4; 48.12 63.1-3; 11.4; 49.2 65.16

(3) Eschatological Judgment (a) Holy War and Day of the Lord Revelation has taken inspiration from Isaiah for his description of the wrath of the Lamb through the image of an eschatological earthquake where the heavenly bodies are shaken out of place and the luminaries darkened, the sky is rolled up like a scroll, and the people are seeking cover in caves from the wrath of the Lamb. The grape harvest as an image of the Day of the Lord is also derived partly from Isaiah’s oracles. Revelation 6.12-17 14.19-20; 19.11-16

earthquake, luminaries, rocks, hiding winepress

Isaiah 34.4; 50.3; 2.19, 10 63.1-3

14. This is one instance where the wording is so similar that Fekkes has suggested that we are dealing with an actual quotation. 1

88

The Ending of the Canon

(b) Oracles Against the Nations The judgment of the nations and particularly of Babylon is described in Rev. 14–19. I agree with Mathewson who writes: ‘The broad brush strokes are painted with texts from Jeremiah 50–51 (against Babylon) and Ezekiel 26–27 (against Tyre). However the author alludes to texts from Isaiah to ¿ll in the picture.’ Mathewson also points out that John has combined imagery from oracles against Edom, Tyre, and Babylon into his vision of the destruction of Babylon/Rome. He lists the following texts that show Isaiah’s supporting inÀuence in these chapters of Revelation.15 Revelation 14.8 14.10-11; 19.3 17.1-2; 18.3, 9 18.2 18.4 18.7-8 18.23

fallen, fallen is Babylon smoke will go up forever Babylon as harlot fallen and desolate Babylon go out from Babylon Babylon’s self-con¿dence powerful merchants of Babylon

Isaiah 21.9 34.10 23.17 21.9; 13.21; 34.9-14 52.11; cf. 48.20 47.7-9 23.8

(4) Eschatological Salvation (a) Salvation Oracles in Anticipation The new Jerusalem image presented in Rev. 21 is especially strongly inÀuenced by Isaiah. It appears that the author wants to depart from the nationalistic plan of Ezekiel and present a more universalistic vision of the new creation.16 Use of Isaiah’s language allows him to do that with prophetic authority. Revelation 2.17 3.9 7.16-17 7.17 19.7-8

new name enemies shall bow before them no hunger or thirst, water of life God will wipe away tears go out from Babylon

Isaiah 65.15; 62.2 60.14; 49.23; 43.4 49.10 25.8 61.10

(b) Oracles of Renewal

1

Revelation 21.1-5

new creation

21.6

water of life without cost

15. Mathewson, ‘Isaiah in Revelation’, 198. 16. Fekkes, Isaiah, 98.

Isaiah 65.15-20a; 51.10; 61.10; 25.8; 43.18-19 55.1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

89

(c) New Jerusalem Oracles Revelation 21.2, 9-10 21.18-19 21.23-26 21.27 22.5

holy city adorned as bride foundations, gates, and walls God is its light, wealth of nations nothing unclean can enter Lord will shine upon them

Isaiah 52.117 54.11-12 60.1-3, 5, 11, 19-20 52.1 60.1-2, 19

Mathewson agrees that Isaiah only gains prominence in ch. 21, whereas elsewhere, Isaiah is used to ¿ll in details in segments that rely more heavily on Ezekiel and other literature. Isaiah’s extensive inÀuence on Rev. 21 will be further discussed in Chapter 4. b. Daniel in Revelation Daniel dominates the opening of Revelation. The phrase ‘the things which must shortly take place’ in the opening line echoes almost verbatim Dan. 2.28-29. The following vision, where John sees Jesus ‘coming with the clouds’ and describes him as ‘one like a son of man’ (Rev. 1.13) and later as having hair ‘white like white wool, like snow’ (Rev. 1.14), shows knowledge of Dan. 7.18 This Daniel-guided introduction has led some to believe that Daniel is the structural base of Revelation. Beale is best known for his work in exploring the Danielic allusions in Revelation. He considers Daniel as the primary contributor to the structure and theology of Revelation. He sees Rev. 1, 4–5, 13, 17 and 22 as midrash on Dan. 2 and 7, and claims that the author’s goal in these chapters was to provide a Christian interpretation of Daniel. He further argues that the line × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À (‘what must take place’) in Rev. 1.1, 19; 4.1, and 22.6 is from Dan. 2.28-29, and is strategically placed to usher in each of the four major divisions in the literary structure of Revelation: the introduction (1.1-18), the letters to the seven churches (1.19–3.22), 17. The following verses from Isaiah could have also contributed to John’s use of marriage imagery for the new Jerusalem: 49.18 (adorned bride); 54.5 (husband); 54.6 (wife); 61.10 (bridegroom/adorned bride); 62.4-5 (bridegroom/bride, marriage). Mathewson, ‘Isaiah in Revelation’, 202. 18. Those interested in source criticism would explore whether John is accessing Daniel directly or is simply part of a circle or tradition that interprets Daniel, a tradition of which Mark would also have been part. It is possible that Mark and John drew from some common tradition that used Daniel. It is not our goal here to prove how the author accessed a particular source (directly or indirectly), but to recognize a canonical echo. A reader of the canon, when reading Rev. 1, should recognize Dan. 7, but should also think of such passages as Mk 13.26; 14.62; Mt. 24; 26.64; Lk. 21.27, where a deliberate use of Dan. 7 is assumed. 1

90

The Ending of the Canon

the vision proper (4.1–22.5), and the conclusion (22.6-21).19 He also views the ¿ve apocalyptic visions in Daniel (chs. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10–12) as covering the same eschatological future as the book of Revelation. Therefore Daniel may be the ‘prototypical structure followed by Revelation in some of its purported synchronously parallel sections’.20 If this Danielic framework holds true and these references are used with the intention to draw from their original textual context as well, then, Beale suggests, the ‘end-time judgment of cosmic evil and consequent establishment of the eternal kingdom’ forms the framework of thought in the Apocalypse.21 Beale is right to argue that the statement × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À in Rev. 1.1 is of Danielic origin. Daniel 2.28 and 29 are the only places where this exact wording is used anywhere in the OT or NT.22 Although it is a general statement and the intertextuality could be incidental, the fact that Rev. 1.4-8 also uses the coming of the Son of Man image adds credibility to the fact that he is working with Daniel in mind. This line of reasoning follows Hays’ criterion of recurrence, in which evidence of the same source being alluded to in the close context lends credibility to a particular intertext. I also agree with Beale that to an extent Revelation uses the line × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À as a literary device to organize his book. However, for the following reasons, I do not think that this is suf¿cient to make Daniel the structural framework for the entire book. First, it needs to be shown further that Daniel uses this phrase as a literary device to organize his book. Daniel and Revelation have completely different literary structures. If Daniel were the structural base for Revelation, it would be reasonable to expect more similarities between Daniel’s and Revelation’s outlines.23 Second, it needs to be shown further that the 19. Beale, Revelation, 137–41. 20. Ibid., 87. 21. Ibid., 141. 22. John has modi¿ed the phrase slightly as Daniel speaks of things that are to happen ‘in the latter days’, as is evident from his wording × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À ëÈЏëÊÏŠÌÑÅ ÌľÅ ÷Ä¼ÉľÅ. John speaks of things that will happen ‘soon’ or ‘speedily’, depending on how one translates × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À ëŠ̊ϼÀ. 23. A few observations regarding the structure of Daniel are in order. Daniel is a rather disjointed book with its ¿rst part tied together with a narrative of the life of Daniel and his friends in the court of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian kings. Its second part consists of isolated visions. In the ¿rst part of the book, Daniel is a sage who interprets the dreams of King Nebuchadnezzar, thus ful¿lling the role of an angelic being in Revelation. In the second part of the book he is the one seeing the visions and receiving interpretations from a divine being, which is a role more similar to John’s in Revelation. If one could pinpoint a literary feature that ties together both parts of Daniel, it would be the historical reference to the year and the king of whose time a particular vision is seen, or a particular narrative episode is 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

91

author of Revelation really wants his reader to think back to Daniel at every subsequent use of that line. Structural use of a source implies authorial intentionality. Or from the reader’s point of view, can it be shown that readers truly feel drawn to Daniel with each of these references? For example, in 4.1, where × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À is used, Danielic references actually seem to disappear before the overpowering imagery of God’s heavenly throne room borrowed from Ezek. 1. As Vos has also shown, John likes to combine references from various texts, but Ezek. 1 is the most prominent reference.24 This is evident not just because of the amount of Ezekielian detailing in Rev. 4, but also because the original text in Ezekiel and its new location in Rev. 4 both function as introductions to theophanic visions. Third, more systematic Danielic references (places where Daniel could be considered to be the primary reference) are con¿ned to a very small segment of the book (chs. 1 and 13), while the inÀuence of Ezekiel is felt at almost every part of the book.25 Fourth, most of the references come from only two chapters (Dan. 2 and 7). One would expect that the source that formed the structural base of Revelation would be used more in its entirety. Moyise and Ruiz have also criticized Beale’s position that Daniel forms the primary framework for understanding Revelation. Moyise has pointed out that Beale does not do justice to John’s use of other sources and John’s creativity in combining them.26 Ruiz has said that Beale is making John too dependent on Daniel and denying him autonomy over his own work. Ruiz has also shown that a case could be made that Rev. 4–5 follow much more closely Ezek. 1–2 and even Isa. 6 than Dan. 7.27

dated. Revelation has a much more intricate structure. I agree with Beale that in Revelation × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À is often (although not always) used for marking major sections. In most versions Daniel only uses × »¼ė º¼ÅšÊ¿¸À in one passage (2.28-29). Beale points to a version by Theodotion that includes it also in Dan. 2.45b. Based on this occurrence, Beale has attempted to argue that the phrase functions structurally also in Daniel: ‘This structural scheme receives further corroboration from noting that in Daniel 2, vv. 28-29 introduce the vision proper (vv. 31-35a) and the same phrase in v. 45b is part of the formal conclusion of the narrated vision. Likewise, the same phrases from Daniel introduce and conclude the vision proper in Rev. 4.1–22.6 (or even 1.1–22.6; cf. the parallel wording of the two verses), thus indicating dependence even on the structure of Daniel 2’ (Revelation, 140–1). I am unconvinced. 24. Vos, Synoptic Traditions, 38–9. 25. Beale would also include Rev. 4–5 and 17 as places where Daniel is the primary reference. See Beale’s works in his Use of Daniel, 154–305, 313–20. 26. Ruiz, Ezekiel, 119–28; Moyise, Old Testament in the New, 127. 27. Ruiz, Ezekiel, 121. Beale has responded to this critique in detail in John’s Use, 88–93. Both sides present statistics to support their point. It shows how 1

92

The Ending of the Canon

In his 1999 commentary, Beale admits that ‘[t]here is more agreement that Ezekiel exerts greater inÀuence in Revelation than Daniel’. However, he continues to defend his minority position in his John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation and subsequent works.28 Regardless, everyone would agree that Daniel is an important source of inspiration for the author of Revelation, since the disagreements are merely about the extent of its inÀuence. John uses Daniel heavily in ch. 1. He returns to Daniel brieÀy in the throne scene in Rev. 4–5, with its mention of the opening of the book containing judgments, of the saints reigning, and of the worshipping by the myriad of angels. Here, though, the weight of primary reference is decidedly shifted to Ezekiel. Daniel is used again in Rev. 13 to create the vision of the beasts. The appearance, behavior, and the time of reign of the sea beast are drawn from Dan 2. Daniel’s inÀuence (again from Dan. 7) is also felt in the Rev. 17 description of the beast with seven heads and ten horns. However, the Danielic language and embellishments are set into the overall context of Ezekiel’s storyline of the whore-city and her punishment. The opening of the Book of Life on judgment day in Rev. 20.12 may draw primarily from Dan. 7.10 and 12.1, as do the ¿nal instructions to John in Rev. 22.10 not to seal the book of his revelations, which is a modi¿cation of Dan. 12.9 and 8.26. Although Daniel does not usually provide the main storyline, its imagery is distinctly powerful wherever it is used more prominently (chs. 1, 13, 17, 20, and 22). John also departs from Daniel in signi¿cant ways. Daniel’s events were to happen at a future time, while Revelation’s will happen urgently (Dan. 2.28-29; Rev. 1.1). Daniel’s writings were to be ‘sealed up until the end time’ (Dan. 12.9), whereas Revelation was not to be sealed up ‘for the time is near’ (Rev. 22.10). There were four beasts in Dan. 7 and 8, but the four are merged into one in Rev. 13. Daniel functions more often in the role of the interpreter of the visions/dreams of a pagan king, while John in Revelation is the seer to whom the angel interprets the visions. Daniel, through the help of God, prospers in the courts of pagan rulers, and his message is directed to the pagan kings. John is an exiled prophet, whose message is of¿cially addressed to the churches suffering in the pagan empire. complicated things can get when we are dealing with allusions and echoes and not with actual citations. 28. Beale ¿rst proposed his view in 1984 in his ‘The InÀuence of Daniel upon the Structure and Theology of John’s Apocalypse’, JETS 27 (1984): 413–23, and Use of Daniel (1984). He still holds this view in John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (1999), in which he responds to Ruiz’s and Moyse’s criticisms (see pp. 79–93). 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

93

It is not easy to summarize what kind of source Daniel is for Revelation. Clearly Daniel provides more than christological titles and vocabulary, which is the major way Isaiah contributes, but he does not provide as much of the sequential framework and story lines as does Ezekiel. There is of course the similarity of genre (apocalyptic visionary prophecy) between parts of Daniel and Revelation, but that can also be said about parts of Ezekiel and Isaiah. Perhaps Daniel’s major contribution lies in providing the descriptions of some key characters (such as the Son of Man and the beasts), providing the outlines of the eschatological battle between the kingdom of God and the beasts, and inspiring the eschatological time references (time, times, and half a time from Dan. 12.7 in Rev. 12.14; 1290 days from Dan. 12.11 which is changed to 1260 in Rev. 11.3; 12.6 and its equivalent of 42 months in Rev. 13.5). I would not refer to Revelation as midrash on Daniel.29 John uses the familiar language of Daniel in the service of his original vision of Christ. He is a visionary prophet, and should not be reduced to a scribal commentator. In this we can certainly agree with Beale that Revelation follows one key storyline from Daniel, which is the cosmic combat ending with the victory of God’s kingdom and his saints over the demonic beasts and evil empires. Outside of the Synoptic Gospels, the language of the eschatological kingdom of God is only emphasized in Daniel (esp. 2.44; 6.27; 7.14, 27). It appears that Revelation is ¿shing from the pool of Jesus’ teachings on the kingdom, but he communicates them through the language of Daniel. Thus, Daniel is an important source for Revelation in providing descriptions, vocabulary, and at least one major storyline. John is touching some strong cords in readers’ hearts by using Daniel’s visions of the worldly evil empires and af¿rming that eventually all ‘the sovereignty, the dominion, and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him’ (Dan. 7.27; cf. Rev. 22.5). 29. The de¿nition of midrash as an interpretational method is a bit obscure, but expositional midrash, for the most part, represents verse-by-verse interpretation of Scripture. I think it is a stretch to see Revelation as such as an interpretation of Dan. 7. (See Larry L. Lyke, ‘Midrash’, in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible [ed. David Noel Freedman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 897.) Beale’s claim that Revelation is midrash on Dan. 7 is overstepping the boundaries of that term. He de¿nes midrash loosely ‘to refer to the dominant inÀuence of an OT passage on a NT writer and to that writer’s interpretative development of the same OT text’. For Beale’s position and his response to his critics, see John’s Use, 79 n. 64. 1

94

The Ending of the Canon

c. Ezekiel in Revelation Unlike Isaiah and Daniel, who both show up frequently on the NT pages in the form of citations and allusions, Ezekiel is not widely used among the NT authors. The Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters show almost no Ezekielian inÀuence. What the others are lacking, the author of the Apocalypse has offered in generous dose. In fact, John has more or less adopted Ezekiel as the blueprint for his work. Similar patterns of thought, motifs, setting, and verbal echoes exist between Ezekiel and Revelation. The reader will also notice that Ezekiel is used more extensively and sequentially than any other biblical book.30 Many scholars agree that Ezekiel has a much greater inÀuence on Revelation than any other book.31 The use of Ezekiel has also been more extensively studied. Albert Vanhoye’s ‘L’utilisation du livre d’Ezéchiel dans l’Apocalypse’ was the ¿rst major treatment that brought the question of the OT use in Revelation into sharper focus. Vanhoye demonstrated that Revelation uses the Hebrew text of Ezekiel, and that John creatively incorporates the references into his narrative, changing them as he saw necessary. Vanhoye showed that there are altogether about seventy verses in Revelation that show dependence on Ezekiel to a varied degree and the use is largely sequential.32 He sees three occasions when John came close to citing Ezekiel: Rev. 1.15 // Ezek. 43.2; Rev. 10.10 // Ezek. 3.3; Rev. 18.1 // Ezek. 43.2 and in four cases John has re-touched Ezekiel only slightly: Rev. 7.14 // Ezek. 37.3; Rev. 11.11 // Ezek. 37.10; Rev. 18.19 // Ezek. 27.30; and Rev. 18.21 // Ezek. 26.21.33 In addition to these verbal similarities, Vanhoye noticed whole segments in which John has drawn on the themes of Ezekiel:34 Revelation 4.1-8 5.1; 10.1-4, 8-11 17.1-6, 15-18 18.9-19 19.17-21 20.8-9 11.1-2; 21.10-27 22.1

the inaugural vision the eating of the scroll the indictments of whore-Jerusalem the lamentations over the fall of Tyre/Babylon the feasting of the birds on the remains of Gog Gog’s attack and defeat the measuring of the temple/Jerusalem the water Àowing from the temple

Ezekiel chs. 1; 10 2.8–3.3 chs. 16; 23 chs. 26–27 39.4, 17-20 chs. 38–39 chs. 40–48 ch. 47

30. Moyise has also noticed this (Old Testament in the New, 117). 31. See the calculations by Vogelgesang, ‘Ezekiel’, 19–22; Vanhoye, ‘L’Utilisation’, 473–5; Swete, Apocalypse, cliii; Beale, Revelation, 77. 32. Vanhoye, ‘L’Utilisation’, 442, 473–6. 33. Ibid., 437–8. 34. Ibid., 440–1.

1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

95

Vanhoye concludes that John has a tendency to return to a reference a second time to clarify it further; for example, the mention of the scroll of Ezek. 2.8–3.3 occurs twice in Rev. 5.1 and 10.8-10. John also tends to abbreviate the lengthy oracles of Ezekiel and simplify them; for example, Ezekiel’s lengthy oracles against Tyre (Ezek. 26.1–28.19) are reduced by John to a much shorter segment in Rev. 18.9-19. Also John likes to broaden the perspective of Ezekiel’s oracles by bringing in a more universal viewpoint; for example, in Ezek. 37.26 God promises to dwell among Israel, but Rev. 7.15 and 21.3 include the faithful from every nation and tribe and people and tongue. Finally, John likes to combine and blend references from different prophets; for example, the throne vision of Rev. 4 is mostly based on Ezek. 1, but also includes elements of the throne vision of Isa. 6.35 Michael D. Goulder also noticed the sequential use of Ezekiel in the Apocalypse, and proceeded to examine its possible reasons. He believes that the reason why Ezekiel and the Apocalypse ‘keep in step’ is not merely literary, but also liturgical.36 He argues that John received his Revelation through a sequence of visionary experiences during the liturgy at his Asia Minor church while the Scripture lessons from Ezekiel and other prophets were being read. Later, while in exile, he meditated on those visions and crafted his book, which still follows the structure of the weekly synagogue readings.37 Goulder presents a chart where he juxtaposes 51 passages from Apocalypse with corresponding passages from Ezekiel and ¿ts them in the Jewish-Christian calendar. His work af¿rms the structural use of Ezekiel, and includes many useful insights about the use of Ezekiel and other prophets in Revelation. However, his novel proposal that it reÀects the annual cycle of synagogue readings has not found much support. Goulder pointed out the following sections of Revelation as the portions where the inÀuence of Ezekiel is of primary importance: the throne vision (Rev. 4 // Ezek. 1); the scroll (Rev. 5 // Ezek. 2–3); the four plagues (Rev. 6.1-8 // Ezek. 5); the coming of God’s wrath (Rev. 6.12– 7.1 // Ezek. 7); the marking of the foreheads of the saints (Rev. 7.2-8 // Ezek. 9); the scattering of coals (Rev. 8.1-5 // Ezek. 10); the cup of wrath (Rev. 14.6-12 // Ezek. 23); the harlot (Rev. 17.1-6 // Ezek. 23; 16); the laments for Babylon/Tyre (Rev. 18.9-24 // Ezek. 26–27); Gog and Magog (Rev. 20.7-10 // Ezek. 38); the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21.22 // Ezek. 40–48), and the river of life (Rev. 22.1 // Ezek. 47).

1

35. Ibid., 462–8. 36. Goulder, ‘Cycle of Prophecies’, 343. 37. Ibid., 364.

96

The Ending of the Canon

He also points out passages where Ezekiel is used, but its volume is more muted and the reference less certain: the slain by the altar (Rev. 6.9-11 // Ezek. 6); no more delay (Rev. 10.1-7 // Ezek. 12); the measuring of temple and altar (Rev. 11 // Ezek. 40; 41; 43); Jerusalem and Sodom (Rev. 11.8 // Ezek. 16.43-63); the breath came into them, (and they lived,) and (they) stood upon their feet (Rev. 11.11 // Ezek. 37.10); a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like (the sound of loud) thunder (Rev. 14.2 // Ezek. 1.24); the earth was bright with splendor (Rev. 18.1 // Ezek. 43.2), and the birds’ supper (Rev. 19.17-21 // Ezek. 39).38 Brief notice should be given also to Johan Lust who also pointed out similarities between the outline of Revelation and the order of the ¿nal events in Ezekiel, especially when it comes to Rev. 20–22.39 He draws the following parallels: Revelation ¿rst resurrection – 20.4 messianic millennium – 20.4-6 ¿nal battle vs. Gog and Magog – 20.11-15 second resurrection – 20.11-15 descent of the heavenly Jerusalem – chs. 21–22

Ezekiel revival of the dry bones – 37.1-14 reunited messianic kingdom – 37.15-28 ¿nal battle vs. Gog of Magog – chs. 38–39 – new temple and new Jerusalem – chs. 40–4840

Lust also examined the correspondence between Ezekiel and Revelation in other chapters and noticed several discrepancies in order. He argued that John may have used a different version of Ezekiel available to him and pointed out a manuscript (к967) in which the order of events of Ezek. 37–48 is listed differently from the MT.41 We already mentioned, in ch. 1, the comprehensive study of JeanPierre Ruiz on Ezekielian inÀuences in Rev. 16.17–19.10. Ruiz also noted the structural similarities between Ezekiel and Revelation, but he offers no explanation for them. He states clearly that Revelation is not a commentary on any of the OT prophetic books, but rather a reinterpretation of them.42 38. Ibid., 343–8. While Goulder sees Ezekiel and the Prophets as the primary inÀuence on John’s literary activity, he does not deny the inÀuence of other texts, especially Jesus’ apocalyptic teachings in Mt. 24 (ibid., 342–3). 39. Lust, ‘Final Events’, 179–83. 40. Ibid., 179. 41. Ibid., 181–3. 42. Ruiz, Ezekiel, 526. 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

97

Sverre Bøe focuses on the backgrounds of the Gog and Magog tradition and its use in Jewish, Christian, Samaritan, and Muslim writings. Chapters 1 and 5 of his monograph deal with how Revelation uses the OT, as well as how the Gog and Magog imagery has been used in Rev. 19.17–20.10.43 This study is valuable in further understanding this short section of Revelation in the light of its intertextuality. Jeffrey Marshall Vogelgesang’s study focused on Ezek. 1.1–3.14; 4–5; 10, and 37.40-48 in Rev. 21–22, and on the visions of the new Jerusalem in Ezek. 40–48 and Rev. 21–22. He emphasized that Revelation is not merely inÀuenced by Ezekiel, but is truly dependent on it as it includes verbal similarities, similar motifs, and similar patterns of thought.44 Most of Vogelgesang’s work is dedicated to demonstrating that the similarities are due to the conscious use of the source, and cannot be attributed to mere acquaintance with apocalyptic language. John often preserved not only the Ezekielian ordering and Ezekielian perspective, but also used parts of Ezekiel that are not commonly used in other parts of Jewish Scripture.45 Ruiz later organized Vogelgesang’s discussion into a visual chart of ‘Grouped References to Ezekiel in Revelation’ to show how in key sections Revelation follows Ezekiel. For some reason Vogelgesang abandoned the natural order of the documents by placing ‘the call of the prophet’ (ch. 1) and the ‘throne visions’ (ch. 4) at the end. I have followed the biblical sequence. With this minor change I have adopted this structure for my own discussion of parallel themes between Ezekiel and Revelation. Revelation ch. 1 ch. 4 5.1; 10.1, 8-10 chs. 6–8 chs. 17–18 chs. 19–20 21.3; 7.13-14; 11.11 21.9–22.5; 11.1-2; 3.12

the call of the prophet the throne visions the two scrolls the judgment of earth the Babylon visions Gog and Magog the restoration promise the temple and the city

Ezekiel chs. 1–3 chs. 1; 10 2.8–3.3, 14 chs. 5; 7; 9 chs. 16; 23; 26–28 chs. 38–39 chs. 34; 37 chs. 40–48

43. Sverre Bøe, Gog and Magog (WUNT 135; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). 44. Vogelgesang, ‘Ezekiel’, 23. See also the review of Vogelgesang in Ruiz, Ezekiel, 129. 45. Vogelgesang, ‘Ezekiel’, 15. After Vogelgesang has established this direct dependency, he does, however, show how John was familiar with the common apocalyptic interpretative merkavah tradition, but rejects it. In this sense, Revelation could be considered an anti-apocalypse: its purpose is to reveal God’s things to all people universally rather than hide them for the bene¿t of the few (see pp. 396–7). 1

98

The Ending of the Canon

(1) The Call of the Prophet (Rev. 1; Ezek. 1–3) There are similarities in the call and also setting of the two prophets. Both prophets ¿nd themselves in exile: John from the island of Patmos and Ezekiel by the river of Chebar in Babylon (Rev. 1.1-2, 9; Ezek. 1.1). They both claim that they have seen visions and heard voices from the heavenly sphere. Ezekiel states that ‘the heavens were opened’ to him (Ezek. 1.1), and John later proclaims ‘a door stood open in heaven’ (Rev. 4.1). There is, however, a difference in their call. In the case of Ezekiel, it was to proclaim the message orally to the people in Babylon (Ezek. 2.3-7) and the writing of the message seems to follow this oral function; for John, the emphasis is clearly on giving a written message (Rev. 1.3, 19), made necessary by John’s separation from his audience. In response to his vision, Ezekiel falls down in worship (Ezek. 1.28). The same is true of John, who falls on his face before Christ (Rev. 1.17). It is also possible that the description of the Son of Man (Rev. 1.7; cf. Dan. 7; 10.5-6) provides further detail for the description of the human ¿gure that appears on the throne of God (Ezek. 1.26). (2) Throne Visions (Rev. 1; 4; Ezek. 1; 10) The opening visions of both books are strikingly similar, even though the particular elements are presented in different order. Ezekiel’s opening vision in 1.4-28 and John’s vision in Rev. 1.9-20 and its continuation in 4.1-11 share the following elements: the four living creatures (Ezek. 1.526; Rev. 4.6-9); the throne and a human-like ¿gure (Ezek. 1.26-28; Rev. 1.13; 4.2-5, 9-10); and theophanic language including ¿re, thunder, lightning, precious stones, rainbow (Ezek. 1.4, 13-14, 27-28; Rev. 4.3-6). Both texts serve similar literary functions as the opening visions that draw the readers’ attention to the spiritual realities. There are also differences of detail. First, Ezekiel’s vision of God’s throne seems to be ordered in a way that the vision moves from the periphery to the center: ¿rst, the cloud, ¿re, and lightning are described; then, the four living creatures; then, the radiance of the throne, and ¿nally, the throne and the Son of Man who is seated on it. Revelation’s image starts with the throne and the One sitting on it, and precedes from that focal point to a description of the elements surrounding the throne: ¿rst, the radiance that is like a rainbow and precious stones; then, the 24 elders on 24 thrones; then, the description of lightening, thunder, and the sea of glass. Second, Ezekiel’s creatures are four-faced beings that seem to be in constant movement. They are both at the center of and around the throne in constant movement. The description of wheels and wings is given in great detail. The scene in Revelation is more stable and serene: the 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

99

creatures are around the throne worshipping. Instead of wheels and movement, there are 24 crowned elders sitting on 24 thrones around the great throne, periodically bowing in worship before the Creator. Ezekiel does not mention other thrones, only God’s. Ezekiel does not mention whether the living creatures worshipped, though we are told that their wings produce a sound like mighty waters (1.24). Third, Ezekiel uses the image of ¿re and glowing metal in his description of the human-like ¿gure (1.4, 27). Revelation adds the precious stones when describing the radiance and the One sitting on the throne (1.15; 4.3). Ezekiel only brieÀy mentions lapis lazuli when describing the throne of God (1.26). Fourth, Revelation’s account is much more detailed in its description of the Son of Man, whose head, hair, eyes, feet, hands, voice, mouth, and face are based on Dan. 7 and 10.5-6. Ezekiel is more preoccupied with describing the living creatures’ faces, legs, wings, and hands, and the description of the wheels besides the living creatures. Jesus ‘the living One’ is perhaps intentionally set in comparison with ‘the living creatures’. (3) The Two Scrolls (Rev. 5; 10; Ezek. 2.8–3.3, 14) Revelation has formed two scroll visions based on a single scroll vision of Ezekiel. The scrolls are probably identical, but John separates them into two literary locations.46 First, the scroll that starts a sequence of judgments (Rev. 5) is modeled after Ezek. 2.9-10: ‘Then I looked, behold, a hand was extended to me; and lo, a scroll was in it. When He spread it out before me, it was written on the front and back; and written on it were lamentations, mourning and woe.’ The scroll appears to be a judgment verdict from the throne of Yahweh. The ¿gure on the throne gives it to the prophet and spreads it out before him. The prophet needs to proclaim its contents to stubborn Israel. Key elements of the story are repeated in Revelation: the scroll comes from God, it contains judgments, and it is written on the front and back. There is one difference: while Ezekiel’s scroll is spread out before 46. The two scrolls are likely the same scroll in the narrative of Revelation, but there is a long separating sequence of seal openings and the diminutive ¹À¹Â¸Éţ»ÀÇÅ (‘little scroll’) that is only used to describe the second scroll (10.2, 9-10). So interpreters are divided between those who view the seven-sealed scroll and the little scroll as two separate scrolls, and those who equate the two. For the former see Swete, Apocalypse, 126–7. Those who identify the two scrolls include Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, 243–57; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 171–2; Craig S. Keener, Revelation (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 280; Mazzaferri, Genre, 350–7; Sweet, Revelation, 176; Waddell, Spirit, 150–61; and Wall, Revelation, 136– 7. 1

100

The Ending of the Canon

the prophet (2.10), in John’s vision this scroll is closed with seven seals. And it is the dramatic opening of these seals that becomes an epic divider in John’s story. The Lamb is in charge of opening the seals, and each opening unfolds more of God’ judgments on earth. Second, the little scroll that John eats (10.2, 8-11) is based on the latter part of the same vision (Ezek. 3.1-3). This scroll is opened, and it functions as a symbol of the prophetic task: the prophet has to eat and be ¿lled with the words of God, and then speak them to the stubborn people. But these sweet words end up ¿lling him with bitterness, perhaps because of the rejection by the people. Ezekiel also writes that his spirit was embittered and full of rage (3.14). (4) The Judgment of Earth (Rev. 6–8; Ezek. 5; 7; 9) Ezekiel 5 uses the one-third principle in dramatization of the destruction of Jerusalem and death of its citizens through the hands of nations as a judgment of God because of the city’s rejection of God’s law. Ezekiel 5.12 reads: ‘One third of you will die by plague or be consumed by famine among you, one third will fall by the sword around you, and one third I will scatter to every wind, and I will unsheathe a sword behind them’. Ezekiel’s judgments are typical of horrors that fall upon a city under siege. The scattering to every wind is an obvious reference to exile. Revelation uses Ezekiel’s ‘one third of…’ principle in describing the judgments of earth in the trumpet sequence (Rev. 8.6-13). John’s judgment scenes are much more universal, as the entire creation is impacted by God’s judgment. The horrid scenes of trees burning, water spoiling, and stars falling seem to function as warnings for humans, as the humans themselves are not judged until the later part of this sequence (9.13-21). The particular content of the judgments themselves, with their culmination in darkness, ¿nds its closest parallels in the Exodus plagues (Exod. 7–10). But John has reworked them signi¿cantly. The judgment of humans is described as the four angels are released in Rev. 9.15: ‘A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues, by the ¿re and the smoke and the brimstone, which proceeded out of their mouths’. Here, too, the judgments are eschatological and universal in scope, rather than any identi¿able historic event. Fire, smoke, and brimstone also recall Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19). But the fact that they are referred to as plagues is a reminder of Egypt (Exod. 7–11). That humans do not repent and, despite all the judgments that have fallen upon them, continue to worship demons and idols and involve themselves in murder, sorcery, immorality, and theft (Rev. 9.20), shows the reader the similar historic stubbornness as Pharaoh who hardened his heart, and 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

101

Israel who perpetually refused to listen to the prophets (e.g. Exod. 8.15; Ezek. 3.7). Another image that John has borrowed from Ezekiel is the sealing of the servants of God (Ezek. 9.3 cf. Rev. 7.3). In Ezekiel’s vision a man clothed in linen receives orders to mark the foreheads of those who mourn because of Jerusalem’s sins. This mark will function as a protection to set them apart in the massacre that will fall upon all other Jerusalemites and that will start from the temple of God (9.6). The sealing of the servants of God in Rev. 7.3 has precisely the same function. The holy people are set apart, secured from the horrible judgments about to fall upon all creation. Although Revelation is clearly alluding to Ezekiel, the incident itself also seems to have its roots in the narrative of Passover, where the blood of the Passover lamb on the doorposts provided protection from the angel of death (Exod. 12). Revelation’s placement of this in the context of plagues that resemble the plagues of Egypt makes the Passover background resonate even more strongly. Both Ezekiel and Exodus are signi¿cant for John; Ezekiel provides the primary reference and Exodus functions as a supporting reference. Parallels between Ezek. 7 and Rev. 6 are not as obvious as Vogelgesang’s work suggests. ‘The sword is outside, and the plague and the famine are within. He who is in the ¿eld will die by the sword; famine and the plague will also consume those in the city’ (Ezek. 7.15) is similar to ‘And authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth’ (Rev. 6.8). However, the connection between the two sources cannot be established solely on this similarity. We are dealing with generic prophetic terminology that appears in many prophetic books.47 But when supported by Ezek. 5.12 and occurring in close proximity to other Ezekielian references, we have a cumulative case that John may have used Ezekiel as a jumping-off point in this instance. The reference has, however, been ¿lled in with details from Zechariah’s vision of the four horsemen (Zech. 1.7-17), which has the volume of a primary reference here. 47. The image of death by sword, plague, and famine is such standard vocabulary among the exilic prophets that one cannot argue based solely on this wording that there is dependency between these texts. Jeremiah, for example, also uses the image of sword, famine, pestilence, and even wild beasts or wild birds or dogs in various combinations: Jer. 14.12-18; 15.3; 16.4; 18.21; 19.7; 28.8; 29.17-18; 34.17; 42.17; 43.11; 44.12-13. The vocabulary also reÀects the covenant curses of Deut. 28.15-68. To an extent the reader can draw from all of these echoes, while the interpreter must decide which is primary – too much ‘noise’ distracts from the meaning. 1

102

The Ending of the Canon

(5) The Babylon Visions (Rev. 17–18; Ezek. 16; 23; 26–28) The story of Babylon and her fall in Rev. 17–18 is strongly inÀuenced by Ezekiel. The precise ways in which Ezekiel is being used are dif¿cult to summarize. We have seen elsewhere John’s maintaining much of the original image and context, but here he appears to be departing from his source in signi¿cant ways. In what follows I will suggest how John shapes his sources to serve his theological purposes. Ezekiel 16 is an allegorical description of Jerusalem as a harlot who has committed adultery with other nations by joining in international treaties and serving their gods. It is an unusual harlot; rather than being paid for her services, she has been paying her customers (16.38-41). Still, the harlot will be shamefully exposed before all her lovers, and they will punish her severely. Most unexpectedly, after the description of the harsh punishments that she will receive, the prophet says that this wicked city will be forgiven after she has been plundered by nations (16.42). I ¿nd it strange that John’s inspiration for the harlot-Babylon derives from an allegory that depicts the sins of Jerusalem, rather than of Babylon. Where is John going with this? Several elements in John’s description of Babylon suggest he is speaking of Rome with its ungodly cults. For example, Rev. 17.6 describes this harlot as ‘being drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus’, and 17.9 adds that she sits on seven mountains, a description that Beale observes has often been applied to the city of Rome.48 The descriptions of the ten horns and ¿nally the beast have been attributed to successive emperors, from Julius Caesar to Nero or Domitian as the beast.49 By the time John writes, Rome had likely seen the killings of both Peter and Paul, which could be reÀected in Rev. 17.6. It would also ¿t with John’s personal situation of having been exiled by imperial authorities for his witness. In addition, the international scope of the woman’s power (17.15, 18) is most easily explained if she represents the Roman Empire. However, intertextuality points to the possibility that John is involved in a critique of the earthly Jerusalem as well. The leaders of Jerusalem operated through Roman authorities in the persecution and killing of Jesus (e.g. Jn 18.28–19.16). In Jerusalem Stephen was killed (Acts 7). Calling that Jerusalem ‘Babylon’ would be ¿tting from John’s point of view.50 It is likely that John is creating a combined imagery for an 48. Beale, Revelation, 868. 49. Wilson (Charts, 95, 126–7) has outlined the scholarly views (from ancient to contemporary) on how Rev. 17.9-11 is related to the twelve Caesars of Rome. 50. John does not hesitate to call the Jews who are persecuting the church the ‘synagogue of Satan’ (Rev. 2.9; 3.9).

1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

103

eschatological chief-enemy that arises against the people of God. His purpose is not to brand a particular city or political power as the enemy of God, but to reveal the character of any power that opposes the rule of God. John has also drawn inspiration for his image of the harlot-city from Ezek. 23, which depicts, in the most graphic language, the sins of Israel and Judah (Oholah stands for Samaria, the capital of Israel, and Oholibah stands for Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, 23.4). Samaria had been unfaithful to God by following Assyrian deities. She fell into Assyria’s hands and was humiliated: ‘They uncovered her [Samaria’s] nakedness; they took her sons and her daughters, but they slew her with the sword. Thus she became a byword among women, and they executed judgments on her’ (23.10). Jerusalem, who witnessed this, did not repent, but was even more corrupt than Samaria. She courted politically with Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt. In the same way her ‘lovers’ would eventually be disgusted with her. The prophet says that God will orchestrate the Babylonians to come against Judah (23.22-31), and Judah’s fate will be the same as Israel’s (23.32). The list of punishments that follows is extensive: Judah will have to drink her sister’s cup fully (23.32-33). The cup in Ezekiel stands for horror, desolation, and exile. It is an image of a cruel and bitter punishment. John uses the image of the cup in Rev. 17.4, but he appears to have been also inÀuenced by Jeremiah’s ‘cup of wrath’. John changes this image into a cup full of abominations (Rev. 17.4).51 It is ironic that the very nations that had crowned Jerusalem (Ezek. 23.42) would come and tear her down (Ezek. 23.26). John is applying Ezekiel’s image of the destruction of the harlot-Jerusalem to the destruction of harlot-Babylon (Rev. 17.16-17). He is doing so with one great exception: unlike Ezekiel, John speaks nothing of restoration. Babylon, the eschatological evil structure in all its forms (Jerusalem, Rome or any other), will be destroyed once and for all. This complete annihilation is further inspired by Ezekiel’s Tyre oracles. Ezekiel 26–28 consists of three separate oracles on the fall of Tyre: 26; 27; 28.1-19. All include elements of lament, which may have drawn them together in the mind of John, whose use of the Tyre oracles is particularly focused on the aspect of lament (Rev. 18.9-19). John’s use of this section of Ezekiel does not follow much of the internal organization of the segment, as John has blended Ezekiel with other references.

1

51. The image of cup is used in Jer. 25.15-28; 49.12; 51.7.

104

The Ending of the Canon

The ¿rst oracle in Ezek. 26 speaks of Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign to conquer Tyre (vv. 7-12). The oracle is dated to 586 B.C. (26.1).52 The historic event itself took place shortly after Jerusalem’s fall when the island-kingdom Tyre enjoyed the additional trade that the destruction of Jerusalem brought to it. Rather than learning anything from the downfall of Jerusalem, Tyre became proud and con¿dent in her ¿nancial and political importance, and made the mistake of rebelling against Babylon. After a long siege Nebuchadnezzar annihilated the surrounding areas of Tyre, and the island part of the city surrendered and a Babylonian overseer was appointed.53 After this attack Tyre lost much of its former signi¿cance as a world power. The full extent of Ezek. 26.19-21, 12 was carried out later by the conquest of Alexander the Great, who almost literally cast what was left of the city into the sea.54 For John, it is not so much this fascinating literal-historical ful¿llment, but, rather, its mythological signi¿cance that has captured his interest. Just as Ezekiel uses the metaphors of ‘deep’, ‘waters’, ‘pit’, and ‘the lower parts of the earth’ to speak of the fall of Tyre, John uses the image of the sea when speaking of the annihilation of Babylon. Both can function as metaphors for death.55 In Revelation, evil things emerge from the sea (e.g. 13.1), evil is cast back into the sea (e.g. 18.21) and ultimately the sea is no longer part of God’s creation (21.1) – a powerful statement about God’s annihilating all evil.56 John includes the following groups of people who lament over the fall of Tyre: kings, merchants, shipmasters, passengers, and sailors (18.9, 11, 15) – as many as make their living by the sea (Rev. 18.17). The lamentation of the kings is based on this ¿rst Tyre oracle (Ezek. 26.16), where ‘the princes of the sea’ lament Tyre’s loss of political power. John has reshaped this language into ‘the kings of the earth’ (Rev. 18.9).57 52. See also Walter Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 377–8. 53. According to Josephus, Ant. 10.228 the siege of Tyre lasted thirteen years (ca. 585–572 B.C.). 54. In 332 B.C. Alexander built a mole to connect the island part of the city with the mainland. He conquered the island by tossing the mainland part of the city into the sea. As the currents have carried sediments to the mole, the island has over the centuries become a peninsula. Thus, the old Tyre is quite literally buried by earth and sea (cf. Robert R. Stieglitz, ‘Tyre’, in Freedman, ed., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 1341–2). 55. Eichrodt equates these with Sheol, the realm of the dead (Ezekiel, 374–5). 56. The angel’s dramatic act of casting a millstone into the sea in Rev. 18.21 has its origin in Jer. 51.63-64, but the Tyre-oracle may have provided some inspiration. 57. See also Ruiz, Ezekiel, 416. 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

105

Revelation’s lamentation of ‘the merchants of the earth’ (18.11) is based on Ezekiel’s second Tyre oracle (ch. 27), which focuses on Tyre’s loss of economic power. This oracle is an extended lamentation that poetically portrays Tyre through the metaphor of a magni¿cent merchant ship full of luxurious cargo. Revelation 18.11-14 describes the extent of Babylon’s trade and wealth, reÀecting Ezekiel’s description of Tyre’s cargo (Ezek. 27.12-25), but John has included additional items such as pearls, silk, scarlet, Thuya wood, marble, cinnamon, amomum, incense, frankincense, and carts. John has omitted all the names of the trading partners from the list.58 Finally, the lament of the shipmasters and all who associate themselves with the sea (for John, the symbol of evil) in Rev. 18.17b-19 is based on Ezek. 27.26-32, which also includes several different seaworkers. In Ezekiel’s oracle, Tyre, like a ship, is battered by winds and waves and sinks into the bottom of the sea (27.26-27). John does not adapt the ship metaphor; John’s Babylon remains either a whore, or a city, and the punishment is depicted as burning with ¿re (17.16; 18.8, 18). But the elements of this lament are reÀected in John’s description of the manner of their mourning: weeping, throwing dust on their heads, and crying out (Rev. 18.18-19; cf. Ezek. 27.30-32). The third Tyre oracle (Ezek. 28.1-19) focuses on the king of Tyre and depicts him in mythic, almost otherworldly, terms. The king of Tyre is compared to an anointed cherub living in Eden, the holy mountain of God, adorned with precious stones (Ezek. 28.13-14). There is something unusual in the way this in turn echoes Gen. 2–3.59 The king of Tyre will fall because he will begin to think of himself as divine and untouchable. The whore-city Babylon in Revelation also acts as if her power had no limits: she views herself as a queen (18.7), she sits on seven mountains (17.9), and she is adorned with jewels (17.4). Her inÀuence over the nations is based on deception (18.23) and her power that originates from the beast (17.3, 7-13). Her end will come when the Lamb will overcome the beasts (17.14).

58. Ibid., 429–30. Ruiz also discusses the possible reasons for these additions and omissions, and the principles behind the different ordering of John’s list (see pp. 431–43). 59. Eichrodt suggests that Ezekiel has used some other Babylonian Paradisestory as the basis for this comparison, a story similar to but not identical to the Eden story (Ezekiel, 392–5). Reading canonically leads us to hear the echoes of Genesis and we assume that Ezekiel has modi¿ed them for his purposes. 1

106

The Ending of the Canon

(6) Gog and Magog (Rev. 19–20; Ezek. 38–39) Gog and Magog are only brieÀy mentioned in Rev. 20.7-9, where it is unclear whether Gog and Magog stand for kings or nations or territories. It is likely that John simply drops these words into his text as a code for the reader to remember Ezek. 38–39. There Gog is a king of the land of Magog, a ruler of Meshech and Tubal (38.2), which were lands north of Israel.60 Gog gathers his armies against the restored Jerusalem, rebuilt after the exile as an un-walled city, in which people live in peace apparently unprepared for an attack (38.10-11). Ezekiel 38.16 indicates that the battle will take place ‘in the latter days’, which has contributed to understanding this as a vision of an eschatological battle. Both Ezek. 38.9 and Rev. 20.7-8 use nature imagery to describe the great multitude of this army: John compares it to the sands of the sea, and Ezekiel to a storm cloud that covers the land. The battle of the nations against the people of God will end in total defeat because God will protect his people. Ezekiel mentions several ways that God will reveal his glory before the eyes of many nations: an earthquake, sword, pestilence, bloodshed, torrential rains, hail, ¿re, and sulfur (38.19-23). The judgment by ¿re is re-emphasized also in 39.6, which may lie behind John’s image of the lake of ¿re (19.20). Revelation 19.17 has also used Ezekiel’s image of prey birds feasting on the dead bodies of the kings of the nations at the battle¿eld (Ezek. 39.17-20). Ezekiel goes into some detail describing the burial of the bodies in Israel to clean up the land (39.11-16). Revelation omits this, probably because the purity laws are not his concern, but also because burning would take care of the puri¿cation. (7) The Restoration Promise (Rev. 21.3; 7.13-17; 11.11; Ezek. 34; 37) Vogelgesang suggests that Ezek. 34 may be echoed in Rev. 7.13-17. Although there is some thematic overlap between these texts, the intertextual connection is not obvious. Ezekiel 34 focuses on the wrongdoings of the leaders/shepherds of Israel who have mistreated the sheep, and speaks of their coming judgment when God, the true owner of the sheep, will come and judge them. God’s servant, David, will be Israel’s shepherd who will feed the sheep (34.23-24). Revelation 7 focuses on the Lamb at the center of the throne who is being worshipped by a great multitude. The Lamb will be the Shepherd of God’s people who have come out of a great ordeal. They will no longer hunger, thirst, or suffer from the sun or heat, because they will have abundant access to the water of life (vv. 16-17). This fascinating image of Jesus as both the Lamb and 1

60. See Bøe, Gog and Magog, 88–99.

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

107

the Shepherd (7.17) would deserve some deeper study in the light of Ezek. 34 as well as the NT references, but we need to resist it here. Although the segment certainly includes echoes of Ezek. 34.23-24, the actual wording of the passage is closer to Isa. 49.10: ‘They will not hunger or thirst, neither will the scorching heat of sun strike them down; for He who has compassion on them will lead them, and will guide them to springs of water.’ The placement of Rev. 7 at the center of a worship scene departs from both Ezekiel and Isaiah, and reveals John’s own literary artistry. The vision in Ezek. 37.1-14 of the valley of the dry bones that God will make alive again has some parallels with Revelation. It is the breath of God that brings life to the dry bones so that they rise to their feet (37.5, 9-10); in John’s vision, the breath from God brings life into two martyred witnesses and they rise to their feet (11.11).61 Ezekiel 37.1-14 is one of the very few passages in the OT that may suggest anything like the idea of a physical resurrection. Although in the form of a metaphor for a restoration of a nation, this text may have inspired John’s description of resurrection, which graphically depicts the involvement of the physical human body, or even the returning of the dead bodies from the grave (11.11; 20.4-6, 11-15). John describes how the dead are returned from the sea and hades and that they stand before God’s throne of judgment and are judged according to the Book of Life; here, though, the reader feels a strong inÀuence of Dan. 12.1-3 as well as some NT texts. Ezekiel 37.27-28 and Rev. 21.3 are verbally close, and both show echoes of Gen. 1–2. Both speak of God ‘dwelling’ with people. Ezekiel mentions a ‘sanctuary’, but Revelation uses the term ‘tabernacle’ recalling the incarnation of Christ who dwelled (as in a tabernacle) among humankind (e.g. Jn 1.14). (8) Temple and City (Rev. 21.9–22.5; 11.1-2; 3.12; Ezek. 40–48) As in the description of the harlot-Babylon, the description of the brideJerusalem in Rev. 21–22 is strongly inÀuenced by Ezekiel’s vision of the restored Jerusalem in Ezek. 40–48. Since those chapters of Revelation are the focus of the next chapter, we will refrain from further discussion here. In conclusion, it appears from Vogelgesang’s analysis, that chs. 9 and 12–16 of Revelation are relatively untouched by Ezekielian inÀuences. Those segments indeed transfer the primary inÀuence elsewhere. The volume of the use of Joel in Rev. 9 and 14, Exodus and the Gospels in 61. The standing of the witnesses may be inÀuenced by Zech. 4.14 but the resurrection motif is probably from Ezekiel.

1

108

The Ending of the Canon

Rev. 12 and 16, and Daniel in Rev. 13 overpower Ezekiel at those points. Nevertheless, the setting of heaven, temple, God’s throne room, and the language of theophany are not left behind, except brieÀy in ch. 13, which focuses on the realm of earth that is portrayed as being in opposition to heaven and its dwellers (13.6). Despite those segments where Ezekiel fades to the background, the evidence for Ezekiel as the primary underlying source for Revelation is very strong, and a careful study of Ezekiel provides the reader with the necessary ‘codes’ for a proper interpretation of Revelation. d. Jeremiah in Revelation Jeremiah’s inÀuence on Revelation is not as obvious as, for example, the inÀuence of Daniel, Ezekiel or Isaiah; as such, only a very few studies have focussed on the use of Jeremiah. Other than Giovanni Deiana’s and Christian Wolff’s relatively brief treatments, I have not encountered any works dedicated to Jeremiah in Revelation.62 The Major Prophets share much common vocabulary and imagery, and few have attempted to sort out their distinct voices as they appear in Revelation. Here I offer some of my own observations on the use of Jeremiah in the Apocalypse. The ‘Index of Allusions and Verbal Parallels’ in the UBS4 notes thirtyseven references to Jeremiah in Revelation.63 These are mostly clustered within chs. 15–18, with ch. 18 the most heavily inÀuenced. The core message of those chapters is the judgment of Babylon. Most of the references come from Jer. 50 and 51, the climax of Jeremiah’s oracles against the nations (Jer. 46–51). In the Protestant Bible (but also in the HB and Vulgate) these oracles against the nations constitute the ending of Jeremiah’s words, with ch. 52 serving as an editorial epilogue recounting the fall of Jerusalem and noting the fate of the kings of Judah in Babylonian exile. In the LXX, the oracles against nations are located in the middle section of Jeremiah, 25.14–31.44. The particular oracles against Babylon (Jer. 50–51) correspond to chs. 27–28 in the LXX, and Jer. 52 corresponds to ch. 52 in the LXX (which is also the ending of Jeremiah in the LXX).64 Thus, John’s placement of Jeremiah’s words towards the end of Revelation would correspond better to the ordering of the MT than that of the LXX.

62. Deiana, ‘Utilizzazione’, 125–37; Christian von Wolff, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum (TU 118; Berlin: Akademie, 1976), 166–74. 63. Wilson, Charts, 120. 64. Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint Version: Greek and English (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), 971.

1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

109

In the following comparison I have included only the segments of Jer. 51 with the strongest parallels with Rev. 17–18. The overall context of Jer. 51 includes also much war imagery, and a description of the actual siege and destruction of Babylon. God arouses the kings of earth with a cavalry, swarming like locusts, which goes out against Babylon (51.11, 27). Revelation includes a battle scene in Rev. 19.11-21, where Christ leads his army of saints on white horses in victory over every enemy of God. The sin of Babylon is described in Jeremiah as twofold: ¿rst, their oppression of God’s people (especially, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple); second, their idolatry. Various Babylonian gods are mentioned in the text and Yahweh is shown as superior. In Rev. 17–18 the primary sin of Babylon is the killing of the saints. Idolatry is not explicitly mentioned, although Babylon’s trust in her economic wealth and her immorality are strongly condemned, as her association with demonic beings (the dragon and beasts) is made explicitly clear. Revelation 17–18 and Jer. 51 share the following: x x x x x x x x x

Babylon is described as sitting on many waters (Rev. 17.1, 15; cf. Jer. 51.13); the earth is drunk with Babylon’s wine (Rev. 17.2; 18.3, 6; cf. Jer. 51.7); Babylon is fallen (Rev. 18.2; cf. Jer. 51.8); Babylon will be desolate (Rev. 18.2 is similar to Jer. 51.3, 37); a call to the people of God to come out of Babylon (Rev. 18.4; cf. Jer. 51.6); the sins of Babylon are piled up to heaven (Rev. 18.5; cf. Jer. 51.9); the kings of the earth lament over Babylon (Rev. 18.9; cf. Jer. 51.8); enactment of Babylon’s destruction (Rev. 18.21; cf. Jer. 51.6364, 42); Babylon is judged because of her killing the prophets (Rev. 18.24; 17.6; cf. Jer. 51.49).

There are other prominent judgment images that the author of Revelation has borrowed from Jeremiah. One image is the cup of wrath, which is ¿rst mentioned in Jer. 25.15-28, and then again in 49.12 and in 51.7, where Babylon is described as ‘a golden cup in the hand of the LORD’. The Lord forces the nations, including Judah, to drink from that cup, which causes those nations to be intoxicated and go mad. The cup represents the disaster that God will bring. Revelation uses the image of cup in 14.10; 15.7; 16.19; 17.4; 18.6. In Revelation the image is used rather 1

110

The Ending of the Canon

creatively. It ranges from the ‘cup full of abominations’ (17.4) to the ‘cup of the wine of his ¿erce wrath’ (16.19). The main point seems to be that Babylon itself will have to drink a double portion of the cup (18.6). Babylon goes from being God’s means of punishment to the one being punished. Among the judgment images that John has received from Jeremiah is the image of the desolate silent city (Rev. 18.22-23). Jeremiah uses this image frequently when speaking of the judgment of Judah and Jerusalem (e.g. Jer. 7.34; 16.9; 25.10): ‘Moreover, I will take from them the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones and the light of the lamp’ (25.10). It is an image of desolation and lack of joy, the ceasing of regular economic and leisurely activities in the land, and a sign that the time of war, uncertainty, and exile are on the horizon for the people of God. Jeremiah promises that this mournful silence will one day be reversed into joy when God brings the exiles back home and restores their fortunes (Jer. 31.3-14; 33.10-11). John applies the ¿rst part of this image of desolate Jerusalem when speaking about the destruction of Babylon. He further elaborates on the image by explicitly omitting the sounds of harpists, musicians, Àute-players, trumpeters, and craftsmen from his Babylon image to communicate complete desolation. However, John, speaking of Babylon, never promises any reversal. The reader of Jeremiah will perhaps notice the many and vibrant ways in which this prophet employs the image of water.65 However, there is a particular use of water in Jeremiah that has no parallel except for the book of Revelation. God promises to give bitter wormwood-poisoned water to the false prophets and unrepentant people to drink (Jer. 8.14; 9.15; 23.15). This image is used in the third trumpet plague, where the waters turn bitter as wormwood when a star called Wormwood falls upon the rivers and springs (Rev. 8.10-11). Babylon is referred to in Jer. 51.13 as ‘O you who dwell by many waters’. Revelation 17.1 also introduces the harlot-Babylon by describing her as sitting ‘on many waters’. For Jeremiah, the waters are literal, as the Euphrates Àowed through the city; for Revelation, the waters serve a symbolic function, and Rev. 17.15 explains that these waters are nations. God’s judgment upon Babylon in Jeremiah will involve drying up Babylon’s waters, referred to sometimes as ‘sea’ or ‘fountain’ (cf. Jer. 51.36). This happens in Revelation, where ‘the sixth angel poured out his bowl upon the great river, the Euphrates; and its water was dried up’ (16.12). 1

65. E.g. Jer. 2.13, 18; 14.3; 15.18; 31.9, 12; 46.7-8; 47.2.

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

111

Perhaps one of the closest parallels between Jeremiah and Revelation is taken from the end of Jeremiah’s prophecies, where Jeremiah’s words are written on a scroll and a stone tied to the scroll after it had been read in Babylon. The scroll is dramatically sunk to the bottom of the Euphrates in a prophetic enactment of the coming destruction of Babylon (Jer. 51.63). Revelation describes how an angel throws a great stone that represents Babylon into the sea to pre¿gure its violent destruction (Rev. 18.21). John has modi¿ed the image somewhat. In Revelation the stone itself represents Babylon, whereas in Jeremiah, it is the scroll that represents Babylon, and the stone is the cause of its sinking. These parallels show that Jeremiah’s words have inspired John when he describes the Babylon of his own time and her judgment. As we have already discussed under the use of Ezekiel, the core structure of John’s Babylon visions derives from Ezekiel 16, 23, 26–28. At the same time, it is also clear that some vibrant details are added from Jeremiah’s prophecies. In conclusion, Jeremiah is a major contributor of images of judgment of Babylon for the Apocalypse. The use of Jeremiah is most abundant in Rev. 17–18, where intertexts to Jeremiah gain the volume required to be identi¿ed as John’s primary intertextual inÀuence. Beyond these chapters, there appears to be no sequential or structural use of this prophet. e. Zechariah in Revelation While references to Zechariah frequently appear in commentaries, indepth study on the use of Zechariah in Revelation has only recently begun. Steve Moyise’s introductory work from 2001, The Old Testament in the New, in which he deals in some length with allusions to Ezekiel, Daniel, and Isaiah, does not mention Zechariah’s contribution to Revelation.66 Robby Waddell, in his The Spirit in the Book of Revelation (2006), noted that ‘a focused work on John’s use of Zechariah has yet to be written’.67 He also suggested that Zechariah serves as the primary intertext as regards the role of the Spirit in Revelation. Waddell’s publication must have overlapped with Marko Jauhiainen’s The Use of Zechariah in Revelation (2005), which according to Jauhiainen’s own admission is the ¿rst critical undertaking.68 I suspect that more work is

66. Moyise, Old Testament in the New, 117–27. 67. Waddell, Spirit, 196; see also 132–96, 16–21. 68. Marko Jauhiainen, The Use of Zechariah in Revelation (WUNT 199; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 163.

1

112

The Ending of the Canon

being done on this emerging ¿eld as we speak. After a short assessment of Jauhiainen’s work, I will provide my own overview of how Revelation makes use of Zechariah. While he suggests that identifying allusions is ‘more art than science’, Jauhiainen uses Ziva Ben-Porat’s theory, which de¿nes a literary allusion as ‘a device for the simultaneous activation of two texts’. An allusion requires that there is a marker (usually a verbal link) that connects the two texts. In his survey, Jauhiainen seems to presuppose some contextual use as well, as he is ¿rst offering a coherent reading of Zechariah as a whole. That is, he believes that the original context from which the allusion originates has bearing on its use and meaning in Revelation. Also, an allusion is valid only when understanding of the text is improved as the reader considers the allusion (allusion has a function). It is rather subjective how one determines that. For Jauhiainen, it is suf¿cient that an interpreter is able ‘to offer a satisfying account of how the proposed allusion contributes to the context where it has been placed’.69 For his survey, Jauhiainen has collected data from UBS4, NA27 and commentaries concerning possible allusions. He examined 81 proposed allusions (paired marker texts) and discussed them under 42 headings. He comes to the following conclusions: Revelation includes seven allusions (Rev. 1.7 // Zech. 12.10–13.1; Rev. 5.6 // Zech. 4.1-14 [eyes]; Rev. 6.1-8 // Zech. 1.8-17 [horses]; Rev. 6.9-11 // Zech. 1.8-17; Rev. 11.4 // Zech. 4.1-14 [lampstands]; Rev. 11.4 // Zech. 4.1-14 [olive trees]; Rev. 22.3 // Zech. 14.1-19), three indirect allusions ‘by virtue of their belonging to a group where other uses of the same motif allude to Zechariah’ (Rev. 1.12-13, 20 // Zech. 4.1-14; Rev. 2.1, 5 // Zech. 4.1-14 [lampstands]; Rev. 5.6 // Zech. 3.1-10 [eyes]), up to 14 potential allusions (most of which deal with the potential use of Zech. 2.6-13 in Rev. 2.5, 16; 3.11; 16.15; 22.7, 12, 20 and use of Zech. 14.1-19 in Rev. 11.15; 16.19; 19.6; 21.25; 22.1, 5, and the use of Zech. 3.1-10 is suggested in Rev. 1.13), up to 18 simple allusions (plus two potentially so),70 four or ¿ve instances of a shared literary device (Rev. 6.1-8 // Zech. 6.1-8 [‘Come!’]; Rev. 8.1 // Zech. 2.13; Rev. 11.1-2 // Zech. 2.1-5 [measuring]; Rev. 21.15-17 // Zech. 2.1-5), four echoes (Rev. 4.5 // Zech. 4.1-14; and 69. Ibid., 29–36; see also Ziva Ben-Porat, ‘The Poetics of Literary Allusion’, PTL 1 (1976): 107–8. 70. ‘Simple allusion’ is any instance where John is alluding to a theme or a motif that is present in Zechariah but is found elsewhere as well (Jauhiainen, Use of Zechariah, 100). Jauhiainen’s simple allusions to Zechariah include themes such as repentance, coming of Yahweh, crown to the faithful, silence in heaven, trampling of the nations, eschatological battle, and God’s dwelling with people in the new Jerusalem. 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

113

Rev. 21.25; 22.1, 5 // Zech. 4.1-19), and 36 texts did not have any signi¿cant relationship to Zechariah.71 Concerning the source text used by John, Jauhiainen states that seven of the ten allusions (this includes the seven allusions and the three indirect allusions) work equally well regardless of whether the MT or LXX is used. In two cases (Rev. 6.9-11 // Zech. 1.8-17; Rev. 5.6 // Zech. 5.1-14) there is preference for the MT and in one instance (Rev. 1.7 // Zech. 12.1-13.1) the allusion only works through the MT tipping the preference to the use of a Hebrew text but not decidedly so.72 Jauhiainen suggests that most of the allusions and potential allusions ¿t under these three themes: (1) the signs of imminent or consummated restoration; (2) the coming of Yahweh; and (3) the building of the eschatological temple. He attributes special signi¿cance to Zech. 12.10 in Rev. 1.7 due to its placement in the opening vision of Revelation and its signi¿cance to the book of Revelation as a whole. The overall contribution of Jauhiainen’s work to the study of Revelation is obvious. I particularly appreciate the fact that while remaining realistic about what can be said with certainty when working with allusions he provides some textual analysis in linking together texts from Zechariah and Revelation as well as separating out the instances when we are dealing with the broad themes that may or may not come to John via Zechariah. Jauhiainen sees John’s use of the OT primarily through the paradigm of ‘ful¿llment’. He suggests that John is perhaps seeking to alleviate some anxiety caused by the apparent non-ful¿llment of certain OT prophecies. He argues that John has purposefully left out certain inÀuential passages from Zechariah since the early church perceived these as having been ful¿lled by Jesus (i.e. Zech. 9.9-17; 11.4-7; 13.7-9; 14.20-21). He suggests that this desire to achieve closure of earlier prophecies may have driven his extensive use of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel as well.73 John’s motives for incorporating the OT texts are more complex, and certainly one needs to be cautious about making broad conclusions. Perhaps one of the greatest dif¿culties in working with Zechariah is that this book seems to be itself heavily inÀuenced by the Major Prophets (especially Ezekiel) which makes it dif¿cult to determine whether John is referring to Zechariah or receiving his inÀuence from a shared source. 71. See, ibid., 130–1, 134–5. Jauhiainen’s calculations remains fuzzy due to a relatively complex way of distributing the references and non-committal nature of some of his categorizations. 72. Ibid., 141. 73. Ibid., 159. 1

114

The Ending of the Canon

Despite this dif¿culty, it is clear that Zechariah has contributed some original imagery to the Apocalypse. The use of Zechariah appears to go beyond serving merely as a pool of vocabulary and imagery, to bringing the original context and signi¿cance of Zechariah into the new context in Revelation. At times, John has also maintained some of the original sequence when using Zechariah’s material. Below I highlight six major themes from Zechariah that are reÀected in Revelation. (1) The Seven Spirits of God (Rev. 1.4; 3.1; 4.5; 5.6; 11; Zech. 4) Perhaps the most signi¿cant contribution of Zechariah lies in the realm of pneumatology. Four times John mentions ÌÛ îÈÌÛ Èżŧĸ̸ (ÌÇı ¿¼Çı), ‘the seven Spirits (of God)’ (1.4; 3.1; 4.5; 5.6). Many commentators agree that the reference has its roots in Zech. 4.1-14, where Zechariah saw in a vision a single golden lampstand that held seven oillamps.74 The seven oil-lamps are interpreted as ‘the eyes of the LORD, which range to and fro throughout the earth’ (Zech. 4.10b). John has taken the elements of Zechariah and reworked them into his own images. He interpreted the golden lampstand as the church, and since he is writing to the seven churches, he portrays Christ as standing in the midst of the seven golden lampstands (1.12-13, 20). He takes the seven oil-lamps, which are also the seven eyes of the Lord, and interprets them as the seven Spirits of God. He places these seven Spirits into close proximity to the divine (especially in 1.4, where it appears between Yahweh and Christ; in 3.1, where Christ has the seven Spirits of God; and in 5.6, where the Lamb is portrayed as having seven horns and seven eyes). John even includes some of the wording of Zech. 4.10b as he writes that the seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, are ‘sent out into all the earth’, and in 4.5, where the seven Spirits are portrayed in front of the throne of God. 74. Waddell, Spirit, 17–21; F. F. Bruce, ‘The Spirit in the Apocalypse’, in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 333– 44; Richard Bauckham, ‘The Role of the Spirit in the Apocalypse’, EvQ 52 (1980): 66–83; J. C. de Smidt, ‘Hermeneutical Perspectives on the Spirit in the Book of Revelation’, JPT 14 (1999): 27–47. Others have also suggested Isa. 11.2 as a possible background for the seven Spirits of Revelation. This connection was ¿rst suggested by ancient commentators such as Justin Martyr, Dial. 39.2; 87.2; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.18.2; and Victorinus, Comm. in Apoc. 1.1. Modern commentators usually conclude that John received his image from Zech. 4 instead. For example, Fekkes categorizes Isa. 11.2 as an ‘unlikely/ doubtful’ reference (Isaiah, 107–10). Still others have suggested that the seven Spirits of God are a reference to the seven archangels in Judaism (e.g. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 34). 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

115

(2) The Two Witnesses (Rev. 11; Zech. 4; 6.11-13) The development of the image of two witnesses is also related to the image of Zech. 4. In that vision, Zechariah saw two olive trees standing next to the golden lampstand. The olive trees were pouring out oil, and are interpreted as ‘two anointed ones, who are standing by the Lord of the whole earth’ (Zech. 4.14). The vision of the lampstands and the two ¿gures is centered around the statement: ‘ “Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit”, says the LORD of hosts’ (4.6), which is an encouragement addressed to Zerubbabel for the rebuilding of the temple of God. The majority of interpreters agree that the two olive trees – that is, the two anointed ones – are prototypes for the two prophetic witnesses in Rev. 11.75 In both contexts the ¿gures remain somewhat obscure. Yet, the angel suggests that the prophet should know for whom or what they stand (Zech. 4.5, 13). The author of Revelation does not explain who the witnesses are, but assumes that the reader has the responsibility to understand the image. The best hints are the statements that they are ‘my two witnesses’ and that they are ‘two olive trees’ and the ‘two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth’ (Rev. 11.3-4). Earlier in Rev. 1.20, the image of the lampstand(s) is explained to the reader as the symbol for the church(es). This suggests that the two witnesses (i.e. two lampstands) here also stand for the church(es), and more speci¿cally, the church(es) anointed with the Holy Spirit. The doubling (two witnesses/lampstands/ olive trees) is probably used to emphasize the truthfulness of the witness of the church, as Judaism required two to three witnesses to establish acceptable witness (Num. 35.30; Deut. 17.6; 19.15; Mt. 18.16; Jn 8.17).76 To understand the image of the two witnesses better, we must follow Zechariah’s image further. In the context of Zechariah the identity of the two ¿gures appears to be connected to the high priest, Joshua, and to the governor, Zerubbabel, who led the rebuilding of the temple. They are the only two named ¿gures within the immediate context of this passage (Zech. 3.8; 4.6). At the center of the vision, there is a message to and about Zerubbabel’s call (4.6-10). The angel emphasizes that the anointed ones are those ‘who are standing by the Lord of the whole 75. E.g. Boxall, Revelation, 163–5; Boring, Revelation, 145; Harrington, Revelation, 123; Beale, Revelation, 572–82. Beale’s work stands out above the others because it does not merely mention the intertextual connection with Zech. 4, but also traces the extent of contextual connections that this reference creates. Beale recognizes the inÀuence of Zechariah upon the whole segment of 11.1-14. 76. Some have suggested that only part of the church is faithfully ful¿lling the task of prophetic witness, as only the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia escape any negative comments about their witness (e.g. Boxall, Revelation, 164). 1

116

The Ending of the Canon

earth’ (4.14; italics added). Of Joshua it is explicitly mentioned that he stood before the angel of the Lord (3.1). 77 The anointed nature of the two ¿gures (Zech. 4.14) is also emphasized in Rev. 11.4. In the OT, anointing was the special privilege of the kings and priests whose inauguration included pouring oil on them (e.g. 1 Sam. 10.1; Exod. 29.7). Joshua represented the priestly power, and Zerubbabel the gubernatorial or royal power. Zechariah shows how there is peace and unity between these two of¿ces (6.13). The NT shows that in Christ, the two of¿ces will be further joined. Jesus is the king (from the tribe of Judah) and also priest (according to the order of Melchizedek) as the writer of Hebrews so eloquently argues (Heb. 7). In the NT tradition, royal priesthood becomes a symbolic description of all Christians, and the temple and sacri¿cial language is sometimes used for the believers (e.g. 1 Pet. 2.5, 9; Rom. 12.1-2; 1 Cor. 3.16-17). John has accepted this line of thought and emphasizes the royal priesthood of believers in Rev. 1.6 and 5.10. Again Revelation takes an image from Zechariah, then turns to other sources to ¿ll in the details. Though he never mentions them by name, John uses the attributes of Moses, such as his power to turn waters into blood and strike the earth with plagues (Rev. 11.6; Exod. 7.17-19), and Elijah, such as his power to shut the sky (Rev. 11.6; 1 Kgs 17.1; Jas 5.17) and to bring down ¿re from heaven (2 Kgs 1.10-12), to describe the activities of the two witnesses.78 He also calls them ‘prophets’ (11.10). It was believed about both Moses and Elijah that, somehow, God had taken them to heaven alive (Deut. 34.5-6; Josephus, Ant. 4.423-26; 2 Kgs 2.11). It was a common Jewish expectation that those two ¿gures would appear again before the End (Deut. 18.15; Mal. 3.1-5; 4.5-6; Mt. 11.1014; 27.47, 49; Mk 9.11-13; 15.35-36; Lk. 1.15-17; Jn 1.21; 6.14; 7.40; 77. The emphasis on ‘standing’ before the Lord further recalls John’s question earlier in Rev. 6.17: ‘Who is able to stand (on God’s day of wrath)?’ 78. Many other suggestions for the identity of the two witnesses have been proposed, such as: Elijah and Enoch (Tertullian, An. 50); Peter and Paul (J. M. Court, Myth and History in the Book of Revelation [Atlanta: John Knox, 1979], 90– 104; Beale (Revelation, 583) thinks this is not entirely out of the realm of possibility as they represent the church’s witness to the Jews and to the Gentiles; and some unknown (future) prophetic evangelists (this is usually the position of dispensationalists, e.g., John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ [Chicago: Moody, 1966], 179). For a more comprehensive listing of proposals, see J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation (AB 38; Garden City: Doubleday, 1975), 177–8. Although their characters have been drawn using the attributes of individuals (Moses and Elijah), the image functions as a symbol for the witnessing church. For an explanation of the image of the two witnesses as the corporate image for the church, see Beale, Revelation, 572–82; also supported by Mounce, Revelation, 217. 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

117

Acts 3.22-23). John’s casting of the church into the roles of Moses and Elijah ful¿lls this expectation in a new and surprising way.79 One would recall that Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ in his trans¿guration, making them witnesses of his suffering (Mk 9.4; Mt. 17.3). These two ¿gures will be killed by the beast, and their bodies will lie on the street of the great city, spiritual Sodom and Egypt, where also Jesus was cruci¿ed (Rev. 11.8). The world will rejoice and refuse them burial; but after three and a half days God will resurrect them and take them to heaven, just as Christ also ascended into heaven (Rev. 4.7-14; Acts 1.9). The resurrection of the two witnesses in Revelation functions as a pre-¿guration for the resurrection of the faithful at the end of time (Rev. 20.4-6). During the whole time of their prophecy, the witnesses are clothed in sackcloth, which suggests that they are mourning over the judgments that will fall on the earth that does not repent (Rev. 11.3). The church’s role is prophetic and priestly, urging repentance in the face of God’s inevitable judgment. Revelation’s description of the witnesses, initially bound to Zech. 4, takes off in its own direction and blends so many OT and NT references that it is dif¿cult to determine which source provides the leading narrative. John paints in large brush strokes as he departs from his sources and creates his own composition. God has empowered his church with the Holy Spirit to be faithful and prophetic witnesses in the world, in the manner of Moses and Elijah, and in the likeness of Christ. They are God’s royal and holy priesthood, and they will be restored and vindicated like Jesus. (3) Pure Garments (Rev. 2.17; 3.17-18; 6.11; 7.9, 13-14; 19.13-14; 22.14; Zech. 3) Somewhat related to the image of the two witnesses is the image of the high priest, Joshua, in Zech. 3.3-4. His ¿lthy garments are removed and he is clothed in festal robes as a symbol of removing his iniquity. We ¿nd this kind of ceremonial clothing in Revelation in connection with the church. The one closest to Zechariah’s sequence of the book is the already-mentioned incident with martyrs who are given white robes to cover themselves (Rev. 6.11). Pure white clothing is a symbol of holiness and is used also in several other occasions in Revelation: the great multitude is clothed in white robes (Rev. 7.9, 13, 14); washing one’s robe in the blood of the Lamb is required for one to participate in the eschatological blessings (Rev. 22.14); Christ is portrayed wearing a blood1

79. Boring, Revelation, 146.

118

The Ending of the Canon

dipped robe and his heavenly armies are wearing ¿ne white linen (Rev. 19.13-14; cf. Isa. 63.1-6); the spiritual condition of the Laodicean church is described as miserable, poor, blind, and naked, and Christ urges them to buy from him white garments to cover their shame (Rev. 3.17-18). As a token of forgiveness, the high priest, Joshua, is also given a seven-faceted engraved stone (Zech. 3.9). This intriguing image occurs in Revelation as an important eschatological privilege given to all the faithful. Revelation 2.17 says that the stone is white and has a new name written on it that is known to no one except the receiver of the stone. Both Zechariah and John may have recalled Exod. 28.9-11, which states that certain two onyx stones engraved with the names of the tribes of Israel were part of the high priest’s ceremonial gear.80 In Revelation, holiness is no longer the exclusive privilege of the high priest; through Christ it belongs to all God’s people. (4) The Four Horsemen (Rev. 6; Zech. 1.7-17) The ¿rst four seals in Rev. 6.1-8 all involve a vision of a ¿gure, with a certain attribute, riding on a colored horse. Those four horsemen are based on Zech. 1.7-17, to which the author of Revelation has made some adjustments. In his opening vision Zechariah sees a man riding a red horse standing among myrtle trees, followed by red, sorrel, and white horses (1.8). The prophet enquires about the identity of these horses, and receives an answer, that they are ‘patrols’ whose job is to examine the earth (1.9-10). The patrols report to God that the earth is ‘peaceful and quiet’ (1.10). The angel of Yahweh is not satis¿ed with this message of peace, so he responds by asking God how long until he will have compassion for Jerusalem and Judah with whom God has been angry for seventy years (1.12). To that, the angel of Yahweh replies with the promise that he is angry with the nations and that he will rebuild Jerusalem and its temple and ¿ll it with prosperity (1.13-17). Revelation has reworked Zechariah’s vision signi¿cantly. In Revelation, the horsemen are not patrols who report peace: instead, they are God’s agents who take peace from the earth via death, war, famine, pestilence, and wild beasts. In Revelation the horses have riders that bring war, bloodshed, starvation, and death (6.1-8). Revelation added elements to Zechariah’s image that reÀect Jesus’ teachings concerning the End (Lk. 21.9-24; Mk 13.7-13; Mt. 24.6-14). According to Luke, war, tumults, nation rising against nation, great earthquakes, famines, pestilences, great signs from heaven, and persecution are to precede the End. 1

80. The color of onyx varies, but white seems to be the most characteristic color.

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

119

The sequence of the four horsemen runs into the ¿fth seal that includes the souls of the saints who have been killed, but are calling to God from under the altar: ‘Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?’ (6.10). The reader will notice the similarity to the cry of the angel in Zech. 1.12. In both texts someone waits for more action and justice on God’s part. The criers in Revelation are given white robes and a response that they should rest a little while longer, until their number will be completed (6.11). The crier in Zechariah is an angel who is interceding for restoration of Jerusalem and judgment of her enemies. The four different colored horses appear a second time in Zech. 6.1-8, this time pulling chariots, and they are described as ‘the four winds/ spirits of heaven’ (6.5). They are red, black, white, and dappled horses, and they eagerly go to all directions of the earth upon God’s command. It appears that Revelation refers to these horses/four spirits as the ‘four winds of the earth’ in 7.1. Four angels are sent to keep these four winds of the earth in check so that they would not harm the earth until the people of God have been sealed for protection. The use of this image shows how John can both bring an entire sequence of context into his new composition, as well as make many creative changes. The interpreter should look to Zechariah as a guide for the function and identity of these horsemen, especially the identity of the ¿rst horseman who bears a crown and a bow and who goes out ‘conquering and to conquer’ (6.2). This one has been a matter of dramatic confusion: some have argued that this should be identi¿ed with Christ (based on Rev. 19.11-16), or the progression of the preaching of the gospel before the messianic woes (based on Mt. 24.14; Mk 13.10); others have suggested that it is an antichrist-like ¿gure (sometimes based on Mk 13.21-22).81 The context in Zechariah does not allow for any of this – this horseman, like the three others, is one of God’s agents of judgment on earth.

81. For the history of interpretation of Rev. 6, see Kovacs and Rowland, Revelation, 78–98. They show that the identi¿cation of the ¿rst horseman as Christ was common in early days, and reaches back as far as Victorinus, Comm. Apoc. 6.12 (ANF 7:350). It appears to be Albrecht Dürer’s artistic depiction of the four horsemen that signi¿ed a shift away from readings bound to Christology or church history. For the outline of the argument for a satanic origin of the ¿rst rider, see Beale, Revelation, 375–6. Beale considers it possible that the rider is neither Christ nor the antichrist, but could be viewed as a ‘messenger of divine judgment’ (377). 1

120

The Ending of the Canon

(5) Jerusalem and the Temple (Rev. 11.1-2; 21; 22; Zech. 2.1-5; 8; 14) The central concern of Zechariah is Jerusalem and its temple, which involves its repopulation and rebuilding after Babylonian exile (Zech. 1.12). Zechariah sees a man with a measuring line (2.1-5). From the following parallelism, ‘ “My house will be built in it”, declares the LORD of hosts, “and a measuring line will be stretched over Jerusalem” ’ (1.16b), it appears that the act of measuring symbolizes intent of rebuilding. Only width and length are mentioned – height is not provided (2.2). The city will be inhabited and without walls because God will be its wall of ¿re and its glory within (2.4-5). Revelation includes two instances of measuring: 11.1-2 and 21.15-17. The ¿rst of these scenes is brief, but it ¿ts well with the sequence of Zechariah as it immediately precedes the story of the two witnesses (11.3-14) modeled after Zech. 4. Revelation does not take from Zechariah’s vision any other elements except for the man with the measuring line who is told to measure. The object of the measuring is not Jerusalem, as in Zechariah, but more speci¿cally the ‘temple of God and the altar and those who worship there’ (11.1). The point of this measuring, however, is similar to Zechariah; it is to show God’s intentions to restore it, to build it up. In Revelation God protects and restores His church. The two witnesses, even though they suffer, will be resurrected. Revelation’s episode includes a remark that the outer court should not be measured. It has been a matter of some discussion what is meant by the ‘outer court’, which for 42 months is given to nations to trample on it (11.2). The ‘outer court’ clearly refers to a group of people, but who are they? Are these those who only appear to be the church but are not truly faithful witnesses, and therefore fall outside of God’s protection and under the power of the nations?82 Yet it appears that the faithful people of God will also suffer for a limited time, but are ultimately protected and even cared for during the temporary suffering (Rev. 12.6, 14; 13.5). Revelation 2–3 clearly shows that the church is imperfect, and in need of repentance. The church must take care that it will stand up to witness, or it may end up being the ‘outer court’ that does not measure up to God’s standard and will not be rebuilt. The hope is that, like Jerusalem, after its fall and exile, it will repent, and will eventually be rebuilt.

82. Such is the suggestion of Boxall, who also points out that all the false prophets in Rev. 2 are given Gentile names (Balaam, Jezebel, 2.14, 20) (Revelation, 161–2). 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

121

The second measuring scene (Rev. 21.15-17) follows Ezek. 40–48 and extends into a detailed description of the new Jerusalem.83 But some elements from Zech. 2 are also present here. Zechariah mentioned that the city would be inhabited and without walls, because God will be its wall of ¿re and its glory (2.5). Later, in Rev. 21.12-27, the walls of Jerusalem are described in great detail. However, they seem to have more of an ornamental or ceremonial, rather than protective, purpose: they are made of precious stones, while the pearl-gates are always open (Rev. 21.25). At the same time, nothing unholy can enter the city (Rev. 21.27). Both Zechariah and John may be drawing from a common source in Exod. 13.21; 14.19-20, and 40.34-38 where Yahweh is a pillar of ¿re illuminating, guiding, and protecting His people; and from Isa. 54.11-12 and 60.11, which describe the walls of Jerusalem. Both Zechariah and John emphasize that God will dwell in the midst of his restored people (Zech. 2.10-11; Rev. 21.3). But again, this is one of the common eschatological hopes shared by the Major Prophets (e.g. Ezek. 48.35). Zechariah 8 has some elements in common with the description of the new Jerusalem in Rev. 21–22. The city is called ‘faithful’ and ‘holy mountain’ (Zech. 8.3; cf. Rev. 21.10). It mentions the streets of the city (Zech. 8.4-5; cf. Rev. 22.2); the longevity of its inhabitants (Zech. 8.4; cf. Rev. 21.4); the trees yielding fruit (Zech. 8.12; cf. Rev. 22.2); the passing of the ‘former days’, which are characterized by suffering (Zech. 8.11; Rev. 21.4); and the reversal of curse into a blessing (Zech. 8.13; Rev. 22.3). The place is characterized by joy (Zech. 8.19; cf. Rev. 21.4), and the nations wish to enter it (Zech. 8.23; cf. Rev. 21.26; 22.2). Zechariah 14 includes the ¿nal eschatological battle for Jerusalem. In that description there are following elements that resonate in Revelation: living waters will continuously Àow out of Jerusalem (Zech. 14.8; cf. Rev. 21.6; 22.1), Jerusalem will live in eternal security, never to be bothered again by enemies (Zech. 14.11; cf. Rev. 21.25-27), the surviving nations will go up to worship Yahweh (Zech. 14.16; cf. Rev. 21.26), and everything in the city will be as holy as the temple (Zech. 14.20-21; cf. Rev. 21.10, 16, 22). (6) Babylon and the Nations (Rev. 17–19; Zech. 2.6-9; 9; 14.12-19) As in the Major Prophets, so in Zechariah Babylon is a central enemy¿gure. Zechariah 2.6-9 states that God is angry with the nations,

83. Since the city is already completed, the function of the measuring in Rev. 21.15-27 cannot be to reveal the intention to restore. 1

122

The Ending of the Canon

especially with the land of the north and Babylon. The north and Babylon seem to refer to the same place. Babylon is the central eschatological enemy of God in Revelation. A description of Babylon and its judgment takes centre stage in Rev. 17–19. The people of God are called to Àee Babylon. Zechariah 2.6-7 reads: ‘ “Ho there! Flee from the land of the north”, declares the LORD, “for I have dispersed you as the four winds of the heavens”, declares the LORD. “Ho, Zion! Escape, you who are living with the daughter of Babylon”.’ This resonates with Rev. 18.4-5. However, as we have already pointed out that Rev. 18 shows strong inÀuence from Jeremiah, it is plausible that the similarities between Zechariah and Revelation in this instance can be explained by the fact that they are drawing from the common source of Jer. 51. Beyond Babylon, Zechariah mentions ‘nations’ that come up against Jerusalem. Some are mentioned by name in ch. 9. The prophet hopes that many of those nations will eventually repent and come to serve God together with the Israelites in the Festival of Booths in Jerusalem. But those who refuse and gather against Jerusalem in warfare will be inÀicted with plagues (14.12-19). The word for ‘nation(s)’, ì¿ÅÇË, is mentioned 23 times in Revelation, and their status is equally ambiguous. They often gather in war against God (11.2, 18; 16.19; 20.8). But there is also some hope for their repentance, for in Rev. 17.15; 18.23; 20.3 it appears that nations were used and deceived by Babylon and the dragon, rather than being un-redeemably evil. Once Babylon has fallen and the dragon has been judged, the nations will play a part in the new Jerusalem (21.24-26; 22.2). Zechariah also sees nations bringing their gold and silver and valuables into Jerusalem (14.14; cf. Rev. 21.24-26). (7) Other Uses of Zechariah The most important allusion to Zechariah in Revelation is 1.7 // Zech. 12.10–13.1 (mourning over the pierced one). Its placement in the opening line of the book immediately after the epistolary greeting and doxology and its Christological signi¿cance are obvious. The ‘pierced one’ in Revelation is Jesus, whose blood cleanses us from sin (Rev. 1.5). His coming is a major theme in Revelation and may be inspired by Zechariah’s multiple oracles about the coming of Yahweh.84 Zechariah also uses the one-third and two-thirds principle for destruction of the earth in judgments, but Revelation uses it in reverse: in Zechariah two-thirds of the land will perish and one-third will be

1

84. Jauhiainen, Use of Zechariah, 102–7, 144–5, 147–8.

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

123

puri¿ed, but spared (Zech. 13.8); in Revelation one-third perish through the trumpet plagues, and two-thirds are spared (8.6-13; 9.13-19).85 Zechariah also mentions a trumpet, bowls, and plagues in the context of judgment (Zech. 9.14-15; 14.12-15, 18), but it is dif¿cult to argue that John would have found inspiration for these images from Zechariah. In conclusion, Revelation has been greatly inspired by Zechariah, although not to the same extent that Ezekiel, Daniel, and Isaiah have been used. Some of the echoes between Zechariah and Revelation are due to their use of common sources, but it is also clear that on several occasions Revelation is indeed echoing Zechariah’s distinct visions. Of course, John is always reshaping the text for his purposes, but the original context can still supply useful information for interpretation. Through the use of this Minor Prophet, Revelation once again helps to weave the canon together so that even these obscure parts of the canon that have not received much attention in the rest of the NT witness to God’s work through Christ. f. New Testament Writings in Revelation The question of ¿nding echoes and allusion to the NT writings in Revelation is complex and there are more questions than answers.86 The scholarship in this area is very limited. The only full-length treatment is by Louis A. Vos, who studied synoptic traditions in Revelation. Vos noted that synoptic traditions are a part of the fabric of Revelation. He proposed eight instances of direct employment of Jesus’ sayings (blessings on hearing and keeping, Rev. 1.3a; the parousia – tribes mourn, 1.7; having ears let him hear, 2.7; cf. also 2.11, 17, 29; 3.6, 13, 22; watch – the thief comes, 3.2 and 16.15; confession before God, 3.5c; the door, the feast and the fellowship, 3.20; occupying throne[s] with Christ, 3.21; the saying of the sword, 13.10b) and 14 instances of indirect employment (not peace but the sword, Rev. 6.4; rocks and mountains, fall and cover, 6.16; Jerusalem trodden, 11.2b; the heaven was shut, 11.3, 6; the deceptive appearance of pseudo-prophets, 13.11, 13; following the Lamb, 14.4b; the harvest, 14.14-19; the gospel proclamation, 14.6; the millstone, the cup, the evacuation and the blood of the prophets, chs. 17– 18; the bridegroom and the marriage feast, 19.7; the parousia and the 85. It is possible that both Zechariah and Revelation rely on Ezek. 5. 86. Would John consider the early Christian writings, which make up the contents of the NT, as authoritative scriptures? Would John’s audience be able to detect and appreciate allusions to such writings? Is John working from manuscripts or from memory when alluding to his sources? Are allusions due to an unknown written source behind the NT writings or originating from shared oral traditions? 1

124

The Ending of the Canon

rewards, 22.12; the time is at hand, 1.3b and 22.10; the apocalyptic events, ch. 6; the crown of life, 2.10b). Vos came to the conclusion that the connections are probably due to a shared tradition and not a direct literary dependence. The sayings are not ‘bookish’.87 Other brief treatments include Marie-Émile Boismard and Ugo Vanni who both studied the inÀuence of Luke and suggested some form of literary dependence;88 Richard Bauckham looked for the use of parousia parable traditions (Mt. 24.42–25.30; Mk 13.33-37; Lk. 12.35-48) in Rev. 3.3, 20; 16.15 and argued for an unde¿ned common tradition behind these texts.89 More recently Paul Penley studied synoptic sayings of judgment in Revelation from a source-critical point of view. He concluded that while ‘there is no airtight case for literary dependency with high percentages of matching words, grammar, and syntax’, there is nevertheless evidence that ‘Jesus’ message of Jerusalem’s destruction and John’s message of judgment in the Apocalypse are indebted to a common prophetic interpretive tradition’.90 Penley thinks this tradition is oral in nature, but he does not rule out literary dependency, but simply ¿nds that it is hard to demonstrate without high levels of correspondence in order and language.91 Clearly, there is more work to do in this area to say anything more conclusive. Author-oriented scholars do not wish to speak of NT contents as a source of inÀuence for John as long as the Hays’ criterion of availability is satis¿ed. As long as there is no consensus on the dating of the NT accounts one must tread lightly on such ground.92 However, commentators regularly note verbal allusions and theological similarities between Revelation and various parts of the NT that beg the question of some source-inÀuence. For example, Beale frequently connects Revelation with various NT passages using language like ‘The apocalyptic discourse of the Synoptics also is a partial model for this section [Rev. 6], since it

87. Vos, Synoptic Tradition, ix–x, 220. 88. Marie-Émile Boismard, ‘Rapprochements littéraires entre l’évangile de Luc et l’Apocalypse’, in Synoptische Studien: Festschrift A. Wikenhauser (ed. J. Schmidt and A. Vöglte; Munich: Karl Zink, 1953), 53–63; Ugo Vanni, ‘The Apocalypse and the Gospel of Luke’, in Luke and Acts (ed. G. O’Collins and G. Marconi; trans. M. J. O’Connell; New York: Paulist, 1993), 9–25. 89. Richard Bauckham, ‘Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse’, NTS 23 (1976–77): 162–76. 90. Paul T. Penley, The Common Tradition Behind Synoptic Sayings of Judgment and John’s Apocalypse: An Oral Interpretive Tradition of Old Testament Prophetic Material (LNTS 424; New York: T&T Clark International, 2010), 157. 91. Ibid., 18–19. 92. E.g. ibid., 13. 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

125

is alluded to throughout the whole of this chapter’.93 Such remarks evidence that readers hear allusions to NT contents in Revelation. Explicit citations would establish source contact, but Revelation does not quote. By nature, allusions and echoes have less source-certifying value. The source-inÀuence question is, however, a tempting one. Most scholars date Revelation to the end of the ¿rst century (ca. A.D. 95), making availability of most of the NT writings to John a strong probability. Even the early date in the 60s allows for contacts with some of the NT texts; especially 1 Thessalonians and the Synoptic Gospels.94 It is also entirely possible, however, that the allusions originate from some oral traditions, or are generated by similar interpretations of a popular OT text.95 For a theological reading of the canon, however, it is not necessary to enter that territory and establish the dating and tracing source-inÀuence because intertextuality is not the same as Redaktionsgeschichte. The canonical-intertextual method allows for a more reader-oriented approach. Thus, when a reader hears an echo or allusion, it is right to raise the question of theological dialogue between these canonical texts. It would be outside the boundaries of this work to attempt to research and weigh all the allusions and echoes of the NT writings that may be raised by reading Revelation. I have included some possible NT allusions and echoes in Table 3.1 that to me seem value-adding when it comes to the interpretation of Revelation, but there are others to be uncovered through a more detailed study. Below I will make some general observations on the use of the NT contents in Revelation and I will then take look at two speci¿c NT allusions with Hays’ seven criteria in mind. 93. Beale, Revelation, 373. Beale makes such remarks throughout his commentary: ‘when we recognize [Revelation] as an allusion to [NT text]’ (280); ‘[John] may have the Synoptic tradition in mind’ (570); ‘[NT text] uses the same language as [Revelation]’ (605); ‘[NT text] has strikingly similar language to that of [Revelation]’ (919) etc. 94. 1 Thessalonians is commonly considered the earliest of Pauline epistles, dated ca. A.D. 50. Dating of the Synoptic Gospels is less certain. While the twosource hypothesis has been virtually a dogma since 1960s, various versions of Griesbach hypothesis are being considered that hold to Papias’ testimony (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.4-6) that states that Matthew was the ¿rst to write. The hypothesis suggests that Luke and Mark both rely on Matthew, which may place the writing of Matthew to late 40s. See the summary of the current proposals by Craig L. Blomberg, ‘The Synoptic Problem: Where We Stand at the Start of a New Century’, in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (ed. D. A. Black and D. R. Beck; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 17. 95. For example, Penley decided ‘to settle for the claim that common oral tradition lies behind Revelation and the Synoptics’; however, he does not rule out ‘the possibility of a written tradition’ (The Common Tradition, 18). 1

126

The Ending of the Canon

(1) General Observations Most of the NT allusions in Revelation ¿t into one (or more) of these categories: 1. Christian proclamations and Christological application of OT materials: Freed by blood of Christ/Lamb (Rev. 1.5; 5.9 // Exod. 12 // 1 Pet. 1.18-19); Kingdom of priests (Rev. 1.5; 5.10 // Exod. 19.6; Isa. 61.6 // 1 Pet. 2.5, 9); Coming Son of Man (Rev. 1.7-8a // Dan. 7.13; Zech. 12.10 // Mt. 24.30); Woman’s child (Rev. 12 // Exod. 1–2 // Mt. 1.18–21); Eschatological harvest (Rev. 14.14-20 // Joel 3.13 // Isa. 63.1-6 // Mt. 24.27-31; 13.24-43; Mk 13.26; 4.26-29). 2. Synoptic sayings, sermons and parables of Jesus: Let anyone with ears listen! (Rev. 2.7, 11, 17, 29; 3.6, 13, 22 // Isa. 6.9-10 // Mt. 11.15; 13.9-17, 43 and par.); I will come in to eat with you, and you with me (Rev. 3.20 // Lk. 12.35-37) Proclamation of divine vengeance (Rev. 18.20, 24 // Mt. 23.34-35; Lk. 11.49-51)96 3. Structural use of the Olivet Discourse: Sequence of eschatological events shows consistency with Synoptic parallels (Rev. 6.1-17 // Mt. 24.6-8, 29; Mk 13.7-9, 24-25; Lk. 21.9-12, 25-26);97 4. Other eschatological material: Coming like a thief (Rev. 3.3; 16.15 // Mt. 24.43; Lk. 12.3940, 46; 1 Thess. 5.2, 4; 2 Pet. 3.10). (2) Coming of Son of Man Revelation 1.7-8a’s declaration of parousia includes side-by-side a reference to Dan. 7.13 and Zech. 12.10: ‘Look! He is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail.’ Drawing parallels between Dan. 7.13 and Jesus’s parousia is well known (e.g. Mt. 24.27, 30; 26.64; Mk 13.26; Lk. 21.27; Acts 1.9). In the light of that use I believe that John was following a tradition, but can we say more? The combined use of Dan. 7.13 and Zech. 12.10 side-by-side is only found in Revelation

1

96. See ibid., 136–54. 97. See Beale, Revelation, 373.

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

127

and Mt. 24.30. In Matthew, the sign of the Son of Man appears and ‘all the tribes of the earth will mourn’ and then people ‘see the “Son of Man coming on the clouds” ’. In Revelation ‘coming’ happens ¿rst, then ‘every eye will see him’ and ¿nally, ‘all the tribes of the earth will wail’. In the latter phrase (ÁŦÐÇÅ̸À ëÈЏ¸ĤÌġÅ) is identical to Zech. 12.10 LXX, but the addition of ÈÜʸÀ ¸Ď Î͸Ė ÌýË ºýË is identical to Mt. 24.30. Mourners in Zech. 12.10-14 are the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but in Mt. 24 and Rev. 1 they are all the tribes of the earth.98 Further, the use of Ċ»Çİ in Rev. 1.7 recalls Mt. 24.23-26 (and Dan. 7.13). Theologically, the allusion makes sense: there may have been false alarms and false messiah’s rising from time to time; the faithful can be assured that the true parousia is to come. Both sources emphasize the public nature of the parousia. I will now weigh this allusion based on Hays’ seven criteria. The availability of Matthew to the author of Revelation is possible although not proven. We have some volume that allows reader to pick up the reference. While the language originates from the OT, the allusion is formed from the identical combination of the two OT references. There is some direct overlap between Revelation and Matthew’s rendition of Zech. 12.10. There are possible recurrences of Matthew’s material in Revelation (Penley considers Mt. 24.31 in Rev. 18 and Beale in Rev. 6). Readers appreciate a powerful introduction that uniquely af¿rms what Jesus had taught about his parousia during some climactic events (e.g. Mt. 26.64). Thus I see the criteria of thematic coherence satis¿ed. The history of interpretation af¿rms this allusion (as noted, other interpreters have considered this parallel) and this reader is satis¿ed about the interpretive value added by the allusion. John returns to the Son of Man language in Rev. 14.14, where the image is immediately followed by the depiction of earth’s harvest (cf. Mt. 24.31). (3) Coming Like a Thief Jesus says in Rev. 3.3 (also 16.15), ‘I will come like a thief’ and ‘you will not know at what hour I will come to you’. The ‘thief’ metaphor is well known from Jesus’ promise in Mt. 24.42-44 and Lk. 12.39-40, 46, occurring also in 1 Thess. 5.2, 4 and 2 Pet. 3.10 when speaking of the coming of the Lord’s day. In the Gospel of John ‘thief’ is applied to Judas and the hired shepherds (Jn 10.1, 8, 10), never to Jesus, and Mark omits it (Mk 13.32-37). There is no equivalent for this expression in the OT. The widespread use in the NT suggests that this image was well known. Table 3.2 compares the use of this phrase in its various NT locations.

1

98. Zech. 12.14 is a bit open-ended.

128

The Ending of the Canon Table 3.2. New Testament Allusions in Revelation 3.3

Rev. 3.3 øÆÑ ĸË ÁšÈ̾Ë, Á¸Ė ÇĤ Äü ºÅŊË ÈÇţ¸Å ĹɸŠøÆÑ ëÈĖ Êš

Mt. 24.42-44, 50 v. 42b ĞÌÀ ÇĤÁ Çċ»¸Ì¼ ÈÇţß ÷ÄšÉß ĝ ÁŧÉÀÇË ĨÄľÅ ìÉϼ̸À v. 43b ¼Ċ ô»¼À […] ÈÇţß Î͸Áĉ ĝ ÁšÈÌ¾Ë ìÉϼ̸À v. 44 Ć ÇĤ »ÇÁ¼ė̼ ĹÉß ĝ ÍĎġË ÌÇı ÒÅ¿ÉŪÌÇÍ ìÉϼ̸À v. 50 øƼÀ ĝ ÁŧÉÀÇË […] ëÅ ÷ÄšÉß Ć ÇĤ ÈÉÇÊ»ÇÁê Á¸Ė ëÅ ĹÉß Ć ÇĤ ºÀÅŪÊÁ¼À

Lk. 12.39-40, 46 v. 39a ÌÇıÌÇ »ò ºÀÅŪÊÁ¼Ì¼ ĞÌÀ ¼Ċ ô»¼À […] ÈÇţß ĹÉß ĝ ÁšÈÌ¾Ë ìÉϼ̸À

v. 40b Ć ĹÉß ÇĤ »ÇÁ¼ė̼ ĝ ÍĎġË ÌÇı ÒÅ¿ÉŪÌÇÍ ìÉϼ̸À v. 46a øƼÀ ĝ ÁŧÉÀÇË […] ëÅ ÷ÄšÉß Ć ÇĤ ÈÉÇÊ»ÇÁê Á¸Ė ëÅ ĹÉß Ć ÇĤ ºÀÅŪÊÁ¼À

1 Thess. 5.2, 4 v. 2 Çċ»¸Ì¼ ĞÌÀ ÷Ěɸ ÁÍÉţÇÍ ĸË ÁšÈÌ¾Ë ëÅ ÅÍÁÌĖ ÇĩÌÑË ìÉϼ̸À v. 4 ÷ ÷Ěɸ ĨÄÜË ĸË ÁšÈÌ¾Ë Á¸Ì¸ÂŠ¹þ

2 Pet. 3.10 IƼÀ »ò ÷Ěɸ ÁÍÉţÇÍ ĸË ÁšÈ̾Ë

In Matthew and Luke Jesus tells a short parable about a thief breaking into a house while everyone is sleeping, the owner unaware of the thief’s coming. Then the parable is applied to the coming of Son of Man, stating that the audience is likewise ignorant of ‘the hour’ and of the need to stay alert. Revelation uses the phrase without any preparation: ‘I will come like a thief’. I think it would be problematic for John to compare Jesus to a thief if the audience did not already know that the metaphor originates from Jesus. Only the gospel occurrences make it clear that Son of Man (Jesus) comes like a thief, as the epistolary uses both speak of ‘the day’ coming like a thief, perhaps to avoid that very scandal. Only Revelation presents the phrase in the ¿rst person and identi¿es the speaker as the Son of Man (Rev. 1.13). Both in Matthew and Luke, Jesus speaks of the coming Son of Man in the third person (although the identi¿cation with Jesus is usually assumed). In Rev. 3.3 and 16.15 this text is coupled with a call to be awake using a form of ºÉ¾ºÇÉšÑ (as also in Mt. 24.42, 43 and Lk. 12.37) and a warning to be found appropriately clothed in 3.4 and 16.15b (likewise Lk. 12.35, 38). 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

129

2 Peter 3.10 is placed in the context of destruction of the present world. Theologically, the passage in in line with the Gospels and Revelation, and 2 Peter also proclaims the hope for the ‘new heavens and a new earth’ (3.12). It is interesting that Paul in 1 Thess. 5.2 introduces the phrase with the words ‘For you yourselves know very well that…’, as if citing a common knowledge. It is possible that Paul is recalling its origin in Jesus-tradition (either oral or written). To me, 1 Thess. 5.2 reÀects awareness of the literary context of the Synoptic Gospels. The path of transmission of the phrase into Revelation is not clear. The fullest verbal and contextual continuity exists with Matthew and Luke. Every word in Rev. 3.3 (except for the prepositional phrase ëÈĖ Êš referring to Sardis) is reproduced in some form in both Matthew and Luke (volume). If not the Synoptic Gospels, then material closely related to them, was likely available for John in either oral or written form. Both Matthew and Luke are heard elsewhere in Revelation. In close proximity to this passage, Rev. 3.20 reÀects knowledge of Lk. 12.35-37 (recurrence). All uses place this phrase into eschatological context. Revelation is calling for alertness in the face of the parousia and holiness (white clothing). The passage shows high levels of thematic coherence with the gospel accounts, especially Luke’s. The history of interpretation recognizes the echo.99 Our reading of Revelation is likely better informed when considering this allusion and seeing Rev. 3.3 as a recollection of Christ’s Olivet Discourse (satisfaction). In a way, the use in Rev. 3.3, where Sardis is called to ‘[r]emember then what you received and heard’, further supports the allusion and the canonical perspective. (4) Summary Many verbal parallels between Revelation and the other NT writings are actually occasions where both draw from a common and prominent OT source text. This, however, does not mean that all similarities originate from the OT. Rather, we should say that John is not a lone interpreter of these OT passages and that he interprets these passages in continuity with NT traditions. Against the backdrop of strong OT inÀuence, most NT allusions appear to function as ‘supporting intertexts’. We have noted inÀuences that are clearly of the NT origin. The author of Revelation attaches great authority to the words of Christ and appears to draw from the Synoptic traditions (especially Matthew and Luke). John is not shy about attributing words to the risen Christ, but the words 99. E.g. Swete, Apocalypse, 50: ‘The whole sentence is another echo of the Synoptic tradition’. 1

130

The Ending of the Canon

and visions attributed to Christ show continuity with the sayings, parables, and sermons of Jesus. Most parallels come from the writings that are of eschatological orientation. I would not exclude epistolary sources from Revelation before a more thorough survey is done. Much of the NT material seems to be clustered in the oracles to the seven churches. There is some structural use in Rev. 6. More detailed research of the central section of the Apocalypse (Rev. 11–13) is needed and will likely bring up some NT echoes and allusions that will clarify the function of this segment. 3. Conclusion In terms of its intertextual framework, most researchers agree that Ezekiel forms the structural grid of Revelation.100 Daniel also has some minor impact on the structure of the book. Isaiah has provided some important imagery and vocabulary for speaking especially about the glori¿ed Christ and God’s new creation. Jeremiah, too, has been a pool of inspiration when it comes to the oracles against the nations, especially Babylon, and other judgment imagery. Zechariah has contributed some visionary material (signi¿cantly when compared to the small size of this prophetic book) and shows some sequential use, but it does not reach the level of providing any structural grid for Revelation the way Ezekiel does. Zechariah is probably itself shaped by the Major Prophets, which may account for some of the references. Exilic prophets share so much vocabulary and imagery that their intertextual relationships and interdependencies need to be analyzed further. Until this task is completed it is dif¿cult to determine at times which prophet provides the leading narrative. Statistics also support heavy use of Psalms, although, as noted above, I do not see them anywhere reaching the level of primary reference.101 Other canonical sources (Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joel) are occasionally visible. 100. Note, though, that Fekkes holds that John does not have a favorite author, but his use of Scripture is thematic (Isaiah, 103). 101. By their very nature, the Psalms do not provide much narrative context and the reader may get lost in the maze of verbal echoes. The intentional use of Psalms is harder to demonstrate than any other source. The value of the further study of the use of Psalms would be to create a stronger link between the book of Revelation and another section of the canon – the Writings (or Poetical books). Reading in the light of the Psalms may also result in a ¿rmer understanding of Revelation as a book that is best understood in the context of worship. 1

3. Intertextual Vorbild of Revelation

131

Our study shows that Revelation evokes language, imagery, and theology of the NT, particularly sayings, parables, and eschatological discourse from the Synoptic Gospels. This reminds the reader that Revelation is not theologically isolated from the rest of the NT. John writes in conversation with other Christian interpreters of Israel’s Scriptures. Revelation studies would greatly bene¿t from further research in this area. In light of all the elaborate and abundant intertextuality, one should also appreciate John’s own literary artistry when he borrows and blends the colorful images into his own visions. He can change the tone or volume of image. He can zoom in on a peripheral image, or he can downsize segments for use as a minor detail. John is a master of intertextuality and the reader needs to delve deep into the canon in order truly to appreciate his book. John’s scriptural competence is part of a larger context of a divine visionary experience. According to his own testimony, divine revelation is the leading force in the writing of his book (Rev. 1.1, 19). If one views the whole canon as ultimately authored by God, then continuities in theme and vocabulary are cast not so much as source-critical curiosities, but as common threads in a tapestry-like representation of God’s plan and purpose for humanity, a plan mediated through all the Scriptures and culminating in Revelation.

1

Chapter 4

REVELATION 21–22 AS THE ENDING OF THE CANON

1. Introduction From the outset I have suggested that in order to read Revelation as Christian Scripture, the following three methodological areas need to be more consciously integrated: approaching the text as a uni¿ed whole, reading with an intertextual awareness, and considering the placement of Revelation as the last book of the canon. In this chapter, I seek to address this last point as well as accomplish this integration in my reading of Rev. 21–22. 2. Function of an Ending The location of a text sheds light on how that text should be read. Based on its canonical location, Rev. 21–22 can be viewed as a twofold ending: the ending of a book, but also, the ending of the canonical collection. One is an authorially calculated ending, the other editorial. While the ¿rst function is rather self-evident, the second has often been overlooked. I wish to highlight that when the Apocalypse was received, it was placed at the end of a canonical collection and therefore it constitutes the ending of the canon narrative. Let me reiterate that Revelation’s function as an ending comes from its canonical location and not merely from its subject matter. Although Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the other prophets, as well as the Gospels, have laid out eschatological visions of the End, and some of these books culminate with a vision of the eschatologically redeemed world, Revelation’s account is different for this reason: Revelation is not only talking about the End; it is the end. This location attributes to Revelation a special signi¿cance that other eschatological writings do not have. This signi¿cance comes from recognizing that endings have special importance due to their literary function. Already Aristotle viewed any well-structured literary work as composed of a beginning, a middle, and an end. Concerning the end, he wrote: ‘An end…is that which itself naturally follows some other thing,

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

133

either by necessity, or as a rule, but has nothing following it’.1 An ending should not arrive haphazardly, but according to certain principles. These principles included a certain proper length, which can be easily embraced by the memory and would allow a sequence of events that would cause ‘a change from bad fortune to good, or from good fortune to bad’.2 For Aristotle, that proper magnitude of an ending appears to be dependent on the magnitude of the work itself; the beauty is determined by proper proportions, and a reader’s ability to grasp the whole. The turning of fortune also should happen according to some logical sequence of events that follows the law of probability or necessity. According to Aristotle, the worst sort of narratives were ‘episodic’ plots in which ‘acts succeed one another without probable or necessary sequence’.3 Subsequent to Aristotle there is a variety of theoretical literature written on narrative endings and closure; however, little (if anything) has been done in the particular area of endings of collections (such as the canonical collection).4 I will now explore the special characteristics and functions that endings have, and how they are featured in the book of Revelation. First, endings depend on the rest of the story. Endings cannot be properly read in isolation. ‘And they all lived happily ever after’ makes no sense if there is no story with characters and the crisis they experienced. A story has a beginning, middle, and end, and all parts are dependent on each other. There are parts of the canon narrative that can more easily be read in isolation: collections of law, proverbs, or psalms, for example; however, even these collections gain fuller signi¿cance when placed into the context of canonical narrative. Law gains fuller signi¿cance against the background of the exodus story; Proverbs gains more meaning in the light of the narrative of Solomon, who asked God to give him wisdom; and Psalms come to life in the light of the stories of David. Although reading the Proverbs or Psalms in isolation may result in rich 1. Aristotle, Poet. 7. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid., 9. 4. For endings and closure in literary studies, see Marianna Torgovnick, Closure in the Novel (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981); David H. Richter, Fable’s End: Completeness and Closure in Rhetorical Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974); and Russell J. Riesling, Loose Ends: Closure and Crisis in the American Social Text (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1996). For Revelation, see David L. Barr, ‘Waiting for the End that Never Comes: The Narrative Logic of John’s Story’, in Studies in the Book of Revelation (ed. S. Moyise; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2001), 101–12. 1

134

The Ending of the Canon

interpretations, reading Revelation apart from the rest of the canon reduces understanding signi¿cantly. Leland Ryken has observed, ‘The Book of Revelation does not assume full literary signi¿cance by itself. It is the climax of biblical literature as a whole, and this is part of its signi¿cance. The whole Bible builds toward it and provides a context for understanding it.’5 The reason why the connectedness to the rest of the story is more signi¿cant in the case of the book of Revelation is due to its function as the ending. Second, endings reveal the full meaning of what went on before. A good ending (not to be confused with a happy ending) justi¿es even a seemingly obscure or complicated plot: at the end it must all make sense, every major piece must fall into its place. The Russian playwright Chekhov famously said that if there is a gun hanging on the wall in the beginning of the story, it must be ¿red by the end.6 For example, one such ‘gun hanging on the wall’ in the Bible is the tree of life. After planting this powerful image into the reader’s mind – cherubim with Àashing swords guarding the path of the tree of life from Adam ‘lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever’ (Gen. 3.22) – the Bible falls silent about the tree, and does not return to the image signi¿cantly until Rev. 22.2 where it symbolizes the fully restored relationship between God and humanity. Third, endings mirror beginnings. Classic stories usually include a state of harmony at the beginning, a breaking of the harmony through crisis (which usually occurs close to the beginning), and the eventual restoration of harmony at the end. The seeds of an ending are present in the beginnings as the endings seek to return to the original harmonious state. We should expect to see parallels between the beginning and the ending of the Bible as well. Table 4.1 summarizes the parallels between the beginning (Gen. 1–3) and ending (Rev. 21–22) of the canon, parallels that include the three major narrative components: characters, setting, and plot. 5. Ryken, Literature, 341–2. Ryken also points out three ways in which Revelation depends on the rest of the canon and brings it to its climax: ¿rst, ‘[Revelation] brings to a conclusion the plot of biblical literature, whose beginning is the creation of the world and the fall of man and whose middle is the pilgrimage through fallen human history’; second, Revelation is ‘a compendium of biblical literary forms’; and ¿nally, ‘Revelation depends on previous biblical literature because of its abundant use of allusion’ (342). 6. H. Porter Abbott, The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 56; citing S. S. Koteliansky (trans. and ed.), Anton Tchekhov: Literary and Theatrical Reminiscences (New York: Doran, 1927), 23. 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

135

Table 4.1. Narrative Parallels Between the Beginning and the Ending of the Canon GENESIS 1–3

REVELATION 21–22 Characters God/Creator God/Creator/One seated at the throne/Lord God the Almighty/Alpha and the Omega/God of the spirits of the prophets Voice from the throne Lamb/Jesus/root and the descendent of David/bright morning star The Spirit Humans Humans Adam and Eve (1) Righteous: those who will conquer, servants, those written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, kings of the earth, people, nations* (2) Evildoers: all who accept the mark of the beast, all cowardly, faithless, polluted, murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, liars, those who practice abomination or falsehood Angel(s) 21.9; 21.15 Angels Satan/dragon/snake Satan/snake Setting Garden (precious stones, gold, tree of New Jerusalem/new creation/holy city/ knowledge and tree of life, rivers) bride (gold, precious stones, tree and river of life) Outside the city/lake of ¿re/second Outside the garden death Plot God creates the heavens and the earth God re-creates heavens and the earth God plants the garden God prepares the new Jerusalem God walks among humans God dwells among humans God gives humans authority to rule God gives to faithful authority to rule God gives humans food, except one tree God provides the tree of life for food is forbidden by death and healing Satan tempts Satan is conquered Humans disobey The disobedient are judged God curses humanity with pain and God lifts from humanity the curse of death pain and death God expels humanity from garden God allows faithful to enter the new Jerusalem Angels guard the path to tree of life Angels show seer the new Jerusalem * Revelation’s last chapters divide humanity into those who are allowed to enter the new Jerusalem and those who are left outside. I have grouped the ambiguous ‘nations’, ‘people’, and ‘kings of the earth’ with the righteous since they are allowed to enter to bring their tribute to God. 1

136

The Ending of the Canon

Parallels between the beginning and the ending of the Bible are numerous, reaching to the very core of the narrative. The ending indeed mirrors the beginning as the pre-crisis state of harmony is restored.7 Fourth, endings resolve the crisis and show what the characters have learned. Whereas endings mirror beginnings, they do not replicate beginnings. The original state of harmony may be restored at the end, but things will never be completely the same, for the characters have been shaped by the crisis. They have learned something from the events that they were involved in; they have traveled a certain moral distance. They may be proven resilient through the crisis, or they may be devastated by it. With endings, we often see winners and losers, those who are standing high after a battle, and those who have fallen. The main hero who has conquered the enemy may have to live with painful wounds or memories. For example, Adam and Eve as representatives of all humanity sin (crisis); humanity is restored to the presence of God at the end (resolution). However, the humans will never again ‘be naked and not ashamed’ (Gen. 2.25) for they have experienced the horrors of sin and the curse of death. Yet they are restored into a relationship with God, and they will be in the process of healing (Rev. 22.2-4). There is a difference in their moral state due to the experience acquired through the crisis. Fifth, endings are expected to provide closure. Abbott distinguishes between ending and closure. Although all literary works have an ending, not all endings provide closure. As a rule endings are expected to bring about closure, and readers enjoy the suspense, doubts, and surprise on the way to the closure.8 In classic stories the expectations created in the reader must be at some level met, questions and mysteries should be resolved, though not always in the way that the reader anticipates. If, as a general rule, endings should bring closure, what of endings in biblical literature? We discover that the level of closure provided by various biblical books varies. The Old Testament includes a lot of continuing history writing that cannot bring a strong sense of closure, because more history will be written. Prophetic books often leave a sense of anticipation for more of God’s plan to be revealed, and are therefore open-ended. Malachi, for example, ends the OT collection with an expectation of a Messiah and speaks of the world that will return to its God-intended state of harmony (Mal. 4.1-6), but this remains just a glimmer of hope in comparison to the great crisis that the Bible has 7. Resseguie stated that ‘the Bible is a U-shaped book’ with its plot beginning and ending with the tree of life (Revelation, 260; also 44–7). 8. Abbott de¿nes closure as ‘the end of narrative conÀict’ (Narrative, 168; also 52–60). 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

137

described. This ending lacks the proper proportions that Aristotle spoke about. The reader is not satis¿ed and craves for more complete closure. In the NT, the Gospels and the book of Acts tell an open-ended story of Jesus and his movement. The Gospel of Mark is notoriously closureless and even ‘end-less’, and its textual history shows several attempts by frustrated readers to provide a proper ending with some sense of closure. The epistles demonstrate perhaps the greatest sense of literary completeness; however, this may be due to the fact that we do not weigh them in the same way as we weigh narrative books. For its part, Revelation stands out as a book that provides the sort of satisfactory closure that other biblical writings often lack. It also brings these other canonical books and their storylines collectively to a close. The author of Revelation describes how, with the descent of the new Jerusalem, the world will return to the new state of equilibrium, recalling the harmony of Eden. On the way to this ¿nal closure, however, Revelation teases the reader through the use of overlapping sets of sevens: every time the reader expects the end with the ¿nal seal or trumpet, another set opens. There seems always to be one more step before the end. The reader is kept in suspense, expecting an end that seemingly never comes.9 The narrative of Revelation itself seems to reÀect the implied reader’s agony and longing for restoration and end of suffering. The persecuted church wants Christ to come and judge the evil, but God’s time has not yet come. The martyrs crying out to God are asked to wait a bit longer (Rev. 6.9-11). Revelation is an ending that for a while teases its reader, but eventually in its ¿nal chapters provides powerful and complete closure – not just for one book, but for the entire canon. Finally, endings send the reader into action. Authors usually seek to shape the lives of the readers and therefore have a part in shaping their futures through their writings.10 In their ¿nal words they often reveal that desire. The power of ¿nal words is that they will resonate in the mind of the reader long after other voices have faded, and authors often use that ¿nal opportunity to capture the attention of their readers and urge them into action. What ¿nal words resonate after reading Revelation? What is 9. This allusive ending has inspired Barr’s essay, ‘Waiting for the End’. He argues that Revelation never actually comes to a closure. For Barr, closure comes for the reader only through the act of worship within the believing community. 10. Abbott discusses that ‘he [the writer] wants to make them [the readers] replicas of himself; he wants his own image and likeness to be resurrected in them when he himself is in the grave’ (Narrative, 168, citing Francois Mauriac, God and Mammon [London: Sheed & Ward, 1936], 85). 1

138

The Ending of the Canon

the expected action? The reader of the Apocalypse is left with the sense of urgency: ‘Look, I am coming quickly, my reward is with me…’ (Rev. 22.12). John uses these words to urge readers into immediate action for the sake of a future that will come upon them shortly: ‘Let the evildoer still do evil; and let the one who is ¿lthy continue to be ¿lthy; and let the one who is righteous still practice righteousness; and let the one who is holy continue to be holy’ (Rev. 22.11). He knows that not all will repent upon hearing his word, but he challenges them by showing that their present choices matter. It is the author’s hope that the reader will be ready to join with him in prayer: ‘Come, Lord Jesus’ (Rev. 22.20). In short, in literature the last things are not least. Endings play a very important role. Therefore, the book of Revelation needs to be assessed in terms of its particular canonical location. Nobody wants to miss an ending, because without it we risk missing the culmination of the story. 3. Primary Intertextual References in Revelation 21–22 Endings are deeply dependent on the rest of the story. To read Revelation as the ending requires reading this text in light of its intertextual references. I have prioritized the numerous allusions and echoes in Revelation as primary intertextual references and some supporting references. We have already used this terminology in Chapter 3 where we mapped out the entire book in terms of its use of intertextuality. Perhaps it is worthwhile to restate my own position at this juncture: I consider as primary the intertexts that go beyond verbal similarities, where the resonance between the texts reaches the deeper levels of theme, structure, and sequence and thus brings a larger textual ¿eld with it. The primary intertextual references have a signi¿cant volume, and they may suggest authorial intentionality. These should provide hermeneutical guidance for a canonical reader. We listen carefully for these canonical allusions and analyse how they shape the vision of Revelation. Supporting references modify and shape the primary references, their volume is lesser, and hearing of these secondary voices may vary from reader to reader, authorial intent is more dif¿cult to discern. Moyise and others in the past have focused their studies on the use of the OT exclusively. In my reading of the text, I am also listening for the echoes of the NT writings. When we hear the echoes of the traditions that found a place in the writings of the NT, it is signi¿cant for the canonical reader to acknowledge them. Our reading is truly canonical only when we involve both the Old and New Testament voices. 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

139

Although John has used the Scriptures abundantly, he is not a commentator, he is writing his own original story. Where there are deliberate departures from the sources we will examine them, otherwise we consider it the nature of intertextuality that the intertext is not simply copied over word by word, but is suited for the new context. Our study is about showing the unity of the Bible and how Revelation completes the biblical story. This is not a source-inÀuence study, where the goal is to identify the particular text or edition of the text that the author of Revelation used. Instead, we are interested in identifying the textual ¿elds and canonical traditions that Revelation echoes and how these clarify our understanding of Revelation. All Bible citations come from either NASB or NRSV. Where helpful, references to the original language have been made. a. The Structure of Revelation 21–22 Revelation 21–22 consists of the following four segments: 1. Revelation 21.1-8 introduces the vision of the new creation, as indicated by the use of a visionary introduction formula ¼č»ÇÅ, ‘I saw’, in 21.1. Revelation includes several sections that both serve as an ending of the previous section and introduce the new development. Revelation 21.1-8 is one of these overlapping sections. Revelation 21.1 introduces the vision of the new Jerusalem, which will be the major theme through 21.9–22.5. However, it also functions as an ending of the previous segment begun in 19.11, as the use of ºšºÇŸŠin 21.6 indicates.11 I have included the segment 21.1-8 in my discussion because of the signi¿cant element of thematic overlap. As a minor subdivision, vv. 1-2 describe what John saw, and vv. 3-9 what he heard. The vision in vv. 1-2 connects loosely to the previous chapter where John vividly describes how the old creation is de-created, as the heaven and earth Àee from the presence of God (20.11). In vv. 3-9 we hear voices from the throne of God. The segment as a whole is inspired by language and imagery of Isaiah.

11. The same verb, in a slightly different form, was also used as an end-marker in 16.17. Fekkes has pointed out that the vision of renewal in Rev. 21–22 must be viewed ‘against the backdrop of the previous series of visions of removal, inÀuenced to a great extent by the judgment prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel’ (Isaiah, 226). 1

140

The Ending of the Canon

2. In Rev. 21.9-21 the intertextual emphasis shifts to Ezekiel, as John gives a detailed description of the new Jerusalem, which in its origins is a description of the eschatological temple in Ezekiel. Some Isaianic inÀuence can also be felt. In addition to this intertextual shift, there are other segment markers present in 21.10, such as ëÅ ÈżŧĸÌÀ and the angel’s invitation, »¼ıÉÇ »¼ţÆÑ ÊÇÀ, ‘come here, I shall show you’, in 21.9. This also duplicates the introduction to the Babylon vision in 17.1, suggesting that these two visions should be viewed in comparison. 3. In Rev. 21.22–22.5 the focus shifts from the activities of the angel back to the observations of John. Whereas in the previous segment John described the city from the outside perspective, here and in the following segment he gives a glimpse of the inside. There is also a shift in intertext. Thus far John has used Ezekiel’s language of temple, but now he states that there is no temple in the new Jerusalem, and returns to Isaiah’s imagery. He states that God and the Lamb comprise its temple. For the rest of the segment, John uses Isaiah’s vision of a city with open gates and no human luminaries, and nations paying tribute to the God Almighty. The mention of the Book of Life in v. 27, brieÀy recalls Daniel. There is a minor break at 22.1 where the attention shifts again to the revelatory activities of the angel (컼ÀƚŠÄÇÀ, ‘[the angel] showed me’, 22.1; so also 21.10). Intertextually, Isaiah is starting to give way to Genesis. This very end and culmination of John’s vision returns us to the beginning of the Bible with the imagery of the river, the tree, and the fruit. 4. Revelation 22.6-21 constitutes a prolonged epilogue. It can be further sub-divided into vv. 6-7, 8-15, and 16-21. Verses 6-7 still conclude the previous vision, but they also start the epilogue. It could be considered another ‘overlap’, but as here, it is usually included with the epilogue materials that follow.12 The fact that it completes the previous vision is seen in the casual reference to the angel as ‘he’ as John cites his words, and it also repeats in 22.6 the phrase used in the beginning of the vision in 21.5 ÇīÌÇÀ ÇĎ ÂŦºÇÀ ÈÀÊÌÇĖ Á¸À Ò¾¿ÀÅÇţ, ‘these words are faithful and true’. The inclusion of a blessing suggests an ending. The progression toward the epilogue is indicated by the reintroduction of ëŠ̊ϼÀ, ‘soon’, in 22.6-7, which also shifts its intertextual focus to Daniel and reminds us about the very beginning of the book (Rev. 1.1). Verses 8-15 detail themes introduced in vv. 6-7 (truthful witness, promise 1

12. So Beale, Revelation, 1122.

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

141

of coming, urgency, and a blessing), but the focus shifts to John as the truthful witness. John also seems to be exemplifying a proper response to the vision: worship. This episode repeats much of the sequence of 19.9-10. A new element compared to the previous section is the mention of rewards (this completes chs. 3 and 4, where rewards were promised). Another new element is the mention of the fate of the wicked. Finally, vv. 16-21 repeat much of what precedes, but now the focus shifts from John to Christ as the ultimate witness. Revelation 22.18 warns against altering the text of the book; in this context it is unclear whether this warning is from John or from Jesus as the ‘I’ in v. 18 seems to be purposefully ambiguous. The continuity of the whole segment is suggested by the sequence of af¿rmations of Christ’s coming that are repeated a total of seven times (22.7, 12, 17 [3×], 20 [2×]). b. Revelation 21.1-8 This segment speaks of God’s renewed relationship with his people through three metaphors: new creation dominates vv. 1, 4-6a, marital covenant is linked to it through interception in vv. 2-3, and promised inheritance comes the fore in vv. 6b-8. Intertextually, the segment is anchored in the references to Isaiah. It is one of the few places in the entire book where the intertextual use of Isaiah reaches the volume of primary reference, and to the levels of structure and location in text. Both in Revelation and in Isaiah, the references to God’s new creation occur at the end of the book. Both present an eschatological model where, after suffering of the righteous, the present chaos is replaced by new creation characterized by joy. There are close allusions between Rev. 21.1-4 and Isa. 65.16-20. However, other sections of Isaiah, as well as Gen. 1, Ezek. 37.27, 2 Sam. 7.14, and some NT traditions are heard also. (1) New Creation Verse 1 declares the creation of a new heaven and a new earth. This clearly alludes to Isa. 65.17: ‘For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind’.13 ‘Former things’ or ‘¿rst things’ (a form of ÈÉľÌÇË appears in both LXX Isa. 65.16-17 and Rev. 21.4) are viewed negatively. Former things are characterized by suffering (weeping and crying), new (Á¸ÀÅŦË) is positive 13. Victorinus acknowledged an allusion to Isa. 65.17 in this passage. See Victorinus’ Commentary on the Apocalypse in Ancient Christian Texts: Latin Commentaries on Revelation (trans. and ed. W. C. Weinrich; Downers Grove, Ill., IVP Academic, 2011), 54. 1

142

The Ending of the Canon

and characterized by joy. The new creation does not mean total annihilation of the ¿rst creation, Andrew of Caesarea explains, but release from bondage (e.g. Rom. 8.21) and renewal into something better.14 The new creation is not a temporary improvement, but a lasting change. Isaiah writes: ‘ “For just as the new heavens and the new earth which I make will endure before Me”, declares the LORD, “So your offspring and your name will endure” ’ (66.22). šÅÑ is used in Isaiah to show the on-going nature of the new creation. John carries the same idea by using phrases expressing ¿nitude, like ÇĤÁ ìÊ̸À ìÌÀ (‘will no longer exist’) for the sea and later for death, crying, and pain (21.1, 4). The reference to a new heaven and a new earth also recalls the creation of the ¿rst heaven and earth (Gen. 1.1). Just as Rev. 21.1-2 serve as an introduction to the following description of the new creation and new Jerusalem (21.10– 22.5), so Gen. 1.1-2 introduces the creation, with a detailed description of creation following (Gen. 1.3–2.3). The original and eschatological creations share much in common: they are both solely the work of God, they are good, and they depict humans in harmony with God. The respective settings of Isaiah’s and John’s visions are different. Isaiah’s new creation is rural while the new Jerusalem is urban. Isaiah speaks of the wolf and the lamb dwelling together in harmony; he envisions lions that eat straw like the ox; the serpent only is doomed to eat dust; no pain or hurt is ever caused to another creature (65.25). Isaiah also speaks of security for humans to build houses and plant vineyards, to live a long life in peace and prosperity (65.21-22). In contrast, while some of the garden imagery is still present (tree of life and rivers) the new Jerusalem is primarily envisioned as an urban entity; the image of humans tending the garden is replaced with the idea of saints ruling with Christ. In this aspect John has departed further from the garden image in Genesis than Isaiah has.15 In the new creation there is no longer any sea (21.1). John is talking about the sea as a mythological enemy.16 In the creation story of Genesis 14. Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse in Ancient Christian Texts: Greek Commentaries on Revelation (trans. W. C. Weinrich; ed. T. C. Oden; Downers Grove, Ill., IVP Academic, 2011), 195. 15. Jaques Ellul argues that Revelation is not portraying a mere return to the original, but a new reality, as God incorporates human history into the new creation that he makes (Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation [New York: Seabury, 1977], 221–3). 16. For the mythological meaning of sea see Beale, Revelation, 1049–51. Boring points out that sea constituted the physical barrier between John and his community that reminded him of his state of imprisonment. Boring, Revelation, 216; see also Swete, Apocalypse, 275–6.

1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

143

God systematically contained the chaotic waters above and below (1.2, 6-10); in the redemption story of Exodus the sea was dried up to make a passage way for the redeemed (Exod. 12 and Isa. 51.10). In Revelation, at the end of the Bible, they do not exist anymore. Readers of Revelation notice that every evil creature in Revelation rises from the sea: Satan who was cast out from heaven stood by the sea (12.18); the sea beast arises from the sea (13.1); the sea is sometimes referred to as an ‘abyss’ or ‘bottomless pit’ (11.7; 17.8); from the abyss the locusts rise (9.1-2); and ÈÇÂÂŧÑÅ (9.11); and Satan is imprisoned there (20.1, 3). Even people associated with the sea are viewed negatively (e.g. merchants, shipmasters, and sailors [18.9-19]).17 This source of threat, chaos, and all demonic creatures, no longer exists. Verses 4-6a continue the theme of renewed creation. Verse 4 repeats the promise of wiping away all tears mentioned in Rev. 7.17. This follows the promise of Isa. 25.7-8 that death will be ‘swallowed up’ and ‘LORD God will wipe away the tears from all faces’. There shall no longer be any death, mourning, crying, or pain in the new creation – a claim emphasized further with the phrase, ‘¿rst things have passed away’ (21.4b). It is as if a shroud that was cast over nations is pulled off (25.7). Isaiah states that, when the Lord of hosts will reign on Mt. Zion and in Jerusalem (Isa. 24.23), then there will be a lavish banquet for all peoples (25.6) and God ‘will swallow up death for all time, and the Lord God will wipe tears away from all faces’ (Isa. 25.8). The replacement of sorrow with joy is also highlighted in Isa. 35.10; 51.11; 65.19. The emphasis in this section is on universal nature of this renewal words like ‘mortals’ (v. 3), ‘peoples’ (v. 3), and ‘all’ (v. 5) are used. In v. 5 we hear God’s declaration from the throne: ‘Look, I will make all things new’. This echoes Isa. 43.19: ‘behold I make new things’.18 This is stated in the context of God’s redeeming Israel from their former sufferings; God is referred to as Redeemer in Isa 43.14 and as the ‘Creator of Israel’ in 43.15. The context also speaks of the deliverance from Babylon and the encouragement to forget the former things, as God is doing something new (Isa. 43.18; cf. 65.17). This may create the bridge between these chapters. Beale suggests that John could also have used Isa. 66.22: ‘the new heavens and a new earth that I make’.19 Though 17. See also Resseguie, Revelation, 32–3, 179–80. Some separate the ‘sea’ and ‘abyss’ into two different realms, with the ¿rst the realm of the dead and the second the realm of demonic beings. See Mathias Rissi, Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Revelation 19.11–22.15 (SBT 2nd series 23; Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1966), 68–9. 18. Fekkes also links Rev. 21.5a to Isa. 43.19a (Isaiah, 258). 19. Beale, Revelation, 1052. 1

144

The Ending of the Canon

it would be nearer in location to the other Isaiah references used in this section (esp. 65.17), the former is closer to the actual wording and overall context. If I am correct, then John wants us to focus on the fact that renewal of creation involves renewed relationship with God’s people. Importantly, John has added ‘all’ to Isaiah’s words to emphasize the universal and comprehensive nature of the renewal. A canonical reader may also detect a parallel with 2 Cor. 5.17 (which likewise uses Isa. 43.19): ‘So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!’ According to Paul, new creation is part of the Christian experience already, but Revelation looks forward to its ¿nal unveiling.20 Although Isaiah is clearly the writer’s primary source of inÀuence, a canonical reader may recall other passages, such as 2 Pet. 3.10-13, that witness to the new creation. Renewal was a widely held Christian hope, and John was hardly the ¿rst one to notice the promises of Isaiah and similar OT texts. The writer of Hebrews shares the view that the present creation is temporary (Heb. 1.10-12; cf. Ps. 102.25-28).21 In envisioning the hope of a new creation, John is therefore standing in the theological tradition of both testaments. After announcing the renewal of all things, the voice from the throne adds: ‘Write, because these words are trustworthy and true’ (Rev. 21.5; cf. 22.6). In Rev. 3.14 Jesus was called ‘Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God’s creation’. Like so many of John’s christological statements, this language is derived from Isaiah. Beale has pointed out that Hebrew ‘amen’ in Isa. 65.16 is translated by different Greek versions (LXX, Aquila, Symmachus) respectively with Ò¾¿ÀÅŦË, ‘truth’, ÈÀÊÌŦË, ‘faithful’, and ÒÄŢÅ, ‘amen’. Revelation 21.5 is a creative translation of Isa. 65.16a. The phrase in Isa. 65.16b, ‘former troubles are forgotten’, created a link to this divine title within this context.22 In v. 6a God’s declaration comes in the form of a single, dramatic perfect active indicative verb: ºšºÇŸŠ(‘it is done’). It occurred once before in 16.17, where it marked the end of the bowl plagues. Here it marks the completeness of salvation and new creation. It is the rhetorical 20. The present tense in Rev. 21.5 (Á¸ÀÅÛ ÈÇÀľ ÈŠÅ̸) should be understood as futuristic present. All the oracles of Isaiah alluded to in Rev. 21.1, 4-5 use the present tense while speaking of the future. Ibid., 1054. 21. The ancient commentator Andrew of Caesarea heard the echo of Ps. 102 and commented that the renewal ‘does not involve the annihilation of its substance, but rather indicates the smoothing out of its agedness and its wrinkles’ (Ancient Christian Texts: Greek Commentaries on Revelation, 195). 22. Beale, Revelation, 1053.

1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

145

culmination of John’s vision. Boxall has commented that ‘for a book such as the Apocalypse, in which the End has been delayed so often and the cycles of visions have been so repetitive, it seems hard to believe that it has ¿nally arrived’.23 The voice from the throne continues: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end’. This emphasizes that the narrative of God’s acts in creation, de-creation, and re-creation has reached its completion. God has set the universe right through the witness of Christ. The previous occurrence of ºšºÇŸŠin 16.17 was followed by powerful theophanies: earthquake, darkness, and so on. Only a few events in the canon have had such earth-shattering importance, the main one being the death of Christ (Mt. 27.50-54). John 19.30 recorded Christ’s last word on the cross with a dramatic perfect passive verb ̼̚¼Ê̸À, ‘it is ¿nished’, which has a similar rhetorical effect. Although there is no verbal link between Rev. 21.6 and Jn 19.30, an echo may still occur in the mind of the reader of the canon, because of the similar theophanies, and a strong emphasis on completeness of God’s work. As we have noted earlier, many of John’s christological titles are developed from Isaiah. The title ‘Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end’ occurs in several versions throughout the book (1.8, 17; 2.8; 21.6; 22.13) and is inspired by Isa. 48.12b: ‘I am He, I am the ¿rst, I am also the last’ (cf. Isa. 41.4; 44.6).24 Although the actual wording of the title in 21.6 – ëºŪ ¼ĊÄÀ Ìġ ÓÂθ Á¸Ė Ìġ ķ ÷ ÒÉÏü Á¸Ė Ìġ ÌšÂÇË – bears little resemblance to the LXX’s ëºŪ ÈÉľÌÇË Á¸Ė ëºĽ ļÌÛ Ì¸ı̸, the multiple occurrences and preservation of some of the surrounding context support that Isaiah was the point of inspiration for at least the latter part of the title, whereas the origins of Alpha and Omega are unknown.25 In Rev. 1.8, 17; 2.8, and 22.13 it is Christ who bears this title, while in 21.6 it is the Father. In Rev. 3.14 Christ was also referred to as ‘the origin of God’s creation’. It is hard to exaggerate its christological importance. For the author of Revelation, Christ was not just the Redeemer, but also Creator; he will also be the Lord of creation forever. 23. Boxall, Revelation, 296. 24. In this respect Isa. 44.6 is interesting, because here in the segment 44.1-6 the title ‘I am the ¿rst and I am the last’ is preceded by the remark of creation, and followed by God’s promise to give abundant water to the faithful who bear the name of the LORD. These themes are closely linked also in Rev. 21.6; 22.1-4, 13. 25. Fekkes, Isaiah, 74, 122–7. Fekkes points out that ‘the ¿rst and the last’ comes from Isaiah, and that at least in the occurrence of the phrase in 1.17 and 22.13, ëºŪ ¼ĊÄÀ ĝ ÈÉľÌÇË Á¸Ė ĝ ìÊϸÌÇË, John is drawing directly on Hebrew text: 0#:% '1# 0#f: '1 (ibid., 122). 1

146

The Ending of the Canon

Here Revelation increasingly begins to recall the beginning of Revelation, as well as to the beginning of the Bible. It starts to wrap up its ‘revelation of Jesus Christ’ begun in Rev. 1.1, as well as the story that began in Gen. 1.1 with ‘In the beginning God…’. Genesis states that God ‘completed’ (ÊÍÅ̚¼ʼÅ) his creation (LXX Gen. 2.1). Yet, after reading the whole story, we can say that it is fully completed only when Rev. 21.6 comes to pass, when the Alpha and the Omega declares that judgment on the old world is ful¿lled (ºšºÇŸÅ) and the new creation is completed (ºëºÇŸÅ). John makes it clear that just as ‘in the beginning God’, so also ‘at the end, God’. The Creator completes his creation, and only God is the source and end goal of history. (2) Marital Covenant In v. 2 John departs from the creation theme to introduce the new Jerusalem. He is probably led by Isa. 65.17-19, which mentions the renewal of Jerusalem immediately after speaking of the new creation. John speaks of the new Jerusalem using the metaphor of a bride. Since this metaphor was already introduced in 19.7-9, we must see these passages in unison. Fekkes has suggested that in 19.7-9 we have a marriage announcement and the preparation of the bride, in 21.2 we have the grand entry of the bride, and in 21.9-21 we have the description of the bride.26 These episodes combine into a picture of a wedding of the eschatological community and the Lamb. The passive voice is used in 21.2, suggesting that the new Jerusalem is prepared in heaven; her perfect holiness is not her own accomplishment, but is a God-given privilege for faithfulness (as promised in 3.4-5). The passive voice was also used in the ¿rst section where the bride was mentioned (19.8). Wedding garments symbolize the righteous acts of the saints. This imagery in both passages is drawn from Isa. 61.10 and 52.1, where the garment is also used as a metaphor to speak of strength, salvation, and righteousness.27 John used the imagery of wearing pure or white garments and sometimes garments puri¿ed in blood in connection to the faithful in Rev. 3.17-18; 4.4; 6.11; 7.9, 13-14; 19.13-14; 22.14. Likewise John used the imagery of wearing soiled or inappropriate garments or nakedness to represent those whose faith is in some sense compromised (3.17-18) and imagery of unrighteous luxury worn by those who oppress the faithful, which will be stripped away in judgment (17.4, 16; 18.16, 24). Also Mt. 22.11-14’s story of a wedding guest who appeared without proper

1

26. Ibid., 232. 27. See ibid., 231–2.

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

147

wedding attire is heard here. The passive voice in 21.2 calls attention to the mutuality of this relationship: as God is the one who creates holiness in God’s people, God’s people must also actively participate through faithfulness and holy conduct. As marriage is based on a mutual consent, not to be forced, so also holiness cannot be forced. Language of marriage covenant, husband and wife, groom and bride, are stock prophetic imagery for expressing Yahweh’s relationship with his people (e.g. Isa. 61.10; 62.4-5; 49.18; 54.5-6; Jer. 2.2; 3.20; 31.32; Ezek. 16.32; 23.1-49; Hos. 2). In the canonical context, God’s marriage with his people has, at times, been rocky. Idolatry (which prophets compared to adultery) challenged Israel. Revelation also portrays this struggle though the activities of the beasts and dragon and whoreBabylon. The beauty of the bride/Jerusalem (Rev. 21.2) stands in stark contrast with the impurity of the whore/Babylon (17.4). Although the celestial wedding is announced before the great ¿nal battle, it actually takes place after the ¿nal judgment in 19.17–20.10. Because evil is ¿nally destroyed, this promises to be an enduring relationship. While other prophets use nuptial imagery, Isaiah is the only place where the marriage imagery is untainted and thoroughly positive, describing the eschatological covenant of Yahweh and his faithful remnant.28 The term ‘new Jerusalem’ does not actually occur in the OT/HB and it only occurs twice in the Apocalypse (3.12; 21.2), yet the entity is referred to elsewhere as ‘the bride of the Lamb’ (19.7; 21.2, 9; 22.17), ‘the holy city’ (21.2, 10; 22.19), or ‘the city of God’ (3.12). The concept of a new Jerusalem is clearly present in the OT (e.g. Ezek. 40–48; Isa 52.1; 54.11-17; 60–62; Zech. 12–14). The idea of a new Jerusalem was also a part of the eschatological expectations of Qumran community and other groups within the Second Temple Judaism.29 Paul has spoken of it (Phil. 3.20; Gal. 4.26), as has the author of Hebrews (11.10; 12.22; 13.14). This evidences a common pool of images for restoration. Clearly, the idea of a city of God as an eschatological community is not John’s original creation and his readers would have likely been familiar with 28. Ibid., 235. 29. Visions of an eschatological Jerusalem are found in the so-called New Jerusalem ar scrolls, which include 1QJN (1Q32); 2QJN (2Q24); 4QJNa and 4QJNb (4Q554-555); 5QJN (5Q15); and 11QJN (11Q18) and Temple Scroll. Other documents that include the idea include Tob. 13.16-17; 14.5; 1 En. 90.28-29; Jub. 1.27-29; 2 Esd. 7.26; 10.25-59; T. Benj. 9.2; T. Dan 5.12-13; 2 Bar. 4; 32.2-4. See Loren J. Johns, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Apocalypse of John’, in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. 3, The Scrolls and Christian Origins (ed. James H. Charlesworth; The Princeton Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls; Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006), 264–7. Also Mathewson, A New Heaven, 42. 1

148

The Ending of the Canon

some form of such expectation. I see no intended intertextual relationships among Revelation and these non-canonical texts or the abovementioned NT passages; nevertheless, a canonical reader will recognize a shared tradition stemming from Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah. The theological importance of the eschatological Jerusalem is seen throughout the canon, as far back as the priest-king of Salem episode in Gen. 14.18-20 (cf. Ps. 76.2) and the narratives of David as well as the traditions reÀected in the Psalms (e.g. 2 Sam. 24.18-25; 2 Kgs 8; Pss. 68.29; 122). Jerusalem was a site of pilgrimage and the theological centre from which God rules and judges the earth. Isaiah envisions that Jerusalem will be part of God’s new creation (66.20-24). This eschatological Jerusalem differs from the corrupt and apostate earthly Jerusalem described in Isa. 1.30 Although never mentioned by name but rather understood from the context, Isa. 54 refers to God redeeming Jerusalem. Isaiah compares Jerusalem to a forsaken barren woman (54.1). But God will forgive her and she will be his wedded wife (54.5), adorned with jewels, and built of precious stones (54.11-12). These reverberate in Revelation’s image of the new Jerusalem as a bride adorned for her husband (21.2). John sees the new Jerusalem ‘coming down’ (Á¸Ì¸¹¸ţÅÑ) from heaven. This evokes Christ-tradition as Á¸Ì¸¹¸ţÅÑ is used in all gospels for the Spirit’s descending on Jesus at his baptism (Mt. 3.16; Mk 1.10; Lk. 3.22; Jn 1.32) as well as in John 6, which is Jesus’ discourse with the multitude where he presents himself as God’s living bread ‘which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world’. In Pauline materials Á¸Ì¸¹¸ţÅÑ is used in relation to Christ’s descending and parousia (Eph. 4.9-10; Rom. 10.6-8; 1 Thess. 4.16). Just as Christ, the bridegroom, came down from heaven, so will the bride, the new Jerusalem. It is not to say that some sort of physical ‘rapture’ of the church is to be imagined in the Apocalypse. Rather, the language draws attention to God’s agency in the formation of his covenant people, perhaps to emphasize that the faithful who have died are already with God (as 1 Thess. 4.14; Rev. 6.9-11; 20.4) and those who are alive are united with them. While the overall Isaiah-gravity of this section of the Apocalypse is without question, and the use of OT nuptial imagery is evident, a canonical reader will likely notice some NT inÀuences as well. Marriage imagery features in the Synoptic Gospels, according to which Jesus alluded to himself as ‘the bridegroom’ and to his disciples as ‘the wedding guests’ (Mt. 9.14-15; Mk 2.18-20; Lk. 5.33-35). Jesus also

1

30. See also Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning, 5–10, 18–19.

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

149

spoke of the kingdom of God as a great wedding banquet that a king gave to his son to which many were invited (Mt. 22.1-13; Lk. 14.16-24). The Parable of the Ten Virgins cautions disciples to be prepared in case of a delay in parousia and here also Jesus is described as ‘the bridegroom’ (Mt. 25.1-13). Beyond the Synoptic Gospels, John reports that John the Baptist alluded to Jesus as ‘the bridegroom’ (Jn 3.29). And Jesus’ glory was ¿rst revealed to his disciples (according to Jn 2.1-11) in the context of a wedding in Cana. Beyond the gospel tradition, Paul too spoke allegorically of Christ as the husband and the holy church as the wife in 2 Cor. 11.2, Eph. 5.22-23, and possibly also in 1 Cor. 6.15-20. Vos found that the closest comparisons exist with the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels and that the author of Apocalypse was probably acquainted with the Parable of the Wedding Feast. Vos also noted some speci¿c parallels between Rev. 19.7-9 and Mt. 22.1-14: (1) the marriage feast is announced; (2) the bride/guest is/is not properly attired; (3) blessings on those that are invited/many are invited; (4) marriage supper.31 The consummation of this marriage will end all mourning and crying (21.4). The canonical reader recognizes this as a reversal of the mourning, which Jesus predicted in connection to ‘the bridegroom’ being taken away from the disciples (Mt. 9.14-15; Mk 2.18-20; Lk. 5.33-35). Now, in this vision of the parousia the mourning is over because Christ is united with his people, the feast begins. In v. 3 John hears a loud voice from the throne: ‘Look, the tent of God is with the people, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them, [he will be their God]’. This statement could be viewed as a wedding vow. Fekkes has noticed that it could actually be patterned after ancient Near Eastern marriage contracts.32 He also adds that the phrase ‘I will be their God, and they shall be my people’ is often used in prophetic writings alongside wedding imagery (e.g. Hos. 1–2; Jer. 31; Ezek. 16). This verse is pregnant with echoes. Words such as ‘dwell’ and ‘tabernacle’ remind readers of their holy history: from Eden’s perfect garden, to the exodus and the wilderness wanderings, to the building of the ¿rst tabernacle and later two temples, to the church. John thus takes readers on a journey through the canon. To the list of places where God is shown to dwell especially – Eden, tabernacle, temple, and, through Christ’s 31. Vos, The Synoptic Tradition, 174. Vos considered the bride and the guests to be one and the same in the Apocalypse (see pp. 164–5). 32. E.g. a marriage contract from Elephantine reads: ‘She is my wife and I her husband from this day forever’ (Arthur E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC [Oxford: Clarendon, 1923], 44–6). See Fekkes, Isaiah, 248 n. 56.

1

150

The Ending of the Canon

promise, the church – new creation is now added. Repeatedly, God’s presence is conditional upon the people’s obedience and faithfulness to Yahweh (cf. Lev. 26.11-12). In the beginning God planted the garden of Eden to be a place for humanity to live (Gen. 2.8-10). Eden had a tree of life and rivers Àowing all around, it had abundant life in it. God is described in Genesis as walking around in the garden in the evening breeze and speaking to humans face to face. Human disobedience (3.8) disrupted this harmony, and humanity was expelled from Eden (3.23-24). The redemption story begins with the patriarchs, but the ¿rst mention of God’s calling any nation ‘my people’ is in Exod. 3.6-8. Here God introduces himself as God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and chooses the Israelite slaves as his people. ‘My people’ functions as an often-used adoption formula (e.g. Lev. 26.12; Ezek. 37.28). Having adopted and redeemed for himself a nation, God decided to live among Israel, and the tabernacle was built for that purpose (Exod. 25.8). God’s dwelling place, perhaps nothing more than a glori¿ed version of a tent that the families of Israelites themselves would have lived in, was the very centre of Israelite community, with the twelve tribes given designated dwelling areas in relation to the tabernacle (Num. 2). As a sanctuary that moved along in the journey with the people, the tabernacle was perhaps the most powerful OT image of God’s presence among his people. The temple became the successor of the tabernacle as the transitory Israel settled in the Promised Land. It seemed only appropriate that when people live in houses, their God would also live in a permanent dwelling. Theologically, it is made clear that the building of the temple was not a human initiative.33 The continued disobedience of Israel, and its misguided perception of the temple as a token and guarantor of God’s presence, whatever their spiritual condition, led to God’s withdrawal from the temple and its ultimate destruction. Ezekiel 10 describes this withdrawal of presence in a vision. Its destruction by the Babylonian army follows in 586/7 B.C. (2 Kgs 25.8-10; 2 Chr. 36.15-21; Jer. 52). This event is perhaps among the greatest theological and national crises in Israel’s narrative.

33. David’s ¿rst request to build Yahweh a permanent house was denied (2 Sam. 7). Instead, God promises to build a ‘house’ (i.e. a ‘dynasty’ for David). God chooses the king for the throne of Israel, God chooses who would build the temple, and God reminds that his presence is contingent on the obedience of Israel and its king (1 Kgs 6.11-13; 9.6-9). 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

151

Ezekiel 43 (later reÀected in Rev. 21.9-21) envisions a new temple and promises God’s presence among his people, provided they are obedient (43.6-9). Ezekiel 37.24-28 also envisions a renewed community after Israel and Judah have cleansed themselves from their transgressions. Their renewed covenant relationship will include God setting his sanctuary in their midst forever in order to dwell among them. The formula ‘I will be their God and they will be My people’ is used again (Ezek. 37.27). Forevermore, Ezekiel sees Jerusalem renamed as !/g !#!', ‘The LORD is there’ (Ezek. 48.35). Ezekiel’s vision remains grander than anything that came to pass after the exiles returned; it remains an eschatological ideal, an ideal revisited in Revelation.34 The second temple, which the exiles built, and that King Herod the Great enlarged into a magni¿cent complex (the project, that according to Jn 2.20, took 46 years), would never gather much spiritual gravity from the point of view of the canon. In the NT it would be the focus of conÀict between Jesus and the Jewish religious leadership. Jesus visited the temple during his public ministry, preaching there, causing interruptions in its activities, calling it ‘a den of robbers’, performing controversial healings in or near it, and, ¿nally, proclaiming its destruction. It appears from the Gospels that, from the political point of view, these episodes were the proximate cause of Jesus’s execution.35 Although the Letter to the Hebrews elaborates on the temple priesthood and sacri¿cial system (which at that time appears to be still in operation – e.g. 9.8-10; 8.13), it transfers its theological signi¿cance and mediatory function to Christ (chs. 9–10). Revelation’s vision of the new Jerusalem has certain similarities to the Qumran apocalyptic hopes of a renewed Jerusalem. Adela Yarbro Collins writes: The Dead Sea Scrolls attest three different but related visions or dreams of a new Jerusalem. First, the sectarian community understood itself as a metaphorically restored Jerusalem and as a living temple, offering 34. The second temple that was rededicated in 516 B.C. gives to the remnant of Judah hope for God’s presence among them. However, the rebuilt sanctuary is pale compared to the original (Hag. 2.2-3). 35. Eusebius records the ful¿llment of Jesus’ prediction that the temple will be destroyed (Hist. eccl. 3.5). He noted that Christians anticipated this destruction and left the city before the siege. The fact that Christians did not mourn for the temple is telling. This is different from the destruction of the ¿rst temple over which the prophet Jeremiah bitterly lamented, even though he had himself predicted its destruction. Similarly to Jeremiah, Jesus lamented over the destruction that he predicted because he was overcome with sorrow for the people’s sufferings. However, Jesus never spoke of restoration of the temple, only of his own body (John 2.19-21). 1

152

The Ending of the Canon ‘sacri¿ces of the lips’. These ideas are expressed in the Rule of the Community, the Melchizedek scroll, and the Commentary on Isaiah. Second, the community probably composed, and at least read and preserved, a detailed blueprint or set of norms for the ideal temple, namely, the Temple Scroll [and third] a vision of a new Jerusalem, a glorious and everlasting city and a temple brought into being by God.36

While asserting the ful¿lment of visions such as Isa. 54 and Ezek. 40–48 Revelation af¿rms consistently with the rest of the NT tradition (and unlike some teaching of the Qumran community) that the physical temple has become obsolete (21.22). In line with some Qumran traditions, the author of Revelation equates his own faith community as the spiritual new Jerusalem. It is evident from such texts that although the physical temple did not live up to what it was meant to be, the idea of the temple remained powerful even after the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans. Even for the Christian community that does not set hopes in the physical building, the temple remains a powerful part of sacred language symbolizing the intimate presence of God and the separation from the world. It draws a line between holy and unholy. It is a symbolic space for repentance before God and restoration of human relationships. It is a space that needs to be visited regularly. It is a space that invites believers in, but also sets up boundaries and conditions. It is a space that creates identity as people belonging exclusively to Yahweh. Similarly, Jn 14.23 speaks of God dwelling with his new covenant people (church) using the implied temple imagery: ‘If anyone loves Me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him’. It is important to notice that, even in the NT, the prerequisite for the presence of God is obedience. Paul also writes in 2 Cor. 6.16-18, which is itself a cluster of intertextual references, that Christians are the temple of the living God: ‘I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate’, says the Lord. ‘And do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me’, says the Lord Almighty.

The Apocalypse begins with the image of Christ walking among the candlesticks (which were the luminaries used in the temple), representing the church that is to illuminate the world with Christ (1.12-13, 20). This symbolizes that God is present and dwells in the midst of the church as 36. Adela Yarbro Collins, ‘The Dream of a New Jerusalem at Qumran’, in Charlesworth, ed., The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 3:254. 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

153

he once dwelled and conversed with humanity in the garden, in the tabernacle, and in the temple. Using canonical imagery reaching as far back as Genesis, John shows the future as dwelling in God’s presence in his new creation. By drawing upon theological capital of God’s dwellings in the OT and NT (garden, tabernacle, temple, church) and blending it with wedding imagery, John has created a powerful picture of covenant togetherness. One of the ¿rst known commentators on the Apocalypse, Andrew of Caesarea, saw the wedding of Christ and the Church as a kind of a replication of the creation of Eve. He writes concerning the ‘wife of the Lamb’ (21.9): ‘For just as the woman was formed out of the sleeping Adam, by removal from side, thus also, Christ having voluntarily slept by death on the cross, the Church, constituted by the pouring out of blood from his side, is given in marriage, having been united to the One suffering for us’.37 In a single sentence Andrew outlined a parallel between the beginning (creation), middle (salvation), and the ending (consummation) of the canonical story: as the ¿rst Adam married Eve so the Second Adam (Christ) marries the Church. There is no closer union known to human experience. By employing such imagery John is appealing to his readers’ imagination in order to create a strong sense of identity and desire to be united in Christ. Canonical context allows John’s language to achieve its purpose. (3) Promised Inheritance Verses 6b-8 draw a contrasting parallel between two groups of people: the thirsty/the ones who conquer, and others, to whom I will refer collectively as ‘idolaters’. The segment is governed by two verbs: »ŪÊÑ (»ÑɼŠÅ) (‘I will give [as a gift]’, v. 6b) and Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄŢʼÀ (‘will inherit’, v. 7). There is no explicit verb in v. 8. The parallel nature of the passage suggests that we should carry forward the force of »ŪÊÑ (»ÑɼŠÅ): ‘[I will give] as their share [to be in] the lake that burns with ¿re and brimstone, which is the second death’. This emphasizes God’s active role in distributing both the rewards and punishment. The language of this segment (as these verbs indicate) is that of inheritance. People will inherit either the water of life along with all the blessings of the new creation, or the lake of ¿re referred to as the second death.

37. Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse (trans. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou; FC 123; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 223.

1

154

The Ending of the Canon

Water given freely as a gift from the spring of the water of life in v. 6b may evoke a number of echoes.38 To a canonical reader this may bring to mind the rivers Àowing out of Eden, supplying life (Gen. 2.10), or the thirsty crowds supplied with water Àowing from a rock (Exod. 17.6), or even Jesus’ conversation with a woman at the Jacob’s well (John 4.7-15) or Jesus’ proclamation: ‘Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let anyone who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, “Out of the believer’s heart shall Àow rivers of living water” ’ (John 7.37-38). Judging, however, from the overall Isaiah-gravity of this section, it is most likely that the author has drawn attention to Isa. 55.1: ‘Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.’39 The image is that of God refreshing the people who are weary from waiting for God’s promises to be ful¿lled and redemption to arrive. In contrast to this gift of water given to the faithful is the lake of ¿re describing the agony of the idolaters (v. 8). Instead of satisfying and lifesustaining water, this lake consists of burning ¿re, aggravating thirst and leading to death. Verse 7 speaks of those who overcome. The articular participle ĝ ÅÀÁľÅ could also be translated as ‘the overcoming one’. The overcomers will inherit ‘these things’. It is natural to assume that ̸ı̸ refers to the new creation in general, as well as the list of promises given in Rev. 2–3 in particular. All these promises, except for the promise to the church of Pergamum (2.17), are shown ful¿lled in the last visions of Revelation: Ephesus Smyrna Pergamum Thyatira

Sardis

to eat from the tree of life (2.7) – ful¿lled in 22.2; shall not be hurt by the second death (2.11) – ful¿lled in 20.6; God will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone, which no one knows but he who receives it (2.17) – no ful¿llment is explicitly mentioned; God will give him authority over the nations and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from my father; and I will give him the morning star (2.26-28) – ful¿lled in 20.4-6 and 22.16; shall be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before my father, and before his angels (3.5) – ful¿lled in 19.14; 20.12;

38. It stands in contrast to the beastly economic system where only those who gave their loyalty to the beast could buy or sell (13.17). Instead of living waters, it was the blood of the saints and witnesses that was Àowing in Babylon (17.6). 39. Fekkes considers this reference to Isa. 55.1 in Rev. 21.6 – especially when supported by the contextual use in 22.17 – virtually certain (Isaiah, 260–4, 281). 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon Philadelphia

Laodicea

155

I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write upon him the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven from my God and my new name. (3.12) – ful¿lled in 21.9-27; 22.14; and I will grant to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcome and sat down with my father on his throne (3.21) – ful¿lled in 20.4; 22.5.

Readers know better than to take these rewards too literally. Apocalyptic literature seeks to engage the reader’s emotions by the use of such lofty and detailed language to describe the coming world. These seven rewards describe different aspects of the same basic reality.40 The essence of the rewards appears to be that the people of God will experience the presence of God in the coming kingdom. The life-giving nature of this relationship is emphasized in the rewards of Ephesus and Smyrna. Strong identity in Christ is emphasized in the rewards to Pergamum and Philadelphia. Authority is emphasized in the rewards to Thyatira and Laodicea and purity in the reward to Sardis. Endings depend on the previous narrative. Although the meaning of ‘overcoming’ is obscure when read in isolation, in the light of the canonical story it is clear. One of God’s original instructions to humanity was a command to ‘conquer the earth and rule’ (Gen. 1.28). However it quickly became a story of humanity’s failures: Adam and Eve fail to overcome the serpent; Israel fails to overcome its temptations in the wilderness and falls repeatedly into idolatry; the kingdoms of Israel and Judah fail to trust God and overcome their enemies. Christ, in contrast, endured the testing in the wilderness (Mk 1.13; cf. Mt. 4.1-11; Lk. 4.113), and overcame Satan and death by enduring the cross (e.g. Mt. 27.4050). He is portrayed as the ultimate Overcomer in Rev. 3.21. Christians are called to follow Christ’s path of loyal witness, and ¿ght the dragon/ serpent of old, if necessary, until death (Rev. 12.11). Many themes will be brought to closure in this victory: the devil is introduced in Gen. 3.1 and will ¿nally be conquered in Rev. 20. Death, the enemy that entered the scene in Gen. 3.19, is the last enemy to be conquered in Rev. 20.14. All idolaters will be destroyed in the lake of ¿re in Rev. 20.15. The curse (Gen. 3.6) is lifted and even reversed into a blessing in Rev. 22.3. The great battle with Satan that began in Genesis will be over.41 40. Sandy, Plowshares, 28–32. 41. Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch have suggested that Revelation is a composite work where only 1.4–3.22 and 20.11–22.5 are actually part of the original 1

156

The Ending of the Canon

Revelation states that the ‘overcomer’ will inherit these things (Á¾ÉÇÅÇÄŢʼÀ). The Greek uses singular for the verb as well as singular pronouns throughout the verse.42 However, the meaning is corporate (just as 21.3, ‘they will be his people’), as every person who refuses to compromise their faith in Christ and who overcomes the temptations of Satan in all its manifestations will be part of the community that will inherit God’s eschatological blessings. The singular in 21.7, ìÊÇĸÀ ¸ĤÌÑ ¿¼ġË Á¸Ė ¸ĤÌġË ìÊ̸À ÄÇÀ ÍĎġË (‘I will be his God and he will be my son’), reÀects the use of the Davidic promise now ful¿lled in Christ: ëºĽ ìÊÇĸÀ ¸ĤÌŊ ¼ĊË È¸ÌšÉ¸ Á¸Ė ¸ĤÌġË ìÊ̸À ÄÇÀ ¼ĊË ÍĎŦÅ (2 Sam. 7.14 LXX).43 The language of this promise further highlights the theme of inheritance, and God’s covenant faithfulness to his church. The canonical reader recognizes the importance of the theme of inheritance as the vehicle of passing down God’s covenant promises. Beginning with the Abraham and patriarchal narratives, the concept of inheritance is used to communicate the nature of God’s relationship with his people. When God revealed himself to Abraham and promised him a land, Abraham lamented that there is no one to be his heir to inherit what he had been promised; in response God gave him Isaac (Gen. 15.2-4). Of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, the nation of Israel was born, but the children of Israel ended up as slaves in Egypt. God then called his son Israel out of Egypt so that Israel would inherit the land promised to Abraham’s children (e.g. Exod. 3.7-8; 4.22; 23.30; Deut. 1.8). God’s promise of inheritance was renewed with King David, to whom God promised a lasting dynasty (2 Sam. 7.14). Jesus, the true Israel, God’s ¿rstborn Son, and the messianic son of David, promised to his followers that they would inherit the earth, the kingdom of God, and eternal life as their eschatological rewards (e.g. Mt. 5.5; 19.29; 25.34). Paul assumed the letter to seven churches, and everything else (that is not presented in actual letter form) is inserted by later editors. They see the theme of conquering and rewards as central to these epistolary parts (Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000], 8–11, 25–8). I disagree with their deconstruction. Also I see conquering as a key theme throughout the book. Especially, chs. 5, 14, and 19 portray Christ as the victorious Lamb bearing the wounds of the battle and conquering on behalf of his people. To write these parts off as insertions would be to rob Revelation of its plot, and the canonical story of its culmination 42. The NRSV does not preserve these singulars, perhaps to emphasize the understood corporate nature, and to avoid the use of masculine pronouns as well as the word ‘son’. 43. Also supported by Beale, who adds that the singular may draw attention to the fact that ‘[s]ince the saints are “in Christ” (cf. 1.9), they will inherit fully what he inherits’ (Revelation, 1058). 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

157

inheritance belonged to the children of God, as he warned that nobody would fall short of receiving this inheritance (1 Cor. 6.9-10; 15.50; Gal. 5.21). Likewise, Peter spoke of salvation as the inheritance of the people of God, foreseen by the prophets, but fully revealed in the eschatological future; he states that because of this inheritance Christians should joyfully endure the temporary trials and sufferings (1 Pet. 1.3-12). The author of Hebrews puts an interesting twist on this; after the impressive list of ‘overcomers’ from the OT, the writer of Hebrews concludes: ‘And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect’ (Heb. 11.39-40). Even of Abraham and Sarah, Hebrews says that they welcomed their promises only from a distance (Heb. 11.13), but died without receiving them. Only Revelation’s glimpse of the eschatological victorious church brings this promised inheritance to its ful¿lment. In v. 8, ‘the overcomers’ are contrasted with the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars. Except for the ‘cowardly’ and ‘unbelieving’, we have already encountered these (cf. 13.8, 11-17; 17.2-3, 6; 18.3, 23-24). This list can be summarized under the term ‘idolatry’, the chief sin throughout the Bible. Elsewhere in the NT, where such vice lists exist, it is emphasized that those engaging in idolatry do not inherit the kingdom of God.44 Instead, they will inherit ¿re, brimstone, and the second death. c. Revelation 21.9-21 In vv. 9-21 we have the vision of the city-temple from the outside perspective. Verses 9-10 are transitional; they shift from the marriage covenant imagery to the city-temple imagery.45 These verses also set up the comparison with the whore-Babylon. In vv. 12-21 John’s description of the new Jerusalem progresses in the following order: vv. 12-14 present the structure of the city (wall, gates, foundations), vv. 15-17 present the measurements/proportions of the city and vv. 18-21 describe the materials of the city. Intertextually, the segment relies heavily on the measuring of the temple in Ezek. 40–48, but the description of the building materials in vv. 18-21 include also elements from Isa. 54.11-12 (a building oracle), and the listing of the costly stones reÀects the backgrounds of Exod. 28.15-21; 39.8-14; Gen. 2.11-12 (Eden imagery), as well as Ezek. 28.13. 44. E.g., Rom. 1.29-31; 1 Cor. 5.9-11; 6.9; Gal. 5.19-21. 45. Such transformation from a woman into a city/Zion/Jerusalem has a parallel in 2 Esd. 10.27, 44. 1

158

The Ending of the Canon

(1) City-Temple: External Perspective Verses 9-10 provide a transition from the marriage covenant language to the city-temple imagery. Both images speak of the same reality – the people of God/church renewed – but the new image helps to highlight new aspects of this reality: boundaries, access, different aspects of holiness, and relationship to God. These verses also set up a comparison between bride/new Jerusalem and whore/Babylon. The comparison is not explicitly stated, but indicated through the use of similar introductions. In v. 10 John is carried in spirit to view a magni¿cent city from a great high mountain. This is almost identical to his introduction earlier to the vision of the whore-Babylon: ‘And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness; and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names’ (17.3). Being carried in spirit is part of Ezekiel’s visionary language (Ezek. 2.2; 3.12, 14, 24; 11.1, 24; 37.1; 43.5), and we have already mentioned that John uses the phrase ‘in spirit’ to structure his book (1.10; 4.2; 17.3; 21.10). The location of the visions of the harlot and the bride is different: John sees the harlot in the wilderness (17.3), but the bride from a high mountain (21.10). Both locations are loaded with theological associations.46 John has used the image of wilderness earlier for the woman who symbolized the church – she was protected there for a while (12.6). But this segment relied on Exodus imagery and its meaning does not carry over into the description of Babylon. Because this segment is so heavily invested in Ezekiel, we should perhaps turn to Ezekiel’s imagery for the interpretation of these symbolic locations. When ‘wilderness’ (ìɾÄÇË) is used metaphorically in Ezekiel, it functions as an image of judgment. Ezekiel proclaims that God will pluck up a plant from fruitful ground and plant it into wilderness as an act of judgment (19.13). Ezekiel also speaks of a time when God will turn dry and empty wilderness into an Eden-like garden as a sign of forgiveness and blessing (Ezek. 36.35). Historically speaking, God did great things to Israel in wilderness, but it was in the wilderness that Israel rebelled by making an idol and that God announced that the judgment for Israel’s sin 46. In the past God has acted mightily in both wilderness and on the mountains: God sustained his people in wilderness (Exod. 19.3-23; Deut. 34.1-4); Jesus was tested in wilderness (Mt. 4.1; Mk 1.12; Lk. 4.1); God gave Israel his law on Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19–24) and the elders of Israel saw God from there (Exod. 24.9-11); God gave Moses a vision of the tabernacle there (Exod. 25–31); Moses was also shown a glimpse of the Promised Land from a mountain before he died (Deut. 34.1). 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

159

would be exile (Ezek. 20.23). It appears that ‘wilderness’ in Ezekiel has more negative than positive associations. After such an introduction, the reader is set up for the scene of judgment in Rev. 18. In 21.10 John is shown the city from a great high mountain (ëÈĖ ěÉÇË Äšº¸ Á¸Ė ĨоÂŦÅ). This introduction is strikingly similar to that of Ezek. 40.2, where Ezekiel is carried to ‘a very high mountain’ (ëÈЏ ěÉÇÍË ĨоÂÇı ÊÎŦ»É¸) from which he has a view of the land of Israel and he sees a city and temple structure. Ezekiel uses ‘mountain’ (ěÉÇË) primarily to speak of the nation of Israel and its homeland, and ÌÛ ěɾ Êɸ¾Â (‘mountains of Israel’) is used frequently (e.g. Ezek. 6.2-3; 34.13). In the construction ëÈĖ ÌľÅ ĚÉšÑÅ, however, the term ‘mountain’ refers to the high places of idol worship in Israel (e.g. Ezek. 18.15); this use is common in Ezekiel. There are few passages, however, where ‘mountain’ has a metaphorical meaning. In Ezek. 11.23; 17.22-23; 20.40, ‘mountain’ is a shorthand for the temple, and in 28.14-16 it is used symbolically in the lamentation over the fall of Tyre. The lament describes Tyre’s dwelling in Eden, living on ‘a holy mountain of God’, and then being expelled because of its pride. Tyre’s fall is compared to the fall of humanity in Eden. The passage seems to connect Eden typologically to the temple by inserting ‘a holy mountain of God’. The location of Ezekiel’s vision (40.2) is the temple mount. The new Jerusalem is also viewed from there and perhaps descending there. It is interesting that, whereas Ezekiel sees in spirit a temple that has ‘a structure like a city’ (40.2, 5), John sees a city that has all the characteristics of a temple. Beginning with v. 11 John sees the city-temple from an outside perspective. John ¿rst points to its God-like glory, ‘like jasper’ (21.11). In 4.3 John described the One sitting on the throne as having jasper-like glory. Who God is the city reÀects. Also, the wall of the city is of jasper (21.18). Jasper was considered a transparent stone; its likeness to pure light made it a good comparison to the radiance of God’s glory. This mention of the glory of God echoes the language of Isa. 60.1, which describes Zion, the city of God: ‘Arise, shine; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you’.47 The author uses some of the context of Isa. 60 later in 21.23-26; 22.5, as he describes how the nations are Àowing to God’s glory, shining from the new Jerusalem; how they are bringing their valuables to the city; how they will build up

47. See also Isa. 60.19. Fekkes does not include Isa. 60.1 in his list of allusions, but refers readers only to Ezek. 43.2-5. Either passage is probably closer to an echo than an allusion. 1

160

The Ending of the Canon

its gates and walls; and how the city will be adorned with precious stones. The glory of God remains in Zion and becomes its source of light. Revelation 21.11 may also echo Ezek. 43.2-5, the only segment in Ezek. 40–48 that mentions the glory of God: ‘And there, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the east; the sound was like the sound of mighty waters; and the earth shone with his glory’ (43.2). God re-enters the temple to dwell among his people, but it is contingent on Israel’s abstinence from idolatry, holiness, and keeping of the purity laws (43.69). Although this could have been a starting point for John, the passage appears to be blended with Isa. 60. John is less concerned with the boundaries of purity, than about the universal focus on the nations Àocking to the city of God which is more in the spirit of Isaiah. It is possible that all these prophetic traditions reÀect a memory of Exod. 24.10, where God, in the context of making a covenant with Israel, allowed the seventy elders of Israel a theophany: ‘and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.’ Verses 12-13 describe Jerusalem’s wall (̼ėÏÇË), with its twelve gates (ÈÍÂľÅ¼Ë) upon which there are twelve angels guarding them. The names of the twelve tribes are inscribed on them. There are three gates towards the four cardinal compass points. John does not actually list the names of the twelve tribes. Two texts in Ezekiel describe the wall and gates. The vision beginning with Ezek. 40.5 describes the wall and gates of the temple, while 48.3134 deals with the exits of the city. Even though 40.5-49 is closer in location to the introductory scene taken from 40.2, its description details so much of the rest of the temple compound that, in the end, it provides little verbal similarity with Revelation. It also does not mention the names of the tribes at the gates, which seems to be John’s major point. Therefore, I ¿nd that John’s description is predominately based on Ezek. 48.30-35, which describes the gates of the city following a clear pattern: mention of the compass point, measurement (4500 cubits), mention of three gates, and listing of the names of the tribes on the gates. At the end, the circumference of the city is given as 18,000 cubits. This concise description pattern is so much closer to John’s. John has abbreviated Ezekiel’s description, but the key elements are recognizable: the four cardinal compass points, three gates in each direction, and names of the twelve tribes on the gates. John saves the measurements to the description of the wall for later. He also changes the 4500 cubits to 144 cubits (21.17). John remembers Ezekiel’s rather unusual ordering of the 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

161

measurements: east, north, south, west from Ezek. 42.15-19, which is different from the ordering given in Ezek. 48.32-34.48 Ezekiel does not speci¿cally mention angels being stationed at the gates. Among others, Fekkes has surveyed the possibility that John received inspiration for the angels from the gatekeepers or watchmen of Isa. 62.6, which, as Beale points out, in later Judaism were interpreted as angels (Midr. Rab. Exod. 18.5 and Pesiq. Rab. 35.2).49 Isaiah is a good candidate because John had already used in this chapter Isaiah’s marriage covenant imagery and applied it to the new Jerusalem (Isa. 62). Fekkes thinks this allusion is inconclusive because the texts diverge at particular details (function and placement of the guards), and also because John could have added the reference to angels from other texts such as Gen. 3.24 (angel guarding the way of the tree of life) or Ezek. 41.25 (carved cherubim decorating the temple doors).50 It is possible that several or all of these canonical strings have been blended in John’s description, and the reader need not choose between the references, but embrace the richness of the compound image. God is creating a new Jerusalem, similar to Eden and in continuity with the prophetic visions of Isaiah and Ezekiel, but which surpasses them all.51 Verse 14 states that the foundation(s) (¿¼ÄšÂÀÇË, -ÇÀ) of the city-wall was/were made of precious stones with the names of the twelve apostles on them. Ezekiel in his detailed temple description does not mention the foundations. Why is John adding this element? He may be following Isa. 54.11-12: ‘O afÀicted one, storm-tossed, and not comforted, behold, I will set your stones in antimony, and your foundations I will lay in sapphires. Moreover, I will make your battlements of rubies, and your gates of crystal, and your entire wall of precious stones.’ It is quite possible, that he is working with Isaiah in mind, as he will be using this same passage in 21.19. There seemed to be a wide-held consensus in the early church that the eschatological Jerusalem had a foundation, and that it was adorned with jewels; this foundation came to symbolize the apostles or their teaching. It appears that the Christian community had embraced Isaiah’s vision, as the NT uses his language upon several occasions. 48. See G. K. Beale and Sean M. McDonough, ‘Revelation’, in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 1152. 49. Fekkes, Isaiah, 264; Beale, Revelation, 1069. 50. Fekkes, Isaiah, 265. 51. Similarly Beale, Revelation, 1069. Beale also suggests an echo to Isa. 26.1-2 (ibid., 1068). I think this remains too distant; besides mentioning the walls and gates it displays none of the details in Revelation. 1

162

The Ending of the Canon

¼Ä¼ÂţÇË, used in the LXX of Isa. 54.11, occurs also in Heb. 11.10; 1 Cor. 3.10, 11; Eph. 2.20. The writer of Hebrews states that Abraham ‘was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God’ (11.10). Paul speaks of the nature of his ministry of teaching as a master builder who is laying a foundation for the church (1 Cor. 3.10-17). He further calls that foundation Jesus Christ, and all others will have to build upon that foundation a structure. On the day of judgment it will be revealed through the test of ¿re whether the structure is built of worthy materials (such as gold, silver, or precious stones), or of unworthy materials (such as wood, hay or straw). At the end of the passage Paul appears to interpret the structure as the people of God as he writes: ‘Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?’ (1 Cor. 3.16). Hence, attributing the image of the temple to the church is a part of early Christian theology before Revelation. Paul saw his apostolic ministry as being part of the building of God’s temple. Ephesians 2.11-22 has a similar argument, with its universal picture of the people of God. Both Gentiles and Israel are made one through Christ’s sacri¿ce, and as such we are all fellow citizen of God’s household, and being built up into a holy temple that rests upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as its cornerstone. In Christ the building is ¿tted together and growing into a holy temple in the Lord where the Spirit of God dwells (Eph. 2.21-22). No foundations are mentioned in 2 Cor. 6.15-18, but here too Paul expresses his belief that Christians are the true temple and dwelling place of God. In v. 16 Paul likewise uses the prophecy from Ezek. 37.27 – ‘I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God and they shall be My people’ – that is cited also in Rev. 21.3; and in v. 18 he combines it with the adoption formula from 2 Sam. 7.14 – ‘And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me, says the Lord Almighty’ – which was used also in Rev. 21.7. It appears that this covenant language was known in the Christian community. Such use of similar combinations of two OT texts may refer to some common oral or written tradition. Just as in John’s city the tribes of Israel and the apostles both form part of the city structure, so Israel and Gentiles are joined together into one people of God in Paul’s theology. Although all previous ethnic separations are abandoned, there are still people who stand outside of God’s plan in Paul’s theology. The division is based on faith in Christ. Paul is applying OT cleanliness law in a new way by discouraging Christians from marrying unbelievers, whom he compares with lawlessness, darkness, and idolatry (vv. 14-15, 17). 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

163

Finally, in Mt. 16.18 Jesus is shown to have used architectural imagery – he calls Peter a rock and promises that ‘on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it’. Only symbolically speaking, believers have a ‘foundation’ and Hades has ‘gates’. These rhetorical statements illustrate the origin, order and permanence of Christian tradition. In continuity with the rest of the NT witnesses, John sees the eschatological Jerusalem as consisting of Israel and church ¿tted together: God has built the church into a living household/temple ¿lled with Christ (e.g. 1 Pet. 2.1-10; Jude 1.10). In vv. 15-17 John describes the measurements/proportions of the new Jerusalem. The angel with the measuring rod (21.15) is inspired by the ¿gure in Ezek. 40.3-5. Beale suggests that the meaning of measuring in this passage is the protection of the people of God much like the act of sealing in Rev. 7.3-8. He sees both 11.1-2 and 21.15-17 as statements of protection, with the exception that in the ¿rst case it was spiritual protection of the true church from demonic powers, as they may still physically suffer for their witness, while the second measuring involves the church in its consummated state and implies both spiritual and physical protection, including protection ‘against the harm and contamination of unclean and deceptive people (so 21.27)’.52 Beale sees Ezekiel as the primary inÀuence behind both measuring scenes, and seems to assume that Zech. 2 and Ezek. 40–48 bear the same meaning. Based on the narrative progression in Revelation and the distribution of primary intertextual references I come to a slightly different conclusion. Revelation 11 as a whole uses predominately Zechariah. It is my contention that Rev. 11.1-2 relies on Zech. 1.16; 2.1-5, while Ezek. 40–48 is the primary reference behind Rev. 21.15-17. There are also differences between the two measuring accounts: the ¿rst uses a regular ruler, the second a golden ruler. In 11.1-2 John was asked to ‘measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those who worship in it’. The outer court will not be measured. There is no account of the actual measuring or the results, or any description of the features of the temple, or the altar, or the worshippers; instead, the story continues with the announcement that the nations will for a limited time tread upon the holy city, and with the story of two witnesses who resist the beast, but will be killed, and will rise again.

1

52. Ibid., 1072–3, 559–60.

164

The Ending of the Canon

The meaning of 11.1-2 appears to be the evaluation of the condition of the church. Its primary functions are to show the present imperfect and vulnerable condition of the church, and to provide future hope for God’s rebuilding as in Zech. 1.16. The church as we encounter it in Rev. 2–3 is far from perfect. Parts of the church have become lukewarm about their love of God and half-hearted in their resistance to Satan. Yet God provides hope for future rebuilding. In 21.15-17 the purpose of measuring is to show that the new Jerusalem that God has formed in heaven, and that eventually becomes a reality on earth, conforms to God’s intended perfect design. It is a statement of orderliness and perfection of the city. (The protection of the city that Beale emphasized is communicated rather by means of the angelic guardians and the wall rather than the measurements.) In this context, it is critical to visit the question of genre of Ezek. 40– 48, which has frequently been assumed to be a blueprint for temple restoration. Kalinda Rose Stevenson noted that although Ezekiel’s measuring scene provides so much detail for the temple structures that it challenges the attention of most contemporary readers, he does not provide nearly enough measurements if this is indeed to be used as a blueprint for temple restoration (e.g. almost all of the vertical measurements are missing).53 And as far as we know, the exiles never used Ezekiel’s plan in such a manner. Ezekiel also provides other material, such as the division of the land between the tribes of Israel (47.13–48.9; 48.23-29), as well as the portions for the priests and prince (48.10-22), which do not conform to any known division of the land before or after Ezekiel. There is good reason to abandon the interpretation of Ezekiel as a literal architectural guide. What then is its purpose? The following passage reveals something about the intent and function of the text: As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan. And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the house, its structure, its exits, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws. And write it in their sight, so that they may observe its whole design and all its statutes, and do them. This is the law of the house: its entire area on the top of the mountain all around shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of the house. (Ezek. 43.10-12)

What is interesting is the complete lack of any vocabulary referring to building, together with the presence of vocabulary of seeing and observing. Ezekiel is instructed to write everything down and give this 53. Kalinda Rose Stevenson, The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40–48 (SBLDS 154; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 3–7.

1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

165

design and statutes to Israel. The hope is that Israel will be ashamed to see it. Israel is called to measure the pattern. They are instructed to study the design and ordinances and follow them. It is useful to compare this with the instructions given to Moses, who received the vision of the heavenly tabernacle on Mt. Sinai: ‘And let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them. According to all that I am going to show you, as the pattern of the tabernacle and the pattern of all its furniture, just so you shall construct it’ (Exod. 25.8-9). The instructions that follow include the detailed building materials, amounts of the materials to be used, colors, and vertical measurements; building-related words in the imperative – like ‘make’, ‘construct’, ‘join’, ‘fasten’, ‘overlay’, and ‘erect’ – occur in nearly every verse (Exod. 25.10–27.21). Ezekiel is never instructed to build anything. He is called only to observe and pass on the pattern to Israel. Israel was to study the pattern and apply it to its life. The pattern appears to be a guide for holy lives, not a blueprint for a building. The visual pattern serves an educational and rhetorical purpose for Israel to structure its life after God’s pattern of holiness. Stevenson has further explored connections between space, society, and theology in Ezek. 40–48 and suggested that we should classify the genre of this section as ‘territorial rhetoric’. She concluded that Ezekiel is writing in response to the experience of exile and with the purpose of preventing the violation of boundaries between holy and unholy in the future.54 Ezekiel is laying a foundation for a renewed identity for the displaced people by presenting a new territorial vision. People who feel abandoned by God in exile are shown a picture of God’s presence de¿ned by spatial boundaries. It is a theological vision of a new society, a temple society based on spatial theology of holiness.55 If viewed in this manner, then Ezekiel is much more concerned with the present spiritual condition of his people than with the future. The pattern is immediately relevant for the reader and is not to be stored away for some future purpose. This genre designation inÀuences the way we read the Apocalypse. It is reasonable to expect that a text that so heavily draws on Ezekiel will also carry over some of its formal features. I prefer to designate such language in Revelation as ‘architectural rhetoric’ as it involves more than just boundaries of access, but also symbolism relating to building materials. ‘Architectural rhetoric’ in this context means theology expressed through the language of architecture. Such language is used with the

1

54. Ibid., xxiv. 55. Ibid., xviii.

166

The Ending of the Canon

intention of structuring human and divine relationships rather than describing actual structures.56 John sees the new Jerusalem as a square, or a cube. The city has divine proportions: its length, width, and height are equal (Rev. 21.16). The true people of God are completely holy, like the holy of holies of the temple, which also had the shape of a cube (1 Kgs 6.20).57 A cube is the perfect shape in which God’s presence dwelled in the temple, so the new Jerusalem is also described as a cube. The measurement of the city is 12,000 stadia in every direction. The square of twelve equals 144 and multiplied by a thousand it reminds the reader of the multitude of 144,000 faithful mentioned in Rev. 7.4-9 and 14.1, 3. The city represents the totality of the people of God. The measurement of the wall as 144 cubits further reinforces this totality (21.17). Twelve times twelve: Israel and church are joined together, and represent all the covenant people of God. The totality of the people of God as both Jews and Gentiles is emphasized further by the use of the cubit as a measure associated with the Hebrew people combined with the use of stadion as a measure used in the Hellenistic world.58 The units are said to be angelic measurements/cubits, which are the same as human measurements (v. 17). This bizarre statement may function as a reminder that the numbers are to be understood as symbolic, which they clearly are.59 Any attempt to visualize an actual structure in such proportions would lead to an awkward image of a huge cubicle with a dwarf wall.60 Still, the reader should have already learned by this point 56. Külli Tõniste, ‘Measuring the Holy City: Architectural Rhetoric in Revelation 21:9-21’, Conversations 34 (2014): 266–72. 57. Stevenson has pointed out that Ezekiel’s temple was 100 by 100 cubits, a perfect square (Ezek. 41.5-15) (The Vision of Transformation, 25, 29). Victorinus saw here a reference to Noah’s ark, which was built of squared beams to be strong enough to resist the forces of the deluge (see ANF 7:359). 58. The Description of the New Jerusalem and the Temple Scroll from Qumran include a vision of new Jerusalem where an angelic(?) guide measures the city. The former records that the city is a 140 × 100 res rectangle (5Q15). The length of a res as a unit of measurement is uncertain. The Temple Scroll portrays the temple complex as consisting of three concentric squares: the inner court (300 cubits), the middle court (500 cubits), and the outer court (1700 cubits). It is unclear how the measurements were to be interpreted. See David E. Aune, Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 85–90. 59. Beale suggests that ‘the human measure that is also angelic measure’ emphasizes the symbolic nature of the numbers given (Revelation, 1077). 60. It is detrimental to interpretation that some Bible translations convert the measures into miles (NASB, NRSV). They should remain in cubits and stadia for the sake of the symbolism. In fairness, even some early interpreters converted the 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

167

in reading that Revelation uses symbolic numbers. Perhaps the statement means that ¿nally human and divine are reconciled, and the church at last measures up to what God wants it to be.61 At last, the faithful community has the divine proportions.62 Perhaps there is a further connection with Ezekiel. In the vision of Ezekiel it is the Israel who is called ‘to measure the pattern’ with the hope that this would lead to repentance (43.10). In Rev. 11.1-2 it was John who did the measuring – he is the one who had to notice and reveal the shortcomings of the church. In 21.15-17 it is a heavenly being who measures the city with the golden rod, and reveals its perfect design. Finally, the church measures up to the angelic heavenly plan. Verse 18 begins the description of the building materials; it states that the wall was made of jasper. This transparent stone recalls the glory of God (cf. 21.11). John further describes the city as being made of pure gold, like clear glass. Glass was considered as valuable as gold in antiquity (Job 28.17), and gold as clear as glass is a statement of the ¿nest quality. The décor of the holy of holies of the Solomonic temple was also made of gold (1 Kgs 6.20) and even the Herodian temple had parts with decorative gold overlays.63 Verse 19’s introductory statement, ‘The foundation stones of the city wall were adorned with every kind of precious stone’, may allude to the description of the eschatological Jerusalem in Isa. 54.11b-12: ‘Behold, I will set your stones in antimony, and your foundations I will lay in sapphires. Moreover, I will make your battlements of rubies, and your gates of crystal, and your entire wall of precious stones.’64 After this John names all the twelve precious stones in its foundations: jasper, sapphire, chalcedony, emerald, sardonyx, carnelian, chrysolite, beryl, topaz, chrysoprase, jacinth, and amethyst. numbers. Andrew of Caesarea, for example, calculated 12,000 stadia to be 1714 miles and then proceeded to interpret this number symbolically: ‘the one thousand signifying the perfection of the endless life, the seven hundred being the perfection in rest, and the fourteen being the double Sabbath of soul and body, for two sevens are fourteen’ (Commentary on the Apocalypse, FC 123: 226). 61. Bauckham compares this angelic measure with the number given to humans in 13.18, namely 666. Notably, 666 is a triangular number, while the new Jerusalem is surrounded by the square of 12 (Climax of Prophecy, 399). 62. Some interpreters have pointed out that 12,000 × 12,000 stadia is roughly the size of the then known Hellenistic world (see Vogelgesang, ‘Ezekiel’, 95). I doubt that the original readers would have realistically made such connections. The meaning of this number should be found from within the narrative world of Revelation, not outside. 63. Josephus, War 5.201, 205, 207–8. 64. Fekkes deals with this allusion in Isaiah, 238–44. 1

168

The Ending of the Canon

There is a rich OT tradition that associates God’s dwelling with the presence of precious stones and precious metals. This tradition goes back to the garden of Eden of which the writer says, that quality gold, bdellium, and onyx were found there (Gen. 2.11-12). Precious stones were also part of high-priestly garments (Exod. 28.15-21; 39.8-14). The high priest’s breastplate may have symbolized by its square shape the holy of holies, and the twelve precious stones on it symbolized the twelve tribes of Israel. The stones were distributed in four rows, three stones per row. First: ruby/carnelian, topaz/chrysolite, and emerald; second: turquoise, sapphire, and moonstone (or diamond); third: jacinth, agate, and amethyst; and fourth: beryl, onyx, and jasper. The stones were possibly engraved with the name of each tribe, and they were set in gold ¿ligree. Because of these clear associations with the temple, and with the people of God, this passage from Exodus is the most commonly suggested source for John to have received inspiration for the new Jerusalem vision.65 The stones of the breastplate symbolized the tribes in the presence of God; likewise, the new Jerusalem incorporates the saints who reÀect the presence of God as the precious stones reÀect light. The foundations are now inscribed with the names of the apostles (21.14): Israel and church have become one in eschatological Jerusalem. The metaphor of a city-temple already draws the reader to meditate on the imagery of the temple. The element of precious stones with their high-priestly background would build on that theme. Earlier in the book John has drawn parallels between the people of God and their priestly nature (e.g. 1.6; 5.10; 20.6). This echoes traditions such as 1 Pet. 2.5, which speaks of the people of God as living stones that ‘are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood’. John is following an established NT theme.66 Yet another mention of the precious stones is found in Ezekiel’s oracle of the fall of the king of Tyre (28.13). It is possible that, because of this negative context, scholars are slow to suggest that the adornment of the new Jerusalem could be inspired by this passage.67 However, because 65. E.g. Beale, Revelation, 1080–2. 66 Boxall explores the NT themes and echoes in this passage (Revelation, 302– 3). Other NT passages that follow this theme include Mt. 16.18; 1 Cor. 3.10-17; Eph. 2.20. 67. Beale admits, ‘Ezekiel 28 is partly in mind in Rev. 21.18-20’ (Revelation, 1087), but he does not explore its contribution to the interpretation. Swete mentions the similarity to both Exodus and Ezek. 28, but after painstakingly identifying all the listed stones, he does not draw any interpretational value from either reference. He offers a general interpretation that the members of the new Jerusalem do not lose their individuality, but like different precious stones, they offer various degree of

1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

169

our author is drawing heavily on Ezekiel in this part of the book, the possibility of this being the primary reference should be explored. Though the context is unexpected, the imagery is very similar and worthy of consideration: You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering: the ruby, the topaz, and the diamond; the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; the lapis lazuli, the turquoise, and the emerald; and the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, was in you. On the day that you were created they were prepared. (Ezek. 28.13)

Although most scholars conclude that John generally accesses the OT via a Hebrew text (so, e.g., Goulder, Vanhoye, Vogelgesang), the question is not entirely settled. In the case of Ezek. 28.13 the MT names nine stones, and only six of these are featured in Revelation. However, the LXX includes a list of fourteen items – twelve, if we read silver and gold as descriptions of the varieties of jasper, a translucent stone. Read in this manner, the list of Ezek. 28.13 LXX would be nearly identical to the LXX of Exod. 28.17-20 and it even maintains the same order.68 Revelation still shows a measure of independence from the OT lists as brilliance to the perfect city of God (Apocalypse, 290–4). Boxall also only mentions the reference (Revelation, 305–6). Mounce does not even mention the possibility of the use of Ezek. 28 in this passage (Revelation, 393–5). Aune stands out as one who mentions Ezek. 28.13 in the ¿rst order and says that Rev. 21.19a may be an allusion to Ezek. 28.13a: ‘every precious stone was your covering’. He also points out that the LXX of Ezek. 28.13 reÀects assimilation to the lists of jewels in Exodus (Revelation 17–22, 1164–5). 68. Ezek. 28.13 LXX reads: ÈÜÅ Âţ¿ÇÅ ÏɾÊÌġÅ ìÅ»š»¼Ê¸À ÊŠÉ»ÀÇÅ Á¸Ė ÌÇÈŠ½ÀÇÅ Á¸Ė ÊĊɸº»ÇÅ Á¸Ė ÓſɸÁ¸ Á¸Ė ÊŠÈμÀÉÇÅ Á¸Ė ċ¸ÊÈÀÅ Á¸Ė ÒɺŧÉÀÇÅ Á¸Ė ÏÉÍÊţÇÅ Á¸Ė ÂÀºŧÉÀÇÅ Á¸Ė Òϊ̾ŠÁ¸Ė ÒÄš¿ÍÊÌÇÅ Á¸Ė ÏÉÍÊŦÂÀ¿ÇÅ Á¸Ė ¹¾ÉŧÂÂÀÇÅ Á¸Ė ĚÅŧÏÀÇÅ Á¸Ė ÏÉÍÊţÇÍ ëÅšÈÂ¾Ê¸Ë ÌÇİË ¿¾Ê¸ÍÉÇŧË ÊÇÍ Á¸Ė ÌÛË ÒÈÇ¿ŢÁ¸Ë ÊÇÍ ëÅ ÊÇĖ ÒÎЏ úË ÷ÄšÉ¸Ë ëÁÌţÊ¿¾Ë Êŧ. Exod. 28.17-20 LXX reads: Á¸Ė Á¸¿ÍθżėË ëÅ ¸ĤÌŊ ĩθÊĸ Á¸ÌŠÂÀ¿ÇŠ̼ÌÉŠÊÌÀÏÇÅ ÊÌţÏÇË Âţ¿ÑÅ ìÊ̸À ÊŠÉ»ÀÇÅ ÌÇÈŠ½ÀÇÅ Á¸Ė ÊĊɸº»ÇË ĝ ÊÌţÏÇË ĝ ¼đË Á¸Ė ĝ ÊÌţÏÇË ĝ »¼ŧ̼ÉÇË ÓÅ¿É¸Æ Á¸Ė ÊŠÈμÀÉÇË Á¸Ė ċ¸ÊÈÀË Á¸Ė ĝ ÊÌţÏÇË ĝ ÌÉţÌÇË ÂÀºŧÉÀÇÅ ÒÏŠÌ¾Ë Á¸Ė ÒÄš¿ÍÊÌÇË Á¸Ė ĝ ÊÌţÏÇË ĝ ̸̚ÉÌÇË ÏÉÍÊŦÂÀ¿ÇË Á¸Ė ¹¾ÉŧÂÂÀÇÅ Á¸Ė ĚÅŧÏÀÇŠȼÉÀÁ¼Á¸ÂÍÄĚŸ ÏÉÍÊţĿ ÊÍÅ»¼»¼ÄšÅ¸ ëÅ ÏÉÍÊţĿ ìÊÌÑʸŠÁ¸ÌÛ ÊÌţÏÇÅ ¸ĤÌľÅ. The lists are nearly identical in content and order. Rev. 21.19-20 could rely on either list. John has replaced ÓſɸÁ¸, ÂÀºŧÉÀÇÅ, Òϊ̾Å, and ĚÅŧÏÀÇÅ, with ϸÂÁ¾»ŪÅ, ʸɻŦÅÍÆ, ÏÉÍÊŦÈɸÊÇË, and ĨŠÁÀÅ¿ÇË. Ezek. 28.13 MT reads: !f f'f:= -+!'# !&6 - (=)2/ !:9' 0¡+) =''! -'!+¡0 03 #11#) (:! -#' ( ('91# ('6= =)+/ !$# =9:# (61 :'62 !6f'# The MT only includes nine items: carnelian, topaz, diamond or moonstone (or some other stone); beryl, onyx, jasper, sapphire/lapis lazuli, turquoise, and emerald. 1

170

The Ending of the Canon

it has omitted onyx, anthrax (carbuncle), Ligurian stone, and agate, and replaced them with chalcedony, sardonyx, chrysoprase, and jacinth.69 There are many translational dif¿culties when dealing with the names of the precious stones. It is a rare vocabulary and the use of it in the antiquity does not always appear consistent. Fortunately, the interpretation of the passage does not hang on the precise de¿nition of the stones;70 it would be, however, helpful to be able to identify whether John is primarily drawing from Exodus tradition or Ezekiel. Since the lists are so similar in LXX, the evidence can go either way. Because the opening clause (Rev. 21.19a) is verbally close to Ezek. 28.13a (it also reÀects the language of Isa. 54.11-12), the evidence slightly favors Ezekiel. But are we not facing a dif¿culty with some of the Hays’ criteria: the criteria of thematic coherence (in other words, does this ¿t John’s line of argument) and of satisfaction (would it make sense that John would draw from the description of a sinful city to describe the new Jerusalem)? In Ezekiel’s oracle, the collapse of Tyre is described in mythic scale as Ezekiel places the story to Eden and casts the king of Tyre nearly in the role of Satan (or at least Adam). The association does make sense, however. The reader notices that adornment with the precious stones describes not the fallen Tyre, but the original privileged condition of Tyre. Even though Tyre becomes the source of inspiration for John’s Babylon ¿gure (also adorned with jewels, 17.4) here Tyre is associated with pre-fall Eden. Obviously, John views the new Jerusalem as Eden restored (22.1-4). Ezekiel 28.13 functions as one more link between the two: it allows John to link urban imagery with garden imagery, to link the restored Jerusalem with Eden, and to highlight the depths of God’s redemption. It would be perhaps going too far to speak about the new Jerusalem as Babylon redeemed, as Vogelgesang does, based on the transformation of the jewels of Babylon (Ezek. 28.13) into foundation stones of new Jerusalem. Vogelgesang’s interpretation leads to universalism.71 Babylon is unmistakably judged and destroyed in Rev. 18 and the 69. Boxall, Revelation, 306. 70. Andrew of Caesarea matched each stone with a speci¿c apostle. For example, concerning Rev. 21.19b he wrote: ‘Through the jasper, green in appearance, like smaragdon, Peter the chief is probably signi¿ed, inasmuch as he “bore in the body the death of Christ,” and being shown evergreen and full of youthful spirit in his love toward him , leading us into “green pasture” through warm faith’ (Commentary on the Apocalypse, FC 123: 227). Andrew admits that such interpretation may seem ‘forced’ and it may be best to view all apostles in unity. It is also evident that from early on there was much confusion about the appearance of speci¿c stones. 71. Vogelgesang, ‘Ezekiel’, 98–102. 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

171

new Jerusalem is God’s new creation descending from heaven. I ¿nd Resseguie’s description of the complex relationship between the church and Babylon more coherent. He speaks of the saints in this world living in a situation of exile; they live in Babylon, but they are called to remove themselves spiritually from Babylon, and to engage in a new exodus, lest they would be judged with her. The new Jerusalem is their spiritual destination, their promised land.72 In v. 21, pearly gates and golden streets ¿nish the grand tour of the external features of the new Jerusalem. The readers of the canon know the great value of pearls (e.g. Mt. 13.45-46). John’s description of the city is as good a description of perfection as human language would allow. Each element of the city is reÀecting God’s glory shining from the inside. Traditions like Isa. 60.17-18 may be at the background of this passage: Instead of bronze I will bring gold, and instead of iron I will bring silver, and instead of wood, bronze, and instead of stones, iron. And I will make peace your administrators, and righteousness your overseers. Violence will not be heard again in your land, nor devastation or destruction within your borders; but you will call your walls salvation, and your gates praise. (Isa. 60.17-18)

In conclusion, John is painting a picture in words. The new Jerusalem is an image that intends to attract. It impresses from the outside and it welcomes in. Its outward features are crafted in stark contrast with the whore Babylon (17.2-6). In essence, ‘John sees a different sort of creation, one with clean streets, unpolluted water, an Edenic garden, towering walls, a solid gold boulevard, bejewelled gates, and unlocked doors’.73 Next, John welcomes the reader inside this peculiar city-temple to explore even more closely. d. Revelation 21.22–22.5 In this segment John continues the description of the city-temple, but now his focus shifts from the external features of the city to life inside the city, and to the question of access. Intertextually, John returns to Isaiah as his primary source of inÀuence. Almost all the major elements of John’s vision (constantly open gates, God’s glory as the illumination that makes human luminaries unnecessary, and nations and kings who carry their wealth into the city in a glorious procession) are allusions to Isa. 60:

1

72. Resseguie, Revelation, 229. 73. Ibid., 254.

172

The Ending of the Canon And your gates will be open continually; they will not be closed day or night, so that men may bring to you the wealth of the nations, with their kings led in procession… No longer will you have the sun for light by day, nor for brightness will the moon give you light; but you will have the LORD for an everlasting light, and your God for your glory. Your sun will set no more, neither will your moon wane; for you will have the LORD for an everlasting light, and the days of your mourning will be ¿nished. (Isa. 60.11, 19-20)

John inserts these key words from Isa. 60 into his text as he rushes on to paint his own image of the eschatological city. While the intertextual outline is framed by the use of Isa. 60, there are also signi¿cant elements from Gen. 2–3 and Ezek. 47 (esp. Rev. 22.1-5). After discussing the access to the city, John uses two major metaphors in this segment. The Kingship of Yahweh and the Lamb (it is present throughout the segment, but most heavily in the ¿rst part) is based on Isaiah, and the Garden of Eden (which appears at the later part of the segment esp. Rev. 22.1-4) is based on Gen. 2–3/Ezek. 47. Both images highlight God’s sovereignty over all creation. With the use of the Eden imagery, which recalls the ¿rst creation, the author also creates an inclusio to tie together the entire new Jerusalem vision (21.1–22.5), as well as bringing together the narrative beginning and ending. (1) City-Temple: Internal Perspective (a) Kingship of Yahweh and the Lamb Having attributed to the city many of the characteristics of a temple, in v. 22 John states that he saw no temple in this city.74 If everything is a temple, where is the temple? The city is holy, and God’s throne is there, and there is no need for an institution that would serve to mediate the presence of God. Many commentators point out here that John is now radically departing from Ezek. 40–48.75 There is no radical departure from Ezekiel if we understand that both are merely using architectural rhetoric to communicate, a new pattern of relationships with God and between humans using temple as a model. Jesus’ teachings (Jn 2.19-22; 4.21; cf. Mk 14.58; 15.29; see also Mt. 21.42; Lk. 20.17-18; Acts 4.11; Rom. 9.32-33) had already reinforced this non-literal understanding of the temple. The role of the temple institution is ful¿lled in Christ, 74. Rev. 21.22 is the only place in the book where the ŸŦË is anarthrous. Beale suggests that this serves to further distinguish that John means that there will be no physical temple there, while Jesus is its spiritual temple (Revelation, 1091). 75. E.g. Mounce, Revelation, 395; Boxall, Revelation, 307; Beale, Revelation, 1091–2. 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

173

the cornerstone of the new temple, and through him there is immediate access to divine presence (cf. Heb. 9). In John’s vision the temple is replaced with a new community centred on Christ. Isaiah 60.19 mentions twice how the city will have Yahweh as its everlasting light and God as its glory. In vv. 21-22 John uses this parallelism to make a christological statement: he alternates between God the Almighty and the Lamb (v. 22) and God and Lamb (v. 23), thus giving Lamb the place of God.76 Like Isaiah, John uses the imagery of light to speak of God, and he uses the absence of earthly luminaries (sun, moon) to communicate God’s sovereign and immediate presence with people. As an echo a reader may also hear Ezek. 43.2, 5 as Ezekiel also envisioned God ¿lling his eschatological dwelling place with his radiant presence. The reader of the canon may also pick up the theme in John’s Gospel, comparing Jesus with light (e.g. 1.9; 3.19; 8.12; 12.35), and perhaps Gen. 1.1, in which light was God’s ¿rst creation. Reference to the sun and moon speci¿cally originates from Isa. 60.19 as the Genesis creation accounts do not mention sun or moon speci¿cally, but call them ‘lights’: sun is ‘the greater light’ and moon is ‘the lesser light’. Verses 24-27 have two parallel themes: the theme of access, and the theme of kingship. The ¿rst continues the temple theme that is carried by the echoes of Ezek. 40–48 mingled with Isaiah; the second relies predominately on Isa. 60. Verbs used in 21.24-27 display movement: ȼÉÀȸÌŢÊÇÍÊÀÅ (‘walk’, v. 24), ΚÉÇÍÊÀÅ (‘bring’, v. 24), ÇċÊÇÍÊÀÅ (‘bring’, v. 26), and ¼Ċʚ¿þ (‘enter’, v. 27). These verbs of movement leave an impression of much activity surrounding the city. All this activity is oriented on God as the centre of the city. Nations, kings, and people come inside bringing their glory – this is a picture of worship. This is a paradox of the new Jerusalem: while the gates of the city are never shut (v. 25), nothing unclean can enter it (v. 27). Restricted access was one of the key features of the temple. Even if people were invited to approach God and go up to Jerusalem on pilgrimage holidays (Lev. 23), the temple structure restricted access to God’s presence. The high priest had maximum access to God – he could enter the holy of holies – but

76. John speaks of God and Christ/Lamb interchangeably throughout his book (14.4; 20.4), occasionally differentiating only slightly in their respective roles: God as the Creator (20.11 but 3.14), and Christ as the Redeemer (5.6; 7.17). Both are equally presented as ruling and judging the world (20.4, 6). The unity of God with Lamb is also emphasized later in this segment by the use of singular for ‘throne’ in 22.1, 3 and the singular ¸ĤÌŦË referring to both God and Lamb (22.3-4). 1

174

The Ending of the Canon

even his access was strictly limited to once a year (the Day of Atonement, Lev. 16); priests had regular access, but only to the holy place and certain bodily imperfections could restrict their right to access and serve (Lev. 21.16-24); and women were more restricted in access than men (Lev. 15). Ezekiel was shown a closed eastern gate through which nobody could enter the sanctuary; the gate was reserved for God (44.1). In 44.5 the prophet receives instructions regarding access to the temple. Certain people were not permitted access: foreigners, who were uncircumcised either in heart or Àesh; idolaters (44.7-9); and even the Levites who had abandoned Lord (44.10). Entrance was granted to those who had remained faithful during the dif¿cult times when many fell into apostasy and idolatry (44.15).77 This is not so different from the times of tribulation that Revelation portrays (14.12-13). The new Jerusalem also has restricted access: ‘Nothing unclean will ever enter it, or anyone who practices abomination or falsehood’ (21.27). This group is certainly the same as mentioned previously in 21.8, and associated with the worship of the beast (13.8; 14.9-11). Entrance is guaranteed only to those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. If we can learn something of the city’s architectural layout, then the access into new Jerusalem is de¿ned by Christ as presented through the apostolic teaching: symbolized by the foundation wall inscribed with the names of the twelve apostles (21.14). At present the gates stay open as an invitation, as the Spirit is beckoning people to enter the source of life (22.17). Once a person is admitted to city, there are no barriers inside the city: everyone who is redeemed through Christ has equal access to the presence of God. The barrier that remains is only between the inside and outside of the city as de¿ned by the wall. The inside-outside of the city is not a suggestion that there will still be some evil in new creation, nor that there will be traf¿c out of the lake of ¿re and into the new Jerusalem.78

77. Isaiah includes remarks about the restricted entrance to Zion (51.1), as does Zechariah (14.21). 78. Contra the universalist view of Rissi (Future of the World, 74, 77–8). Rissi thinks that outside the city there is only the lake of ¿re, and concludes that the nations must be released from the lake to enter the city. He thinks that the nations who rebel against God (16.14; 19.9) are killed through the power of Christ’s word (19.19-21), and thrown as punishment into the lake of ¿re as the second death (20.15). However, as there is a ¿rst resurrection (20.6), Rissi concludes that there will be a second, when they will be freed from the lake of ¿re and allowed the admission to new Jerusalem. 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

175

Rather, it serves a rhetorical purpose: to create desire to be associated with those who are inside this glorious city; it is an altar call for repentance for the reader who is located at this side of eschatological future, and at the point of decision. Kingship of Yahweh and the Lamb emerges from the following language: the throne (which appears twice in this segment: 22.1, 3), the appearance of the nations and kings of the earth who come to new Jerusalem to bring their glory and valuables (21.24, 26), and also through the language of the saints reigning forever (22.5). Commentators are puzzled by the sudden reappearance of the nations and even the kings of the earth in 21.24 after the ¿nal judgments have taken place.79 The previous narrative has portrayed this group as evil, associated with Babylon, deceived by the dragon, and perished in the lake of ¿re (nations: 11.2, 9, 18; 14.8; 16.19; 17.15; 18.3, 23; 19.15; 20.3, 8; kings of the earth: 16.14; 17.2, 18; 19.9). How do we see them now entering into the new Jerusalem, bringing their gifts? Beale suggests that at some point the nations surrendered to Christ, and they come to Jerusalem to worship.80 Mounce offers perhaps the most natural solution: John retained some OT language not entirely appropriate for the new setting. The signi¿cance of spatial imagery is spiritual and not literal.81 Thus, John has retained Isaiah’s image of conquered kings and subjects approaching in a procession and bringing tribute to Yahweh, the victorious King of kings enthroned in his city. Isaiah 60.3, 5, and 11 are alluded to here: ‘And nations will come to your light, And kings to the brightness of your rising’ (60.3); ‘Then you will see and be radiant, and your heart will thrill and rejoice; because the abundance of the sea will be turned to you, the wealth of the nations will come to you’ (60.5); ‘And your gates will be open continually; they will not be closed day or night, so that men may bring to you the wealth of the nations, with their kings led in procession’ (60.11).82 It is a hopeful picture of the nations receiving instructions from God and coming into his presence in order to worship. The goal of the pilgrimage of the nations is always Zion, the mountain of God wherever the theme is explored in the Bible.83 The nations and kings of the earth bring gifts to Yahweh. (It resembles, but exceeds the description of King Solomon’s

1

79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

E.g. Mounce, Revelation, 396. Beale, Revelation, 1096–9. Mounce, Revelation, 396–7. Nations walking in God’s light echoes Isa. 2.2, 5. Rissi, Future of the World, 77.

176

The Ending of the Canon

court that was ¿lled with distinguished guests bringing royal presents in order to learn from his wisdom – cf. 1 Kgs 10.1-25; Lk. 11.31). These gifts can be viewed as tribute, but they also include the idea of worship.84 Bringing gifts and voluntary offerings was also part of the temple cult (Lev. 1–3); these gifts expressed joy over Yahweh’s kingship. This is also a picture of surrender to the one true King of kings (cf. Isa. 49.23; Phil. 2.9-11). John is not the only author who has alluded to Isaiah’s pilgrimage of the kings. Matthew echoes it when he narrates the story of the magi bringing presents to Jesus (2.11). Their royal gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh were a miniature ful¿llment of Isa. 60.1-6. The magi bring their homage not to glori¿ed Jerusalem, but to the feet of the Christchild. ‘Hopes and expectations for the city were transferred to the child in a manger.’85 The Apocalypse shows this occurring in a grander scale in the eschatological new world as the kings of the earth are paying homage to the King of kings, the Christ enthroned in his city – the church. This is not only high Christology, but also high ecclesiology. The presence of the nations and kings of earth is unexpected, but John may have maintained them not just for the sake of Isaiah’s image, but also to make another point. In Genesis humankind was created to rule over all other creation (1.28). In the new Jerusalem John portrays the saints as both serving and worshipping God (22.3), and also as ruling over the new creation (22.5). The situation where Christians were judged and persecuted by human rulers and authorities is reversed in this portrait of saints sharing the rule of Christ in his kingdom. John states in 22.4, as one of the eschatological blessings, that the saints see the face of God, and have God’s name on their foreheads. Aune observes that in Judaism and early Christianity the metaphor of ‘seeing the face of God’ means having ‘full awareness of the presence and power of God (Job 33.26; Pss. 10.11; 17.15; 3 Jn 11), for worshipping God in the temple (Ps. 42.2), or for seeing God in the context of a prophetic vision (Isa. 6.1)’.86 This also carries some tones of the kingship, 84. So Mulholland, Revelation, 330. Beale argues against viewing them as tribute or wealth and points out that elsewhere the phrase ‘glory and honor’ always appears in the context of worship (Rev. 4.9, 11; 5.12, 13) (Revelation, 1099). Since we are dealing with symbolism, there is room for both interpretations as the wider context of Revelation allows both, and also the OT traditions about Yahweh’s kingship combine the two (e.g. Ps. 72.9-11, 15, 17-19). Also Fekkes supports a double meaning against the background of Isa. 60 (Isaiah, 272–3). 85. Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2008), 53–5. 86. Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1179. 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

177

as the kings did not allow unacceptable subjects access to see their face. Bearing the name of God on their foreheads recalls the seal of God in Rev. 7.3 and speaks of ownership. (b) Garden of Eden This picture of universal kingship of Yahweh and Christ intermingles with the imagery of the garden. In antiquity the kings and rulers were associated with owning gardens. The structure of the royal garden often illustrated the ideology of the king.87 This garden is clearly associated with the original Eden through the following elements: river, tree of life, fruit, and presence of God. The primary two things that the author wants us to know about the river of the water of life in vv. 1-2a are, ¿rst, its source in the throne of God and the Lamb, and second, its life-giving value. This river imagery is already used in the canon in Ezek. 47.1-2; Zech. 14.8; Joel 3.18; and Ps. 46.4 as one of the blessings associated with God’s dwelling place. Ezekiel’s vision is most developed: Then he brought me back to the door of the house; and behold, water was Àowing from under the threshold of the house toward the east, for the house faced east. And the water was Àowing down from under, from the right side of the house, from south of the altar. And he brought me out by way of the north gate and led me around on the outside to the outer gate by way of the gate that faces east. And behold, water was trickling from the south side. (Ezek. 47.1-2)

In Ezek. 47, the river is Àowing out of the temple. In the same chapter Ezekiel goes to great lengths in describing the amount of the water and the abundance of life that this river brings. Ezekiel’s river even makes the salty sea (including the Dead Sea) fresh and swarming with living creatures (v. 9), and this water will grow fruit-bearing trees everywhere it Àows (v. 12). Zechariah 14.8 mentions that in summer as well as in winter ‘living waters Àow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea’. Joel adds that all the brooks of Judah will Àow with water, and the river will spring fourth from the house of the Lord in Zion (3.18). And Ps. 46.4 speaks of a river ‘whose streams make glad the city of God’. The following passages from Isaiah may also be considered as possible inÀuences: 35.1-9; 41.18-20; 43.19b-20.

87. Terje Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 94–104.

1

178

The Ending of the Canon

Although the image of life-giving water is part of standard prophetic language of eschatological blessings, Ezekiel’s reference has by far the most elements in common with Revelation as it identi¿es the source of the river as the temple of God and emphasizes its life-giving nature (47.7-12); in addition its textual location corresponds well with the continued sequential use of Ezekiel in Revelation. This river is clearly an eschatological image that refers back to the rivers of Genesis: ‘Now a river Àowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers’ (Gen. 2.10).88 Eden is the source of the four rivers in the same way that the temple is the source of eschatological living waters.89 The primary function of the river(s) is to distribute life. Unlike the image of sea, which was seen as threatening and uncontrollable water and a dwelling place of demons, the river is a positive image. The fresh moving water is a gift of God that sustained the lives of humans and animals, and supported vegetation in a dry and unfriendly climate. This life-giving feature has made river/spring a frequent canonical metaphor for the Spirit (e.g. Jn 7.37-39). Andrew of Caesarea wrote: ‘The river Àowing out from the Church in the present life hints at a baptism of regeneration being activated through the Spirit’.90 In Rev. 22.1 the river Àowing from the throne is the source of all life; all life in the new Jerusalem is dependent on God and the Lamb. If the river is also a symbol for the Spirit, then the life-giving Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, thus providing a proto-image of the Trinity. The reader of Revelation has already encountered a reference to lifegiving waters in 7.17, where we are promised that the Lamb in the centre of the throne will guide them (namely, those who come out of great tribulation and who have washed their robes) to the ‘springs of the water of life’. In the same breath the author says: ‘God shall wipe every tear 88. There was no actual river in ancient Jerusalem, much less in the temple to which these texts could be referring. Jerusalem’s drinking water was brought to the city from the Gihon spring outside the city of David, at the foot of Mt. Olivet. Beside this spring priest Zadok anointed Solomon to be a king over Israel (1 Kgs 1.33, 38). Later King Hezekiah dug a tunnel to bring the waters of Gihon into the forti¿ed city to withstand an Assyrian siege (2 Chr. 32.30; 33.14). But there are no canonical texts that speak speci¿cally of Gihon’s eschatological importance. It is, however, intriguing that this spring bears the same name as one of the rivers that Àowed out of Eden and de¿ned its boundaries (Gen. 2.10). 89. Beale agrees in this point. He writes, ‘22:1 also reaches farther back than Ezekiel, Joel and Zechariah, being modeled on the description of the primeval garden in Gen. 2:10’ (Revelation, 1103). 90. Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, FC 123: 232. 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

179

from their eyes’. This emphasizes the healing qualities of those waters. The image will be mentioned again in 22.17, which like 21.6 promises that living water is free for everyone who wants it. Common to all these references is the future orientation: the author emphasizes that the promise remains available and urges readers to enter into community in order to participate in this eschatological renewal.91 Verse 2a, ‘in the middle of its street’, is arbitrarily separated from the ¿rst part of the sentence in 22.1. The river is in the middle of the street of the new Jerusalem.92 Perhaps this strange location for the river is a distant echo of Isaiah, which called the river a ‘Highway of Holiness’ and emphasized that the river itself is a path that God’s people will walk upon (35.1-9; 43.19b-20). Verse 22.2b includes both verbal and thematic allusions to Ezekiel: And by the river on its bank, on one side and on the other, will grow all kinds of trees for food. Their leaves will not wither, and their fruit will not fail. They will bear every month because their water Àows from the sanctuary, and their fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing. (Ezek. 47.12)

It has been a long time since we have heard about the tree of life in the canon.93 Here in the last chapter of the Bible the tree is mentioned four times (vv. 2 [2×], 14, and 19). A brief mention occurred also earlier in Rev. 2.7.94 This return to Eden imagery signals narrative closure. In Gen. 2.8-9 God was portrayed working as a gardener planting trees and as a potter forming Adam out of earth. Both the trees and humanity emerge from the soil and both receive their life-qualities from God. Adam is to become a gardener (Gen. 2.15) and the trees (except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil) were to be food for Adam. There is no record of Adam ever eating from the tree of life. There is a note that the disobedient humanity was not allowed to eat from the tree of life (3.22, 24). The garden of Eden is described as being in the east (2.8) and the 91. Rev. 7.17 and 21.6 use the future tense and 22.17 uses the imperative mood, which in this context implies future. 92. Beale agrees that it is the preferred reading, but points out the other possibility (Revelation, 1106). 93. Since Gen. 2.9; 3.22, the tree only episodically appears in Prov. 3.18; 11.30; 13.12; 15.4. It is also used in LXX of Isa. 65.22. 94. Among the non-canonical apocalypses, 1 En. 24.3–25.5 mentions trees surrounding God’s throne, including one beautiful and fragrant tree of life, which nobody can touch until the judgment day when it will be presented to the saints; 2 En. 8.3 stated that God rests under that beautiful and fragrant tree; and 2 Esd. 8.52 (NRSV) also spoke of the reappearance of the tree of life. 1

180

The Ending of the Canon

east of the garden God placed the cherubim guarding the way to the tree of life (3.24). Basil the Great comments on how the tradition reÀects this: ‘Thus we all look to the East at our prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country, Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East’.95 The end reÀects the beginning. It is unclear whether John sees one or many trees in his vision. The text is confusing since ‘either side’ seems to refer to multiple trees, while the noun for the ‘tree’ is singular.96 John’s ¿rst reference to the tree of life in Rev. 2.7 is also singular, and placed in an unquestionably Genesislike context as the tree is described as being ‘in the Paradise of God’. It seems that we have a fusion of two intertextual references: the multiplicity comes from Ezek. 47.7, 12, while the singular echoes Gen. 2.9; 3.22-24. John was unconcerned about explaining why he has changed the plural of Ezekiel. By this double echo the reader will embrace a larger vision of God’s eschatological redeemed universe as the reader is led back to both Eden imagery and the temple-city imagery. More than the number, the quality of the tree(s) of life should be our focus. The tree(s) of life bear(s) twelve kinds of fruit every month and its/their leaves bring healing for the nations. It does not really matter if all the twelve fruits are always ‘in season’ or whether they follow one after another in each month, for the number twelve refers to completion and every month assures the continued Àow of life and provision through the tree. This ceaseless Àow of life contrasts with the natural harvest cycles, where a brief season of harvest is followed by a time of anticipation and anxiety with respect to whether the harvest will succeed. In the Genesis story, the fruit was also the food of humans (1.29; 2.16). The leaves of the tree(s) of life provide healing (22.2; cf. Ezek. 47.12). No healing properties are mentioned in Genesis. Humans became familiar with evil after eating from the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3.11-19). In this side of the story there is much brokenness in humankind that needs healing, even after God has redeemed and renewed all things. The experiences gained through history will remain with the human kind as painful memories, and they need to be healed continually. Verse 3a promises that there will be no curse in the new Jerusalem. The ¿rst appearance of any ‘curse’ in the canon is Gen. 3.14-19. The cause of the curse is Adam and Eve’s disobedience. The object of curse is the serpent (v. 14) and the ground (v. 17). Many pains are counted that come upon humans, but the humanity is not directly accursed. There is a 95. Basil, On the Spirit 27.66 (NPNF2 8.42). 96. Aune suggests that the singular in 22.2 should be understood as a collective singular, which ties this text ¿rmly to Ezekiel (Revelation 17–22, 1177).

1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

181

terrible connection though, ‘For you are dust, and to dust you shall return’ (3.19b). As a result of the disobedience, Adam will become the ground again. At this darkest moment in the story, in the midst of the harshest judgment, there are two signs of hope. First, Adam calls his wife ‘Eve’, meaning ‘mother of all the living’ (3.20); and, second, God makes garments of skin to clothe Adam and his wife (3.21). This ¿rst sacri¿ce understood in the context of the whole canon, was a pre-¿guration of the hope of redemption of human kind. Adam’s naming of his wife Eve is also signi¿cant. By naming her ‘mother of all living’, Adam recognizes that in the midst of death there will be new life. Previously God had said that the woman will suffer pain when giving birth to new life (3.16). However, God had also promised that the woman’s offspring would crush the head of the serpent (3.15). Within the canon, we might surmise that Adam understands that the woman has a promise of being instrumental in the solution to the problem of sin and death. The reader of Revelation may draw parallels with Rev. 12, where the woman is reported as ‘being in labor and in pain to give birth’ (12.2). Her child is protected from the dragon/serpent of old and elevated to the throne of God (12.5), while the dragon is expelled from heaven and thrown down to the earth (12.9). In the midst of the curse, there is hope for redemption that will come through the woman’s offspring. Revelation shows how God reverses the curse and makes it possible for humanity to live at peace with God and serve him (22.3).97 Verses 3b-5 state ¿ve eschatological privileges of the saints: they will serve God, they will see God’s face, they will bear God’s name on their foreheads, God will illumine them, and they will reign forever. The saints are addressed as »ÇıÂÇÀ, ‘servants’, of God, recalling the address in Rev. 1.1, where »ÇıÂÇÀ is also used. It is also used in 7.3, 15; 11.18; 19.2, 5; 22.6. ¸ÌɼŧÑ can be interpreted both as ‘to serve’ and ‘to worship’. In the context of the city-temple the word evokes the images of priestly worship. The saints now have the priestly privileges of access; they can worship God in his presence (1.6; 5.10; 20.6). Genesis 2.15 states that Adam was placed in the garden of Eden ‘to cultivate it’. Hebrew 8 is translated in the LXX with ¸ÌɼŧÑ. It has been pointed out that Eden is the prototype for tabernacle and the temple, and Adam is sometimes viewed as the ¿rst priest.98 97. According to some, Rev. 22.3 may also echo Zech. 14.11. However, Aune has pointed out that the curse in the context of Zechariah refers primarily to the absence of war and persecution rather than lifting of the curse of sin and death (Revelation 17–22, 1179). 98. G. J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 19–25. 1

182

The Ending of the Canon

Seeing God’s face is another privilege that emphasizes the reversal of the old order. In the old order, even Moses was not allowed to see God’s face (Exod. 33.20). Seeing God means having a true understanding and being in the right relationship with God. In the new creation, the saints have this level knowledge and intimacy with God (Mt. 5.8; Heb. 12.14; 1 Jn 3.2). Scholars have also suggested an echo to the high-priestly blessing: ‘The LORD bless you, and keep you; the Lord make His face shine on you, and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up His countenance on you, and give you peace’ (Num. 6.24-26).99 In this case the curse has been recast as blessing. God’s name on the saints’ foreheads is another sign of their priestly status. In Exod. 28.36-38 Aaron wore a gold plate with the engraving ‘Holy to the LORD’ on his forehead. John has utilized this image of the engraved name heavily in his book: he refers to the protective seal on the forehead of his servants (7.3; 14.1) and the engravings on the gates and foundations of the new Jerusalem (21.12, 14). The image communicates belonging to God. As a royal seal marked the property of the king, the seal impression (engraving) is marking the servants of God. This is the ful¿llment of the eschatological promise given to the church of Philadelphia in Rev. 3.12: ‘I will write upon him the name of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name’. In 22.5a John repeats what he already stated in 21.23 and 25: there are no longer any natural lights or night, but God shall illumine them. Why so much repetition? The author may be overwhelmed by the vision of the presence of God and dumbstruck: God is there, his glory brings everything into light. John may also be somewhat polemical against those who suggest that heavenly bodies can guide one’s life and destiny.100 The repetition may also be conditioned by John’s use of sources. In Rev. 21.23, 25 he was following Isa. 60.19: ‘The Lord will be your everlasting light, no longer will you have sun and moon for your light’. Here he is switching his primary emphasis to Zech. 14, which includes: ‘And it will 99. Osborne, Revelation, 776. 100. It is possible that John is polemicizing against astrology when he emphasizes that the glory of God will replace all natural luminaries. There are several instances of sun or moon worship mentioned in the canon (Deut. 4.19; 2 Kgs 23.5; Jer. 8.2). John’s audience would have no doubt had contacts with the zodiac and astrology, as they were part of both Jewish and Graeco-Roman worldview. Pilch and Malina’s Social-Science Commentary proposed that John’s Apocalypse, with its interest in heavenly visions, is another astral prophecy. The opposite is closer to the truth. For an assessment of Pilch and Malina’s thesis, see Witherington, Revelation, 273–5.

1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

183

come about in that day that there will be no light; the luminaries will dwindle. For it will be a unique day which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light’ (14.6-7). John’s wording remains closer to Isaiah’s, but the repetition may be conditioned by his reference to Zechariah. The ¿nal eschatological privilege is that the saints will rule in the new Jerusalem forever. As a result of the lifting of the curse, humans are given back their original position in the creation, which was the position of authority. Reigning was the primary task of humans in Gen. 1.28. Adam’s role was ‘to ¿ll the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the ¿sh of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living things that moves on the earth’.101 It is the original blessing that was never truly and appropriately realized by humanity. Whatever reigning humans have accomplished in history has, at its best, maintained the resemblance of order by reasonable balance of the polarized interests; at its worst, it has resulted in oppression of people and creation. Indeed, the saints of Revelation lived in daily experience of the abuse of power by the Roman Empire. The reigning of saints in the new age has been part of Jewish messianic expectation for a very long time. Daniel 7.18 writes, ‘But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, for all ages to come’. Daniel 7.27: ‘Then the sovereignty, the dominion, and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him’. Although John appears to be inspired primarily by Dan. 7, the canonical reader also hears various NT echoes – such as Mt. 20.2023, where the mother of the sons of Zebedee requests that his sons could sit at the right and left of Jesus in his kingdom, a request guided by this eschatological understanding of the saints ruling with the Messiah. Jesus does not deny them this eschatological privilege, but points to its meaning: self-denial and sacri¿ce (Mt. 20.25-28). The kingdom that the saints will rule is the opposite of the Gentile rulers, who lord over their subjects and abuse their authority. The saints are ruling through sacri¿ce and service, as Christ came not to be served, but to serve, and give his life for the sake of humanity.102 In Rom. 5.17 Paul also talks about the believers in Christ reigning in the context of reversal of Adam’s transgression.

101. Beale has suggested that Adam was supposed to expand the presence of God that was initially limited to Eden to the entire earth (Revelation, 1111). 102. A similar promise occurs in Mt. 19.28-30. 1

184

The Ending of the Canon

e. Revelation 22.6-21 From this point forward John is driving towards conclusion. He introduces little new material, but rather rehearses some main points and reÀects back on the beginning of the book. The rhetorical tone of this last segment is exhortative: it urges the readers to take action in the light of this eschatological vision. Verses 6-7 are transitional as v. 6 wraps up the references to the angel, and v. 7 shifts the focus to the coming of Christ. There is a double af¿rmation of the truthfulness of the witness in this segment: vv. 8-15 focus on John as the visionary prophet passing on this message, and vv. 16-20a focus on Jesus as the ultimate witness and the source of authority behind the vision. Intertextually, this segment relies on Dan. 12, Isaiah (esp. 62.11b), and Deuteronomy (esp. 4.2; 12.32; 29.32) but echoes of Genesis and some Gospel material are also heard. The key functions of this ¿nal segment are to emphasize the divine origin and truthfulness of John’s prophetic witness, to protect the integrity of the book of prophecy against wilful tampering, and most importantly to highlight the urgency of becoming righteous and holy worshippers, set apart from any idolatry or impurity, for the coming of the Lord. (1) Coming of the Lord In vv. 6-7 John repeats his opening lines to re-emphasize his reasons for writing as well as the urgency and authority of his prophetic message. He emphasizes the nearness of the coming of the Lord (Rev. 1.1, 3; 3.3, 11; 16.15). In v. 7 the speaker is Christ – he is the Coming One. The coming of the Lord is emphasized through the sevenfold use of ìÉÏÇĸÀ in this last segment of the book (22.7, 12, 17 [×3], 20 [×2]), making it the leading theme of the segment. Verses 8-9 repeat the incident of 19.10, with John worshipping the angel. Some scholars have suggested that it is not a repetition of the event, but a repeated description of the same event for a greater rhetorical impact.103 The episode provides another occasion for reminding the reader that worshipping angels is inappropriate, as they are merely the 103. Mulholland views Rev. 19.10 and 22.8-9 as the same event, and if the angel here is a representation of Christ, then also perhaps the same event as 1.17. Mulholland further argues that in Revelation all worship belongs to God; Christ/ Lamb is never directly worshipped, as he is intimately connected to the church, which Revelation portrays as Christ’s incarnation on earth (Revelation, 334). Beale, however, maintains that these are two separate occasions. John may have simply mistaken the angel for Christ as they share some similar attributes (1.13-17; 10.1) (Revelation, 1128). 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

185

‘fellow servants’. Signi¿cant currents within the Judaism of this period had great interest in angelology. In this context, it may have been a temptation to worship them. Perhaps it was also tempting for some Jewish Christians to reconcile their strict monotheism with Christianity by assigning Jesus an angelic status (cf. Heb. 1). Revelation allows neither. John expands the reader’s understanding of monotheism by showing that Christ shares the throne of God, and is in some sense to be identi¿ed with God; Christ receives the worship of God, while angels are not to be worshipped (22.3; cf. 22.8-9). Intertextually, vv. 6-9 provide nothing that has not already been discussed previously. Starting with v. 10 we enter a section that shows evidence of inÀuence of Dan. 12. There is the following correspondence between Rev. 22 and Dan. 12: 1. Not sealing up the words of the prophecy (22.10; cf. Dan. 12.4, 9 [reversed]); 2. An angel gives an oath on the truthfulness of the message (22.6; cf. Dan. 12.7); 3. The time of the ful¿lment of the message is discussed (22.6-7; cf. Dan. 12.6-7); 4. Blessing to those who remain faithful until ful¿lment (22.7b, 14; cf. Dan. 12.12); 5. How the righteous and the wicked respond to the message (22.11; cf. Dan. 12.10-11); 6. A reward is promised to the faithful (22.12; cf. Dan. 12.13 [Daniel only]). John has modi¿ed Daniel in the following points: ¿rst, John’s revelation is not to be sealed; second, the time of ful¿lment is near; third, John not only states that some will continue to act wickedly, but he even rhetorically urges them to do so (22.11); and fourth, in Revelation God promises to give an eschatological reward to everyone. The sealing of Daniel meant that the ful¿lment of the message lay in a more distant future, outside Daniel’s lifespan (Dan. 12.13). John seems to believe that he is living at the time of ful¿lment of prophecies, including Daniel’s. Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension have brought the prospect of the ¿nal events and judgment near. What seemed so immediate to John may seem like a long time for us. However, ancient commentators do not display much anxiety about the timeframe, but emphasize readiness and certainty of parousia. In the early seventh century Andrew of Caesarea commented that nearness of Christ’s coming ought to be viewed in comparison of the present time 1

186

The Ending of the Canon

against the future or in the context of sudden and quick death of each person.104 Our perspective on time has changed and patience and endurance are areas of struggle for us. The rhetoric of v. 11 – ‘Let the evildoer still do evil; and let the one who is ¿lthy continue to be ¿lthy; and let the one who is righteous still practice righteousness; and let the one who is holy continue to be holy’ – reÀects Dan. 12.10, but John has changed it from prediction to imperative. Beale writes, ‘The change from prediction in Daniel to imperatives in Rev. 22.11 expresses awareness that Daniel’s prophecy is beginning to be ful¿lled in John’s own time and that genuine believers should discern this revelation and respond positively to it’.105 The passage also recalls the messages to the seven churches: ‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches’ (2.7, 11, 17, 29; 3.6, 13, 22). To this formula negatives have been added: ‘let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and let the one who is ¿lthy, still be ¿lthy’. These negative exhortations are problematic. Is John really urging his readers to remain in sin? This rhetoric should be understood in the light of Isa. 6.9-10 and its consequent uses in the Synoptic tradition (Mt. 11.15; 13.9-17, 43; Mk 4.9, 23; Lk. 8.8; 14.35):106 And He said, ‘Go, and tell this people: “Keep on listening, but do not perceive; keep on looking, but do not understand.” Render the hearts of this people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim, lest they see with their eyes, hear with their hearts, and return and be healed.’ (Isa. 6.9-10)

The strong rhetoric serves as a warning as well as an exhortation not to be part of the apostate Israel, but to join the people of God. Ezekiel 3.27, with its positive and negative hearing formula, may also be heard at the background: ‘But when I speak to you, I will open your mouth, and you will say to them, “Thus says the Lord God”. He who hears, let him hear; and he who refuses, let him refuse; for they are a rebellious house.’ Likewise, certain passages in the Prophets occasionally even urge the 104. Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, FC 123: 236. 105. Beale, Revelation, 1133. 106. Vos points out that although there are at least ¿fteen occurrences of this hearing formula in the NT, all are found in either the Synoptic Gospels or the Apocalypse; and that the wording of the Apocalypse is closest to Matthew’s. Vos argues that the phrase is unique, that it goes back to Jesus, and that John is primarily dependent on the Synoptic tradition (not the OT), but not necessarily on the written form of the Gospels (Synoptic Traditions, 71–5). In this instance, it is impossible to say with certainty whether John is referring to the OT prophetic tradition or the Jesus tradition. This is the beauty of intertextuality: canon reader hears both the OT and the NT, and these echoes join and support each other, bringing the whole story together in these last verses of Revelation. 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

187

apostate Israel to continue to worship their idols (Jer. 44.25; Ezek. 20.39). The purpose of such statements is to point out current sin, as the prophets do not with true seriousness call people to sin. John adds this exhortation as a ¿nal exclamation point and invitation to repent. We should also understand 22.11 in connection with the command not to seal up the words of the prophecy: let the one who does wrong do so knowing it is wrong (while the author hopes for repentance), and let the one who practices righteousness continue doing so knowing the rewards are waiting ahead (22.12). The reader is confronted with a decision, which will have consequences.107 In v. 12 the speaker is Christ, and the rewards mentioned here recall the promises given to the seven churches in Rev. 2–3. ‘I know your works’, Christ had said to each of the churches. Deeds are important and salvation is not unrelated to behaviour; if anything, in Revelation the behaviour reveals one’s true nature (Rev. 2.23; cf. Jer. 17.10). The saints do not earn their salvation by their works (they are redeemed by the blood of Christ 5.9-10; 7.14; 22.14), but their works reveal their salvation and allegiance to Christ. Worshipping, ÈÉÇÊÁÍÅšÑ (e.g. 11.1, 16; 14.7; 15.4; 19.4; 20.4), serving, ¸ÌɼŧÑ (e.g. 7.15; 22.3), keeping/ obeying God’s word (̾ɚÑ, e.g. 1.3; 2.26; 3.3, 8; 12.17; 14.12; 16.15), holding to one’s witness (ĸÉÌÍÉţ¸, e.g. 1.9; 6.9; 11.7; 12.11, 17; 19.10; 20.4), and overcoming the powers of evil (ÅÀÁŠÑ, e.g. 2.7, 11, 17; 2.26; 3.5, 12, 21; 12.11; 15.2; 21.7), are some of the works of the saints in Revelation. The works that earn wrath and punishment have been outlined in 21.8 and 22.15. The chief sin in Revelation appears to be idolatry (13.8, 12; 14.11). Reward language in 22.12 may reÀect the inÀuence of Isa. 40.10: ‘See, the Lord GOD comes with might, and his arm rules for him; his reward is with him, and his recompense before him’. John may also have in mind Isa. 62.11b, ‘See, your salvation comes; his reward is with him, and his recompense before him’. The reader may hear an echo of Mt. 16.27: ‘For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done’.108 It was expected in Judaism and early Christianity that in his eschatological visitation Yahweh will distribute rewards to his servants according to their works. 107. Andrew of Caesarea understood the statement also as an expression of free will as if saying ‘Each one may do as he likes; I do not compel free choice’ (Commentary on the Apocalypse, FC 123: 239). 108. Beale sees Rev. 22.12b as directly dependent on Isa. 62.11 LXX (Revelation, 1136). Beale is probably right, because Isa. 62’s wedding imagery is used earlier in the larger context of this passage. 1

188

The Ending of the Canon

In v. 13 the speaker is again Christ: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the ¿rst and the last, the beginning and the end’. John reminds us of the title of God introduced in 1.8, 17; 2.8, and repeated in 21.6. We have already observed how this is derived from Isaiah. The ¿rst and last includes creation and judgment/redemption. In 2.8 the title ‘¿rst and the last’ is combined with the one who was dead, and has come to life. Christ is viewed as the Creator as well as the redeemer of the world. This title helps to tie together the canonical story from creation to new creation with the Christ-event as its central revelation. Verses 14-15 present us with some ¿nal images: only the entirely holy people may enter the city and they are blessed, while the unclean are left outside. The list of vices of those who are left outside corresponds closely to 21.8, 27. Those who have the right to enter are described as those who have washed their robes. This washing is done by their faithful following of the Lamb despite the sufferings (7.14). They are hence allowed access to the tree of life and the city of God. Echoes of Gen. 3.22-24 have already been discussed. The segment comprising vv. 16-20a is centred on Jesus as the true witness and authority behind the John’s message. Verses 20b-21 add John’s ¿nal prayer and the epistolary conclusion to the book. Verse 16 recalls that the book is ¿rst and foremost Christ’s message to the churches (‘vision of Jesus Christ’, 1.1). The messianic titles by which Jesus appears (the root and offspring of David, and the bright morning star) tie the ending of the book to the beginning. These messianic titles occurred in 5.5’s vision of the Lamb holding a scroll, where ‘the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the root of David’ is worthy to open the seals of the scroll, and in 2.28, where ‘the morning star’ is mentioned as one of the rewards given to those who conquer. Both titles appear similar to Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus: Mt. 1.1 presents Jesus as an offspring of David, and Mt. 2.2 connects his birth to the appearance of the rising star. These all may echo Balaam’s prophecy of a star rising from Jacob (Num. 24.17). High Christology is also present in this passage, as in 22.16 (‘the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets has sent his angel…’) Christ’s role is similar to that in 22.6 (‘I, Jesus, have sent my angel’). Both the Father and the Son are credited with the sending of an angel to tour John through his grand vision. Verses 17 and 20 are governed by the repetition of imperatival forms of ìÉÏÇĸÀ, ‘come’. The Spirit and the bride invite God’s people to ‘come’. Likewise, ‘whoever hears’ should invite others to ‘come’, and anyone who is thirsty should ‘come’ and partake of the water of life freely. In 22.20 Jesus con¿rms that he is coming quickly and the proper 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

189

response to this can only be an af¿rmation and prayer ìÉÏÇÍ ÁŧÉÀ¼ `¾ÊÇı (‘Come, Lord Jesus’). The invitation is to take part of the water of life. As we have mentioned, John has modelled his call to the thirsty after Isa. 55.1.109 Isaiah pleads for people to partake of what is truly satisfying rather than anything that only seems good but will turn out to be a disappointment (55.2). The ‘water’ that Isaiah is talking about is God, and the life that he gives. It is an offer to partake of an everlasting covenant relationship (55.3). The implied subject of Isaiah’s call is Yahweh. The object of the call is Israel; however, Isaiah sees that also other nations will accept the invitation (55.5). The subjects of John’s call are ‘the Spirit’, ‘the bride’, and ‘whoever hears’. If the Spirit is understood in proto-trinitarian terms and the bride is understood as the church, then the hearers are those who have already heard their call, and now they are asked to join with the Spirit and the bride in inviting others to take part of the repentance and healing. Early commentators of Revelation frequently equated this ‘water of life’ with salvation through baptism and continued forgiveness.110 The object of the call is every reader/hearer who hears and wants to obey ‘what the Spirit says to the churches’ (2.7, 11, 17, 29; 3.6, 13, 22). With this exhortation John makes clear that the reader is still at the point where they can decide to identify with the people of God, and that there is still time to enter into the covenant. The invitation to come in 22.17 and 20 is intersected by vv. 18-19, which deliver a stern warning not to add or take away anything from John’s book of prophecy. In this section John has repeatedly stated that the words he has written into this book are the genuine words of prophecy that came to him from above via visions; they were mediated by angels and spirits, and even bear the testimony of Christ (vv. 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 20). These words of prophecy are written into a book so that they would be followed (v. 11). The words of the book are not to be sealed up (v. 10; cf. Dan. 12.4; Isa. 8.16), but the integrity of the words is to be protected (vv. 18-19).

109. Also Oecumenius, recognized the allusion to Isa. 55.1. See Oecumenius’ Commentary on the Apocalypse in Ancient Christian Texts: Greek Commentaries on Revelation, 105. 110. E.g. Apringius of Beja, ‘he who desires to be saved, he will enter and will either receive free of charge the regeneration of baptism, or he will receive the remedy of repentance without cost or charge’ (Explanation of the Revelation, in Ancient Christian Texts: Latin Commentaries on Revelation, 62). 1

190

The Ending of the Canon

Intertextually, John follows the language and pattern of Deuteronomy rather closely. Before entering the promised land Israel is urged to obey God’s statutes so that they may live and occupy the land: ‘You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you’ (Deut. 4.2). After a series of commandments and instructions concerning worship the section closes with another warning: ‘Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it’ (NRSV, Deut. 12.32; MT and LXX number this 13.1). John uses the two-fold integrity formula just once, at the end of his book, 22.18: ‘I warn everyone who hears the words the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds… if anyone takes away…’.111 To the one who adds, God will add ‘the plagues described in this book’ (v. 18) and the one who takes away loses their share ‘in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book’. A similar curse is included in Deut. 29.20b: ‘All the curses written in this book will descend on them, and the LORD will blot out their names from under heaven’.112 The speaker in Rev. 22.18 is perhaps purposefully left ambiguous: it appears to be John speaking, but God is the one who would execute the judgments. John insists that his work is to be treated as the word from God in written form. Even though the word ‘curse’ is not mentioned in the passage, the warning of taking away one’s share of the tree of life and holy city, and replacing it with plagues (such as 15.6–16.21), functions as a curse. Curses are rare, but not unheard of in the NT. Paul also wrote at the end of his letter ‘if anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed’ (1 Cor. 16.22). ‘Follow and be blessed’ or ‘do not follow and be cursed’ is familiar Deuteronomistic formula: ‘See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse’ (Deut. 11.26). Detailed lists of blessings of obedience and curses of disobedience are given in Deut. 27–28. The author of Revelation appears to be replicating this in a much more modest scale. The curse in 22.18-19 is the counterpart of the blessing given earlier in 22.7: ‘Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book’. Beyond the verbal similarities between Deut. 4.1; 12.32 and Rev. 22.18-19, there is some contextual inÀuence and overlap as well. The literary context of Deuteronomy focuses on warnings against backsliding 111. C.f. Eccl. 3.14 and Prov. 30.5-6. 112. Beale understands the ‘adding to’ or ‘taking away’ not as general disobediences to the divine word, but rather narrowly as following or promoting of false teachings, especially idolatry (cf. Deut. 29.19-20) (Revelation, 1151). 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

191

into idolatry by recalling the episodes of syncretistic worship of the golden calf (Deut. 9.8-21) and the incident where some Israelites worshipped Baal of Peor (Deut. 4.3-4; cf. Num. 25). The text also speci¿cally highlights the danger of false prophets who entice people into idolatry (Deut. 13.1-18). Idolatry and false prophets are also major concerns in Revelation reÀecting the complexities of life within the Roman Empire. The author of Revelation has critiqued the toleration of false prophets in the churches of Asia Minor (e.g. 2.14-16 – Balaam [cf. Num. 22.5–25.3; 31.8, 16], and 2.20-25 – Jezebel [cf. 1 Kgs 16.31; 18.4; 21.25; 2 Kgs 9.22]) and in vivid imagery pictured the demonic nature of such compromise as well as the consequences of following false prophets (Rev. 13; 16; 19.20). John makes it abundantly clear that such are not allowed into the holy city (21.8, 27; 22.15). In Revelation, the keeper of the words would be allowed entrance to the holy city and participation in the tree of life; not keeping the words would lead to the plagues and being left out. This ¿ts very well with the intentions of Deuteronomy, which highlights that the keeping of the law is necessary for one to enter (Deut. 4.3) and remain (Deut. 29.20) in the land. As a literary work, Deuteronomy rehearses the exodus covenant for the new generation about to cross the Jordan from the plains of Moab into Canaan. If a reader picks up on the fact that Rev. 22.18-19 echoes the framework of Deuteronomy and will take time to reÀect on this fact, one would perhaps remember the exodus imagery employed earlier in Rev. 12 and the plagues listed in Rev. 16. God has faithfully sustained his people in wilderness while its enemies who choose the life of idolatry suffer the plagues. In the light of Deuteronomy, Revelation envisions a new exodus: out of Babylon (Rev. 18.4-5) and into the new Jerusalem (22.17). One must be obedient to the divine words to be worthy. We have already discussed the signi¿cance of endings. Michal Tilly observed the corresponding placement of Deut. 4.1; 12.32 and Rev. 22.18-19 as he writes: ‘The literary correspondence between the functions of the texts within their literary context relate to their position at the beginning or end of a binding religious document with its claim to perfection, authority and wisdom, which is to be safeguarded’.113 To this I would add, that the use of integrity formula in these ¿nal verses of Revelation signals that John endowed his vision of Christ with the same seriousness and authority as the Torah and intends to protect it. 113. Michael Tilly, ‘Deuteronomy in Revelation’, in Deuteronomy in the New Testament (ed. S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken; New York: T&T Clark International, 2007), 179. 1

192

The Ending of the Canon

Among the other threats to his message (idolatry, false prophecy, disobedience) John may have been concerned about safeguarding the process of publishing. In the ancient world, where the books were copied manually, it was easy to tamper with the text by adding, subtracting, and correcting. This curse would add some security that the message will reach the readers unchanged.114 It would have functioned as the modern notion of copyright, securing the contents for the future generations. Such note would perhaps also encourage compliers of lectionaries to include Revelation.115 It is not to be assumed from 22.7, 12 and 20 that John did not care about the forthcoming generations because he expected Jesus to return soon. The language of immediacy and rhetoric of urgency should not be equated with actual chronology. The fact that John calls his vision a book makes it likely that he was mindful of the process of publication, dissemination, and preservation of the prophetic vision. From the standpoint of the canon this warning will gain a further dimension: it becomes a statement on the completion of the Christian Scripture. Just as the blessing and curse at the end of Deuteronomy functionally protect the integrity of the entire Torah, so also Revelation’s blessing and curse serve in its present canonical context as a protection on the Christian canon as a whole. Verse 20 brings to conclusion the theme of ‘coming’ by once more emphasizing Christ’s imminent return: ‘The one who testi¿es to these things says: “Surely, I am coming quickly” ’. These words carry a legal tone. The speaker here is unmistakably Christ, who here appears as the ¿nal witness to af¿rm the coming (in addition to the angel in 22.16, and John in 22.18).116 Last words always carry special signi¿cance, especially when carried with such strong rhetoric. The urgency is unmistakable: ‘Surely, I am coming quickly’. John wants his readers to stay alert and ready for the divine visitation (cf. Mt. 24.36–25.13). John also shows how he wants his audience to respond: ‘Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.’ The coming of Christ may be a terrifying prospect, but not for the expecting believers. The church should live in a joyful and enduring expectation of Christ’s return (1 Thess. 1.10; 2 Tim. 4.8; Tit. 2.13), praying: ‘Thy kingdom come!’ It may not be as soon or as speedy as Revelation’s rhetoric indicates, but it will nevertheless be both certain and sudden (Rev. 3.3; cf. Mt. 24.43; 1 Thess. 5.2-6; 2 Pet. 3.10). For the churches 114. Dionysius of Corinth in the second century may have used this curse to rebuke those who have distorted his own writings (see Hist. eccl. 4.23.12). 115. Boxall, Revelation, 319. However, Mounce (Revelation, 409) emphasizes that this is a universal warning against wilful distortion of the message, not a note to the scribes. 116. Beale (Revelation, 1154) adds the Spirit as a witness (Rev. 2–3; 19.10). 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

193

enduring sufferings, this is a message of hope (Rev. 3.11); for compromising and complacent churches, it is a message of urgency for repentance (2.5, 16). Christians rejoice over and even pray for the imminent return of the Lord.117 Verse 21 concludes: ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.’ These ¿nal words remind the reader that the book is an epistle to the seven churches, and that they serve as the ¿nal epistolary closure.118 From the canonical point of view this epistolary ending helps also to bind Revelation with the previous canon segment – the Epistles. 4. Conclusion John’s ¿nal vision is that of renewal. He sees the new creation, in which the harmony between God, humanity, and creation is restored. All former things, such as death, pain, and suffering, have passed away, and the sea, the symbolic location of all evil, exists no longer; instead, God dwells in the midst of humans as once before, at the beginning of the canonical story. God is portrayed in this vision as the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the ¿rst and the last (21.6; 22.13). These titles draw the reader’s attention to the big picture of the canon story that spans from creation to judgment. The crisis caused by sin is ¿nally overcome and reversed into renewal. John shows that God’s plan for the creation is in the end realized. God rules as the Almighty (21.22) and his throne is the centre of the new creation (22.1), which now receives its life from God, and worships God. This new creation is accomplished through the sacri¿ce of Christ, portrayed here as the Lamb (21.14, 23, 27; 22.2, 3), which maintains the canonical focal point on Christ. Jesus is also referred to as the root of David, the bright morning star (22.16), and as the coming One (22.12), which highlight the ful¿lment of OT prophecies concerning the messiah. Through the use of these titles John portrays God as the Creator, redeemer, and judge of all things. John uses the image of the new Jerusalem to further detail the nature of this renewal. The new Jerusalem is spoken of as a bride. This symbol 117. Revelation is similar to the prayer of 1 Cor. 16.22: ‘Our Lord, Come’ (ĸɊŸ ¿Û, which is the Greek rendering of an Aramaic prayer). The vivid expectation of Christ’s return was part of the early church’s life (also Did. 10.6). See Osborne, Revelation, 797. 118. This is similar to how Paul ended his epistles – e.g. Rom. 16.20: ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you’. Although the similarity in wording is striking, and Romans would probably satisfy the criteria of availability, this does not necessarily express literary dependence. 1

194

The Ending of the Canon

stands for the redeemed people of God in holiness and perfection. At the beginning of the Revelation the church was portrayed as struggling and falling short of its potential (chs. 2–3; 11.1-2), now it has persevered in tests, and overcome idolatry, compromise, and temptation. Their patient endurance in sufferings and faithful witness for Christ has made them conquerors with Christ. The holiness of God’s people is highlighted through the bride’s adornment. And yet, it is also made clear that it is not of her own making: God creates holiness in his people. Just as Christ descended from heaven in his incarnation, so also the bride is portrayed as descending from heaven. Through the universal and intimate language of marital covenant, John has highlighted the covenant relationship between God and humans, bringing the OT and NT promises of God dwelling among humans to a ful¿lment. John reverberates the OT prophetic visions of God and his people Israel, but a Christian reader will also hear the NT parables of the messianic wedding feast as well as promises to the church. John concludes by referring to the bride as the wife of the Lamb (21.9), thus emphasizing the intimacy of God and his people. The dwelling of God with humans also recalls at some level the incarnational images of the OT: Eden, tabernacle, and temple, and the NT image of the church as the body of Christ. Dwelling together in covenant unity, as a family, is a powerful and universal metaphor. Revelation draws to a close by envisaging a celestial wedding ceremony of Christ and the Church. The new Jerusalem is the symbol of the people of God, but it is also the ¿nal eschatological reward for the church, the promised inheritance to the faithful conquerors. God’s people are portrayed both as holy warriors who did not compromise with the beastly creatures alluring for their worship and preying on their allegiance, but also as children of God. Theirs is the Davidic promise, ful¿lled in Christ: ‘I will be his God and he will be my son’ (Rev. 21.7; cf. 2 Sam. 7.14). They are contrasted to others who have polluted themselves with idolatry and murder, and who lacked courage to maintain their witness for Christ in the hostile world. The latter’s inheritance is the lake of ¿re, which is the second death (21.8). Just as Christ spoke of judgment involving some who will perish and who will be left outside the great messianic feast and Paul warned against being left out of the promises of God, so John sees the judgment in its stark contrast between eternal life and second death. Through the eschatological contrast, the author has highlighted the importance of faithful endurance and uncompromised purity in God’s people, who live in a culturally and religiously complex world. At the end, the hopes and dreams of God’s children will be satis¿ed. 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

195

The bride is further described through the metaphor of a city-temple. John uses detailed architectural language: walls, gates, foundations, proportions, and construction materials are all discussed. John shows how the new Jerusalem is perfect in its proportions, how it measures up to God’s standards (21.15-17). The church has ¿nally reached a state of perfection. Only the most precious of the materials, those with the ability to reÀect light, the glory of God, are part of its composition. This sparkling cubicle recalls the holy of holies of the temple, evoking in the reader the traditions from Israel’s days of glory. Its other features also speak symbolically of the design of God’s holy community. Its walls, gates, and foundations speak of the continuity of Israel and the church. Its walls stand on the foundation of the apostles, emphasizing the signi¿cance of apostolic teaching. Its gates, inscribed with the names of the twelve tribes of the covenant people of God, stay always open, yet nothing unholy can enter into this city-temple. Only those written in the Lamb’s Book of Life may enter (21.27). The reader is reminded of the canonical focal point: the sacri¿ce of Christ as the only means of gaining access into God’s presence. God’s presence in the new Jerusalem is communicated through the metaphor of the kingship of Yahweh and the Lamb. The throne is at the centre of the city, and the throne is the source of the living water; hence, God’s rule is the source of life (22.1). John sees in a grand vision the ful¿lment of prophecies, such as the kings of the earth bringing their treasures as homage to God enthroned in his royal capital (21.24). The language of kingship recalls not only the better days of the Israel’s monarchy, but also the birth of the messiah as well as Jesus’ teachings on the kingdom. The New Testament narrative shows that the kingdom will include also the Gentiles and promises that the saints will share God’s rule. The great reversal is shown to have taken place: the authorities that once judged Christ are now judged, and the overcomers/saints are lifted up to rule (22.5). God’s presence in the new Jerusalem is also communicated through the language of Eden, a royal garden. This garden features the river of the water of life and the tree(s) of life (22.1-2). The source of life and healing is available for the renewed humanity. What was once denied because of sin is now accessible through the Lamb. The curse is declared to be a thing of the past, as humans commune with God face to face in perfect worship, as they bear the untainted imago Dei (22.4). This is a renewed humanity in a renewed creation in a renewed relationship with the Creator.

1

196

The Ending of the Canon

Finally, the promise of the coming of the Lord is highlighted as the point in which all the eschatological promises will be ful¿lled. This yet again recalls the prophetic language of Yahweh’s visitation, as well as Jesus’ kingdom parables. Christ’s coming is a message of hope and judgment: hope for the suffering and witnessing church and judgment for those who worship creation above the Creator (22.12). Here, at the end of his book, John includes some rhetorical features that highlight the expected reader-response: John exempli¿es worship (22.8-9), there is a forceful invitation for the reader to choose between holiness and uncleanliness (22.10-11), and an invitation to come and take from the living waters (22.17). This addresses the reader in the present who has not yet made the choice of allegiance. Finally, the prayer that Christ would come echoes the longing of the faithful church, and further highlights the urgency to come to a place where one can claim access to God’s new creation (22.20). The covenant blessing and curse reminiscent of the Torah secure John’s message, and mark the completion of the canon story (22.18-19). God’s salvation story has reached its culmination and closure, while the anticipation of Christ’s second coming remains. To bring this reading to a completion, I have provided a visual summary of my ¿ndings. In the following chart I have placed the four major segment divisions that I used to structure my reading of Rev. 21– 22, with the segment markers on the left column. In the middle column I have included the primary (and, in parentheses, some supporting) intertextual allusions verse by verse. Some sources provide many more references.119 My goal has not been to amass a large number of references; instead, I have weighed the references for their signi¿cance to interpretation and the volume that they carry. Mere verbal similarity is not always the best basis for intertextuality. What is more, many canonical themes echoed do not easily lend themselves to allusions to speci¿c texts or wording. One must weigh the echoes and allusions based on the surrounding literary context. In the right column I have highlighted the themes and metaphors that emerge from reading Revelation in light of its intertextual references. To understand the meaning of these metaphors, one needs to study the canon. John is a Christian author who is deeply rooted in both the Old and New Testament traditions, and a canonical reader likewise needs to be well versed in these in order to hear the theological message of Revelation. 119. E.g. NA26 suggests over 110 OT allusions in Rev. 21–22. I have identi¿ed just over sixty primary references and about twenty supporting references, which also include the impact of the NT traditions. See Kovacs and Rowland (Revelation, 294–5), who used NA26 for their list of references. 1

4. Revelation 21–22 as the Ending of the Canon

197

Table 4.2. Intertextual References in Revelation 21–22 Segment 21.1-8 (Overlap) 1 ¼č»ÇÅ 3 ôÁÇÍʸ

21.9-21 10 ëÅ ÈżŧĸÌÀ 10 »¼ıÉÇ »¼ţÆÑ ÊÇÀ (cf. 17.1)

1

Primary Intertexts (Supporting Intertexts) (21.1) New creation, former things – Isa. 65.16-20; (Gen. 1.1) (2) Holy city – Isa. 52.1; adorned bride – Isa. 61.10 (3) God dwells with mortals – Ezek. 37.27 (4) No death or crying – Isa. 25.8; Isa. 65.16-20; (Isa. 43.18); (Mt. 5.4) (5) God makes all things new – Isa. 43.19a (2 Cor. 5.17) (6) Alpha and Omega – Isa. 41.4; 44.6; 48.12; water of life freely given – Isa. 55.1 (7) Conquerors will be God’s children – 2 Sam. 7.14; 1 Pet. 2 (8) Idolaters inherit second death in lake of ¿re (Gospels, Epistles) (9) Bride, the wife of Lamb – Isa. 61.10 (10) In spirit – Ezek. 43.5; high mountain – Ezek. 40.1-4 (11) Presence of God’s glory – Ezek. 43.2-5; Isa. 60.1-2 (12) Wall – Ezek. 40.5; twelve gates for twelve tribes – Ezek. 48.30-35 (13) Gates to four directions – Ezek. 42.15-20; 48.30-34 (14) 12 apostles as foundations (Gospels, Epistles) (15) Measuring of the city wall and gates – Ezek. 40.3-16 (16) City is foursquare – Ezek. 41.4; 45.2; 48.16, 20 (17) Measuring of the city wall – Ezek. 41.5; 40.5 (18-19a, 21) Structure and materials – Isa. 54.11-12 (19b-20) twelve stones – Ezek. 28.13 (Exod. 28.15-21; 39.8-14)

Theme New creation

Marital covenant

Inheritance

City-temple: external perspective

198 21.22–22.5 22 ¼č»ÇÅ

1 컼ÀƚŠÄÇÀ

22.6-21 (Overlap) 6-7 6 ÇīÌÇÀ ÇĎ ÂŦºÇÀ ÈÀÊÌÇĖ Á¸À Ò¾¿ÀÅÇĖ (cf. 21.5) 6 ëŠ̊ϼÀ 7 blessing 8-15 8 John 16-21 16 Jesus ìÉÏÇĸÀ (7, 12, 17 [×3], 20 [×2]).

1

The Ending of the Canon (22) No temple in the city – Ezek. 40.2 [reversed] (23) No lights but Lamb (cf. 22.5) – Isa. 60.1-2, 19 (24) Nations walk by its light – Isa. 60.3, 5-9, 11-13, 16 (25) Gates never shut, no night – Isa. 60.11; (Zech. 14.7) (26) Glory of nations brought – Isa. 60.11 (60.5) (27) Nothing unclean – Isa. 52.1 (35.8); Book of Life Dan. 12.1 (22.1) Water of life – Ezek. 47.1-12; Zech. 14.8; (Gen. 2.10) (2) Tree of life – Gen. 2.9; 3.24 [reversed] (3) Nothing cursed; presence of God – Gen. 3.14-24 [reversed]; (Zech. 14.11) (4) Will see God’s face, bear God’s name (Ezek. 9.4) (Num. 6.25, 27) (5) No night, God is light, they reign forever – Isa. 60.1-2, 19; (Num. 6.25) (cf. Rev. 21.23 inclusio); Zech. 14.7 (6) What must happen soon; words of prophecy – Dan. 2.28 (7) Coming soon – Isa. 62.11 (40.10); (8-9) John worships the angel (Ezek. 1.28) (10) Do not seal up the words – Dan. 12.9; 8.26 [reversed] (11) Exhortations (Isa. 6.9-10; Mt. 13.10-17 par.) (12) Coming soon, reward – Isa. 62.11; 40.10; (Mt 16.27) (13) Alpha and Omega – Isa. 41.4; 44.6; 48.12 (14) Blessing, tree of life – Gen. 2.9; 3.24 [reversed] (15) Outside are idolaters (1 Cor. 6.9; Gal. 5.19-21) (16) Root of David, bright morning star – Isa. 11.1, 10; Num. 24.17 (17) Water of life as gift – Isa. 55.1 (Jn 7.37) (18-19) Curse for adding/taking away – Deut. 4.1-2 (20-21) Promise of coming and blessing (Isa. 62.11)

City-temple: internal perspective

Kingship

Garden of Eden

Coming of the Lord

Chapter 5

SUMMARY

I have suggested that Revelation is best read in the context of the canonical biblical narrative. I believe that such a reading not only improves comprehension of this complicated book, but it also properly honors its function as Scripture. Canonical reading draws the reader into the context of the church tradition and provides a starting point that purely academic inquiry would lack. Reading in the light of the canon collection also helps to bring the book of Revelation back to the mainstream of theological conversation by integrating it with other more familiar and well-received parts of the canon. When Revelation is viewed as a canonical closure, it becomes a part of a whole narrative, not an obscure appendix. For this to happen, the reader needs to accept the literary and theological unity of Scripture as the starting point. In recent decades ever more scholars have been calling for a greater focus on the unity of the Scripture. I pointed out that focus on the unity of Scripture has been blurred in the past centuries due to the domination of the programs of Gabler and Wrede. In particular Childs and Sanders have been instrumental in developing better methods for reading Bible as Scripture. Biblical studies has also bene¿tted from developments borrowed from literary studies, such as a narrative approach and intertextuality. My work has drawn from the potential strengths of these tools; it has also sought to integrate more thoroughly these methods when reading the canon. I have not set out to invent any new methodological wheels, but to show how these tools used in combination provide better outcomes. I have also cautioned the reader to some dangers in utilizing these methods (e.g. re-creating the canon the way Sanders does without setting appropriate criteria). I also tried to remain realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished (e.g. there always remains uncertainty when speaking of authorial intention and some subjectivity is inevitable in hearing allusions and echoes in texts, since the reader with his/her context is inevitably part of the interpretation process). I also

200

The Ending of the Canon

discussed some criteria for assessing the validity of intertextual allusions and echoes (following Hays and Beale, who both struggled with these questions and laid some helpful guidelines). In Chapter 2 I took a closer look at the genre and internal structures of Revelation. This groundwork ensured that I would hear John’s line of argument in its totality, while also assessing his rhetorical patterns, and literary features of his whole book. Even when reading canonically, it is important that we give our attention to the voice of the author, that we survey the work fully and entirely, and listen to the author’s cues in how the author wants the text to be understood. Having surveyed John’s own statements in the text, I concluded that Revelation is a hybrid of literary forms and perhaps could be summarized as ‘a book of apocalyptic prophecy in an epistolary framework’. I highlighted that John views himself as a prophet, and when reading Revelation in the canonical context, there needs to be a closer focus on the book as prophecy. There is also a need to reassess what apocalypse means in the context of the biblical canon. My reading of the book as a whole included the study of the intertextual nature and layout of the book, presented in Chapter 3. A thorough study of John’s intertexts is a necessary component to access John’s literary world. Of all the NT books, Revelation makes the most frequent and widespread use of the OT. John advances the NT christological vision, but does so mainly by using the language of the OT. Since John’s use of sources is so vast and wide, and the reader hears so many texts from both testaments, I had to narrow myself statistically and prioritize the major sources that frequently functioned as primary intertexts. I observed that John primarily positions himself in the company of the OT prophets. Therefore, I took a closer look at his use of Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Zechariah. This involved making use of the existing studies where possible, as well as doing my own work where there appeared to be major gaps in research (esp. Zechariah). I also made some advances into the currently uncharted territory of the possible allusions to some NT writings. It is my hope that readers will ¿nd my selection of sources (primary and supporting intertexts) useful for gaining better access into Revelation’s rich intertextuality. I concluded that John largely follows Ezekiel, which becomes a major key to the structure and message of Revelation. It is obvious that there is more to be done in future studies. For instance, a more thorough treatment of the possible use of the NT writings is wanting. In Chapter 4 I outlined the literary signi¿cance of endings, and highlighted their function of providing closure. While the other methodological features that this study has provided could be used in reading 1

5. Summary

201

other parts of the canon, reading as an ending is a unique feature of Revelation due to its assigned location. Hence we included this discussion on closure in the chapter dealing with exegesis. Revelation 21–22 is not just an ending of the book, it is also the ending of the canon, and this should impact how we understand it. The reader needs to hear not only how John completes his own literary work, but also listen for the ways in which John’s book ties together the canon as a whole. We observed several things that highlight Revelation’s function as an ending: ¿rst, Revelation is dependent on the rest of the canon; second, it reveals the full meaning of the canon; third, it, in several aspects, mirrors the beginning of the canon (at the level of characters, setting, and plot); fourth, it resolves the crises of canon narrative; ¿nally, it provides closure while also challenging the reader into action. The rest of the chapter presented my reading of Rev. 21–22. In my exegetical survey I was guided by the methodologies that I had previously outlined. First, by reading the text in its literary unity and taking the narrative approach, I was able to see the inner structure and Àow of John’s vision. There was no need to deconstruct and reconstruct – the text was accepted as Scripture and story for the church. It became obvious that in his last vision John used vocabulary familiar from the previous parts of the book and tied together some loose ends (e.g. showing the ful¿llment of the promised rewards for the faithful churches). By reading in light of the book’s intertextual layout, I was able to bring more detail to the canon metaphors used in Rev. 21–22: new creation, marital covenant, promised inheritance, city-temple, the kingship of Yahweh and the Lamb, the garden of Eden, and the coming of the Lord. The author has included familiar imagery from other parts of the canonical narrative into his ¿nal vision. By remembering the texts that the author references, the reader better grasps the meaning and emotion that John is trying to convey. Assessing the original contexts of the primary intertexts in Rev. 21–22 provided the necessary hermeneutical guidance to understand some otherwise bizarre elements (e.g. the architectural rhetoric of Ezekiel’s temple vision will inform the reader about how to access the meaning of the new Jerusalem city-temple). Finally, by reading in light of its canonical location, I was able to see more clearly how John’s story echoes the Genesis creation story and the Eden imagery, and thus highlights the grand plot of biblical narrative: creation, fall, redemption, and re-creation. Closure for the canon is created as the pre-crises, crises, and resolution are recognized. Revelation is an ending to a long story that began with ‘In the beginning…’, and will be brought to its climax in Christ’s cosmic victory over all evil 1

202

The Ending of the Canon

powers. The story as told in Genesis as the opposition of the snake and woman, in Exodus as the opposition of Moses and Pharaoh, and in the Gospels as the opposition of Jesus and King Herod, is now brought to a closure in Revelation through the cosmic drama of the woman’s offspring and the dragon. Reading Revelation as the canonical ending also universalizes its message. When the church’s battle with idolatry is heard against the background of Genesis, it ceases to be a reference to the speci¿c challenges posed to the Christians living in the ¿rst-century Roman Empire, and becomes a reference to more universal struggles of the church against sin and evil in the context of this cosmic war. The reader cannot remain an outsider to the story, but becomes involved in the biblical drama. This makes John’s ¿nal words of warning and encouragement especially relevant (22.10-15). In conclusion, a canonically and intertextually guided narrative reading of Revelation does not perhaps arrive at any earth-shattering theological revelations about the end of the world or detailed promises about the afterlife. Indeed, such a reading makes little connection to any speci¿c historical circumstances. This may be seen by some as a limitation – the images are not de-mysti¿ed or fully explained with historical data. Instead of de-mystifying or fully explaining the images we are ¿lling out the images with further color and detail from other visions and images from the canonical narrative. The prophetic images and metaphors remain images and metaphors. These typically describe the essence of immaterial things such as faith, salvation, holiness, worship, loyalty, sin, idolatry, compromise, and witness that are part of the church’s life at any age. Sometimes the images revoke the canonical story (such as exodus, exile, birth of Messiah) that function to connect the reader with the holy history. It may be seen also as an asset that the message of Revelation cannot be fully localized to any time or place or circumstance or instance of ful¿llment. Instead of becoming a blueprint for the future, Revelation presents the reader with a vision. By showing the church as God’s holy eschatological community and the Lamb’s bride, the author challenges the readers to become that church. This invitation is not particularly speci¿c to any time or place, but seems rather universal, standing in continuity with the prophetic visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, and Paul, and having much in common with the beginning of the canon narrative. Much like the garden of Eden was a universal beginning of humanity’s relationship with God, so the new Jerusalem reveals the eschatological outcome or that relationship. 1

5. Summary

203

Taken as a single book, Revelation is historically situated in Asia Minor, addressing (in a rather general way) the needs of the seven selected churches of Asia Minor. Yet, in its canonical context the vision of Revelation functions as an identity-creating narrative for the churches for all times and all places. Ancient commentators like Oecumenius, Andrew of Caesarea, and Victorinus seemed to be in touch with this feature of Revelation. They frequently drew on canonical intertextual connections for the meaning of Revelation – although, to a modern observer, their practice of intertextuality was sometimes rather undisciplined and reaching. Modern commentators are usually more methodologically aware, but some are perhaps too cautious, allowing only rigid source-critical connections to be given a voice. In my view, there can be a balance in our practice of intertextuality as a reader-oriented approach, however, always checked by criteria that avoid complete subjectivity (Hays and Beale have offered some suggestions). This will be an ongoing conversation. It is my hope that this work has provided something of a supplement or an alternative to what purely historical critical commentaries have to offer to the study of Revelation, and a path forward that brings Revelation back from the margins of scholarship, allowing it to be fully used in the context of theological reÀection, and to function as a capstone of Christian theological vision, the worthy ending of the canon.

1

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, H. Porter, The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Afzal, Cameron, ‘Review of David E. Aune, Revelation’. RBL [http://www.bookreviews .org] (2000). Aichele, George, and Gary A. Phillips, ‘Introduction: Exegesis, Eisegesis, Intergesis’. Semeia 69/70 (1995): 7–18. Allo, Ernest-Bernard, L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean. Paris: Gabalda, 1933. Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse. Translated by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou. FC 123. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011. Ancient Christian Texts. Greek Commentaries on Revelation: Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea. Translated by William C. Weinrich; edited by Thomas C. Oden. Series edited by Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray. Downers Grove, Ill., IVP Academic, 2011. Ancient Christian Texts. Latin Commentaries on Revelation: Victorinus of Petovium, Apringius of Beja, Caesarius of Arles and Bede the Venerable. Translated and edited by William C. Weinrich. Series edited by Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray. Downers Grove, Ill., IVP Academic, 2011. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 10 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Aune, David E., Apocalypticism, Prophecy, and Magic in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. ——. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. ——. Revelation. 3 vols. WBC 52; Dallas: Word Books, 1997; 52B and 52C; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998. Bailey, Kenneth E., Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2008. Bandy, Alan S., ‘The Layers of the Apocalypse: An Integrative Approach to Revelation’s Macrostructure’. JSNT 31 (2009): 469–99. Barr, David L., Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Santa Rosa, Ca.: Polebridge, 1998. ——. ‘Waiting for the End that Never Comes: The Narrative Logic of John’s Story’. Pages 101–12 in Studies in the Book of Revelation. Edited by S. Moyise. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2001. Barr, James, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Barthes, Roland, ‘The Death of the Author’. Pages 142–8 in Image Music Text. Translated by Stephen Heath. New York: Hill & Wang, 1977.

Bibliography

205

Bauckham, Richard, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993. ——. ‘Prayer in the Book of Revelation’. Pages 252–71 in Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament. Edited by R. N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. ——. ‘The Role of the Spirit in the Apocalypse’. EvQ 52 (1980): 66–83. ——. ‘Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse’. NTS 23 (1976–77): 162–76. ——. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Bauer, Walter, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Baxandall, Michael, Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. Beale, G. K., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ——. ‘The InÀuence of Daniel upon the Structure and Theology of John’s Apocalypse’. JETS 27 (1984): 413–23. ——. John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. JSNTSup 166. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1998. ——. The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St John. London: Lanham, 1984. ——. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2008. Beale, G. K., and Sean M. McDonough, ‘Revelation’. Pages 1081–161 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Beasley-Murray, George R., The Book of Revelation. NCB 37. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974. Ben-Porat, Ziva, ‘The Poetics of Literary Allusion’. PTL 1 (1976): 105–28. Birch, Bruce C., ‘Tradition, Canon and Biblical Theology’. HBT 2 (1980): 113–25. Blomberg, Craig L., ‘The Synoptic Problem: Where We Stand at the Start of a New Century’. Pages 17–40 in Rethinking the Synoptic Problem. Edited by D. A. Black and D. R. Beck. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Bøe, Sverre, Gog and Magog. WUNT 135. Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Boers, Henricus, What is New Testament Theology? The Rise of Criticism and the Problem of a Theology of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Boismard, Marie-Émile, ‘ “L’Apocalypse,” ou “Les Apocalypses” de Saint Jean’. RB 56 (1949): 507–41. ——. ‘Notes sur L’Apocalypse’. Revue biblique (1952): 161–81. ——. ‘Rapprochements littéraires entre l’évangile de Luc et l’Apocalypse’. Pages 53–63 in Synoptische Studien: Festschrift A. Wikenhauser edited by J. Schmidt and A. Vöglte. Munich: Karl Zink, 1953. Boring, M. Eugene, Revelation. Interpretation. Louisville, John Knox, 1989. Boxall, Ian, The Revelation of Saint John. BNTC 19; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006. Brawley, Robert L., Text to Text Pours Forth Speech: Voices of Scripture in Luke–Acts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995. 1

206

Bibliography

Bray, Gerald, Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present. Leicester: Apollos, 1996. Brenton, Sir Lancelot C. L., The Septuagint Version: Greek and English. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. Brett, Mark G., Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical Approach on Old Testament Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Bruce, F. F., ‘The Spirit in the Apocalypse’. Pages 333–44 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule. Edited by B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Caird, G. B., The Revelation of Saint John. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: A&C Black, 1966. Campenhausen, Hans von, The Formation of the Christian Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Charles, Robert H., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920. ——. Studies in the Apocalypse. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913. Reprinted, Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 1996. Charlesworth, James H., ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983–85. Cheon, Samuel, ‘B.S. Childs’ Debate with Scholars about His Canonical Approach’. AJT 11 (1997): 343–57. Childs, Brevard S., Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. ——. ‘The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature’. Int 32 (1978): 46–55. ——. ‘The Exegetical Signi¿cance of Canon for the Study of the Old Testament’. Pages 66–80 in Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977. Edited by J. A. Emerton et al. VTSup 29. Leiden: Brill, 1978. ——. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. ——. ‘A Response’. HBT 2 (1980): 199–211. Collins, John J., ed., Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Semeia 14. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979. Conzelmann, Hans, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. NTL. Edited by Alan Richardson et al. London: SCM, 1969. Court, John M., ‘The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation: A Review of Two Books by G. K. Beale’. Pages 26–8 in New Testament Writers and the Old Testament. Edited by J. M. Court. London: SPCK, 2002. ——. Myth and History in the Book of Revelation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1979. Cowley, Arthur E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century BC. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923. Davidson, Ivor J., The Birth of the Church: From Jesus to Constantine, A.D. 30–312. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. Deiana, Giovanni, ‘Utilizzazione del libro di Geremia in alcuni brani dell’Apocalisse’. Lat 48 (1982): 125–37. deSilva, David A., ‘X Marks the Spot? A Critique of the Use of Chiasmus in MacroStructural Analyses of Revelation’. JSNT 30 (2008): 343–71. Desrosiers, Gilbert, An Introduction to Revelation: A Pathway to Interpretation. New York: Continuum, 2000. Dumbrell, William J., The End of the Beginning: Revelation 21–22 and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Lancer, 1985. Eichrodt, Walter, Ezekiel: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. Ellul, Jaques, Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation. New York: Seabury, 1977. 1

Bibliography

207

Fekkes, Jan, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and Their Developments. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1994. Ford, J. Massyngberde, Revelation. Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975. Freedman, David Noel, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Frei, Hans W., The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1974. Gamble, Harry Y., Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995. Gangemi, Attilio, ‘Vom prophetischen zum apokalyptischen Visionsbericht’. Pages 413– 46 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979. Edited by D. Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Goulder, M. D., ‘The Apocalypse as an Annual Cycle of Prophecies’. NTS 27 (1981): 342–67. Grabbe, Lester L., ‘Introduction and Overview’. Pages 2–43 in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationships. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak. New York: T&T Clark International, 2003. ——. Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio-historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel. Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity, 1995. ——. ‘Prophetic and Apocalyptic’. Pages 107–33 in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationships. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak. New York: T&T Clark International, 2003. Gundry, R. H., Church and Tribulation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973. Harrington, Wilfrid J., Revelation. SP 16. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1993. Hartman, Lars, ‘Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre’. Pages 329–43 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World. Edited by D. Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Hasel, Gerhard, New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Hatina, Thomas R., ‘Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is There a Relationship?’ BibInt 7 (1999): 28–43. Hays, Richard B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1989. Hays, Richard B., and Joel B. Green, ‘The Use of the Old Testament by New Testament Writers’. Pages 222–38 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by J. B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Hendriksen, William, More than Conquerors. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1944. Hengel, Martin, Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. OTS. Edited by David J. Reimer. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2002. Irwin, William, ‘Against Intertextuality’. Philosophy and Literature 28 (2004): 227–42. Jack, Alison, ‘Out of the Wilderness: Feminist Perspectives on the Book of Revelation’. Pages 149–62 in Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edited by S. Moyise. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2001. Jauhiainen, Marko, The Use of Zechariah in Revelation. WUNT 199. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

1

208

Bibliography

Kaiser, Walter C., The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. Keener, Craig S., Revelation. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Koteliansky, S. S., trans. and ed., Anton Tchekhov: Literary and Theatrical Reminiscences. New York: Doran, 1927. Kovacs, Judith, and Christopher Rowland, Revelation. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2004. Kristeva, Julia, Revolution in Poetic Language. New York: Columbia University Press, 1984. ——. Semeotike: Rechershes pour une semanalyse. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1969. Krodel, Gerhard A., Revelation. ACNT. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989. Kümmel, Werner Georg, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems. Translated by S. M. Gilmore and Howard C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972. Ladd, George E., A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1972. Lancellotti, Angelo, ‘La tradizione profetico-apocalittica dell’ A.T. nell’Apocalisse di S. Giovanni’. Pages 37–46 in L’Apocalisse. Studi biblici pastorali dell’Associazione Biblica Italiana, 2. Brescia: Paideia, 1967. Lee, Pilchan, The New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation: A Study of Revelation 21–22 in the Light of its Background in Jewish Tradition. WUNT 129. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Lioy, Dan, The Book of Revelation in Christological Focus. SBL 58. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. Longenecker, Richard N., Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Lust, Johan, ‘The Order of the Final Events in Revelation and Ezekiel’. Pages 170–83 in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Noveau Testament. Edited by J. Lambrecht. BETL 53. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980. Luther, Martin, ‘Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)’. No pages. Online: http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html (accessed 29 December, 2014). Malina, Bruce J., and John J. Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000. Marconcini, Benito, ‘L’utilizzazione del T. M. nelle citazioni Isaiane dell’Apocalisse’. RivB 24 (1976): 113–36. Marshall, I. Howard, Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. ——. New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004. Mathewson, David, ‘Isaiah in Revelation’. Pages 189–210 in Isaiah in the New Testament. Edited by S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken. New York: T&T Clark International, 2005. ——. A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21:1–22:5. JSNTSup 238. New York: Shef¿eld Academic, 2003. Matera, Frank J., New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity. Louisville: John Knox, 2007. Mauriac, Francois, God and Mammon. London: Sheed & Ward, 1936. 1

Bibliography

209

Mays, James L., ‘What is Written: A Response to Brevard Childs’ Introduction To The Old Testament As Scripture’. HBT 2 (1980): 151–63. Mazzaferri, Frederick D., The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective. New York: de Gruyter, 1989. McDonald, Lee M., The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Rev. and enl. ed. Peabody, Mass.; Hendrickson, 1995. Merenlahti, Petri, ‘The Future of Narrative Criticism: A Paradigm Shift’. Pages 115–30 in Poetics for the Gospels? Rethinking Narrative Criticism. SNTW. London: T. & T. Clark, 2002. Metzger, Bruce M., The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Signi¿cance. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Michaels, J. Ramsey, Revelation. IVPNTC. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997. Minear, Paul Sevier, Christians and the New Creation: Genesis Motifs in the New Testament. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Miscall, Peter D., ‘Isaiah: New Heavens, New Earth, New Book’. Pages 41–56 in Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by D. N. Fewell. Louisville: John Knox, 1992. Morgan, Donn F., ‘Canon and Criticism: Method or Madness?’ AThR 68 (1986): 83–94. Morgan, Robert, and John Barton, Biblical Interpretation. Oxford Bible Series. Edited by P. R. Ackroyd and G. N. Stanton. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Mounce, Robert H., The Book of Revelation. NIBCNT 18. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Moyise, Steve, ‘Does the New Testament Quote the Old Testament Out of Context?’ Anvil 11 (1994): 133–43. ——. ‘Intertextuality and the Book of Revelation’. ExpTim 104 (1993): 295–8. ——. ‘Intertextuality and the Study of the Old Testament in the New Testament’. Pages 25–32 in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J.L. North. Edited by S. Moyise. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 2000. ——. The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction. London: Continuum, 2001. ——. ‘The Old Testament in the New: A Reply to Greg Beale’. IBS 21 (1999): 54–8. ——. ‘The Psalms in the Book of Revelation’. Pages 231–46 in The Psalms in the New Testament. Edited by S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken. London: T&T Clark International, 2004. Moyise, Steve, ed. Studies in the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2002. Moyise, Steve, and Maarten J. J. Menken, eds., Deuteronomy in the New Testament. The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel. New York: T&T Clark International, 2007. ——. eds. Isaiah in the New Testament. The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel. New York: T&T Clark International, 2005. ——. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1995. ——. eds. Psalms in the New Testament. The New Testament and the Scriptures of Israel. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. Mulholland, M. Robert, Revelation: Holy Living in and Unholy World. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. Neill, Stephen, and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 14 vols. Peabody, Mass., Hendrickson, 2004. 1

210

Bibliography

Osborne, Grant R., Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Oswalt, John N., ‘Canonical Criticism: A Review from a Conservative Viewpoint’. JETS 30 (1987): 317–27. Paulien, Jon, ‘The Book of Revelation and the Old Testament: Thoughts on David Aune’s Approach’. BR 43 (1998): 61–9. Penley, Paul T., The Common Tradition Behind Synoptic Sayings of Judgment and John’s Apocalypse: An Oral Interpretive Tradition of Old Testament Prophetic Material. LNTS 424. New York: T&T Clark International, 2010. Peterson, Eugene H., The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language. Colorado Springs: Navpress, 2002. ——. Reversed Thunder. San Francisco: Harper, 1988. Piper, Otto A., ‘The Apocalypse of John and the Liturgy of the Ancient Church (Rev 5)’. CH 20 (March 1951): 10–22. Placher, William C., ‘Hans Frei and the Meaning of Biblical Narrative’. ChrCent 106 (1989): 556–9. Polk, David P., ‘Brevard Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture’. HBT 2 (1980): 165–71. Powell, Mark Allan, Chasing the Eastern Star: Adventures in Biblical Reader-Response Criticism. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. ——. ‘Narrative Criticism’. Pages 239–55 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by J. B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. ——. What Is Narrative Criticism? GBS. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Prigent, Pierre, Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John. Translated by W. Pradels. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Resseguie, James L., Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. ——. The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. ——. Revelation Unsealed: A Narrative Critical Approach to John’s Apocalypse. BibInt 32. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Rhoads, David, ‘Narrative Criticism: Practices and Prospects’. Pages 264–85 in Characterization in the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative Criticism. Edited by David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni. JSNTSup 184. Shef¿eld: Shef¿eld Academic, 1999. Richter, David H., Fable’s End: Completeness and Closure in Rhetorical Fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Ricoeur, Paul, ‘Biblical Time’. Pages 167–80 in Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination. Edited by M. I. Wallace. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. ——. ‘Toward a Narrative Theology: Its Necessity, Its Resources, Its Dif¿culties’. Pages 236–48 in Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination. Edited by M. I. Wallace. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Riesling, Russell J., Loose Ends: Closure and Crisis in the American Social Text. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1996. Rissi, Mathias, Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Revelation 19.11–22.15. SBT. Second Series 23. Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, 1966. ——. ‘The Rider on the White Horse: A Study of Revelation 6,1-8’. Int 18 (1964): 405–18. Robbins, R. F., The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Nashville: Broadman, 1975. Roloff, Jürgen, Revelation of John. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. 1

Bibliography

211

Ruiz, Jean-Pierre, Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16,17–19,10. European University Studies: Series 23, Theology 376. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989. Ryken, Leland, The Literature of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1974. ——. ‘Revelation’. Pages 458–72 in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible. Edited by L. Ryken and T. Longman. Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1993. ——. Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987. Räisänen, Heikki, Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and Programme. Second Edition. London: SCM, 2000. Sanders, James A., Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. ——. ‘Canonical Context and Canonical Criticism’. HBT 2 (1980): 173–97. ——. From Sacred Story to Sacred Text. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987. ——. ‘Intertextuality and Dialogue’. BTB 29 (Spr. 1999): 35–44. ——. ‘Scripture as Canon for Post-Modern Times’. BTB 25 (1995): 56–63. ——. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Sandy, D. Brent, Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Scalise, Charles J., Hermeneutics as Theological Prolegomena: A Canonical Approach. StABH 8. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1994. Schlatter, Adolf, Das Alte Testament in der johanneischen Apocalypse. BFCT 16. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1912. ——. Erläuterungen zum Neuen Testament. Dritter Band. Die Briefe des Petrus, Judas, Johannes, an die Hebräer, des Jakobus. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1910. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elizabeth, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Shepherd, M. H., The Paschal Liturgy and the Apocalypse. Richmond: John Knox, 1960. Smidt, J. C. de, ‘Hermeneutical Perspectives on the Spirit in the Book of Revelation’. JPT 14 (1999): 27–47. Smith, Christopher R., ‘The Structure of the Book of Revelation in Light of Apocalyptic Literary Conventions’. NovT 36 (1994): 373–93. Snyder, Barbara W., ‘Combat Myth in the Apocalypse: The Liturgy of the Day of the Lord and the Dedication of the Heavenly Temple’. Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union and University of California, Berkley, 1991. Stevenson, Kalinda Rose, The Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40–48. SBLDS 154. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Stiver, Dan R., Theology After Ricoeur: New Directions in Hermeneutical Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Stordalen, Terje, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2000. Strecker, Georg, Theology of the New Testament. Louisville: John Knox, 2000. Sänger, Dieter, ed., Das Ezechielbuch in der Johannesoffenbarung. Biblische Studien 76. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2006. Sweet, John P. M., Revelation. Pelican New Testament Commentaries. London: SCM, 1979. Swete, Henry Barclay, The Apocalypse of St. John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1908. 1

212

Bibliography

Tenney, Merrill C., Interpreting Revelation: A Reasonable Guide to Understanding the Last Book of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958. Thielman, Frank, Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Thompson, Leonard L., The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Tilly, Michael, ‘Deuteronomy in Revelation’. Pages 169–88 in Deuteronomy in the New Testament. Edited by S. Moyise and M. J. J. Menken. New York: T&T Clark International, 2007. Tõniste, Külli., ‘Measuring the Holy City: Architectural Rhetoric in Revelation 21:9-21’ Conversations with the Biblical World 34 (2014): 260–84. Torgovnick, Marianna, Closure in the Novel. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981. Tull, Patricia K., ‘Rhetorical Criticism and Intertextuality’. Pages 156–79 in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications. Edited by S. L. McKenzie et al. Louisville: John Knox, 1993. Vanhoozer, Kevin J., ‘The Reader in New Testament Interpretation’. Pages 259–88 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Vanhoye, Albert, ‘L’utilisation du livre d’Ezéchiel dans l’Apocalypse’. Bib 43 (1962): 436–77. Vanni, Ugo, ‘The Apocalypse and the Gospel of Luke’. Pages 9–25 in Luke and Acts. Edited by G. O’Collins and G. Marconi; trans. M. J. O’Connell. New York: Paulist Press, 1993. ——. ‘Liturgical Dialogue as a Literary Form in the Book of Revelation’. NTS 37 (1991): 348–72. Vogelgesang, Jeffrey M., ‘The Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation’. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1985. Vorster, Willem S., ‘Intertextuality and Redaktionsgeschichte’. Pages 15–26 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel. Edited by S. Draisma. Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989. Vos, Louis Arthur, The Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1965. Waddell, Robby, The Spirit in the Book of Revelation. JPTSup 30. Dorset, UK: Deo, 2006. Wall, Robert W., ‘Apocalypse of the New Testament in Canonical Context’. Pages 274– 98 in The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism. Edited by R. W. Wall and E. E. Lemcio. JSNTSup 76. Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1992. ——. ‘Canonical Context and Canonical Conversations’. Pages 165–82 in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology. Edited by J. B. Green and M. Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ——. ‘Introduction’. Pages 15–25 in The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism. Edited by Robert W. Wall and Eugene E. Lemcio. JSNTSup 76. Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1992. ——. ‘Reading the New Testament in Canonical Context’. Pages 372–96 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by J. B. Green. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ——. Revelation. NIBCNT 18. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. 1

Bibliography

213

Wall, Robert W., and Eugene E. Lemcio, eds., The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism. JSNTSup 76. Shef¿eld: JSOT, 1992. Wallace, Mark I., ‘Introduction’. Pages 1–34 in Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination. Edited by M. I. Wallace. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Walvoord, John F., The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody, 1966. Wendland, Ernst R., ‘7×7 (×7): A Structural and Thematic Outline of John’s Apocalypse’. Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 4 (1990): 371–87. Wenham, G. J., Genesis 1–15. WBC 1. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987. Wilson, Mark, Charts on the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Witherington III, Ben, Jesus the Seer: The Progress of Prophecy. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. ——. Revelation. NCBC. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Wolde, Ellen Van, ‘Trendy Intertextuality?’ Pages 43–9 in Intertextuality in Biblical Writings: Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel. Edited by S. Draisma. Kampen: Uitgeversmaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1989. Wolff, Christian von, Jeremia im Frühjudentum und Urchristentum. TU 118. Berlin, Akademie-Verlag, 1976. Wright, N. T., The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999. ——. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. ——. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 3. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. Yarbro Collins, Adela, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976. ——. Crisis and Catharsis. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. ——. ‘The Dream of a New Jerusalem at Qumran’. Pages 231–54 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Volume 3: The Scrolls and Christian Origins. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. The Princeton Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2006.

1

INDEXES INDEX OF REFERENCES HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1–3 135 1–2 85, 107 1 141 1.1–2.4 21 1.1-2 142 1.1 85, 142, 146, 173, 197 1.2 143 1.3–2.3 142 1.6-10 143 1.9-10 67 1.26-27 67 1.28 155, 176, 182 1.29 180 2–3 105, 172 2.1 LXX 146 2.8-10 150 2.8-9 179 2.8 179 2.9 85, 179, 180, 198 2.10 154, 178, 198 2.11-12 157, 168 2.15 179, 181 2.16 180 2.25 136 3.1-5 67 3.1 66, 85, 155 3.6 155 3.8 150 3.11-19 180

3.14-24 3.14-19 3.14-16 3.14-15 3.14 3.15-16 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22-24 3.22 3.23-24 3.24 14.18-20 15.2-4 19 Exodus 1–2 1.15–2.10 3.7-8 3.14 4.22 7–11 7–10 7.17-19 8.15 12 13.21 14.19-20 15–17 15 16

198 180 65 67 180 85 68, 181 181 180 155, 181 181 181 180, 188 134, 179 150 161, 179, 180, 198 148 156 85, 100

85, 126 66 156 85 156 85, 100 100 116 101 85, 101, 126, 143 121 121 84, 85 85 85

17.6 19–24 19.3-23 19.6 19.15 19.16 23.30 24.9-11 24.10 25–31 25.8-9 25.8 25.10–27.21 28.9-11 28.15-21

154 158 158 85, 126 68 62 156 158 160 158 165 150 165 85, 118 157, 168, 197 28.17-20 LXX 169 28.36-38 182 29.7 116 32.32 85 33.20 182 39.8-14 157, 168, 197 40.34-38 121 Leviticus 1–3 15 16 21.16-24 23 26.11-12 26.12

176 174 174 174 173 150 150

Numbers 2 6.24-26 6.25

150 182 198

Index of References 6.27 22.5–25.3 22 24.17 25 31.8 31.16 35.30

198 191 85 188, 198 191 191 191 64, 115

Deuteronomy 1.8 156 4.1-2 198 4.1 85, 190, 191 4.2 183, 190 4.3-4 191 4.3 191 4.19 182 9.8-21 191 11.26 190 12.32 183, 190, 191 13.1-18 191 13.1 190 17.6 64, 115 18.15 116 19.15 64, 115 23.9-10 68 27–28 190 28.15-68 101 29.19-20 190 29.20 190, 191 29.32 183 32 85 34.1-4 158 34.1 158 34.5-6 85, 116 Joshua 6 1 Samuel 10.1 21.5

2 Samuel 7.14

215

8 9.22 23.5 25.8-10

116 64, 85, 116 148 191 182 150

2 Chronicles 32.30 33.14 36.15-21

178 178 150

Job 7.12 12.15 28.17 33.26

67 67 167 176

10.11 17.15 23.1-2 29.3 42.2 46.4 47.9 50.3-4 62.13 68.29 69.29 72.9-11 72.15 72.17-19 75.8 76.2 78.44 79.1 86.8-10 86.8 88.28 89.38 96.12-13 96.13 98.8-9 99.1 102 102.25-28 106.48 115.4-7 115.13 119.137 122 137.1 137.8 141.2 144.9 146-150 149.1

Psalms 2 2.1-2 2.8-9 2.8 7.10

66, 84 83 83, 85 85 83

Proverbs 3.18 11.30 13.12 15.4 30.5-6

7.14 LXX 11.8-11 24.18-25

141, 156, 162, 194, 197 156 68 148

1 Kings 1.33 1.38 6.11-13 6.20 9.6-9 10.1-25 16.31 17.1 18.4 21.25

178 178 150 166, 167 150 176 191 116 191 191

2 Kings 1.10-12 2.11

176 176 83, 85 67 176 177 83 78 83 148 83 176 176 176 83 148 83 83 83 85 83 83 78 83 78 83 144 144 81 81 81 81 148 70 81 81 81 85 84

179 179 179 179 190

85

116 68

216 Ecclesiastes 3.14 Isaiah 1 1.4 1.8 1.9-10 2.2 2.5 2.10 2.19 2.25 3.3 3.9 3.20 4.8 6 6.1-4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.9-10 8.16 11.1 11.2 11.4 11.10 13.10 13.19 13.21 19.5 19.11-16 21 21.9 21.23-26 22.5 22.20 22.22 23.8 23.17 24.21 24.23 25.6

Index of References

190

148 78 78 72 175 175 87 85, 87 78 78 72 78 78 91, 95 85 176 85, 87 87 85, 126, 186, 198 189 85, 87, 198 114 85, 87 85, 87, 198 85 72 85, 88 67 78 89 85, 88 159 159 78 85, 87 85, 88 85, 88 85 85, 143 143

25.7-8 25.7 25.8 26.1-2 29.11 34.4 34.9-14 34.10 34.11-14 35.1-9 35.3-6 35.8 35.10 40–66 40.3-5 40.9-11 40.10 41.4

41.18-20 43.4 43.15 43.18-19 43.18 43.19-20 43.19 44.5 44.6 47 47.7-9 47.8-9 48.12

48.20 49.2 49.10 49.18 49.23 50.3 51.1

143 143 85, 88, 143, 197 161 85 85, 87 88 85, 88 85 177, 179 78 198 78, 143 36 78 78 187, 198 85, 87, 145, 197, 198 177 88 143 85, 88 143, 197 177, 179 143, 144, 197 69 85, 87, 145, 198 71 88 85 85, 87, 145, 197, 198 85, 88 85, 87 85, 88, 107 85, 89, 147 88, 176 85, 87 174

51.10 51.11 52.1

52.11 53.7 54 54.1 54.5-6 54.5 54.6 54.11-17 54.11-12

54.11 54.11 LXX 54.12 55.1

55.2 55.3 55.5 59.15-17 59.19-21 60–62 60

60.1-6 60.1-3 60.1-2 60.1 60.3 60.5-9 60.5 60.11-13 60.11

60.14

88, 143 143 72, 85, 89, 146, 147, 197, 198 85, 88 85 148, 152 148 147 85, 89, 148 85, 89 147 89, 121, 148, 157, 161, 167, 170, 197 85 162 85 85, 88, 154, 189, 197, 198 189 189 189 78 78 147 85, 159, 160, 171– 3, 176 176 89 89, 197, 198 159 175, 198 198 89, 175, 198 198 89, 121, 172, 175, 198 88

Index of References 60.16 60.17-18 60.19-20 60.19

61.6 61.10

62 62.2 62.4-5 62.6 62.10-11 62.11 62.11 LXX 63.1-6 63.1-3 63.1 63.3 63.5 63.6 63.9 63.20 64.1 65.1-25 65.15-20 65.15 65.16-20 65.16-17 65.16 65.17-20 65.17-19 65.17 65.19 65.21-22 65.22 LXX 65.25 66.20-24 66.22

198 171 89, 172 89, 159, 173, 182, 198 85, 126 85, 88, 89, 146, 147, 197 161, 187 85, 88 85, 89, 147 161 78 183, 187, 198 187 78, 85, 118, 126 85, 87 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 21 88 85, 88 141, 197 141 85, 87, 144 85 146 141, 143, 144 143 142 179 142 148 142, 143

Jeremiah 2.2 2.13 2.18 3.20 5.22 7.34 8.2 8.14 9.15 14.3 14.12-18 14.12 15.3 15.18 16.4 16.9 17.10 18.21 19.7 22.8 23.15 25.4 25.10 25.14–31.44 25.15-28 27–28 LXX 28.8 29.17-18 31 31.3-14 31.9 31.12 31.32 33.10-11 34.17 42.17 43.11 44.12-13 44.25 46–51 46.7-8 47.2 49.12 49.18 50–52

217 50–51

147 110 110 147 67 110 182 85, 110 85, 110 110 101 85 101 110 101 110 187 101 101 71 85, 110 85 110 108 103, 109 108 101 101 149 110 110 110 147 110 101 101 101 101 187 108 110 110 103, 109 72 71

50 50.35-40 51 51.3 51.6 51.7 51.8 51.9 51.11 51.13 51.27 51.36 51.37 51.42 51.49 51.63-64 51.63 52 52 LXX

85, 88, 108 108 72 31, 108, 109, 122 109 109 103, 109 109 109 109 109, 110 109 67, 85, 110 109 109 109 104, 109 111 108, 150 108

Lamentations 1.1 71 Ezekiel 1–3 1–2 1

1.1–3.14 1.1–3.11 1.1 1.4-28 1.4 1.5-26 1.13-14 1.24 1.26-28 1.26 1.27-28 1.28 2

97, 98 91 72, 85, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98 97 62 85, 98 98 98 98 98 96 98 85, 98 98 85, 98, 198 85

218 Ezekiel (cont.) 2.2 63, 158 2.3-7 98 2.8–3.3 94, 95, 97, 99 2.9-10 62, 99 2.10 62 3 85 3.1-3 100 3.3 62, 94 3.7 101 3.12 63, 85, 158 3.14 63, 85, 97, 99, 100, 158 3.24 63, 85, 158 3.27 85, 186 4–5 97 4.1–5.14 63 5 85, 95, 97, 100, 123 5.12 100, 101 6.2-3 159 7 85, 95, 97, 100, 101 7.2 85 7.15 101 8.3 85 9 85, 95, 97, 100 9.3 101 9.4 69, 198 9.6 101 10 94, 95, 97, 98, 150 10.1-11 63 10.2 85 11.1-13 63 11.1-2 63 11.1 63, 85, 158 11.4 63 11.6 63 11.15–14.20 63 11.23 159

Index of References 11.24 12 14.21 16

16.3 16.32 16.38-41 16.42 16.43-63 16.45-46 17.6 17.9 17.15 17.18 17.22-23 18.15 19.13 20.23 20.39 20.40 23

23.1-49 23.4 23.10 23.22-31 23.26 23.32-33 23.32 23.42 26–28

26–27 26 26.1–28.19 26.1 26.7-12 26.12 26.16 26.19-21 26.21 27

85, 158 96 85 72, 85, 94, 95, 97, 102, 111, 149 72 147 102 102 96 72 102 102 102 102 159 159 158 159 187 159 85, 94, 95, 97, 102, 103, 111 147 103 103 103 103 103 103 103 85, 97, 102, 103, 111 88, 94, 95 103, 104 95 104 104 104 104 104 94 103, 105

27.12-25 27.26-32 27.26-27 27.30-32 27.30 28 28.1-19 28.13-14 28.13 28.14-16 30.12 32.7 34 34.13 34.23-24 36.35 37–38 37 37.1-14 37.1 37.3 37.5 37.9-10 37.10 37.15-28 37.24-28 37.26 37.27-28 37.27

37.28 37.40-48 38–39 38 38.2 38.4 38.9 38.10-11 38.16 38.19-23 39 39.4

105 105 105 105 94 168, 169 103, 105 105 157, 168– 70, 197 159 67 85 85, 97, 106, 107 159 106, 107 158 96 85, 97, 106 96, 107 85, 158 94 107 107 94, 96 96 151 95 107 85, 141, 151, 162, 197 150 97 85, 94, 96, 97, 106 95 106 74 106 106 106 106 96 94

Index of References 39.6 39.11-16 39.17-20 40–48

40–43 40 40.1-4 40.2 40.3-16 40.3-5 40.5-49 40.5 41 41.4 41.5-15 41.5 41.25 42.15-20 42.15-19 43 43.2-5 43.2 43.5

43.6-9 43.10-12 43.10 44.1 44.5 44.7-9 44.10 44.15 45.2 47

106 106 94, 106 36, 37, 72, 85, 94–7, 107, 121, 147, 152, 157, 160, 163–5, 172, 173 85 96 197 159, 160, 198 197 163 160 159, 160, 197 96 197 166 197 161 197 161 96, 151 159, 160, 197 94, 96, 160, 173 63, 85, 158, 173, 197 151, 160 164 167 174 174 174 174 174 197 94, 95, 172, 177

47.1-12 47.1-2 47.7-12 47.7 47.9 47.12 47.13–48.9 48 48.10-22 48.16 48.20 48.23-29 48.30-35 48.30-34 48.31-34 48.32-34 48.35 Daniel 2 2.28-29 2.28 2.29 2.31-35 2.44 2.45 5 6.27 7–8 7

7.3 7.7–8.24 7.10 7.11-12 7.13-14 7.13 7.14 7.18 7.25 7.27

198 177 178 180 177 46, 177, 179, 180 164 85 164 197 197 164 160, 197 197 160 161 121, 151

85, 89, 91, 92 56, 89, 91 85, 90, 198 90 91 93 91 71 93 85 67, 85, 89, 91–3, 98, 99, 182 67 46 85, 92 85 48, 85 126, 127 93 182 64 93, 182

219 8.11-14 8.26

12.10-11 12.10 12.11 12.12 12.13 12.17

64 85, 92, 198 85, 98, 99 66 66 85, 183, 184 107 85, 92, 198 184, 189 184 85, 93, 184 85, 92, 184, 198 184 186 85, 93 184 184 64

Hosea 1–2 2

149 147

10.5-6 10.13 10.21 12 12.1-3 12.1 12.4 12.6-7 12.7 12.9

Joel 1–2 2 2.1 2.15 2.30 3.12 3.13 3.18 4.2 4.13

85 84 85 85 85 77 77, 85, 126 177 77 76

Nahum 1.4

67

Habakkuk 3.8

67

220 Haggai 2.2-3 Zechariah 1 1.7-17 1.8-17 1.8 1.9-10 1.10 1.12 1.13-17 1.16 2 2.1-5

2.2 2.4-5 2.5 2.6-13 2.6-9 2.6-7 2.10-11 2.13 3 3.1-10 3.1 3.3-4 3.8 3.9 4

4.1-19 4.1-14 4.2 4.4 4.6-10 4.6 4.10 4.13 4.14

Index of References

151

85 101, 118 112, 113 75, 118 118 118 85, 118– 20 118 120, 163, 164 121, 163 63, 85, 112, 120, 163 120 120 121 112 121 122 121 112 117 112 116 117 115 85, 118 85, 114, 115, 117, 120 113 112, 114 85 115 115 115 85, 114 115 107, 115, 116

5.1-14 6.1-8

14.12-19 14.12-15 14.14 14.16 14.18 14.20-21 14.21

113 75, 112, 119 119 85 115 116 120 121, 122 113 123 85 113 147 64 85, 113, 126, 127 127 122 127 127 113 85 123 120, 121, 182 112 78 198 121, 177, 198 78 121, 181, 198 121, 122 123 122 78, 121 123 113, 121 174

Malachi 3.1-5 3.1-4 4.1-6 4.5-6

116 78 136 116

6.5 6.9-15 6.11-13 6.13 8 9 9.9-17 9.14-15 9.14 11.4-7 12–14 12.3 LXX 12.10 12.10 LXX 12.10–13.1 12.10-14 12.14 13.7-9 13.8-9 13.8 14 14.1-19 14.1-5 14.7 14.8 14.9 14.11

NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1–2 85 1.1 188 1.18-21 126 2.2 188 2.11 176 2.13-23 66 3.10 128 3.16 148 4.1-11 155 4.1 158 5.2 128 5.4 128, 197 5.5 156 5.8 182 9.14-15 148, 149 10.15 72 11.10-14 116 11.15 85, 126, 186 11.23-24 72 12.39-40 128 12.46 128 13.9-17 126, 186 13.9 85 13.10-17 198 13.24-43 77, 85, 126 13.24-30 77 13.36-43 77 13.41 85 13.43 85, 126, 186 13.45-46 171 16.18 163, 168 16.27 85, 187, 198 17.3 117 18.16 64, 115 19.28-30 182 19.28 85 19.29 156 20.20-23 182 20.25-28 182 21.42 172 22.1-14 149

Index of References 22.1-13 22.11-14 23.34-35 24

27.40-50 27.47 27.49 27.50-54

149 146 126 89, 96, 127 118 85, 126 119 127 126 126 126 77 85, 126, 127 127 79 192 124 85, 127, 128 128 85, 126, 128, 192 128 149 79 77 156 85, 89, 126, 127 155 116 116 145

Mark 1.10 1.12 1.13 2.18-20 4.9 4.23 4.26-29

148 158 155 148, 149 186 186 126

24.6-14 24.6-8 24.14 24.23-26 24.27-31 24.27 24.29 24.30-31 24.30 24.31 24.36–25.46 24.36–25.13 24.42–25.30 24.42-44 24.42 24.43 24.50 25.1-13 25.14-30 25.31-46 25.34 26.64

4.35-41 6.45-52 9.4 9.11-13 13.7-13 13.7-9 13.10 13.21-22 13.24-25 13.26 13.27 13.32-37 13.33-37 13.41 14.58 14.62 15.29 15.35-36

67 67 85, 117 116 118 126 119 119 126 89, 126 85 127 124 77 172 77, 85, 89 172 116

Luke 1.15-17 3.22 4.1-13 4.1 5.33-35 8.8 10.2-24 10.12 11.28 11.31 11.49-51 12.35-48 12.35-37 12.35 12.37 12.38 12.39-40 12.46 13.39 13.41 14.16-24 14.35 17.28-37 19.11-27

116 148 155 158 148, 149 186 77 72 85 176 126 124 126, 129 85, 128 128 128 126, 127 126, 127 77 77 149 186 72 79

221 20.17-18 21.9-24 21.9-12 21.25-26 21.27-28 21.27 21.278 22.69-70 22.69 24.25-27

172 118 126 126 77 89 126 77 85 2

John 1.9 1.14 1.21 1.32 2.1-11 2.19-22 2.19-21 2.20 3.19 3.29 4.7-15 4.21 4.34-38 6.14 7.3 7.37-39 7.37-38 7.37 7.40 8.12 8.17 10.1 10.8 10.10 12.35 14.1 14.23 18.28–19.16 19.30 21.12 21.14 22.18

173 107 116 148 149 172 151 151 173 149 154 172 77 116 182 178 154 198 116 173 64, 115 127 127 127 173 182 152 102 145 182 182 190

222 Acts 1.8 1.9 2.32 3.15 3.22-23 4.11 4.20 7 8 8.3 8.4-5 8.4 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.19 8.23 11.28

Index of References

64 64, 85, 117, 126 64 64 117 172 64 102 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 44

Romans 1.7 1.29-31 5.17 8 8.21 9.32-33 10.6-8 12.1-2 16.20

50 157 182 79 142 172 148 116 193

1 Corinthians 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.11 3.10-17 3.10 3.11 3.16-17 3.16 5.9-11 6.9-10 6.9 6.15-20 14

46 50 46 46 162, 168 162 162 116 162 157 157 157, 198 149 44

15 15.50 16.22 22.2 22.10 22.19 22.21

79 157 190, 193 46 46 46 46

2 Corinthians 1.2 5.17 6.14-15 6.15-18 6.16-18 6.16 6.17 11.2

50 144, 197 162 162 152 162 162 149

Galatians 1.3 4.26 5.19-21 5.21

50 147 157, 198 157

Ephesians 1.2 2.11-12 2.20 2.21-22 4.9-10 5.22-23

50 162 162, 168 162 148 149

Philippians 1.2 2.9-11 3.20

50 176 147

Colossians 1.2

50

1 Thessalonians 1.1 50 1.10 192 4.14 148 4.16 148 5.2-6 192

5.2 5.4

85, 126, 127, 129 85, 126, 127

2 Thessalonians 1.2 50 1 Timothy 1.2

50

2 Timothy 1.2 3.16 4.8

50 2 192

Titus 1.4 2.13

50 192

Philemon 3

50

Hebrews 1 1.3 1.10-12 4.12 7 8.13 9–10 9 9.8-10 11.10 11.13 11.39-40 12.14 12.18-19 12.22 13.14

184 69 144 85 116 151 151 173 151 147, 162 157 157 182 62 147 147

James 5.17

116

1 Peter 1.2 1.3-12

50 157

Index of References 1.18-19 2 2.1-10 2.5 2.9 5.13 2 Peter 1.2 3.10-13 3.10

1 John 2.13 2.14 3.2 4.4

126 197 163 85, 116, 126, 168 85, 116, 126 71

1.2 1.3-4 1.3

50 144 85, 126, 127, 129, 192

1.5

74 74 182 74

2 John 1.3

50

3 John 11

176

1.4–3.22 1.4-8 1.4

1.6 1.7-8 1.7

1.8 1.9–3.22 1.9-20 1.9-11 1.9

1.10 Jude 1.10 Revelation 1

1.1–22.6 1.1–3.22 1.1-18 1.1-8 1.1-3 1.1-2 1.1

163

43, 54–6, 89, 92, 96–8, 127 91 32 56, 89 53, 55 50, 54 98 42, 47, 54, 56, 61, 85, 89, 90, 92, 131, 140, 146, 181, 183, 188

1.11 1.12-20 1.12-13 1.12 1.13-17 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17-18 1.17

1.19–3.22

43, 48 73 38, 48, 50, 98, 123, 124, 183, 187 155 54, 90 50, 57, 99, 114 48, 83, 122, 126 73, 116, 168, 181 126 73, 98, 112, 113, 122, 123, 127 87, 145, 188 53, 55 44, 98 54, 62 48, 54, 71, 85, 98, 156, 187 44, 53, 54, 73, 158 50 48, 54 112, 114, 152 44 183 89, 98, 112, 128 89 94, 99 87 61 44, 73, 87, 98, 145, 183, 188 56, 89

223 1.19

1.20

1.24 1.27 2–3

2 2.1–3.22 2.1-7 2.1 2.5 2.7

2.8-11 2.8 2.9 2.10-11 2.10 2.11

2.12-17 2.12 2.14-16 2.14 2.16 2.17

2.18-28 2.20-25 2.20 2.23

54, 56, 89, 90, 98, 131 38, 48, 57, 112, 114, 115, 152 99 99 120, 154, 164, 187, 192, 194 90, 120 54, 57, 62, 85 54 57, 112 112, 193 38, 50, 74, 123, 126, 154, 179, 180, 186, 187, 189 49, 54 145, 188 102 50 100, 124 38, 57, 74, 123, 126, 154, 186, 187, 189 49, 54 87 191 120 87, 112, 193 38, 50, 74, 88, 117, 118, 123, 126, 154, 186, 187, 189 54 191 120 187

224 Revelation (cont.) 2.26-28 50, 154 2.26-27 83 2.26 74, 187 2.28-29 92 2.28 188 2.29 38, 123, 126, 186, 189 3 50, 141 3.1-6 54 3.1 57, 114 3.2 123 3.3 124, 126– 9, 183, 187, 192 3.4-5 146 3.4 128 3.5 50, 74, 123, 154, 187 3.6 38, 123, 126, 186, 189 3.7-13 49, 54 3.7 87 3.8 187 3.9 88, 102 3.11 112, 183, 193 3.12 50, 74, 97, 107, 147, 155, 182, 187 3.13 38, 123, 126, 186, 189 3.14-22 49, 54 3.14 87, 144, 145, 173 3.17-18 117, 118, 146 3.20 73, 124, 126, 129 3.21 50, 74, 76, 123, 155, 187

Index of References 3.22

4–5 4

4.1–22.6 4.1–22.5 4.1–16.21 4.1–11.18 4.1–5.14 4.1-8 4.1-6 4.1

4.2-5 4.2 4.3-6 4.3 4.4 4.5

4.6-11 4.6-9 4.6-8 4.7-14 4.8 4.9-10 4.9 4.11 4.54 5 5.1-8 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.6-14

38, 90, 123, 126, 186, 189 55, 72, 89, 91, 92 54–6, 91, 95, 97, 98, 141 91 56, 90 53, 55 32 44, 54, 55, 62 94 54 44, 53–6, 60, 61, 85, 89, 91, 98 98 44, 53, 54, 158 98 99, 159 146 54, 55, 57, 61, 112, 114 54 98 73 117 87 98 176 73, 176 57 43, 95, 99, 156 54 44, 62, 94, 95, 97 44, 63, 74 47, 74, 76, 87, 188 54

5.6

5.9-10 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12-13 5.12 5.13 5.14 6–8 6

6.1–16.21 6.1–7.17 6.1-17 6.1-8 6.1-2 6.1 6.2 6.3-4 6.3 6.4 6.5-6 6.5 6.6 6.7-8 6.7 6.8 6.9-11

6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12–7.1 6.12-17 6.12 6.16

44, 47, 57, 112–14, 173 187 73, 126 116, 126, 168, 181 44, 114 73 47, 176 44, 176 73 97 75, 101, 118, 119, 124, 127, 130 55 57 126 59, 95, 112, 118 54 44, 53, 56 44, 74, 119 54 44 123 54 44 44 54 44 44, 101 54, 59, 75, 96, 112, 113, 137, 148 44, 187 73, 119 117, 119, 146 95 54, 62, 87 44 123

Index of References 6.17 7 7.1-8 7.1 7.2-8 7.2 7.3-8 7.3 7.4-9 7.4-8 7.4 7.9-17 7.9 7.12 7.13-17 7.13-14 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16-17 7.17

8 8.1–9.21 8.1-5 8.1

8.3-4 8.5 8.6-13 8.6-7 8.8-9 8.10-11 8.12-13 8.13–9.12 8.13

59, 116 90, 106, 107 54, 59, 60 44, 119 95 44, 70 163 101, 177, 181 166 68 44 54, 60, 61 44, 117, 146 73 106 97, 117, 146 117 94, 117, 187, 188 95, 181, 187 88, 106 83, 88, 107, 143, 173, 178, 179 90 54, 57 60, 95 54, 55, 61, 72, 85, 112 73 54, 61 59, 100, 123 54 54 54, 110 54 59 44, 57, 60

9 9.1-12 9.1-2 9.1 9.4 9.11 9.12 9.13-21 9.13-19 9.13 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.20-21 9.20 10–14 10–12 10 10.1–11.14 10.1-11 10.1-7 10.1-4 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.7 10.8-11 10.8-10 10.8 10.9-10 10.10 11–13 11 11.1-14 11.1-13 11.1-2

84, 90, 107 31, 54 143 44 68, 70 143 57, 60 100 54, 59, 123 44 100 44 44 54, 59 100 60 90 62, 99 54, 62 44 62, 96 94 44, 63, 97, 183 99, 100 57, 63 44 44 38 54, 62, 94, 100 95, 97 44 99 62, 94 130 96, 115, 163 115 54, 62, 65 94, 97, 107, 112, 120, 163, 164, 167, 194

225 11.1 11.2

11.3-14 11.3-13 11.3-4 11.3 11.4 11.5-6 11.6 11.7-10 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 11.11-12 11.11 11.13 11.14 11.15–14.20 11.15-19 11.15-18 11.15 11.16 11.18 11.19–22.21 11.19 12–16 12

12.1–15.4 12.1–14.20 12.1-18 12.1-17 12.1-6 12.1

120, 187 64, 120, 122, 123, 175 120 64 115 64, 93, 117, 123 112, 116 64 116, 123 64 74–6, 143, 187 71, 72, 77, 96, 117 175 116 75 75, 94–7, 106, 107 58 57, 60 54, 61 54, 65 61 55, 65, 83, 85, 112 187 83, 122, 175, 181 32 54, 60, 61, 64 107 43, 65, 68, 84, 108, 126, 181, 191 65 57 54, 65 65 77 65, 66

226 Revelation (cont.) 12.2 181 12.3 58, 65, 66 12.5 66, 83, 181 12.6 64, 66, 93, 120, 158 12.7-8 66 12.9 66, 67, 181 12.10 44, 66 12.11 66, 74, 155, 187 12.12 57, 60, 66 12.13 66 12.14 66, 93, 120 12.17 66, 187 12.18 67, 143 13–15 72 13 49, 67, 69, 89, 92, 108, 191 13.1-18 54, 65 13.1 44, 58, 67, 104, 143 13.2 44 13.4 67 13.5 64, 75, 93, 120 13.6 108 13.7 74–6 13.8 157, 174, 187 13.9-10 38 13.10 123 13.11-17 157 13.11 44, 123 13.12 187 13.13 123 13.16-18 69 13.16-17 67 13.16 69 13.17 69, 154 13.18 38, 49, 167 14–19 88

Index of References 14 14.1-13 14.1-5 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.6-12 14.6-7 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9-11 14.9 14.10-11 14.10 14.11 14.12-13 14.12 14.13 14.14-20 14.14-19 14.14-16 14.14 14.17-20 14.19-20 14.19 15–18 15.1–16.21 15.1-8 15.1-4 15.1 15.2 15.3-4 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6–16.21 15.7

76, 107, 156 54 68 44, 69, 166 44, 96 73, 166 76, 123, 173 95 182 44, 123 187 70, 71, 88, 175 174 69 69, 88 109 69, 187 174 187 44 54, 86, 126 123 76, 77 44, 127 76 87 76 108 54, 57 54 61 44, 55, 58, 65, 85 44, 67, 69, 74, 187 83 73 187 44, 54, 60, 61, 64 190 109

16 16.1-21 16.1-2 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4-7 16.5 16.7 16.8-21 16.8-9 16.10-11 16.11 16.12-16 16.13 16.14 16.15

16.17–19.10 16.17-21 16.17

16.18-21 16.18-20 16.19

16.21 1592 17–19 17–18

17

17.1–22.5 17.1–21.8 17.1–19.21 17.1–19.10 17.1–18.19 17.1-6 17.1-2

108, 191 59, 69 54 44 69 54 54 44 44 59 54 54 59 54 44 174, 175 112, 123, 124, 126– 8, 183, 187 38, 39, 96 54, 58, 70 53, 54, 70, 139, 144, 145 54, 61 62 71, 109, 110, 112, 122, 175 56, 57 110 121, 122 31, 53, 70, 97, 102, 109, 111, 123 47, 49, 54, 69, 89, 91, 92 55, 57, 70 53, 55, 60 56 54, 55, 70 54 94, 95 88

Index of References 17.1

17.2-6 17.2-3 17.2 17.3 17.4

17.5 17.6-7 17.6 17.7-13 17.7 17.8 17.9-11 17.9-10 17.9 17.14 17.15-18 17.15 17.16-17 17.16 17.18 18

18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4-5 18.4 18.5 18.6 18.7-8 18.7 18.8 18.9-24

54, 56, 70, 85, 109, 110, 140, 197 171 157 109, 175 44, 53–5, 105, 158 103, 105, 109, 110, 146, 147, 170 38, 71 49 44, 109, 154, 157 105 38 143 102 58 38, 105 74, 105 94 109, 110, 122, 175 103 105 71, 175 49, 108, 122, 127, 159, 170 44, 94, 96 71, 88, 109 88, 109, 157, 175 122, 191 44, 88, 109 109 109, 110 88 105 105 95

18.9-19 18.9-10 18.9 18.10 18.11-16 18.11-14 18.11 18.12 18.15 18.16 18.17-19 18.17 18.18-19 18.18 18.19 18.20–19.10 18.20-24 18.20 18.21

18.22-23 18.23-24 18.23 18.24 19–20 19 19.1-10 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7-9 19.7-8 19.7 19.8 19.9-10

94, 95, 103, 143 73 88, 104, 109 71 73 105 104, 105 88 104 71, 146 73, 105 104 105 71, 105 71, 94 54 73 126 71, 94, 104, 109, 111 110 157 105, 122, 175 109, 126, 146 70, 71, 97, 106 43, 47, 71, 156 61, 73 44, 73 181 73, 88 73, 187 181 44, 73, 112 146, 149 88 123, 147 146 141

227 19.9 19.10–21.8 19.10

19.11–21.8 19.11–20.15 19.11-21 19.11-16 19.11

19.13-14 19.13 19.14 19.15 19.17–20.10 19.17-21 19.17 19.18 19.19-21 19.19 19.20-21 19.20 19.21 20–22 20 20.1-10 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4-6 20.4-5 20.4

73, 174, 175 65 48, 73, 183, 187, 192 53–6, 68, 71 70 70, 109 62, 74, 86, 87, 119 44, 53, 54, 60–2, 70, 85, 87, 139 117, 118, 146 87 154 70, 83, 87, 175 97, 147 94, 96 44, 106 74 75, 174 44 70 69, 106, 191 70, 87 96 92, 155 56 44, 143 67 122, 143, 175 96, 107, 117, 154 75 44, 69, 70, 96, 148, 155, 173, 187

228 Revelation (cont.) 20.6 154, 168, 173, 174, 181 20.7-10 95 20.7-9 106 20.7-8 106 20.8-9 94 20.8 122, 175 20.10 75 20.11–22.5 155 20.11-15 56, 96, 107 20.11 44, 62, 139, 173 20.12 44, 92, 154 20.13 67, 75 20.14 75, 155 20.15 155, 174 21–22 1, 16, 36, 41, 70, 79, 81, 82, 84, 96, 97, 107, 121, 132, 134, 135, 138, 139, 196, 201 21 43, 47, 86, 88, 120 21.1–22.21 33 21.1–22.5 36, 172 21.1-8 56, 139, 141, 197 21.1-5 88 21.1-4 141 21.1-2 139, 142 21.1 44, 56, 67, 104, 139, 141, 142, 144, 197 21.2 44, 71, 72, 89, 146–8, 197 21.3-9 139

Index of References 21.3

21.4-6 21.4-5 21.4

21.5 21.6-8 21.6

21.7

21.8

21.9–22.5 21.9-27 21.9-21

21.9-10 21.9

21.10–22.5 21.10-27 21.10

44, 95, 97, 106, 107, 121, 149, 156, 162, 197 141, 143 144 121, 141– 3, 149, 197 140, 143, 144, 197 141, 153 53, 54, 87, 88, 121, 144–6, 153, 154, 179, 188, 193, 197 153, 154, 156, 162, 187, 194, 197 56, 72, 153, 157, 174, 187, 188, 191, 194, 197 53–6, 97, 107, 139 155 140, 146, 151, 157, 197 89, 157, 158 54, 56, 70, 85, 135, 140, 147, 153, 169, 197 142 94 44, 53, 54, 56, 121, 140, 147,

21.11 21.12-27 21.12-21 21.12-14 21.12-13 21.12 21.13 21.14

21.15-17

21.15 21.16 21.17 21.18-21 21.18-20 21.18-19 21.18-18 21.18 21.19-20 21.19 21.21-22 21.21 21.22–22.5 21.22

21.23-26 21.23 21.24-27 21.24-26 21.24

158, 159, 197 159, 160, 167, 197 121 157 157 160 197 197 161, 168, 174, 193, 197 112, 120, 121, 157, 163, 164, 167, 195 135, 163, 197 121, 166, 197 160, 166, 197 157 168 89 197 159, 167 169, 197 161, 167, 170 173 171, 197 140, 171, 198 44, 95, 121, 152, 172, 173, 193, 198 89 173, 182, 193, 198 173 122 173, 175, 195, 198

Index of References 21.25-27 21.25

21.26 21.27

22 22.1-5 22.1-4 22.1-2 22.1

22.2-4 22.2

22.3-5 22.3-4 22.3

22.4 22.5

121 112, 113, 121, 173, 182, 198 121, 173, 175, 198 89, 121, 140, 163, 173, 174, 188, 191, 193, 195, 198 89, 92, 120, 184 172 145, 170, 172 177, 195 94, 95, 112, 113, 121, 140, 173, 175, 178, 179, 193, 195, 198 136 121, 122, 134, 154, 179, 180, 193, 198 181 173 112, 121, 155, 173, 175, 176, 180, 181, 184, 187, 193, 198 176, 195, 198 89, 93, 112, 113, 155, 175, 176, 182, 195, 198

22.6-21

22.6-9 22.6-7 22.6

22.7

22.8-15 22.8-9

22.8 22.9 22.10-15 22.10-11 22.10

22.11

22.12

22.13

22.14-15 22.14

53–6, 62, 90, 140, 183, 198 184 140, 183, 184, 198 48, 54–6, 85, 89, 140, 144, 181, 183, 184, 188, 189, 198 38, 43, 50, 73, 112, 141, 183, 189, 192, 198 140, 183, 198 73, 183, 184, 196, 198 44, 189, 198 43, 48, 50, 189 202 196 43, 50, 92, 124, 184, 189, 198 138, 184, 186, 187, 189, 198 50, 112, 124, 138, 141, 183, 184, 187, 192, 193, 196, 198 87, 145, 188, 193, 198 188 73, 117, 146, 155,

229

22.15 22.16-21 22.16-20 22.16

22.17

22.18-19

22.18 22.19 22.20-21 22.20

22.21

179, 184, 187, 198 187, 191, 198 140, 141, 198 183, 188 50, 87, 154, 188, 189, 192, 193, 198 141, 147, 154, 174, 179, 183, 188, 189, 191, 196, 198 38, 84, 189–91, 196, 198 43, 48, 50, 141, 192 43, 50, 147, 179 73, 188, 198 112, 138, 141, 183, 188, 189, 192, 196, 198 50, 73, 193

APOCRPHYA 2 Esdras 7.26 8.52 10.25-59 10.27 10.44

147 179 147 157 157

Tobit 13.16-17 14.5

147 147

230

Index of References

PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 1 Enoch 24.3–25.5 179 24.3-5 46 25.4-6 46 90.6-12 46 90.28-29 147 90.37 46 2 Enoch 8.3

179

2 Baruch 4 32.2-4

147 147

Jubilees 1.27-29

147

Testament of Benjamin 9.2 147 Testament of Dan 5.12-13 147 MIDRASH Exodus Rabbah 18.5 161 Pesiqta Rabbati 35.2 161

APOSTOLIC FATHERS Didache 10.6 193 CLASSICAL AND ANCIENT CHRISTIAN WRITINGS Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse 123: 226 167 123: 227 179 123: 232 178 123: 236 186 123: 239 187 Basil On the Spirit 27.66

180

Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 3.5 151 3.18.2 114 4.23.12 192 6.25.4-6 125 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 4.21.3 74

Josephus Antiquitates judaicae 4.423-26 64, 116 10.228 104 Bellum judaicum 5.201 167 5.205 167 5.207-8 167 Justin Dialogus cum Tryphone 39.2 114 87.2 114 Tertullian Annales 50

116

Victorinus Commentarius in apocalypsin 1.1 114 6.1-2 119

INDEX OF AUTHORS Abbott, H. P. 134, 136, 137 Afzal, C. 30 Aichele, G. 21 Allo, E.-B. 53 Aune, D. E. 30, 44, 52, 56, 114, 166, 176, 180, 181 Bailey, K. E. 176 Bandy, A. S. 52, 81 Barr, D. L. 32, 133 Barr, J. 6 Barthes, R. 21, 22 Barton, J. 3 Bauckham, R. 31, 47, 51–3, 64, 73, 76, 99, 114, 124, 167 Bauer, W. 69, 70 Baxandall, M. 21 Beale, G. K. 26, 27, 33, 34, 38, 43, 44, 46, 49, 52, 53, 55–8, 61, 62, 65, 69–71, 76, 78, 79, 91–4, 102, 115, 116, 119, 125, 126, 140, 1424, 156, 161, 163, 168, 169, 172, 175, 176, 178, 179, 183, 184, 186, 187, 190, 192 Beasley-Murray, G. R. 52, 58, 99 Ben-Porat, Z. 112 Birch, B. C. 8 Blomberg, C. L. 125 Bøe, S. 97, 106 Boers, H. 3 Boismard, M.-E. 38, 124 Boring, M. E. 56, 71, 76, 115, 117, 142 Boxall, I. 56, 71, 74, 115, 120, 145, 168–70, 172, 192 Brawley, R. L. 25 Bray, G. 2, 4 Brenton, L. C. L. 108 Brett, M. G. 10, 11 Bruce, F. F. 114 Caird, G. B. 65 Campenhausen, H. von 2 Charles, R. H. 37, 51

Charlesworth, J. H. 42 Cheon, S. 7 Childs, B. S. 1, 5, 6 Collins, J. J. 42 Conzelmann, H. 29 Court, J. M. 33, 116 Cowley, A. E. 149 Davidson, I. J. 12 Deiana, G. 38, 108 deSilva, D. A. 61 Desrosiers, G. 68 Dumbrell, W. J. 40, 41, 148 Eichrodt, W. 104, 105 Ellul, J. 142 Fekkes, J. 35, 86, 88, 114, 130, 139, 143, 145, 146, 149, 154, 161, 167, 176 Ford, J. M. 116 Frei, H. W. 2 Gamble, H. Y. 50 Gangemi, A. 38 Goulder, M. D. 38, 95, 96 Grabbe, L. L. 43, 45, 50 Green, J. B. 27 Gundry, R. H. 58 Harrington, W. J. 56, 71 Hartman, L. 43 Hasel, G. 3 Hatina, T. R. 23 Hays, R. B. 24–7 Hendriksen, W. 74 Hengel, M. 9 Irwin, W. 23 Jack, A. 68 Jauhiainen, M. 111–13, 122 Johns, L. J. 148

232

Index of Authors

Kaiser, W. C. 29 Keener, C. S. 99 Koteliansky, S. S. 134 Kovacs, J. 82, 119, 196 Kristeva, J. 20, 21, 23 Krodel, G. A. 52, 69 Kümmel, W. G. 3

Phillips, G. A. 21 Pilch, J. J. 156, 182 Piper, O. A. 73 Placher, W. C. 19 Polk, D. P. 7 Powell, M. A. 17, 18 Prigent, P. 53

Ladd, G. E. 53 Lancellotti, A. 38 Lee, P. 46 Lemcio, E. E. 11 Lioy, D. 64, 65 Longenecker, R. N. 27 Lust, J. 38, 96 Luther, M. 29 Lyke, L. L. 93

Räisänen, H. 3 Resseguie, J. L. 18, 32, 33, 59, 136, 143, 171 Rhoads, D. 18 Richter, D. H. 133 Ricoeur, P. 19 Riesling, R. J. 133 Rissi, M. 74, 143, 174, 175 Robbins, R. F. 74 Roloff, J. 52 Rowland, C. 82, 119, 196 Ruiz, J.-P. 37–9, 91, 96, 97, 104, 105 Ryken, L, 51, 57, 134

Malina, B. J. 156, 182 Marconcini, B. 38 Marshall, I. H. 11, 29 Matera, F. J. 31 Mathewson, D. 35, 36, 41, 86, 88, 89, 148 Mauriac, F. 137 Mays, J. L. 6 Mazzaferri, F. D. 53, 99 McDonald, L. M. 2, 10, 15 McDonough, S. M. 161 Menken, M. J. J. 35 Merenlahti, P. 18 Metzger, B. M. 2, 15 Michaels, J. R. 62 Minear, P. S. 65 Miscall, P. D. 21 Morgan, D. F. 14–16 Morgan, R. 3 Mounce, R. H. 52, 56, 67, 69, 71, 116, 169, 172, 175, 192 Moyise, S. 34, 35, 81, 83, 84, 91, 94, 111 Mulholland, M. R. 52, 66, 176, 184 Neill, S. 14 Oden, T. C. 142 Osborne, G. R. 51, 62, 182, 193 Oswalt, J. N. 7, 8 Paulien, J. 30 Penley, P. T. 124–6 Peterson, E. H. 74

Sanders, J. A. 5, 8–10, 22 Sandy, D. B. 47, 155 Sänger, D. 39 Scalise, C. J. 13 Schlatter, A. 37, 38 Schüssler Fiorenza, E. 34, 51, 60, 75 Shepherd, M. H. 73 Smidt, J. C. de 114 Smith, C. R. 53 Snyder, B. W. 60, 61 Stevenson, K. R. 164–6 Stieglitz, R. R. 104 Stiver, D. R. 20 Stordalen, T. 177 Strecker, G. 29 Sweet, J. P. M. 62, 99 Swete, H. B. 37, 94, 99, 129, 142 Tenney, M. C. 53 Thielman, F. 31 Thompson, L. L. 48 Tilly, M. 191 Töniste, K. 166 Torgovnik, M. 133 Tull, P. K. 20, 21 Vanhoye, A. 36, 38, 94, 95 Vanni, U. 73, 124

Index of Authors Vanhoozer, K. J. 4 Vogelgesang, J. M. 37, 38, 46, 94, 97, 167, 170 Vorster, W. S. 22, 23 Vos, L. A. 76, 77, 91, 124, 149, 186 Waddell, R. 35, 53, 61–3, 71, 72, 99, 111, 114 Wall, R. W. 3, 11–13, 39, 40, 52, 99 Wallace, M. I. 20 Walvoord, J. F. 116 Weinrich, W. C. 141, 142

233

Wendland, E. R. 57 Wenham, G. J. 181 Wilson, M. 83, 86, 102, 108 Witherington III, B. 43, 44, 49, 56, 58, 75, 182 Wolde, E. van 22 Wolff, C. von 108 Wright, N. T. 75, 79 Wright, T. 14 Yarbro Collins, A. 49, 62, 64, 65, 152