The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation 9780567672650, 9780567672667, 9780567672643

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

570 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 TESTIMONY OF THE EXALTED JESUS IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION

Sarah S. U. Dixon

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

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 2017 © Sarah S. U. Dixon, 2017 Sarah S. U. Dixon has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified 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 or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN:

HB: ePDF:

978-0-5676-7265-0 978-0-5676-7264-3

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 570 Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) Printed and bound in Great Britain

Permissions Scripture quotations marked HCSB are taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Holman Christian Standard Bible®, Holman CSB®, and HCSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers. An earlier version of portions of Chapter 2 appeared in Sarah Underwood Dixon, ‘ “The Testimony of Jesus” in Light of Internal Self-References in the books of Daniel and 1 Enoch’. Pages 81–93 in The Book of Revelation: Currents in British Research on the Apocalypse. Edited by G.V. Allen, I. Paul and S. Woodman. WUNT 2/411. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. It is re-printed here by kind permission of the publisher.

C on t en t s

Acknowledgements xi Abbreviations xiii Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in the Book of Revelation 1 1.2 Survey of Scholarship on the Interpretation of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ 1 1.2.1 Revelation 1.2 3 1.2.2 Revelation 1.9 4 1.2.3 Revelation 12.17 5 1.2.4 Revelation 19.10 6 1.2.5 Revelation 20.4 7 1.2.6 Concluding Observations on the Survey of Scholarship 8 1.2.7 Reasons for the Interpretive Shift 9 1.2.8 The Problem with the Interpretive Shift 12 1.3 Different Interpretations of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’: Exegetical Impact 12 1.3.1 ‘Witness’ as a Key Rhetorical Goal 12 1.3.2 The Meaning of ‘Witness’ 15 1.4 The Aims of This Study 18 1.5 Methodology 20 1.5.1 Method for Determining the Best Reading at Each Occurrence 21 1.5.2 A Note on the Unity of the Text 26 1.6 Procedure 29 1.7 The First Occurrence: ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 1.2 30 Chapter 2 Internal Self-References 34 2.1 Part One: Internal Self-References in Other Apocalyptic Literature 34 2.1.1 Introduction 34 2.1.2 The Book of Daniel 35 2.1.3 The Book of 1 Enoch 43

viii Contents

2.1.4 The Book of Watchers + The Epistle of Enoch (1–36 + 81.1–82.4c + 83–90 + 91.1–10, 18–19 + 92–105) 2.1.5 The Book of Dreams (83–90) 2.3.4 Conclusion: Implications for the Book of Revelation 2.2 Part Two: A Similar Intratextual Situation in Revelation? 2.2.1 Depictions of the Use of the Book: Revelation 10–11

46 54 56 57 57

Chapter 3 ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 1.9 71 3.1 Introduction 71 3.2 John on Patmos in Exile? 73 3.3 John on Patmos for the Sake of the ἀποκάλυψις 79 3.4 Summary and Conclusions 84 Chapter 4 ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 12.17 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Description of the Scene 4.3 ‘…those who have the testimony of Jesus’ 4.3.1 The Woman and ‘the Rest of Her Children’ 4.3.2 Revelation 12.17 as a Temporal Transition 4.4 Summary and Conclusions Chapter 5 ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 19.10 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Context: Angelic Refusal of Worship 5.3 ‘I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers and sisters who have the testimony of Jesus…’ 5.4 ‘For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy’ 5.5 Summary and Conclusions Chapter 6 ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 20.4 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Revelation 20.4: The Fulfilment of the Hoped-For Vindication in 6.9–11 6.3 ‘…And those who did not take the mark of the beast’ 6.3.1 The Significance of John’s Specific Designation 6.4 Summary and Conclusions

86 86 87 89 89 92 96 98 98 98 102 105 108 110 110 112 114 116 123

Contents

ix

Chapter 7 ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language 125 7.1 Introduction 125 7.2 Μαρτυρία 125 7.2.1 Revelation 6.9 ‘…διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἣν εἶχον’ 125 7.2.2 Revelation 11.7 128 7.2.3 Revelation 12.11 ‘…διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς μαρτυρίας αὐτῶν’ 129 7.3 Mάρτυς 132 7.3.1 Revelation 11.3–13 ‘οἱ δύο μάρτυρες’ 132 7.3.2 Revelation 17.6 ‘τὸ αἷμα τῶν μαρτύρων Ἰησοῦ’ 133 7.3.3 Revelation 2.13 ‘Ἀντιπᾶς’ 134 7.3.4 Revelation 1.5 and 3.14: Jesus, ‘ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός’ 135 7.4 Μαρτυρέω 138 7.5 Reflections on μαρτ- Language 139 7.6 ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’ 141 7.7 Witness and Prophecy 144 Chapter 8 Conclusion 150 8.1 Summary 150 8.2 Our Findings in Wider Context 154 8.2.1 How Do Our Findings Fit with Revelation’s Own View of Its Message? 154 8.2.2 How Do Our Findings Compare to Daniel and 1 Enoch? 155 8.3 Implications of Our Findings: ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and the Rhetorical Goal of the Apocalypse 157 8.4 Concluding Remarks 163 Bibliography 164 Index of References 173 Index of Authors 182

A ck n owl ed g em e nts

I am deeply indebted to many people for their support as I worked on this book. Without their help and encouragement, this project would not have been possible. I would first like to thank Andrew Chester, who read numerous drafts and patiently encouraged me to keep going even when the challenges of the project seemed insurmountable. This book has greatly benefitted from his wisdom and attention to detail. I am also indebted to Professor Judith Lieu, for her sharp insights that helped to clarify my thinking as this project was beginning to take shape. I am also immensely thankful for the community and resources available to me at Tyndale House during the time of writing this book. I am grateful for the insight, advice and encouragement given to me by the many staff, friends and colleagues I met there over the years. Although they were not a part of my years in Cambridge, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my former OBU professors, especially Jerry Faught, Justin Hardin and Bobby Kelly, for the important role they have played in my life. It was their encouragement and enthusiastic support that first planted this dream in my head, and I know I would not be where I am today if not for them. When I first arrived in Cambridge to undertake this project, I never dreamed that Joel and I would have the community of friends and church family that we do now. There are too many to list here individually, but I am grateful to each and every one for helping to make this foreign country feel like home. I must also say a huge thank you to my family for their love and support during this project. I have been blessed by my wonderful in-laws, David and Susie Dixon, who have taken an interest in my work and have prayed for me throughout this process. I am also immensely thankful to my grandparents, Bill and Rita Derrick, Dave and Carolyn Stokes, and Donald Moore for their selfless sacrifices and for cheering me on as I finished ‘my little paper’. And to my parents, Mike and Jamie Underwood,

xii Acknowledgements

I want to say a huge ‘thank you’ for encouraging me to follow my dreams, even when it took me far from home. Their love and support has meant so much to me. My heartfelt thanks is also owed to my husband, Joel, who has been my greatest support and closest companion throughout this endeavor. He has made countless sacrifices to care for Abigail, Caleb and me, and has been tireless in his love and encouragement. I dedicate this book to him with love. And finally, ‘to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and power forever and ever’, amen! Without the Lord’s grace and goodness none of this would have ever been possible. My greatest thanks goes to Him. Sarah S. U. Dixon Cambridge, England Soli Deo Gloria 30 September 2016

A b b r ev i at i ons

AB ApolOTC AUSDDS AUSS BAG BBR BDAG BDF BECNT BET BETL BibInt BNTC BBC BSac BT BZ BZAW BZNW CBQ CEJL CNT CTJ DRev EBib EssBib EvQ GJCT HDR HNT HSM IB

Anchor Bible Apollos Old Testament Commentary Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series Andrews University Seminary Studies Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, 1957 Bulletin for Biblical Research Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek– English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, 1999 Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, 1961 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaiensium Biblical Interpretation Black’s New Testament Commentaries Blackwell Bible Commentaries Bibliotheca sacra The Bible Translator Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Catholic Biblical Quarterly Commentary on Early Jewish Literature Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Calvin Theological Journal Downside Review Études bibliques Essais bibliques Evangelical Quarterly Global Journal of Classical Theology Harvard Dissertations in Religion Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Harvard Semitic Monographs The Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by G.A. Buttrick. New York, 1957

xiv Abbreviations IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching ICC International Critical Commentary IDB The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G.A. Buttrick. 4 vols. Nashville, 1962 Int Interpretation ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly Journal of Biblical Literature JBL JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal for the Study of the New Testament JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series JSNTSup Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament KEK Linguistic Biblical Studies LBS Library of New Testament Studies LNTS Liddell, H.G., R. Scott, H.S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. LSJ 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996 MSU Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens Marshall’s Theological Library MTL Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 27th edition NA27 New American Standard Bible NASB New Century Bible Commentaries NCBC New Covenant Commentary NCC NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NIGTC The New International Greek Testament Commentary Novum Testamentum NovT Novum Testamentum Supplements NovTSup La nouvelle revue théologique NRTh NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen Das Neue Testament Deutsch NTD New Testament Monographs NTM New Testament Studies NTS NTTh New Testament Theology Old Testament Guides OTG ÖTK Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar OTRM Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs PBTM Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs PC Proclamation Commentaries SANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments SBAB Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbände SBG Studies in Biblical Greek SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series SBM Stuttgarter Biblische Monographien SBT Studies in Biblical Theology ScrB Scripture Bulletin SCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SNTSMS

Abbreviations SP StABH SVTP TANZ TB TDNT

ThWNT TNTC TPINTC TUGAL TynBul WBC WMANT WMBC WUNT ZAW ZBK ZNW

xv

Sacra Pagina Studies in American Biblical Hermeneutics Studia in Veretis Testamenti pseudepigraphica Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–76 Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. 11 vols. Stuttgart, 1942 Tyndale New Testament Commentaries TPI New Testament Commentaries Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Tyndale Bulletin Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Bible Companion Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der

älteren Kirche

Chapter 1 I n t rod uct i on

1.1 ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in the Book of Revelation The phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ occurs six times in five different places in the book of Revelation (1.2, 9; 12.17; 19.10 [×2]; 20.14).1 Yet despite these multiple occurrences and the obvious importance of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ within the book, scholars have yet to come to a consensus regarding the interpretation of the phrase; and the phrase’s inherent ambiguity has given rise to a number of different interpretations. The goal of this monograph is to provide a comprehensive study of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in the book of Revelation, and to contribute to the overall debate regarding the interpretation of the phrase and the exegetical impact of certain interpretations. But before proceeding with the present study, it is necessary to give a brief survey of the current state of scholarship regarding the interpretation of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’. 1.2 Survey of Scholarship on the Interpretation of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ The following is a summary of the way that scholars have interpreted the phrase in the five places in the book where it appears (1.2, 9; 12.17; 19.10; 20.14). While the list of scholars surveyed is by no means exhaustive, the goal in this section is to examine the mainstream views of scholars in the field of Revelation studies, as well as the views of those who hold interpretations outside the mainstream, in the hope of providing an overview of how scholarship has dealt with the phrase generally. Where possible, this survey of scholarship will look at how a particular scholar interprets the phrase each time it occurs,2 in order to show variation not only within 1.  In 1.2 the phrase reads ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ’ rather than just ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’. It should also be noted that the phrase appears twice in Rev 19.10. 2.  In other words, this survey will look not just at how David Aune (for example) interprets the phrase in its appearance in 19.10, but at how Aune interprets ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in 1.2, 9; 12.17; 19.10; and 20.4.

2

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

scholarship as a whole, but also within the work of individual scholars. That being said, this has not always been possible due to the fact that a given scholar may comment on one occurrence of the phrase but make no such comment on another.3 The debate over the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ has often centred on whether or not the genitive construct should be considered objective or subjective. Although choosing a translation and interpretation will necessarily and inherently involve making a decision as to whether the genitive construct is objective or subjective, this does not solve the issue of how the phrase is to be understood or to what it refers. Therefore, our survey of scholarship will focus on the meaning assigned to the phrase, not on whether the genitive construct is objective or subjective. Most commentators’ interpretations fall into one of five broad categories:4 (1) ‘the testimony of Jesus’ refers to the testimony of Jesus’ life and death;5 (2) ‘the testimony of Jesus’ refers to a believer’s testimony about Jesus (a proclamation or confession of the Christian message);6 (3) ‘the testimony of Jesus’ refers to a believer’s witness to Jesus unto death;7 (4) ‘the testimony of Jesus’ refers to the message of the book of Revelation; (5) ‘the testimony of Jesus’ refers to both Jesus’ testimony 3.  A total of thirty scholars were surveyed. Most of these were commentators or were scholars who have written an article or monograph focused on either the interpretation of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ or on one of the verses in which the phrase appears. It should be noted, however, that while thirty scholars were surveyed, not all of these commented on every appearance of the phrase. That is why in the present investigation of the interpretation of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in 20.4, for example, only fifteen scholars’ interpretations are listed; the rest of those surveyed did not provide any commentary on the use of this phrase in this particular verse. 4.  Of course, there is some degree of variation within each of these categories; any significant variations will be noted in a footnote. 5.  Within this category, some scholars may emphasize Jesus’ teaching or his testimony before Pilate, while others may place more emphasis on Jesus’ death as his ‘witness’. Despite these different emphases, most scholars would say that the witness refers to Jesus’ life and death, even if they do seem to place more importance on one aspect over another. Many have also nuanced this by saying that while the phrase refers to the testimony given by Jesus in his life and death, this testimony is then adopted or continued by his faithful followers – they are to continue the testimony first given by Jesus by acting as he did. 6.  Most often the phrase is understood as the Christian message, or sometimes even more broadly, the Christian faith (so not necessarily something which must be preached [although it may be] but a belief that is held). 7.  While Option 3 is very similar to Option 2, Option 3 argues that giving witness to Jesus will necessarily involve martyrdom.

1. Introduction

3

during his life and the testimony about Jesus given by the saints (a combination of Options 1 and 2). The following overview has been organized according to these five categories. 1.2.1 Revelation 1.2 The very first appearance of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ comes in Rev 1.2, where John writes that he ‘testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, as much as he saw’. Given the further identification of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ’8 as ‘ὅσα εἶδεν’, the majority of scholars understand ‘the testimony of Jesus’ in 1.2 to be a way of referring to the message of the Apocalypse.9 The second most prevalent 8.  See Chapter 2 for further discussion of the addition of ‘Χριστοῦ’ in 1.2. 9.  R. Bauckham, ‘The Role of the Spirit in the Apocalypse’, EvQ 52 (1980): 74; I.T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919), 421; A. Satake, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, KEK 16 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 124–25 (see also A. Satake, Die Gemeindeordnung in der Johannesapokalypse, WMANT 21 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1966], 98, 105); H. Roose, ‘Das Zeugnis Jesu’: seine Bedeutung für die Christologie, Eschatologie und Prophetie in der Offenbarung des Johannes, TANZ 32 (Tübingen: Francke, 2000), 41–42; H.B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text (London: Macmillan, 1906), 3; D.E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, WBC 52A (Dallas: Word, 1997), 19, 37; see also D.E. Aune, ‘Following the Lamb: Discipleship in the Apocalypse’, in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. R.N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 282; A. Bandy, ‘Words and Witness: An Analysis of the Lawsuit Motif in Revelation Based on Witness Terminology’, Global Journal of Classical Theology 6, no. 1 (2005): 18; R. Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2002), 54; S. Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse (London: SPCK, 2005), 30; E. Lohmeyer, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 2nd ed., HNT (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1953), 8; R.H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 42; B. Dehandschutter, ‘The Meaning of Witness in the Apocalypse’, in L’Apocalypse Johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. J. Lambrecht and G. Beasley-Murray (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980), 285; F. Mazzaferri, ‘Martyria Iēsou Revisited’, BT 39, no. 1 (1988): 118; R.H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920), 1:7; C. Brütsch, Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi: Johannes-Apokalypse, 2 vols., ZBK (Zurich: Zwingli, 1970), 1:30. D. Hill, ‘Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St John’, NTS 18 (1971): 412, says that Jesus’ testimony is manifested ‘primarily in his utterances in the visions of this book, but also (for there is no discontinuity between them) in the witness of his life and death’. T. Holtz, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, NTD 11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 18, states that the phrase refers to what is shown to John, although he never specifies this as the contents of the book of Revelation.

4

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

interpretation of the phrase in 1.2 reads ‘the testimony of Jesus’ as referring to Jesus’ testimony during his life.10 A small number of scholars reads the phrase here as referring to a general testimony about Jesus,11 or more specifically a testimony about Jesus, leading to death.12 Another minority view holds that the phrase here is a ‘general’ genitive, simultaneously referring to the book of Revelation, as well as the testimony both by and about Jesus.13 1.2.2 Revelation 1.9 The next occurrence of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ comes in 1.9, where John explains that he was on the island of Patmos ‘because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’. Tradition holds that John was actually 10.  G.B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine, BNTC (London: Black, 1966), 11–12; J. Sweet, Revelation, TPINTC (London: SCM, 1979), 59; I. Boxall, The Revelation of Saint John, BNTC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Continuum, 2006), 26; see also P. Prigent, L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean, CNT Deuxième Série 14 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2000), 14:83–84, whose view may fall into this category (see discussion in n. 12 below); H. Kraft (Die Offenbarung des Johannes, HNT [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974], 22) understands ‘the testimony of Jesus’ as first given by Christ in his death and resurrection, and then proclaimed by Christians. 11.  G.W.H. Lampe, ‘The Testimony of Jesus Is the Spirit of Prophecy (Rev 19:10)’, in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, ed. W.C. Weinrich (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984), 253. 12.  P. Vassiliadis, ‘The Translation of Marturia Iēsou in Revelation’, BT 36, no. 1 (1985): 133, although he admits that in 1.2 it is possible that the phrase refers to a testimony given by Jesus (see p. 132). The view of Prigent (L’Apocalypse, 83–84) is very close to this view, although his exact understanding of the phrase is not clear. It would appear that he understands the phrase as indicating a sharing in the life and ministry of Jesus, including sharing in his death as a martyr. Although he does say that ‘the word of God and testimony of Jesus’ ‘s’agit du martyre subi au nom de l’évangile’ (p. 83), he also comments that one can be a witness without being a martyr (pp. 83–84). Adding further confusion is his later statement: ‘Le contenu du livre entier peut donc être caractérisé comme le témoignage rendu par Jésus-Christ avec les consequences qui en découlent pour les chrétiens invités à trouver là l’expression parfait de la parole de Dieu’ (p. 84). Despite this comment, he appears to understand the phrase generally as referring to continuing the testimony of Jesus, an action that usually leads to martyrdom. 13.  G.K. Beale (The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 183–84) argues for a ‘general’ genitive; so also G. Maier, Die Offenbarung des Johannes Kapitel 1–11. Historisch-Theologische Auslegung (Witten: SCM R. Brockhaus, 2009), 84.

1. Introduction

5

imprisoned on the island, leading the majority of scholars to contend that here the phrase refers to the gospel message or Christian teaching in general.14 Since there is not much additional information given, a few scholars simply report that here the phrase is ambiguous and could mean either the witness borne by Jesus or the testimony about Jesus given by Christians.15 In comments on this verse, a small number of scholars interpret ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ as referring to Jesus’ life and death.16 Also among the minority are those who interpret the phrase as referring to the message of the Apocalypse,17 along with those who read it as referring to a testimony about Jesus that leads to death.18 1.2.3 Revelation 12.17 Revelation 12.17 is the third time that the phrase appears. After a second failed attempt to devour ‘the woman’, the furious dragon (identified in 12.9 as ‘the devil and Satan’) turns his attention towards ‘the rest of her

14.  Swete, Apocalypse, 12; Roose, Zeugnis, 42; Smalley, Revelation, 50; Sweet, Revelation, 67, although he says John could be there because of the revelation; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 434; Aune, Patterns, 282; J. Roloff, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 2nd ed., ZBK NT 18 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987), 39; Satake, Gemeindeordnung, 105, understands it as a general way of referring to the Christian faith; Lampe, ‘Testimony of Jesus’, 253; see also G.R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, NCB (London: Marshall, Morgan, & Scott, 1974), 64, although his position is somewhat unclear. 15.  Aune, Revelation 1–5, 81. Beale (Revelation, 202) holds a similar view, saying that it is intentionally ambiguous, and refers to a testimony given both by and about Jesus; Bandy, ‘Word’, 20–21, is in agreement with Beale; Holtz, Offenbarung, 27 states that the phrase does not give us any information as to why John was on Patmos; Maier (Offenbarung 1–11, 109), much like Beale, understands it as referring to both a testimony about Jesus and the testimony which Jesus gave; Charles is somewhat unclear, stating that the phrase refers to ‘the revelation given by God and borne witness to by Christ (subjective genitive)’ (Revelation, 1:7), but then states that it is ‘the contents of [John’s] preaching’ (p. 21); Brütsch, Offenbarung, 1:30, states that it is initially the testimony given by Jesus, but that Jesus gives his testimony to his followers (it is unclear whether Jesus’ testimony is one given during his earthly life). 16.  Mounce, Revelation, 242, 349. 17.  Dehandschutter, ‘Witness’, 285; Stefanovic, Revelation, 89, although he does not discuss the phrase in 1.9 specifically; Hill, ‘Prophecy’, 412 (although see n. 9 above). 18.  Vassiliadis (‘Marturia Iēsou’, 133) states that he thinks that at each occurrence the phrase carries this martyrological nuance, but gives no specific discussion of the phrase in 1.9.

6

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

children, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus’. Unlike the first two occurrences of the phrase, this time ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is used to identify a group of people. While a study of the first two occurrences of the phrase revealed a majority view for each, opinions on the phrase’s meaning in 12.17 are more evenly divided. Most scholars consider the phrase here to be referring to either the gospel message19 or the testimony of Jesus’ life and death20 (or both21). Those who understand the phrase as referring to the book of Revelation22 or a martyrological witness to Jesus23 find themselves in the minority. 1.2.4 Revelation 19.10 ‘Ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ appears twice in 19.10. In this scene, the angel’s declaration ‘these are the true words of God’ causes John to fall down in worship before the celestial being. The angel strongly rebukes him, saying, ‘Do not do that! I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers and sisters who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God, for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.’ As in 12.17, the majority of scholars read the phrase here as referring to either a testimony given about Jesus24 or the testimony 19.  Beckwith, Apocalypse, 434; D.E. Aune, Revelation 6–16, WBC 52b (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 709; Swete, Apocalypse, 157; Smalley, Revelation, 334; Lampe, ‘Testimony of Jesus’, 253; Satake, Offenbarung, 292, understands it as a reference to the Christian faith (‘Christliche Glaube’), but does not specify it as something which is necessarily preached (see also Satake, Gemeindeordnung, 105). 20.  Boxall, Revelation, 185; Maier, Offenbarung, 68–69; Mounce, Revelation, 242; Sweet, Revelation, 205; Charles, Revelation, 2:130. 21.  Brütsch, Offenbarung, 1:30 (see n. 15 above); Beale, Revelation, 679; Bandy, ‘Word’, 20–21, agrees with Beale that the phrase should be understood as a ‘general genitive’, meaning that it can carry different meanings depending on context; Holtz (Offenbarung, 95) interprets the phrase even more broadly, understanding it as ‘das unbedingte…Bekenntnis zu Jesus’. 22.  Mazzaferri, ‘Martyria’, 120; Hill, ‘Prophecy’, 412 (although see n. 9 above); Stefanovic’s interpretation here is unclear. Since he understands the phrase elsewhere as referring to the book of Revelation, it is possible that here he is still referring to the Apocalypse. He says, ‘What John now clearly indicates in Revelation 12:17 is that as Jesus communicated his revelation to the church of his day through the medium of the prophetic ministry, so he will do in the very last days of this earth’s history…they are characterized by their obedience to him (cf. Rev. 14:12) and their faithfulness to his testimony revealed through the prophetic voice in their midst’ (Revelation, 395). 23.  Vassiliadis, ‘Marturia Iēsou’, 132–33. 24.  D.E. Aune, Revelation 17–22, WBC 52C (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 1038–39; F.F. Bruce, ‘The Spirit in the Apocalypse’, in Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament, ed. B. Lindars and S.S. Smalley (Cambridge: Cambridge

1. Introduction

7

of Jesus’ life and death25 (or ambiguously both a testimony about and by Jesus26). In the minority are those who view the phrase as meaning witness leading to death,27 along with those who read the phrase as referring to the message of the Apocalypse.28 1.2.5 Revelation 20.4 In Rev 20.4, John writes that he sees ‘the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God…’. Given the many other interpretive issues presented in this passage, fewer commentators deal with the meaning of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ at this occurrence (in comparison with previous occurrences). Of those scholars who do comment on the meaning of the phrase, most read it as referring to the gospel message29 or the testimony given by Jesus during his life.30 As was the case with 12.17 and 19.10, here the University Press, 1973), 338. The following favour this reading, but note that there is ambiguity and that it could possibly be referring to the testimony given by Jesus: J.M. Ford, Revelation: Introduction, Translation and Commentary, AB 38 (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 312; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 729; Swete, Apocalypse, 246; Charles, Revelation, 2:130; Roose (Zeugnis, 42) understands the phrase as referring to the Christian message in general, although in 19.10 she mentions that the phrase may refer to the book of Revelation; Maier (Offenbarung 12–22, 342) understands the phrase as referring to the testimony about Jesus (objective genitive), but says that this also includes the gospel message that Jesus himself preached. 25.  Mounce, Revelation, 349; Boxall, Revelation, 270; Smalley, Revelation, 30, 487; Sweet, Revelation, 280; Caird, Revelation, 237–38. Kraft, Offenbarung, 245, understands the testimony as one which Jesus gives, but not necessarily during his earthly life. Rather, Jesus gives the prophet his ‘mind’ so that the prophet is able to prophesy (‘Jesus ihm seinen Geist verleiht’). 26.  Beale, Revelation, 947; Bandy, ‘Word’, 20–21; Brütsch, Offenbarung, 1:30. 27.  Vassiliadis, ‘Marturia Iēsou’, 132–33. 28.  Mazzaferri, ‘Martyria’, 120–21; Stefanovic, Revelation, 548; Hill, ‘Prophecy’, 412 (although see n. 9 above). Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 276, comes close to this view, stating that the phrase here is ‘closely related to that in the opening paragraph of the Revelation, which describes the book as John’s witness to “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” ’. Satake, Gemeindeordnung, 105 says that this is most likely the meaning here; possibly Roose, Zeugnis, 42 (see n. 24 above). 29.  Beckwith, Apocalypse, 740; Swete, Revelation, 258; Smalley, Revelation, 507; Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1085–86; Lampe, ‘Testimony of Jesus’, 253; Satake, Gemeindeordnung, 105 (see n. 19 above); Prigent, L’Apocalypse, 437, although in a footnote he notes that it would be a reference to a testimony given by Jesus. 30.  Boxall, Revelation, 283; Mounce, Revelation, 365; Sweet, Revelation, 289; Charles, Revelation, 1:7.

8

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

minority views include: (1) those who see the testimony as that given both by and to Jesus;31 (2) those who read the phrase as referring to the book of Revelation;32 and (3) those who read the testimony as referring to dying for the sake of one’s testimony about Jesus.33 1.2.6 Concluding Observations on the Survey of Scholarship In light of the above survey, a few observations can be made. First, and perhaps most obvious, is the fact that there is no consensus regarding the interpretation of the phrase amongst scholars. Not only are there several minority views, there is also no clear majority view, due to the fact that large numbers of scholars support both the ‘testimony about Jesus’ view and the ‘testimony given by Jesus’ view. Another observation that can be made on the basis of this survey of scholarship is the notable inconsistency in interpretation. Here I am referring not just to the fact that there is no consensus, but rather to the fact that most of the scholars surveyed will in fact change their interpretation of the phrase from one occurrence to another. The most notable shift in the majority opinion occurs when one moves from 1.2 to later occurrences. While most scholars agree that in 1.2 ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ refers to the message of the Apocalypse, when many of these same scholars encounter the phrase again in 1.9 (and indeed elsewhere), they no longer interpret the phrase as referring to the message of Revelation, but instead see it as referring to either a Christian’s preaching about Jesus, or a Christian’s imitation of Jesus – either by word, actions, or by following in his martyrological death.34 So while 31.  Beale, Revelation, 998; Bandy, ‘Word’, 20–21; Brütsch, Offenbarung, 1:30. 32.  Mazzaferri, ‘Martyria’, 121, argues that the phrase should consistently be interpreted in this way, although he does not say much about how the phrase should be interpreted in 20.4 specifically; Hill, ‘Prophecy’, 412 (although see n. 9 above). 33.  Vassiliadis, ‘Marturia Iēsou’, 133. 34.  Of the scholars that were surveyed above, the following interpret the phrase in 1.2 in a way that differs from how they interpret the phrase in 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4: Beckwith, Bauckham, Swete, Aune, Smalley, Mounce, Roose, Satake, Charles, Bandy, Brütsch, Holtz, Dehandschutter and Satake (although the last two state that the phrase may have the same meaning in 1.9 as it did in 1.2). This list does not include scholars who simply do not comment on all the occurrences. Many of the scholars surveyed above do not comment on the phrase often enough to determine whether they maintain a consistent interpretation. So while those not included here do not argue for a consistent interpretation of the phrase (as do those below), neither do they explicitly state or make clear that they think the meaning of the phrase changes from one occurrence to the next. Only a handful of scholars clearly argues for a consistent interpretation of the phrase (although none of these discuss

1. Introduction

9

the majority view in 1.2 is that the phrase refers to the vision that John sees, this ceases to be the majority view in subsequent appearances of the phrase. David Aune expresses what seems to be the stance of the majority: ‘…the phrase “the witness of Jesus” (martyria Iēsou) occurs five times in the Apocalypse (1:2, 9; 12:17; 19:10; 20:4), and only in 1:2 does it appear appropriate to translate the phrase as a subjective genitive – and there “the witness borne by Jesus” appears to be identical with the contents of the prophetic book that John has written’.35 1.2.7 Reasons for the Interpretive Shift Most scholars do not explicitly state the reason for their shift in interpretation as they move from Rev 1.2 to the rest of the occurrences.36 But on the basis of how the phrase is used contextually as well as the interpretations that are given in 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4, a few reasons can be discerned. Although there may be other reasons why scholars have insisted upon adding to the definition of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ provided within the opening lines of the book, the following three assumptions and/ or exegetical difficulties seem to account for much of the reason why the phrase is usually interpreted as a general proclamation about Jesus or as an allusion to his earthly testimony or death outside of 1.2. First, whereas in 1.2 the phrase is used in connection with the message of the book,37 in 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4, the phrase is used in connection with people and events described in the book itself. In 12.17 the rest of the woman’s children are described as ‘those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus’, and in 19.10, the angel describes himself as a fellow servant alongside John and his brothers and sisters ‘who have the testimony of Jesus’. Because the people being described in both of these verses are Christians,38 and because no how the interpretation works in each context): Hill, Lampe, Mazzaferri, Vassiliadis, Maier (although no comment on 19.10) and Stefanovic (although he is somewhat ambiguous in his comments on 12.17; see n. 17 above). In his article, Sweet interprets the phrase generally as meaning ‘the witness of Jesus in them, inspiring them to bear witness…’ but he does not discuss each occurrence specifically. 35.  Aune, ‘Following the Lamb’, 282. 36.  For example, Swete simply comments, ‘Here “the word of God and the witness of Jesus” are not as in v. 2 the Apocalypse itself, but the preaching of the Gospel…’ (Apocalypse, 12). 37.  At least this is the majority view, with which this study is in agreement. For further discussion, see section 1.7. 38.  There has been some debate as to whether the group described in 19.10 refers to Christians generally, or rather to John and his fellow prophets more specifically. For further discussion, see Chapter 5.

10

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

explanation of the phrase is given, it is assumed that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is a very general reference to something that characterizes every believer.39 Since it is reasonable to assume that every Christian would be a preacher of the Christian message or would act like Jesus (either by following his paradigm of exemplary living, or by suffering and even death), the phrase is usually interpreted accordingly – that is, as ‘a testimony about Jesus’ or ‘continuing the testimony that Jesus gave’.40 Similarly, the unusual use of the verb ἔχω in 12.17 and 19.10 would appear to lend further support to these interpretations,41 as the verb indicates that it is something the saints possess. And once again, since no clear definition is given in these verses, it is assumed that what these Christians possess is something ‘basic’ to all believers – either a testimony that Jesus is Lord, or the example of Jesus that they are meant to follow. Despite the recognition that Rev 1.2 identifies ‘the testimony of Jesus’ with the Apocalypse itself, the difficulty with maintaining this interpretation in 1.9 and subsequent occurrences is in understanding how the saints – characters within the book of Revelation – can ‘have’ the ‘testimony of Jesus’ if it is in fact the book of Revelation itself (using ἔχω in 12.17; 19.10; see also 6.9). This would mean that the saints in some 39.  N. Brox, Zeuge und Märtyer: Untersuchungen zur frühchristlichen ZeugnisTerminologie, SANT 5 (Munich: Kösel, 1961), 94 says, ‘Das Zeugnis in diesem Sinn ist ein fester Besitz der Gläubigen, der ihnen von Jesus gegeben ist…’. 40.  The comment made by R. Bauckham is indicative of the reluctance to define the phrase simply as a reference to the Apocalypse. In commenting on Rev 1.2 he states, ‘the “witness of Jesus” is the content of the Apocalypse itself (1:2), that is, the word attested by Jesus, by the angel who communicates it to John (22:16), and by John himself (1:2)’. But he then goes on to say, ‘In essence this word is also the word to which Jesus bore witness in his earthly life (1:5) and to which his servants now bear witness in the world (1:9 etc.)’ (Bauckham, ‘Spirit’, 74). The reference to 1.9 and other occurrences of the phrase seems to be an implicit statement that because ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is something that Christians bear, it cannot simply be referring to the book of Revelation. 41.  A number of scholars have noted that the use of ἔχω + μαρτυρία should be recognized as unique, and should not be simply equated with μαρτυρέω. For example, Beckwith remarks, ‘The words ἣν εἶχον, which they had, i.e. held, are appropriate to that which the Christians had received (cf. 1217, Jno. 538, 1421), but not a testimony which they had borne; this latter interpretation found in many com. [commentaries] certainly cannot be maintained’ (Apocalypse, 526). Charles makes a similar observation: ‘Many scholars have taken the witness to be that which the martyrs had borne to Christ; but the expression εἶχον is against such a view, and implies a testimony that has been given them by Christ and which they have preserved’ (Revelation, 1:174). See also Aune, Revelation 6–16, 406; and Hill, ‘Prophecy’, 411.

1. Introduction

11

way ‘have’ the book in which they find themselves, creating a seemingly odd intratextual situation. The presumed background of persecution also appears to have contributed to the two majority interpretations.42 In 20.4 ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is clearly the cause of persecution, as it is cited as the reason the souls have been beheaded. Similarly, tradition holds that John was on Patmos either in exile or in prison, so when the text says that he was on the island ‘because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’, it is assumed that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is something for which John may have been imprisoned – such as preaching about Jesus or following the actions of Jesus in such a way that local officials would have found disruptive. Indeed, the long-standing assumption is that Revelation was written during a time when Christians were facing or were about to face some sort of persecution.43 The book clearly alludes to this (1.9; 2.9–10, 13; 6.9–11; 7.14; 12.10–17; 17.6; 20.4),44 and these verses have certainly contributed 42.  Vassiliadis’ interpretation provides one example. He states that because there are several places in the book (including 12.17 and 19.10) where the context suggests ‘some sort of martyrological background, in the sense that the believer’s witness leads to sacrifice’, the phrase most likely carries a martyrological nuance in every occurrence (‘Marturia Iēsou’, 132–33). 43.  There is, of course, no longer widespread agreement concerning the type or extent of persecution facing the church during the time that Revelation was written. Although it was long assumed that Revelation was written during a time of imperial persecution, scholars are no longer certain that this was the case. At present many scholars argue that if there was persecution, it would have been localized persecution from neighbouring communities, not resulting from any imperial edict. While this persecution may have resulted in death in some cases, it would also have taken the form of ostracization and exclusion from guilds and associations, harming the Christian’s economic and social well-being. There are also those scholars who argue that Revelation was actually written during a time of peace (e.g. H. Giesen, Studien zur Johannesapokalypse, SBAB 29 [Stuttgart: Katholisches, 2000], 219, 223). Under such interpretations, it is thought that those to whom Revelation is written may have been sliding into complacency. John’s radical message, then, is meant to spur them into a lifestyle that stands against the unjust practices of the Empire. For a discussion of the shift in scholarship, see Boxall, Revelation, 12–15; see also J.M. Knight, ‘Apocalyptic and Prophetic Literature’, in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period: 330 B.C.–A.D. 400, ed. S.E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 469, 475; L. Thompson (The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire [New York: Oxford University Press, 1990], 104–106). 44.  While there certainly are allusions to persecution, the letters to the seven churches presents a ‘rather mixed picture’, with some churches being depicted as under threat (2.9, 13; 3.9), while other churches are scolded for their comfortable and complacent living (2.4, 14–15, 20; 3.1–2, 16) (Boxall, Revelation, 12).

12

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

to the interpretation of ‘having the testimony of Jesus’ as following after or sharing in Christ’s sacrificial death. This assumed historical situation also stands behind interpretations that understand ‘the testimony of Jesus’ as somehow referring to Jesus’ testimony before Pilate; ‘having the testimony of Jesus’, then, is understood as being faithful to God when on trial and faced with death, a situation which many of John’s original audience may have been facing. 1.2.8 The Problem with the Interpretive Shift The problem with the shift in interpretation that often occurs is that there is no indication of a change in how the phrase is to be understood from Rev 1.2 to 1.9. Although it is true that one’s understanding of the phrase will largely be determined by the context,45 it is also reasonable to expect John to maintain a consistent meaning of a phrase that he uses repeatedly. As one scholar notes, ‘It seems unlikely…that the author would employ what is for him a significant phrase in two quite different senses.’46 It is this conflicting hermeneutical logic, along with the many differing interpretations, that indicate a need for further study to be undertaken on the interpretation of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’. We will return to this matter shortly (see section 1.5). 1.3 Different Interpretations of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’: Exegetical Impact 1.3.1 ‘Witness’ as a Key Rhetorical Goal Whether one interprets the phrase as meaning ‘the testimony about Jesus’ or ‘the testimony given by Jesus’ may seem like an unimportant issue in a book with so many exegetical difficulties, but the way that one interprets this short phrase actually makes a significant exegetical impact. This is because the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is part of a network of related language that together serves as the basis for one of the key themes in the book. In addition to the six occurrences of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’, the noun μαρτυρία occurs three more times in Revelation (6.9; 11.7; 12.11). The verb μαρτυρέω is used in 1.2; 22.16, 18 and 20, and the noun μάρτυς appears five times (1.5; 2.13; 3.14; 11.3; 17.6). The prevalence of this ‘witness and testimony language’47 in Revelation indicates 45.  As Beckwith says in a discussion of the meaning of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’, ‘The particular reference is to be determined by the context’ (Apocalypse, 421). 46.  Hill, ‘Prophecy’, 411. 47.  By ‘witness and testimony language’ I am referring to the word group just mentioned (μαρτυρία, μάρτυς, μαρτυρέω).

1. Introduction

13

that ‘being a witness’ and ‘having a testimony’ are important themes within the Apocalypse, included by John in order to solicit a response from his audience. Exhorting Christian believers to ‘witness’ is a key part of the main rhetorical goal of the book of Revelation – ‘overcoming’.48 Although for some time it was thought that the main rhetorical goal of Revelation was to comfort the persecuted or oppressed,49 a closer look at the letters to the seven churches reveals that this is actually only part of a wider goal. Although some of the congregations do appear to be facing persecution,50 this theme is noticeably absent from other letters.51 In these other letters, 48.  According to D. deSilva, Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 65, in order to determine the main rhetorical goal, one must ask what it was that prompted John to write to the seven congregations. Hence it is crucial to consider the letters to the seven churches. 49.  J.G. Gager, Kingdom and Community (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1975), 49–57; P. Hanson, ‘Apocalypticism’, in IDB Supplement, ed. G.A. Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), 30 (he describes the genre of apocalyptic as arising from ‘alienation’); S. Martian, ‘Prophétisme et symbolisme dans l’Apocalypse’, in Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, ed. J. Verheyden, K. Zamfir and T. Nicklas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 246; R.R. Wilson, ‘From Prophecy to Apocalyptic’, Semeia 21 (1981): 84–85; so also A.A. Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 174: ‘The Revelation is written to help prospective martyrs see that their suffering is part of the eternal purpose declared by God and attested by Jesus Christ (1:2).’ D. deSilva notes that the idea that persecution was the ‘principal crisis behind Revelation’ most likely arose from ‘The long-standing misconception that apocalypses arise out of situations of social deprivation and oppression’ (deSilva, Seeing, 65–66). But the premise that literature of the apocalyptic genre necessarily arises out of situations of persecution has recently been questioned by scholars, allowing for a re-evaluation of the rhetorical goal of the Apocalypse (deSilva, Seeing, 66, see also B.W. Longenecker, 2 Esdras [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995], 11–16; D. deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002], 323–24, 332–34, 342–46). 50.  Persecution was clearly a problem facing the community in Smyrna (2.10), and was at least a problem at some point for those Christians in Pergamum (2.13). Jesus’ statement that the church at Philadelphia ‘kept [his] word’ and ‘did not deny [his] name’ (3.8) may be an allusion to persecution (along with the language of ‘testing’ in 3.10), but this is far from certain. The vision of the souls underneath the altar in 6.9–11 and then similarly the vision of souls in 20.4 likewise affirm that persecution was a real concern for Christians (see also 7.14; 11.7–10; 12.17; 13.7; 17.6; 19.2). 51.  See the letters to Ephesus, Thyatira, Sardis and Laodicea.

14

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Jesus’ (and thus John’s) main concern for these churches is their complacency, or the threat of being compromised by bad theology or cultural practices.52 A threat of persecution from Rome may have added to the need to write, but it seems that in these letters John is trying ‘to reveal that…complacency about Rome was the crisis, if only they had “apocalyptic eyes” ’.53 John is concerned that these Christians remain faithful, whether they are facing persecution or not, and in this way all of the concerns outlined in the letters can be seen as part of a ‘larger, overarching rhetorical goal’ – that Christians be ‘conquerors’ (νικάω; cf. 2.7, 11, 17, 26; 3.5, 12, 21; see also Rev 21.7).54 And ‘witness’ is a key part of this goal. As deSilva notes, ‘for John, “overcoming” entails gaining critical distance from, and 52.  For example, the letter to the church at Ephesus does praise the congregation for their perseverance and endurance (2.3), but in the context of the letter this appears to relate to standing up against evil and false apostles rather than to standing firm in the face of persecution from unbelievers. Likewise, in the letter to Thyatira, the main indictment made by the risen Christ is that they tolerate false teaching (2.20–23), while his praise falls to those ‘who do not have this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan’ (2.24). The letters to the churches in Sardis and Laodicea also lack any clear reference to persecution, focusing instead on deeds (3.1, 15), and include calls to repent (3.3, 19). Even the letter to Pergamum, which contains a clear reference to past persecution (2.13), still seems to be mostly focused on rectifying false teaching and idolatrous actions (these are the ‘few things’ that the risen Christ has against them [2.14–16]). 53.  W. Howard-Brook and A. Gwyther, Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999), 116. Roose sees John’s target audience as divided into two groups: (1) those needing comfort because they are facing persecution; and (2) those who are unaware of the present crisis and are in danger of falling into complacency (Zeugnis, 142). 54.  deSilva, Seeing, 70, shows that all of John’s concerns (as outlined in the seven letters) can be summarized and collectively understood as comprising this main rhetorical goal. See Seeing, 69–70, for a fuller discussion. Here deSilva is arguing against the view that John’s main rhetorical goal is to gain power and cultivate loyalty to himself as he ‘battles’ for influence in the churches against rival prophets (namely, the Nicolaitans and Jezebel) (deSilva specifically lists the following as those proponents of the view against which he is arguing [Seeing, 66 n. 4]: P.B. Duff, Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse [New York: Oxford University Press, 2001]; R. Royalty, The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998]; and G. Carey, Elusive Apocalypse: Reading Authority in the Revelation to John, StABH 15 [Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1999]). See Seeing, 66–69, for a full discussion.

1. Introduction

15

engaging in prophetic witness in the midst of, the domination systems of Roman Asia Minor’.55 Not only does John want the seven churches to avoid idolatry and false teaching, he also wants them to be witnesses. Bearing ‘witness’ (μαρτυρία) and serving as a ‘witness’ (μάρτυς) constitute a fundamental activity of John himself (1:2, 9), Jesus (1:5; 3:14), exemplary Christians whom Christ commends (2:13) or who play an important role in the execution of God’s purposes for the nations (11:3–13), and God’s holy ones in general (12:17; 19:10). John prepares the hearers for the cost of bearing witness (6:9; 17:6), but also insists that ‘witness’ is the path to overcoming the Satanic powers of this age (12:11). Sharing in Christ’s task of bearing testimony leads to sharing in Christ’s messianic reign (20:4).56

Being a witness is something believers are exhorted and expected to do, and ‘witness’ and ‘testimony’ are key to ‘overcoming’, making it clear that ‘being a witness’ and ‘having a testimony’ is one of the main rhetorical goals of the Apocalypse.57 1.3.2 The Meaning of ‘Witness’ Yet despite the fact that most scholars would agree that ‘witness’ is an important theme and thus rhetorical goal of the Apocalypse, there is less agreement regarding what this actually means. John may be calling his audience to act, but exactly what is he asking them to do? Scholars have understood the call to ‘witness’ in many different ways. According to B. Blount, ‘witness’ is a call to resist actively and non-violently the unjust and evil practices of the Roman Empire.58 He states: ‘Revelation craves witness as engaged, resistant, transformative activism that is willing to sacrifice everything in an effort to make the world over into a reality that responds to and operates from Jesus’ role as ruler and savior of all.’59 This ‘active ministry of resistance’60 would involve preaching the gospel message, as well as being counter-cultural

55.  deSilva, Seeing, 70. 56.  deSilva, Seeing, 71. 57.  deSilva is not the only scholar to recognize ‘witness’ as one of the main concerns of the Apocalypse. As Blount enthusiastically states, he believes ‘John’s central petition to his seven Asia Minor Churches’ to be ‘Can I Get a Witness?’ (B. Blount, Can I Get a Witness? Reading Revelation Through African American Culture [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005], xii). 58.  Blount, Witness?, 39. 59.  Blount, Witness?, 38. 60.  Blount, Witness?, 88.

16

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

by refusing to participate in emperor worship and other related practices.61 This sort of witness would most certainly invite trouble, which is why ‘witness’ in the Apocalypse often leads to suffering or death.62 But Blount acknowledges that not everyone would agree that this is how the call to ‘witness’ should be understood. He situates his own view in contrast to that of A. Yarbro Collins, who understands the role of witness as one of ‘passive resistance’.63 Whereas a Zealot policy would have taught that the faithful could contribute to the victory of God over oppressors by taking up arms and fighting, Revelation’s view is that witnesses can contribute to victory by dying as martyrs.64 Thus in the eyes of Yarbro Collins, one of Revelation’s main rhetorical goals is to persuade the faithful to be willing to become martyrs and thus ‘fill up’ the fixed number of martyrs that must die before the faithful can be vindicated.65 P. Middleton’s view is very similar to that of Yarbro Collins, although he sees Revelation as calling upon the faithful not just to be willing to become martyrs, but actively to seek martyrdom. Middleton boldly states, ‘John’s call to martyrdom is universal. All Christians are to confess the name of Jesus and be faithful to death. Only when they are faithful and win martyrdom will Christians conquer and receive the rewards of a conqueror.’66 In other words, in order to become conquerors, Christians must die as a result of a faithful testimony. Since all Christians are called to become conquerors (see the letters to the seven churches), it follows that all Christians must seek death (which, in Middleton’s view, is the way to seek victory).67 61.  Blount, Witness?, 87. 62.  Blount, Witness?, 87–89. 63.  Here I am using the wording of Blount, Witness?, 38, describing Yarbro Collins. 64.  A. Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation, HDR (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for Harvard Theological Review, 1976), 234. She actually translates the noun μάρτυς as ‘martyr’. 65.  Yarbro Collins, Combat Myth, 233–34. Although Yarbro Collins is not focused on the theme of ‘witness’ (her focus is obviously on the combat myth), this is how she reads the reference to the μάρτυρες in Rev 6.9–11. The combat myth serves to reinforce this rhetorical goal. As she says, ‘The combat myth in Revelation thus func­tions to reinforce resistance to Rome and to inspire willingness for martyrdom’ (p. 234). 66.  P. Middleton, Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity, LNTS 307 (London: T&T Clark International, 2006), 163. 67.  Middleton sees the promised reward of a white robe as important to his argument here. Since conquerors are promised white robes, and martyrs are given white robes, then, in Middleton’s view, martyrdom must be the way to conquer. According to Middleton, the fact that death is essential to victory is seen in the three central chapters of Revelation. (See Middleton, Radical, 165, for a discussion

1. Introduction

17

Mark Bredin provides a different view that seems to fall somewhere between those presented above. He states: ‘Faithful witnesses are servants of God who suffer and die as a result of delivering God’s message.’68 Thus being a witness involves delivering God’s message, but it also involves suffering and dying as a result. Christians are to follow the example of Christ, who was a witness by the way that he non-violently engaged with his enemies, specifically in ‘his teachings, actions, and death’.69 While he does take care to point out that death is not the testimony in itself, he does seem to think that ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is a testimony that leads to death, and in this way is patterned after Jesus’ own testimony.70 The views of Blount, Bredin, Middleton and Yarbro Collins are examples of the varying ways in which the call to witness can be understood.71 The significant differences in their views on how to understand the call to witness (and thus ultimately how to understand this important aspect of the rhetorical goal of the book) demonstrate the importance of the present study. For example, if ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is understood as of Rev 11–13.) In ch. 11, the death of the two witnesses is followed by the seventh trumpet blow, announcing the victorious judgment of God. Then, in ch. 12, the hymn of victory heard in heaven announces that Satan has been defeated ‘by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony’ (Rev 12.11), indicating once again that martyrdom leads to victory (in his commentary on 12.11, Middleton rejects the idea that ‘the blood of the Lamb’ should be linked with ideas of atonement). Chapter 13 (and 14), then, calls for the followers of the Lamb to have endurance (14.12), despite the fact that the Beast will conquer them (13.7) (Middleton, Radical, 165). 68.  M. Bredin, Jesus, Revolutionary of Peace: A Nonviolent Christology in the Book of Revelation, PBTM (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003), 170. 69.  Bredin, Revolutionary, 171. Of Jesus he says, ‘His faithful witness was not to play the power games of the beast and his followers’ (p. 171). 70.  For Bredin, ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is a reference to the witness that Jesus gave in his trial and in his obedience to God, all of which eventually led to his death (Revolutionary, 163; see also 220). And while the words and actions of the witnesses are their own, he states that ‘Jesus’ testimony is their testimony that results in death’ (p. 167). 71.  This is not to say that these are the only ways scholars have understood the call to witness. But the views of these four scholars represent the major ways that scholars generally have understood this call. As the review of scholarship shows, most scholars understand the phrase ‘the testimony of Jesus’ as: (1) a call to preach and live out the Christian message, a view similar to Bredin’s; (2) a call to act like Jesus and live counter-culturally, a view similar to that which is held by Blount; (3) a call to die as a martyr, a view similar to those of Yarbro Collins and Middleton. Of course each scholar adds his or her nuance to the call to ‘witness’, but the views represented by these four scholars are helpful in providing a general reference for how the call to be a witness can be understood.

18

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

meaning ‘a message about Jesus’, then the major goal of the book is more likely to be seen as exhorting Christians to preach the gospel faithfully. Conversely, if ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is understood as ‘the testimony that Jesus gave in his life and especially his death’, then the key objective of the book is more likely to be viewed as exhorting Christians to sacrifice themselves as martyrs. Thus a study of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ has specific purpose in that it will contribute to the debate on how to understand the ‘witness theme’,72 which will finally contribute to the understanding of the rhetorical goal of the book of Revelation. 1.4 The Aims of This Study In light of the varying views on both the meaning of the phrase and the rhetorical goal indicated by the ‘witness theme’, it is fitting to undertake a study of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and related language. There are a number of questions on which the present study must reflect. The first, and perhaps most basic question, is this: How should the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ be interpreted? My main concern here is to determine: (1) to what the phrase refers; and (2) the rhetorical function of the phrase when it is used. The survey of scholarship revealed not only a lack of consensus but also a lack of any clear majority view. Furthermore, despite the considerable debate surrounding the interpretation of this phrase, a comprehensive, in-depth study of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and related language has not yet been undertaken.73 The present study aims to fill this gap in scholarship. In seeking to answer the question of how the phrase should be interpreted, the present study will also aim to answer a second main question: Should the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ be interpreted in the same way at 72.  Obviously the theme of witness is much more complex than just the meaning of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’. The present study will not comment extensively, for example, on the relationship between Christ and his witnesses (for an in-depth study of this relationship, see Roose, Zeugnis, 14–143). Related language will be dealt with (for example, I will examine the relationship between ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and ‘μαρτυς’) but unfortunately it is not possible to examine every aspect of the theme fully. 73.  There have been articles dealing with this, and even a monograph on the phrase (Roose, Zeugnis), yet none of these provides an in-depth study of how that scholar’s preferred interpretation is the best possible interpretation for each context. For example, in his article devoted to the subject, Mazzaferri clearly argues that the phrase should be interpreted as a reference to the apocalypse itself, but does not explain how this interpretation might work in the context of Rev 1.9 (instead he states that not much understanding can be gained from 1.9) (‘Martyria’, see especially p. 118).

1. Introduction

19

each occurrence? As was demonstrated in the survey of scholarship, very few scholars interpret the phrase consistently as they move through the book, and there is disagreement as to whether the phrase takes on a different meaning in different parts of the book. This study therefore must determine whether or not it is valid for interpreters to make a shift in their interpretation of the phrase as they move from one part of the book to another. The third key question, then, is if ‘encouraging followers of the Lamb to be witnesses’ is one of Revelation’s key rhetorical goals, then what exactly is John calling for his readers and hearers to do? What specifically is Revelation’s rhetorical goal with regard to the theme of witness? Given that the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is a key part of how one understands the concept of witness in the Apocalypse more broadly, obviously the answer to this third question will derive in large part from our answers to the first two. Of course, since ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is only part of a network of related language and symbols that makes up the important theme of witness, it is also necessary that this study should ask how the phrase in question (‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’) relates to similar language throughout the book (other occurrences of μαρτυρία, as well as μαρτυρέω and μάρτυς). Thus the present study will be asking questions such as the following: Does John want everyone to become a martyr? Is he calling on them to suffer, and so follow the ‘testimony’ of Christ? Or is he simply exhorting them to be faithful in the way that they live, so imitating the perfect ‘testimony’ of the earthly Jesus? Or is he perhaps calling on them to preach the message of Jesus? Or something else? Indeed, this is just one of a number of supplementary questions that the present study must consider. The phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ does not appear in isolation, but is often set alongside other phrases such as ‘the word of God’ and ‘words (or book) of prophecy’.74 Thus in seeking a better understanding of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’, the present study must also deal with its relationship to these phrases. The present study must also ask what the significance is of Revelation’s use of ἔχω in conjunction with ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’. As indicated above, a few scholars have noted the peculiarity of this combination, but none have provided a satisfactory explanation of how it should be understood.

74.  The phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ appears alongside ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’ in 1.2, 1.9 and 20.4 (cf. alongside ‘αἱ ἐντολαῖ τοῦ Θεοῦ’ in 12.17). In the opening lines of the book, ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is only one label given to the book. It is also called an ἀποκάλυψις (1.1); ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ (1.2); and οἱ λόγοι τῆς προφητείας (1.3).

20

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Finally, it is also hoped that this study will contribute to the understanding of the concept of witness in the book of Revelation, and thus also in the New Testament as a whole.75 In summary, the present study must ask and answer the following questions: (1) How should the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ be interpreted? (2) Should the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ be interpreted consistently throughout the book of Revelation? (3) What is the rhetorical goal of the Apocalypse with regard to ‘being a witness’? In seeking to answer these main questions, the present study will also consider a number of related questions: (1) How does the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ relate to cognate language throughout the book? (2) How does it pertain to related phrases, such as ‘word of God’ and ‘prophecy’? (3) What is the significance of John’s use of ἔχω in conjunction with ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’? (4) Finally, what impact do the conclusions to the above questions have on the understanding of the concept of ‘witness’ (and related terminology) within Revelation and thus the New Testament as a whole? 1.5 Methodology In order to answer the questions outlined above, this study will begin with an exploration of the meaning of the phrase at its first occurrence (Rev 1.2). From the context of the opening verses, the best interpretation of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ will be determined by careful exegesis.76 Having done this, I will then proceed to ‘test’ whether this interpretation can be consistently maintained in the further occurrences of the phrase. As mentioned in section 1.2.6, although the majority of scholars interprets the phrase in 1.2 in a way that differs from their interpretation in the other four verses where the phrase occurs, there is no indication in the text that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ has multiple meanings. In light of this, it is best to begin with the assumption that the phrase will carry the same meaning each time it occurs. It is only if the interpretation determined in Rev 1.2 fails to work in the context of 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4 that a different interpretation should be adopted. Two results are possible with this approach. First, we may discover that it is conceivable, indeed preferable, to interpret the phrase in the same way at each occurrence. In order for this approach to be convincing, 75.  A. Trites has demonstrated the importance of ‘the concept of witness’ in the New Testament (and wider Scripture) (New Testament Concept of Witness); thus this study may be able to interact with Trites’s work on some level. 76.  For further description of how the meaning will be determined, see the next subsection.

1. Introduction

21

it must be shown that the consistent interpretation – whatever that may be – is the best interpretation in each context.77 Where it is not possible to show which interpretation is best, the consistent interpretation must be shown to be at least a viable option. This means that all of the apparent reasons that cause scholars to ‘shift’ their interpretation of the phrase after Rev 1.2 must be dealt with.78 However, secondly, it is also possible that we will discover that the phrase may convey different meanings depending on its context within the book (that is, it is not possible to maintain a consistent interpretation of the phrase and still make sense of the text). If this conclusion is reached, the present study must then determine the significance of the fact that John uses the same phrase to convey two (or more) different meanings. Whatever the result in terms of a consistent or inconsistent interpretation, the end result will be a comprehensive study of the interpretation of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’. After arriving at a conclusion as to the interpretation of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in the book, I will then proceed to apply its findings to the larger question of the rhetorical goal of the book. 1.5.1 Method for Determining the Best Reading at Each Occurrence In order to determine the best interpretation of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in each of the places it occurs, this study will aim to make sense of the phrase using the information given within the text itself, and will operate on the principle that the book itself is the most appropriate means for the modern reader to gain the information needed to be able to interpret the phrase.79 77.  Of those few scholars who do argue for a consistent interpretation throughout the book, none of these provides an in-depth discussion of how their proposed interpretation actually works in each context (see n. 34, above). This does not include those who argue that the phrase means ‘the testimony about Jesus’ as well as ‘the testimony of Jesus’ life and death’, while also being a reference to the contents of the vision in 1.2 (see, for example, Beale). This is not a consistent meaning of the phrase; rather this is saying that the phrase can mean all of these things, not that the phrase always means each of these things. 78.  These reasons are outlined above in section 1.2.7. To sum up, the reasons are: (1) the fact that the phrase characterizes a group of people in 12.17 and 19.10; (2) the unusual use of ἔχω in 12.17 and 19.10; (3) the presumed background of persecution (especially relevant in the interpretation of 1.9 and 20.4). 79.  That being said, this does not mean that Revelation may not give pointers to ‘look’ outside the text. Rather, the text, not other literature or the historical background, must serve as our starting point. Put another way, the approach of this study falls into the category of an ‘in-the-text’ methodology, as opposed to a ‘behind-the-text’ or

22

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

The reason for this methodology is as follows. Since in most of its occurrences the phrase ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is used with no explanation as to its meaning, it can be assumed that the author expects his readers either to know what he means when he uses the phrase, or else to discern the meaning from the text itself.80 Most approaches have tended (implicitly) to reason that John expects his readers to know what he means when he uses the phrase. Put in methodological terms, it is often thought that the first-century audience’s understanding of the phrase would have been drawn from their ‘presupposition pool’ – that is, the ‘pool of knowledge’ that the author assumed his audience possessed.81 While this is certainly a possibility, because the modern reader does not have access to this ‘pool’,82 it cannot be the basis for our interpretation of the phrase. Furthermore, although other relevant parts of the New Testament might come into our discussion, these texts cannot serve as the starting point for our understanding. The phrase is not used anywhere else within

‘in-front-of-the-text’ approach (J. Green, ‘The Challenge of Hearing the New Testament’, in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. J. Green, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 10–14). In this way, the present methodology takes on many of the core elements of the varied approach that has been labelled ‘discourse analysis’. Discourse analysis arose out of an ‘increasing preoccupation with the text itself’ and focuses largely on ‘how a text has been shaped, consciously or otherwise, by its author so as to generate meaning’ (J. Green, ‘Discourse Analysis and New Testament Interpretation’, in Green, ed., Hearing, 221). 80.  This premise, of course, rests on the assumption that John intended his readers to understand his writing (including the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’). Considering that Revelation clearly ‘exhibits deliberative goals’, this seems a reasonable assumption (see deSilva, Seeing, 82–85, for more on Revelation as deliberative discourse). In order for the audience to do what John is telling them to do, they must understand what he is saying. 81.  Green, ‘Discourse Analysis’, 228. Green notes that this pool of knowledge might come from ‘general knowledge in the world’, as well as from the ‘exigencies giving rise to the discourse’. 82.  This is because the ‘pool of knowledge’ from which the ancient audience would have drawn is often different from the ‘pool of knowledge’ possessed by the modern reader. As Green observes, ‘…one of the key problems with presuppositions is that each participant in a discourse typically behaves as though his or her presupposition pool were shared by all… Discourse analysis of NT texts, then, must be actively engaged in the exploration of the presupposition pools (especially the sociohistorical context) of the Mediterranean communities in which those texts were formed’ (‘Discourse Analysis’, 229–30).

1. Introduction

23

the New Testament,83 and although related word combinations84 can be found,85 there is no one clear ‘testimony’ – either by or about Jesus – within the New Testament.86 Thus there is no clear text (known to the modern reader) that served to inform John’s addressees.87 A look at the 83.  We would look to other literature for this combination, but the New Testament is most appropriate (especially since this is what commentators often cite). Other Christian literature is too late to be a ‘source’ of understanding for the original audience, and while the OT or LXX passages may contain ‘witness’ language, obviously none of these will use the phrase in connection with Jesus. 84.  So here we mean μαρτυρία or μάρτυς, used in some way either in connection with or in relation to Jesus. 85.  The majority of such references occur in the Gospel of John. At several points the use of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ relates to a statement made by Jesus about his own identity (5.31, 32, 34, 36; 8.14, 18; 18.37), or a testimony given by others regarding the identity or nature of Christ (1.7, 19; 3.32; 19.35; 21.24). Other references in the New Testament include Acts 22.18, where Jesus appears to Paul in a vision and refers to Paul’s testimony about him, and also 1 John 5.9–10, which refers to God’s testimony about Jesus. 86.  In other words, it is unclear whether these statements are to be considered ‘the testimony of Jesus’ in any ‘official’ or ‘commonly-referred-to’ sense. Rather, in each of the statements in John, the word ‘testimony’ could easily be replaced with ‘statement’ – the use of testimony seems to highlight the importance and veracity of what is being said. Take, for example, the words of John in 19.35: ‘And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is speaking truly, in order that you might believe.’ In the context, John’s testimony is about the crucifixion of Jesus. 87.  It is not uncommon for scholars to cite one of the two most popular interpretations alongside a reference to one of the four Gospels (see, for example, Sweet, Revelation, 59; Caird, Revelation, 12; Swete, Apocalypse, 12; see also I. Donegani, A cause de la parole de Dieu et du témoignage de Jésus: Le témoignage selon l’Apocalypse de Jean, EBib Nouvelle Série 36 [Paris: Gabalda & Cie, 1997], 469). Although the gospels (specifically, John) do serve as a witness to the use of μαρτυρία language as a way of referring to either the words of Jesus or a statement made about Jesus, this does not actually help in the interpretive challenge at hand, as the gospel references could support either of the two main interpretations. Furthermore, treating the gospels as the primary source for the original audience’s understanding is tenuous, as the modern reader knows very little about which texts John’s audience would have known. So while the Gospel of John is a ‘ready’ pool of knowledge from which the modern reader might draw, it is not necessarily a pool from which the original audience would have drawn. While it is hypothetically possible that the original audience would have simply ‘deduced’ the meaning of the phrase, there is not enough evidence that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ was a common way for Christians to refer to a message either from or about Jesus to assume that this is true.

24

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

use of μαρτυρία in the New Testament also reveals that the term has a fairly flexible meaning,88 indicating that the writer of the Apocalypse may have used this word to convey a concept that may not have been employed in this way elsewhere. Nor does the historical background provide any decisive information regarding the meaning of the phrase. Although the assumption that Christians were being heavily persecuted during the time of the writing of the Apocalypse has also contributed to the idea that the ‘testimony of Jesus’ refers to preaching about Jesus for which Christians were persecuted, the uncertainty surrounding this aspect of the historical background,89 and the rather mixed picture presented in Revelation 2–3 (discussed above), mean that the historical situation of John’s audience cannot be taken as a significant source of understanding the meaning of the phrase.90 The multiple uncertainties regarding the historical and literary background of the book thus mean that the text of Revelation itself must serve as the starting point for our investigation into the interpretation of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’. This is not to say that we will never appeal to texts outside of Revelation for insight. Other biblical and/or historical texts91 may very well be relevant to the present study and will be referred to when appropriate.92 It is simply that none of these ‘outside’ texts 88.  In 1 Tim 3.7, ‘μαρτυρία’ is usually understood and translated as ‘reputation’ (NIV, NASB); in Titus 1.13, the word is simply used as a way of referring to a statement made about Cretans. In other words, it is a way of referring to something that is said, as could also be held to be the case in the examples in John cited above. 89.  Here we are referring to (1) the uncertainty surrounding the date of the writing of the book, which is obviously connected with what was happening historically at the time, (2) as well as the current uncertainty concerning the amount of persecution actually facing the churches to which Revelation was written (see n. 43 above in section 1.2.7). 90.  This does not mean that one must disregard the historical background. Rather, it simply means that the ‘weight of our focus’ must shift. As Green states, ‘discourse analysis…examines texts as acts of communication and not as windows into a historical past. This does not mean that questions of history and tradition are obliterated in discourse analysis; rather, the weight of interest shifts’ (‘Discourse Analysis’, 221). Historical situations may be referred to, but should not be the primary reason for a given reading. Furthermore, when this study does refer to historical situations, it will only be to those that are easily reconstructed from the text of Revelation itself. 91.  This may include ancient inscriptions or writings, as well as those texts used in historical-critical studies of Revelation. 92.  Of course, out of necessity we must make some assumptions about the background and context of the book in order to supply the appropriate parameters for our interpretation of the phrase.

1. Introduction

25

should be determinative in and of themselves for one’s understanding of the phrase. This study’s method for looking at the text, then, is fairly straightforward.93 In each immediate passage where the phrase occurs, this study will take into account the specific wording used, as well as any grammatical structures that may aid one’s understanding of the phrase. However, as has been pointed out, the immediate context in which the phrase occurs does not always provide enough information for one to discern what the phrase means. Thus the interpreter must appeal to the wider context of the rest of the book in order for the reader to determine how to interpret the phrase.94 This method is certainly appropriate for the way that Revelation tends to convey meaning. As David deSilva has noted, ‘Revelation relies heavily on verbal repetition to suggest meaning by creating webs of association, reinforcing boundaries and incompatibilities, and the like.’95 Thus in looking to the wider context of the book for indications as to the interpretation of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’, this study will be guided by the links formed by the book’s repetition of similar phrases and depictions. Since this study will be looking at the book as a whole and not just the specific passages where the phrase occurs, it is also necessary to take into account the structure of the Apocalypse, as well as the specific function of passages being examined. Thus a hymnic section of the book will not be treated in the same way as an epistolary section, and an ‘interlude’ will not be treated as chronologically or sequentially related to what comes before and after it.96 93.  Not only will this be the first study that seeks to understand the meaning of the phrase and how it works in each context, it will also be the first study (to my knowledge) that seeks to understand the meaning of the phrase using primarily the text of Revelation itself. Most of the proposed understandings of the phrase that are given usually require the reader to have access to and be familiar with information from outside the Apocalypse. 94.  This is an important part of discourse analysis – realising that ‘words, clauses, sentences and even paragraphs in a text…are already in an ongoing discourse situation and therefore should not be interpreted apart from that discourse situation’ (Green, ‘Discourse Analysis’, 223). 95.  deSilva, Seeing, 135; see also D. deSilva, ‘A Sociorhetorical Interpretation of Rev 14:6–13’, BBR 9 (1999): 73–81, for a discussion of Revelation’s repetitive nature; see also R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), 22–37. 96.  Scholars have not tended to take into account the structure of the book or the function of specific passages when trying to determine the meaning of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’. In this section I have at various points drawn upon the language used in

26

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

1.5.2 A Note on the Unity of the Text97 The less-than-straightforward structure of Revelation has led to numerous debates regarding the unity and composition of the book. Several sourcecritical theories have been put forward, most of which can be divided into three groups:98 compilation theories;99 revision theories;100 and frag­ mentary theories.101 Yet despite the great amount of work that has been discourse analytics. While I have found the language of discourse analytics helpful in describing my methodology, this work does not claim to be a full discourse analysis. I have adopted many of the methods used within discourse analysis, but there are many other methods within discourse analysis that this study will not follow in a strict sense. I also recognize that there are many different ‘schools’ of discourse analysis (see S.E. Porter, ‘Discourse Analysis and New Testament Studies: An Introductory Survey’, in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek, ed. S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson, JSNTSup 113 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995], 24–35, for a discussion of the ‘four major schools of thought’ relating to discourse analytics), and therefore any of our references to ‘discourse analysis’ should be understood as general at best. 97.  The following quote from Beckwith demonstrates the relevance of this question for the present study. In his discussion of the meaning of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Rev 1.9, he says ‘that the term The Word of God and the testimony of Jesus is most naturally taken in the same sense as in the preceding context, v. 2, where the revelation of this book is meant. But if, as is almost certain, the Superscription was written after the body of the book – and this paragraph belongs to the body of the book – the usage throwing light on our passage is found not in the Superscription but in the following chapters. And there the phrase and its equivalents refer uniformly to the gospel; cf. 69, 1217, 1910,, 204’ (Apocalypse, 434). 98.  See Aune, Revelation 1–5, cx–cxvii, for the listing of these three theories, as well as an in-depth discussion of the views of those scholars whose work falls into one of the three categories. 99.  Compilation theories propose that the final form of Revelation is a result of the combination of two or more apocalypses (Aune, Revelation 1–5, cx). Aune lists M.É. Boismard, J.M. Ford, F. Rousseau and H. Stierlin as the major proponents of such theories (Aune, Revelation 1–5, cx–cxiii). 100.  Revision theories contend that a single composition first existed before undergoing ‘later editorial expansion’ (Aune, Revelation 1–5, cx). There are several variations possible here. One possibility is that Revelation was originally a Jewish apocalypse that was revised by a Christian editor (E. Vischer). Another possibility is that Revelation was originally composed as a Christian apocalypse, and later revised by an editor, or editors, or a single author (R.H. Charles; H. Kraft; P. Prigent). (These variations and their proponents are taken from Aune, Revelation 1–5, cx, cxiv–cxvi.) 101.  Fragmentary theories simply state that the final form of Revelation is made up of various texts that were joined together by John (Aune, Revelation 1–5, cx). This is the view of J. Weiss; W. Bousset; P. Vielhauer (Geschichte); U.B. Müller (Messias); R. Bergmeier (Aune, Revelation 1–5, cx, cxvi–cxvii).

1. Introduction

27

done in the area of source-criticism, there still is no consensus or majority view regarding how Revelation was composed or compiled, nor is there any consensus concerning certain portions being considered later additions. Adding to the uncertainty of the source-criticism theories are the scholarly works which argue just the opposite – that Revelation is in fact a unified book. At the outset of his chapter detailing the structure and the literary techniques found throughout the book of Revelation,102 R. Bauckham makes the following statement: ‘The more Revelation is studied in detail, the more clear it becomes that it is not simply a literary unity, but actually one of the most unified works in the New Testament.’103 Bauckham argues that the use of intricate numerical compositions104 and deliberate repetition and alteration of specific phrases throughout the book105 ‘should be sufficient to refute theories which divide the book into disparate sources’.106 Analyses of Revelation’s ‘linguistic peculiarities’ have also supported the argument for the unity of the book, as they have demonstrated that the work’s unique grammatical style and language cannot be confined to any particular portion(s) of the book.107 At the end of his extensive study of the linguistic peculiarities in the book of Revelation, G. Mussies summarizes his findings, saying that even the ‘more rare’ peculiarities ‘are scattered all over the book’.108 Based on the fact that no one part (or any certain parts) of the Apocalypse appears to be free of the ‘linguistic peculiarities’ identified by Mussies, he concludes that ‘we do not see any reason for questioning the unity of the Apc. on linguistic grounds’.109 Of course, Mussies’ findings have significant impact only on compilation, and not revisionist, theories.110 Yet even if one adopts a revisionist 102.  Bauckham, Climax, 1–37. 103.  Bauckham, Climax, 1 n. 1. 104.  Bauckham, Climax, 29–37. 105.  See Bauckham, Climax, 22–29. 106.  Bauckham, Climax, 1 n. 1. Mazzaferri appears to be in agreement. After a review of major scholarly debates within Revelation studies, he boldly states: ‘the unity of the book has survived all attacks, and enjoys all but outright support today’ (F.D. Mazzaferri, The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective, BZNW 54 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989], 37). 107.  Aune, Revelation 1–5, cix. 108.  G. Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek: As Used in the Apocalypse of St. John, NovTSup 27 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 350. 109.  Mussies, Morphology, 351. 110.  This is pointed out by Aune, Revelation 1–5, cix–cx.

28

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

theory for the composition of Revelation, there is still good reason to approach the text as a unified work. Take, for example, the statement made by D. Aune. Although he is rejecting the idea that linking devices in the text are evidence of a single author, in doing so he must nevertheless admit that there is indeed some sort of ‘unity’ to the text. He says that the ‘plethora of literary devices linking the various parts of the text together’ demonstrates that ‘Revelation is a “unity” because the author has worked diligently, even ingeniously, at the task of linking units of texts that were not originally designed to fit together.’111 Even in Aune’s own proposed theory of compilation, he states that ‘In the author’s attempt to link together the various textual units that he chose to place into a larger framework, he made extensive use of literary expansions…to bind the (originally) loosely connected sections together.’112 Here one can see that Aune is operating under the understanding that the author (or editor), in his work to create the final form of Revelation, would have been trying to connect disparate pieces in order to form a cohesive piece of work. The question, it seems, is not ‘is Revelation a unified work’, but rather ‘is Revelation’s unity the result of a single author or the work of an editor (or editors)?’ For the purposes of the present study, the answer to this question does not matter. In the end, there is no way of knowing for certain whether Revelation was composed by one author or compiled by an editor.113 But the fact remains that Revelation is meant to be read as a unified work. The literary links alone indicate this. Furthermore, approaching the text as a unified entity removes the temptation to disregard difficult or puzzling parts of the text under the claim ‘it must have been a later addition’. After all, even proponents of a source-critical theory must accept that even if the final form of Revelation is a compilation of different sources (for this is what all the source-criticism theories really are), the compiling of sources would have been done by an editor who wanted to make the book appear cohesive. The same holds true for a revisionist theory. If the goal of a reviser is to take an already-existing work and add to it in order to make it fit his purposes, then logically it follows that he would want the finished product to look as unaltered and

111.  These are the remarks of Aune (Revelation 1–5, cviii) in his rejection of the claim that Revelation should be understood as a unified work. 112.  Aune, Revelation 1–5, cxxix. 113.  A. Sand, ‘Zur Frage Nach dem “Sitz im Leben” der Apocalyptischen Texte des Neuen Testaments’, NTS 18 (1972): 175, thinks that Revelation is most likely a composition of different texts, but says that one cannot say for sure.

1. Introduction

29

cohesive as possible.114 Although one may refuse to accept that Revelation is the unified writing of one author, one cannot simply ignore all of the evidence in the text that has caused so many to see the work as cohesive.115 As a result, it is best to approach the text as a unified entity. 1.6 Procedure The purpose of this chapter has been to introduce the main topic and articulate the goals of the present study. I have outlined the scholarly debate within which this monograph is situated and have identified the questions this study is seeking to address. This study will now proceed with an exegesis of the meaning of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Rev 1.2. At the conclusion to this section, it will be suggested that the best reading of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is one that understands the phrase as a reference to the contents of the book of Revelation itself. Before proceeding to ‘test’ whether or not this reading works in the other places where the phrase occurs, the following chapter will seek to address one of the main objections to understanding ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ as referring to the contents of the book – the fact that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is something that characterizes and is possessed by characters within the book of Revelation itself. Characterising characters within the book of Revelation as having the message that they themselves are a part of creates an odd intratextual situation, making it seemingly impossible to continue to understand ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ as a reference to the book in 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4. Yet by looking at similar textual situations in the books of Daniel and 1 Enoch, Chapter 3 will argue that this sort of intratextual occurrence was not all that uncommon in other apocalyptic literature. It will be argued that both Daniel and 1 Enoch also depict characters within their apocalypses as receiving the message that they themselves are a part of, making way for the possibility that Revelation does something similar. At the end of this chapter the focus will turn back to John’s Apocalypse, with specific focus on Revelation 10 and 11. It will be argued that these 114.  This is not to say that a reviser would have actually been able to achieve such a goal. But at the same time, one cannot simply assume that places where the text does not seem coherent or smooth are the result of a reviser or compiler. The same could be said of a single author – he or she may simply have failed (intentionally or not!) to create what might seem to the modern reader to be a seamless flow of thought. 115.  Here I am referring to the evidence discussed by Mazzaferri, Bauckham and Mussies (see discussion above).

30

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

two chapters illustrate the reception of the revelation by John and then by the wider church, further opening the way for the possibility that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ consistently refers to the ἀποκάλυψις itself. Chapters 3–6, then, will ‘test’ the probability of what the previous two chapters showed to be a possibility. Using the methodology outlined above, this study will take the meaning of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ as determined in the exegesis of 1.2 and will ascertain whether or not this same interpretation works in the contexts of 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4. Having argued in Chapters 3–6 that it is indeed possible and even preferable to interpret ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ consistently as a reference to the ἀποκάλυψις, one is still left with the question of how this phrase relates to cognate language. Thus Chapter 7 will look at Revelation’s use of the nouns μάρτυς and μαρτυρία, with special focus on its relationship to ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’. Since both Jesus and Christians are called μάρτυρες, one section will focus on the noun’s application to Jesus, while a second will focus on how it is applied to Christians. Finally, Chapter 8 will present a summary of the study and its conclusions. Here the impact of the conclusions of this study on one’s understanding of the rhetorical goal of the book will be discussed and summarized. The implications of this study for understanding the concept of ‘witness’ in the New Testament will also be assessed. 1.7 The First Occurrence: ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 1.2 The phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ makes its first appearance in the book’s superscript.116 Having titled the work that follows as the ‘ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ’, vv. 1–2 show a chain of revelation. God gave the ἀποκάλυψις to Jesus Christ, who then sent the message via his angel to be shown to John,117 in order that the ἀποκάλυψις might be shown τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ. Having been shown ‘that which must happen quickly’, John 116.  Rev 1.1–3 makes up what is often labelled a ‘superscription’, a section of the prologue (1.1–8; so also Boxall, Revelation, 21; Aune, Revelation 1–5, 5; Smalley, Revelation, 25; contra Beale, Revelation, 181, who considers the prologue to extend to v. 20) that is clearly related to, yet distinct from, 1.4–8. These verses are set apart by the switch from third-person narration in 1.1–3 to what is in effect first-person narration, when John introduces himself as the one addressing the seven churches in Asia (Ἱωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ). 117.  I understand Jesus to be the subject of ἐσήμανεν in 1.1 (so also Smalley, Revelation, 27; Boxall, Revelation, 25). Although God is the one who gives (ἔδωκεν) the revelation to Jesus Christ, he gives it so that Christ might show ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τἀχει (δεῖξαι as infinitive of purpose) to his bondservants. God gives the revelation,

1. Introduction

31

ἐμαρτύρησεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅσα εἶδεν. Here, ‘ὅσα εἶδεν’ is clearly epexegetical for that to which John testified: the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. In other words, ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ’ are two ways of describing the vision that John saw and then wrote down to give to the churches.118 I. Boxall’s translation of v. 2 captures the message clearly: ‘John now bears witness to all the things he has seen: God’s word, that is, the witness which Jesus Christ himself bore.’119 Although the epexegetical position of ‘ὅσα εἶδεν’ makes it fairly certain that here ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ’ refers to the vision itself, there are several other ‘clues’ in this superscript that confirm this understanding. The first is the relationship between ‘the word of God’ and ‘the testimony of Jesus’, which is most naturally read as a parallel or epexegetical.120 This relationship is made clear by the preceding verse, where it is plainly stated that the vision is simultaneously from God and Jesus: ‘a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him…’ (v. 1). Here it is God, with Christ; together they are giving this message to John and to the churches. God’s word, which is what John saw,121 is also Jesus’ testimony. ‘God is the ultimate origin of what this book describes; the one who reveals it, and therefore reveals God, is Jesus Christ…’122 Since ‘the word of God’ is most likely a word from God, ‘which in this case, and in most instances throughout [Revelation], primarily comes to John visually’,123 it then naturally and logically follows that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία but Christ reveals it. Thus in the statement that follows, it makes sense that it again is Christ who is disclosing the revelation through his angel (understanding σημαίνειν as a synonym of δείκνυμι). 118.  ‘…for [John] this was a “seen” word; but to communicate it to the church it had to become a written word, “the testimony” that Jesus Christ gave by way of one vision following another’ (G. Fee, Revelation, NCC [Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2013], 4). 119.  Boxall, Revelation, 21. Commenting on the phrase ‘all that he saw’, W.J. Harrington (Revelation, SP 16 [Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1993], 44) says, ‘The whole book may be regarded as the testimony of Jesus Christ.’ 120.  Boxall, Revelation, 26, notes that, ‘though this verse is not easy to translate, the witness which Jesus Christ himself bore and God’s word are probably two ways of speaking of the same reality’. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 19, also lists this as a possibility. 121.  This is not unlike 1.12, where John turns to see the voice speaking to him. 122.  Boxall, Revelation, 23. 123.  Fee, Revelation, 3; so also Harrington, Revelation, 44. This is reminiscent of the way the phrase is used in Old Testament prophetic literature; for further discussion on this point, see Chapter 7.

32

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Ἰησοῦ’ is a testimony from Jesus, and is to be understood as another way of describing what John saw and then recorded. Given the relationship between the two phrases, it would be odd if the first genitive construction was subjective (that is, referring to ‘the word from God’) and the second was objective (‘the testimony about Jesus Christ’). ‘Ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is further linked to the revelation by its specific designation as the testimony of Jesus Christ.124 Whereas later occurrences of the phrase read ‘the testimony of Jesus’, the addition of ‘Χριστοῦ’ here most likely serves to tie it to the previous phrase ‘a revelation from Jesus Christ’.125 Linking the phrase to the opening ‘title’ lends further support for understanding ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ’ as a reference to the vision itself, since ‘ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ’ is most likely the apocalypse from Jesus Christ. Although the genitive construction could be read ‘an apocalypse about Jesus Christ’, it is best understood as ‘an apocalypse from Jesus Christ’,126 given that the phrase that follows (‘which God gave him to show his servants’) signifies that from this point on, Christ will be the one giving the revelation from God.127 The chain of revelation and the phrase’s epexegetical relationship with ‘ὅσα εἶδεν’ and ‘ὁ λογος τοῦ Θεοῦ’ both clearly show that Christ shares in the role of giver of the message with God, making the best and most likely interpretation of ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ’ to be one which understands the phrase as referring to the vision of the Apocalypse that follows. Indeed, the focus of the superscription is all about the vision itself, giving a detailed account of both what it is, and from where it came. It is therefore fitting that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ’ also be understood as another designation for the vision; any other understanding (such as reading the phrase as referring to Jesus’ earthly ministry) would be out of place.

124.  Even with the addition of ‘Χριστοῦ’ here in 1.2, commentators are virtually unanimous in seeing the phrase as the same as that used in 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4 (in fact, I am not aware of any commentator who would draw a distinction). 125.  Indeed, these are the only two places in the entire book where ‘Jesus Christ’ is used. 126.  As I. Boxall notes, ‘…far more will be revealed in this book than christological secrets. More likely, John is describing the process by which the revelation comes to him: it is an unveiling which Jesus Christ passes on to him (subjective genitive)’ (Revelation, 23). So also Harrington, Revelation, 43. 127.  Fee, Revelation, 2.

1. Introduction

33

Thus we see in the opening lines that ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ’ clearly refers to the ἀποκάλυψις. It is one of the many ways that the book here refers to its own message, alongside the related monikers, ‘ἀποκάλυψις’,128 ‘τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ’ and ‘τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας’ (1.3; see also 22.7, 9, 10129). Statements made in the book’s epilogue also support this interpretation.130 In 22.16 Jesus proclaims, ‘Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις.’ As in Rev 1.1–2, ταῦτα clearly refers to the vision that the angel has shown John. That these words refer to the vision itself is strengthened by the fact that these things have been written ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις (cf. 1.1, ‘…to show to his bondservants’; 1.11). Similarly, the description of Jesus as ‘ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα’ (with ταῦτα again most naturally referring to the content of the preceding vision) in 22.20 verifies the understanding of ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ’ in 1.2 as a reference to the ἀποκάλυψις itself. Although the phrase ‘μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is not used, the epilogue’s use of the verb μαρτυρέω in connection with what has preceded reaffirms that ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ’ in 1.2 is the message of the Apocalypse itself. Thus we can be confident as we proceed that, in Rev 1.2, John intended for the phrase ‘the testimony of Jesus Christ’ to refer to the contents of the vision recorded in the book of Revelation itself. Having established this, this study will now proceed to ‘test’ whether or not this reading might also be the best understanding of the phrase in subsequent occurrences.

128.  The use of this term alongside ‘τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας’ to refer to the message of the book warns against drawing too sharp a distinction between the prophetic and apocalyptic genres (Boxall, Revelation, 1–3; Beale, Revelation, 37; see also deSilva, Seeing, 9–14) as some have done in the past (e.g. Mazzaferri, Genre, 377–78; conversely, M. Rist, ‘Revelation’, in IB, ed. G. A. Buttrick [New York: Abingdon, 1957], 347–613). 129.  The phrases ‘τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου’ (22.7, 10) and ‘τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου’ (22.9) undoubtedly refer to the preceding vision as a whole (cf. 1.3), which John has been commanded to write at various points (1.11, 19; 2.1, 8, 12, 18; 3.1, 7, 14; 14.13; 19.9; 21.5; see also 10.4 and 22.18–19). 130.  Although one must be careful not to draw too sharp a distinction between the ‘frame’ (prologue and epilogue) and the ‘body’ of the book, since the prologue and epilogue work together to ‘package’ the text for the reader, it is appropriate here to discuss the two together.

Chapter 2 I n t er n a l S el f -R ef er e nce s *

2.1 Part One: Internal Self-References in Other Apocalyptic Literature 2.1.1 Introduction From the previous section, it is clear that in 1.2 ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is a phrase used to describe the message of the book itself. Yet scholars rarely identify ‘the testimony of Jesus’ with the Apocalypse when interpreting the phrase subsequently, but instead understand it as referring to a proclamation about Jesus or as a summary of the ‘testimony’ given by Jesus during his life. As mentioned in the introduction, one of the main reasons for this shift in interpretation is the difficulty in understanding how ‘the testimony of Jesus’ can be the message of the Apocalypse, when characters within the visions themselves are characterized as those who are said to be in possession of it (12.17; 19.10; note the use of ἔχω). The proposal that these characters within the book possess the message that they themselves are a part of creates a seemingly odd intratextual situation. The aim of this chapter is to address this difficulty, and it will contend that the books of Daniel and 1 Enoch provide a background against which it can be argued that ‘having the testimony of Jesus’ can be understood as ‘having’ the book of Revelation. Although this creates an intratextual situation in which the saints are envisioned as having access to and then proclaiming the message of the book in which they are characters, through a study of similar situations in other apocalyptic literature one can see that this type of intratextual situation was not uncommon in such texts. * An earlier version of portions of this chapter appeared in: Sarah Underwood Dixon, ‘ “The Testimony of Jesus” in Light of Internal Self-References in the Books of Daniel and 1 Enoch’, in The Book of Revelation: Currents in British Research on the Apocalypse, ed. G.V. Allen, I. Paul and S. Woodman, WUNT 2/411 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). It is re-printed here by kind permission of the publisher.

2. Internal Self-References

35

2.1.2 The Book of Daniel 2.1.2.1 Internal Self-References At the end of the vision which began in 11.1, the angel Gabriel commands Daniel to ‘conceal these words and seal up the book until the time of the end; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase’ (12.4). This statement is echoed in the epilogue, when Gabriel again reiterates that ‘the words’ are ‘concealed and sealed up until the time of the end’ (12.9). The placement of these statements at the end of the book suggests that ‘this book’ and ‘these words’ refers to the entire book of Daniel.1 That being said, although the reference to the book of Daniel is clear, it is unclear whether ‘this book’ and ‘these words’ refers to the book of Daniel in its written form or to the message of Daniel in a general sense. On the one hand, using the term ‘book’ (‫ )‏ספר‬seems to suggest a written corpus. This is supported by 7.1, where Daniel sees ‘a dream (‫ )‏חלם‬and visions (‫ )‏חזה‬in his mind as he lay on his bed’. The text notes that ‘he wrote down the dream’ (‫ )כתב חלמא‬and then relays this written report in 7.2–28. Yet on the other hand, there are several other places in the text where it is reported that Daniel sees a vision without any mention that he wrote it down. For example, in ch. 8, Daniel is said to see a vision (‫[ ‏חזון‬8.1]), but the only evidence that it is written down is that it is recounted in 8.2–14. Similarly, the vision recorded in 9.24–27 is called both a ‫חזון‬ (‘vision’) and a ‫‘( דבר‬word’) in 9.23. The final vision (11.1–12.3) – ultimately described as the contents of ‘the book of truth’ in 10.21 – is also labelled as a ‘word’ (‫( )דבר‬10.1).

1.  J. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC 30 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1989), 309; L.F. Hartman and A.A. DiLella, The Book of Daniel, AB 23 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), 311. It has been noted that Daniel is specifically said to have written down several of the visions of chs. 7–12, but this still leaves the question of the connection between chs. 1–6 and 7–12. Although the traditional assumption is that the entire book was written by Daniel, the text does not explicitly state this (J.J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 24). Nevertheless, the two ‘halves’ of the book are connected in various ways. Not only do Daniel and his companions provide a model for the correct behaviour of a maskil, but also the use of pesher as the ‘media of revelation’ in both 1–6 and 7–12 (J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel, HSM [Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977], 78) forms an important connection. For a discussion of the various views on the unity of the book, see H.H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament (London: Lutterworth, 1952), 249–60.

36

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

In fact, the labelling of the vision in 9.24–27 as a ‘word’ makes the reference to ‘these words’ in 12.9 less likely to be a reference to written words. Since single visions within the book of Daniel have been called a ‘word’, ‘these words’ (‫ )הדברים‬in 12.9 may simply be a way of collectively referring to the preceding visions, rather than a way to refer to the actual written words that comprise the book of Daniel. Thus it remains unclear whether the self-references in 12.4 and 12.9 refer to the book’s message generally, or more specifically to the written document. Either way, these mentions of ‘this book’ and ‘these words’ are clearly self-references to the book of Daniel2 itself. However, the book does not merely refer to its own message, but goes even a step further and depicts its own future use and transmission. 2.1.2.2 The Maśkîlîm In 11.33 Gabriel tells Daniel about the maśkîlîm (‫)מׂשכילים‬, a word usually translated ‘the wise’ or ‘teachers’ or ‘those who have insight’. In this final vision Gabriel explains to Daniel that ‘those who are wise (maśkîlîm) among the people will give understanding to the many…’ (HCSB). While ch. 11 does not specify the nature of the understanding that the maśkîlîm give to the many, the use of the term maśkîlîm in 1.4 to describe Daniel and his companions suggests that their understanding ‘above all refers to the interpretation of dreams and mysterious signs, the ability to give pesher’, alongside their ability to learn the Chaldean language and literature.3 Indeed, ‘the visionary of Daniel 7–12 presents his revelation in the form of pesharim, interpretations, either of visions or of scriptural prophecy’, and so ‘it is reasonable to assume that the instruction given by the maśkîlîm was similar in kind, and that the visions of Daniel are themselves samples of that instruction’.4

2.  An alternative reading is to take ‘the book’ as referring only to the final vision (11.1–12.3) (Collins, Daniel, 24, notes this as a possible interpretation). On this reading the internal self-reference would be not to the book of Daniel as a collection of visions, but instead to a smaller portion of what would be recorded as the book of Daniel. 3.  Collins, Vision, 169. 4.  Collins, Vision, 169. Collins also notes another interpretation ‘complementary’ to this one, whereby the maśkîlîm are a group similar to the Levites. Just as in Neh 8.7 (cf. also Neh 8.13) the Levites were said to be ‘making the people understand the Torah’, so also would the maśkîlîm be instructors of the law. Both Nehemiah 8 and Daniel 11 use the verbs ‫( בין‬understand) and ‫( ׂשכל‬understand, study) in the hiphil or causative. Whereas the object of the verb in Nehemiah is the Torah, there is no object

2. Internal Self-References

37

Indeed, a study of the verb ‫( בין‬used in Dan 11.33–35 for ‘understanding’) throughout Daniel reveals that this interpretation is correct. As mentioned above, the term is first used in Dan 1.4 to describe the group of youths taken from Israel to Babylon. The verb then appears again in 1.17, this time applied to Daniel specifically, saying that he and his friends had been given ‘knowledge and intelligence in every writing and wisdom’ and that Daniel specifically understood (‫ )בין‬all visions and dreams. Lending further support to this interpretation is the fact that in the court tales, Daniel – the example of a ‘true’ maśkîl – has ‘understanding’ (cf. 1.17) and is thus able to interpret the king’s dreams and visions. So when future maśkîlîm (to whom Daniel is an example) give ‘understanding’, it makes sense that the understanding that they have and impart to others would be of the same nature as Daniel’s. In the tales that follow, Daniel demonstrates his understanding by interpreting a number of the king’s dreams. It is clear from the declaration in 1.20 that this type of wisdom and knowledge is different from proverbial wisdom:5 ‘As for every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king consulted them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and conjurers who were in all his realm.’ The fact that they are contrasted with magicians and conjurers suggests that the wisdom they have relates to the interpretation of dreams, since in 2.2 it is this group that the king summons to interpret his dream. The word ‫ בין‬is used not only in the court tales to describe the divinely given ‘skill’ of Daniel and his companions, but is also used in the visions of Daniel 7–12. Within this second half of Daniel, the verb ‫ בין‬and its noun equivalent ‫ בינה‬occur 22 times (8.5, 15, 16 [×2], 17, 23, 27; 9.2, 22, 23 [×2]; 10.1, 11, 12, 14; 11.30, 33, 37 [×2]; 12.8, 10 [×2]), with the overwhelming majority of these occurrences relating to the understanding of dreams and visions.6 Therefore when 11.33–35 describes the maśkîlîm as giving ‘understanding’ to the many, one can assume that this ‘understanding’ also relates to the understanding of dreams and visions. specified in Daniel. So while instruction in the Torah would certainly fit within the context of Maccabean persecution, the shared terminology alone does not necessarily imply that Daniel is using the verbs in the same sense (Collins, Vision, 168–69). 5.  Collins, Vision, 54–57, describes Daniel as a practitioner of ‘mantic’ wisdom, thus drawing a distinction between Daniel’s wisdom and the proverbial wisdom of Proverbs and Ben Sira. 6.  The exceptions are in 8.23, 9.2 and 11.30. At 9.2 ‫ בין‬is used when Daniel says that he ‘understood’ in the books, here referring to the understanding of the Scriptures. At 8.23 the verb is used to describe ‘a king’ who is prophesied as one who ‘understands riddles’ (translation from Collins, Daniel, 339). The sense here is

38

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

2.1.2.3 Use of the Book Yet it is also likely that the understanding of the maśkîlîm in 11.33–35 relates not just to dreams and visions generally, but actually relates to the book of Daniel specifically.7 The reason for this is twofold. The first relates to the time period in which the book is said to be unsealed. In both 12.4 and 12.9 Daniel is told that the book must remain sealed ‘until the time of the end’.8 This time period – described as the ‘end time’ and understood as the real author’s own era – is the same period as that described in 11.33–35.9 The correspondence between the ‘time of the end’

that the ‘understanding’ of the king is actually shrewdness in deceit, or being ‘skilled in double dealing’ (A. Bevan, A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel for the Use of Students [Cambridge: s.n., 1892], 139; R. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1929], 218 [followed by Collins, Daniel, 340]), and thus has nothing to do with dreams and visions. Similarly, its use in 11.30 (‘he will show favour [‫ ]בין‬to those who forsake the holy covenant’) and 11.37 (‘show regard’) does not relate to gaining understanding. 7.  E. Lucas, Daniel, ApolOTC 20 (Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 287: ‘There can be little doubt that the book of Daniel in the form in which we have it came from this group of “the wise”, and that it represents the kind of “understanding” they imparted to “that many”…’. Goldingay is even more explicit, saying that ‘the ministry of the discerning is not teaching in general or exhortation to faithfulness but the interpretation of the prophetic scriptures – and no doubt of these Danielic visions – for the persecuted community’ (Daniel, 303). Likewise, Collins, Vision, 207, concludes that the ‘wisdom’ of the maśkîlîm ‘is primarily the wisdom manifested in the visions themselves’. A. Portier-Young, Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 256, states that their instruction included ‘the apocalyptic vision revealed to Daniel’. See also p. 276: ‘…once circulated, the book itself performs this function on behalf of its writer(s)’. So also P. Davies, Daniel, OTG (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), 118: ‘…the book itself contains the true teaching of the “wise”: Daniel is not about understanding and “making righteous”; it performs that function itself’. 8.  In several places Daniel is told that what he sees is ‘for’ the future (8.17, 19, 26; 10.14 – all using the preposition ‫)ל‬. Translated woodenly, this preposition (‫ )‏ל‬means ‘for’ – that is, the vision is for the end time (hence the common translation, ‘pertains to’). This could be understood as meaning that the vision is about the future, or it could equally be understood as being not only about the future, but to be used in the future. So even before the collection of tales and visions is referred to as a whole, at several points there are hints that these visions may be used again in the future. 9.  Daniel 11.22–45 is usually thought to be the author’s own time. Indeed, most scholars view 11.21–45 as describing the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (C. Seow, Daniel, Westminster Bible Companion [London: Westminster John Knox, 2003], 182–86; Collins, Daniel, 386–88; Lucas, Daniel, 289–93; W. Towner, Daniel, IBC

2. Internal Self-References

39

as described in ch. 12 and the time period portrayed in 11.22–45 lends further support to the idea that the understanding given by the maśkîlîm relates to the book of Daniel itself, for this is the age in which the book is to be unsealed.10 The correspondence of 11.33–35 with the time in which the scroll is unsealed is affirmed by the description of events given in 12.4 and 12.9–10. In 12.4, Gabriel announces: ‘seal up the book until the time of the end; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase’. The statement that ‘knowledge will increase’ suggests that this verse is a description of the time period that occurs after the unsealing of the scroll.11 [Atlanta: John Knox, 1984], 164; J. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, ICC 22 [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927], 465; Goldingay, Daniel, 305). 10.  As Collins has noted, ‘There is no doubt…that Daniel’s revelations were to be made public in the time of persecution, which was the time when they were actually composed. This is apparent in the role of the maśkîlîm in 11.33’ (Daniel, 341–42). So also Hartman and DiLella, Daniel, 311: ‘As in 11.35, “the time of the final phase” is the author’s own time, a time of religious crisis and persecution. Now that the final phase has arrived, the book may be opened…’. 11.  There are some who understand this time period as referring to the ‘interim’ period between the writing and later unsealing of the scroll. Most scholars who do so translate the second half of the verse as saying, ‘…many will go back and forth, and evil will increase’, instead of the other common translation, ‘…many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase’, drawing on the Old Greek reading ‘καὶ πλησθῇ ἡ γῆ ἀδικίας’. This reading assumes that behind the translation ἀδικίας lies the Hebrew word ‫ רעה‬instead of the word ‫ דעת‬that appears in the MT. While it is possible that the OG reading is a witness to a Hebrew text which read ‫רעה‬, it is also possible that the original Hebrew read ‫ דעת‬and the OG translator misread it as ‫רעה‬, especially given the similarities between some of the lemmas (or else changed it on purpose). However, other evidence strongly supports ‫ דעת‬as the original reading. In terms of external evidence, Theodotion’s Greek translation supports ‫ דעת‬as the original, reading ‘καὶ πληθυνθῇ ἡ γνῶσις’. The relationship between the OG and Theodotion has been debated: some argue that Theodotion’s translation is a completely independent translation of Daniel (T. McLay, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel, SCS 43 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996], 242), while others say that Theodotion’s text ‘is better read as a correction of the older translation to conform more closely to the Hebrew-Aramaic’ (Collins, Daniel, 11). Either way, Theodotion’s reading of ‘knowledge’ is more likely to represent the original Hebrew than is the OG. Internal evidence also favours ‘knowledge’ as the correct reading. Those who argue that ‫ רעה‬is the correct reading usually do so on the basis that ‫ דעת‬does not fit the context well (e.g. Goldingay, Daniel, 281; see also Collins, Daniel, 369). If this is the case, then based on the reasoning that ‘the more difficult reading is the

40

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

The scroll is a source of knowledge, so it is fitting that the time period in which the scroll has been unsealed would see an increase in knowledge.12 This description of the time of the unsealing of the book represents a dramatic reversal of Amos 8. ‘Instead of people roaming about in a desperate-but-vain search for the word of God, now “many” – perhaps the “many” who are resurrected from the dead (12:2) or the “many” who have been led to righteousness by the resurrected servants of God (12:3) – will roam the earth and knowledge will be increased.’13 Because the book has been opened and the vision revealed, knowledge will increase. Similarly, when Daniel asks for more information concerning future events in 12.9–10,14 Gabriel says to him, ‘Go, Daniel, for the words are concealed and sealed up until the time of the end. Many will be purged, purified, and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight (maśkîlîm) will understand.’ The sense here is that no more information will be given until the words are unsealed, and although Daniel may not have full understanding now, when the book is opened, the maśkîlîm will have full understanding.15 more probable reading’ (K. Aland and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Brill, 1989], 281), ‫ דעת‬is most likely the original reading. 12.  So also Seow, Daniel, 189–90; Davies, Daniel, 118; Goldingay, Daniel, 309, citing J.M. Lindenberger, ‘Daniel 12:1–4’, Int 39 (1985): 184. 13.  Seow, Daniel, 189–90. 14.  For a note on the connection between 12.4 and 12.9, see Davies, Daniel, 118; A. Lacocque, D. Pellauer and P. Ricoeur, The Book of Daniel, English ed. (London: SPCK, 1979), 249. 15.  As with 12.4, it is not entirely clear how vv. 9 and 10 relate to one another in terms of chronology, but it seems most natural to see v. 10 as a description of what will happen in the time of the end (see, for example, Hartman and DiLella, Daniel, 313, who read v. 10 as a description of what will happen in ‘the final phase’). This fits with the observation made by Collins (Daniel, 400) that 12.10 is a recap of the events of ch. 11 (although Collins does not see these events as describing the time period when the scroll is opened [see Daniel, 400: ‘Because the book is sealed, true understanding is hidden. It is available only to the ‫‏מׂשכילים‬, who are privy to the revelation.’]). Collins seems to think that this cannot be describing the time when the book is unsealed because the angel’s response in v. 9 is clear – no more information will be given [‘…no further revelation is available in Daniel’s time’ (Daniel, 400). But this is not necessarily the case (see Lacocque, Pellauer and Ricoeur, Daniel, 249, who say that the heavenly response in v. 9 ‘is not a refusal of Daniel’s petition’). Just because

2. Internal Self-References

41

The increase of knowledge and understanding associated with the unsealing of the scroll in ch. 12 is strikingly similar to what is described in 11.33–35. The picture of the maśkîlîm spreading understanding to many peoples corresponds closely to the increase in knowledge that is predicted at the time the scroll is unsealed (12.4). These matching descriptions, along with the fact that 11.22–45 and the ‘end time’ of 12.4 and 9 are to be understood as referring to the same time period, make it all the more likely that the ‘understanding’ given by the maśkîlîm is, at least in part, an internal reference to the future use of the book itself. Of course this does not mean that the understanding that the maśkîlîm bring to the many relates only to the book of Daniel. If the wisdom of Daniel and his companions in the court tales is any example, their teaching also included observance of Torah and interpretation of the scriptures.16 Nevertheless, the book of Daniel itself was an essential part of the understanding that they gave to the many. This is not to say that these are depictions of Daniel’s use as a written corpus of material. Through correlating time periods and events, Daniel connects the ‘understanding’ of the maśkîlîm to ‘the book’ and ‘these words’ mentioned in 12.4 and 12.9. But as noted previously, it is not clear in the description of the sealing and unsealing of the book in these verses whether it is referring to a written corpus or the visions of Daniel in an abstract sense. Although the use of the term ‘book’ suggests a written document, as a whole the book does not seem overly concerned with its own existence as a physical writing. Accordingly, in the depiction of the future in 11.33–35, the use of Daniel as a written book is implied, but does not appear to be essential to the sending out of the message. In this scene, ‘understanding’ (which has been argued to include the message of the book of Daniel) is given to the ‘many’ by the maśkîlîm. But since the book claims to have been written by Daniel many years prior to the time of the maśkîlîm, it is implied that the maśkîlîm came to receive this message via a written corpus. Indeed, the pseudepigraphical device whereby Daniel receives a command to ‘seal up’ the book or words ‘until the time of the end’ enforces the idea that a physical copy of Daniel was the means by which ‘the wise’ were

no further information is given does not mean that the events that will happen after the scroll is unsealed have not already been foretold. In other words, even though this verse does not specifically say that when the book is unsealed these things (v. 10) will happen, it may still be the case that the events of ch. 11 (now recapped in 12.10) are in fact what will happen when the scroll is unsealed. 16.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse, 256.

42

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

to receive the message written by their esteemed predecessor. The historical period described in 11.22–45 is thought by many to be the time in which the book was actually composed, but because the book claims to have been written by Daniel many years earlier, the author must refer to his own time period as ‘the time of the end’ in order to preserve the pseudepigraphical nature of the book. The command to ‘seal up the book’, then, is a literary device, allowing the book to present an apocalyptic revelation that could relate to ‘events long after the time of the alleged author’.17 ‘It is…presumed that the end is now at hand and the time has come to publish the secrets. The secrecy of Daniel only refers to the manner in which the material was transmitted, and explains why material allegedly written during the exile was not hitherto known.’18 As the goal of such statements is to give the impression that the revelations were given to Daniel and then preserved for many years before then being given to the wise teachers (maśkîlîm), they imply that the book was physically written down – this is certainly the most natural explanation for how the maśkîlîm would have been able to access material that was kept secret for generations. Yet it is nevertheless significant that the reception of a written copy of the book of Daniel is not part of what is envisioned in the depiction of the book’s use in the future (11.33–35). More important to the book’s transmission and future is the role of the maśkîlîm. It is through the understanding given by these wise teachers that the ‘many’ will come to receive the message of the book of Daniel. This deliberate vagueness regarding the role of the written text of Daniel serves to highlight the importance of the role of the maśkîlîm. The fact that the message must come via the maśkîlîm indicates something about both the message of the book and also the way in which it will be transmitted. The maśkîlîm are by very definition ‘teachers’ and ‘instructors’, so it follows then that the book will be transmitted not simply by being read, but will require explanation and interpretation. This need for wise teachers in order to make the message understood accentuates the perplexing nature of the message, and signifies that even after the book has been unsealed, all will not necessarily be understood. This may even explain why the author has remained vague on the role of the written text. The sense is that reading the book – even though it has been unsealed in the last days – will not automatically result in understanding for the reader. 17.  Collins, Vision, 84; see also p. 77. 18.  Collins, Vision, 77.

2. Internal Self-References

43

Highlighting the perplexing nature of the message allows for a lack of understanding to remain even while knowledge is increasing. After all, even Daniel, the first to receive these revelations, was still left unable to understand all that was happening (12.8). True understanding comes (at least in part) via the book in the time of the end, but there is still a sense in which full understanding will not be achieved until the completion of the time of the end. Yet with its revelation of God’s control over the time period in which they found themselves, the book of Daniel would have provided the maśkîlîm (and those they taught) with an understanding that would have enabled them faithfully to endure persecution and even death.19 2.1.3 The Book of 1 Enoch 2.1.3.1 Introductory Note: The Many Books of Enoch Before looking at similar intratextual situations in 1 Enoch, it is necessary to say a brief word concerning the composition of the book. Although eventually united under the title ‘1 Enoch’, the texts that comprise this book were not always part of one literary unit. Indeed, one could speak of 1 Enoch as being a compilation of ‘booklets’: The Book of Watchers (chs. 1–36); the Book of Parables (chs. 37–71); the Book of Luminaries (chs. 72–82); the Book of Dreams (chs. 83–90) followed by a narrative bridge (91.1–9, 18–19); The Epistle of Enoch (chs. 92–105); the Birth of Noah (chs. 106–107); and Another Book by Enoch (ch. 108).20 Because of the various stages in which the book of 1 Enoch was composed and the way in which the corpus is thought to have developed, this study will approach the text of 1 Enoch in sections, taking into account the order in which the ‘booklets’ were composed and compiled, as well as whether or not certain booklets show awareness of earlier Enochic material. This approach will prevent confusion and ensure accuracy regarding which sections of the text are being referred to in each of the internal self-references that will be discussed.

19.  Collins, Vision, 210. Hartman and DiLella, Daniel, 311: ‘Now that the final phase has arrived, the book may be opened so that the suffering Jew who strove mightily to remain steadfast in faith may receive encouragement, strength, and consolation from the truth that what he is now experiencing during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes is all part of God’s preordained but inscrutable plan of history, which, according to the author’s inspired literary convention of fictional prophecy, was revealed to Daniel in the Persian period some three hundred and fifty years earlier.’ 20.  List of booklets and chapter numbers taken from G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), vi.

44

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

In terms of the formation of 1 Enoch, it appears that the Book of Watchers existed as a separate document for some period of time, but was ‘soon supplemented so as to constitute a full-blown Enochic testament: 1–5 (+6–11) + 12–33 or 36 + 81:1–82:4 + 91 + at least some parts of 92–105’.21 To this Enochic testament the Book of Dreams was added,22 and subsequently so was the account of Noah’s birth (106–107). To this unit then the Book of Luminaries (possibly the earliest composition, but not part of the corpus of 1 Enoch23) was inserted after ch. 36.24 Later the Book of Parables (37–71) was added, with the addition of ch. 108 (Final Book by Enoch) completing the corpus that would collectively be called ‘1 Enoch’.25 Thus this portion of the study will begin with a discussion of the literary unit that is largely composed of the Book of the Watchers and the Epistle of Enoch (chs. 1–36 + 81.1–82.4 + 91 + 92–10526). Because this section would have been composed and compiled before the addition of the Book of Parables (37–71), the Book of Luminaries (72–82) and the Book of Dreams (83–90), any internal self-references within this section presumably refer only to the Book of Watchers and the Epistle. After examining internal self-references found in the literary unit composed of chs. 1–36 + 81.1–82.4 + 91 + 92–105, the Book of Dreams will be discussed. Unlike other later additions to the corpus, the Book of Dreams appears to presuppose the ‘testament’ (1–36 + 81.1–82.4 + 91 + 92–105) to which it was added, and in several places demonstrates a familiarity with parts of the Book of Watchers. For example, Enoch’s transportation up to the heavenly temple in 87.3–4 echoes chs. 12–16; Enoch’s contact with archangels in 81 links to chs. 17–36; the comparison of the watchers’ destruction to that of burning pillars in 90.24 connects to 18.11 and 21.7; and the vision of the apostates’ punishment in the Valley of Hinnom in 90.26–27 correlates with 26–27.27 21.  G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 25. 22.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 25–26. 23.  Nickelsburg and VanderKam, A New Translation, 6. 24.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 26. 25.  Discussion of the development of the corpus taken from Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 25–26. 26.  Although Nickelsburg notes that one can only be sure that the Enochic testament first included parts of chs. 92–105, we have included them within the current section because ‘at a number of points they presuppose knowledge of, and make reference to, the contents of chaps. 1–36 and 81’ (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 26). 27.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 359–60, who cites P. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch, SBLEJL 4 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 83–96,

2. Internal Self-References

45

The Dream Vision also appears to draw upon the Apocalypse of Weeks. In fact, the Apocalypse of Weeks is ‘the closest Enochic parallel’ to the Dream Vision, as both recount ‘human history from primordial times to the new creation’.28 Although it is difficult to discern the exact relationship between these two texts, the Animal Vision’s more elaborate account of the time of the apostasy of Manasseh leading into the Hellenistic period may well indicate that it used the Apocalypse of Weeks as its basis and then changed the text on the basis of the four kingdoms depicted in Daniel 2 and 7.29 Given these literary connections, it is safe to assume that when the Book of Dreams refers to Enochic revelations, it may refer not only to its own corpus, but also to the Book of the Watchers and the Apocalypse of Weeks. Since the Apocalypse of Weeks was embedded within the Epistle of Enoch and combined with the Book of Watchers at an early stage, it is also reasonable to assume that the Book of Dreams knew the Epistle as well, even if it does not make specific allusions to the testamentary instruction found there. Finally, because of the way in which 1 Enoch is being approached, sections of the final corpus that are not relevant to the aim of the current chapter have been omitted. This includes the Book of Parables (chs. 37–71); the Book of Luminaries (chs. 72–82); the Birth of Noah (chs. 106–107); and the Final Book by Enoch (ch. 108). Although each contains what may be considered internal self-references,30 none of these envision the future use of their own corpora. While stating that a revelation had been recorded in writing was not uncommon,31 envisioning the future use of a corpus within its own text is much less common. Since for a detailed discussion of the relationship between the Animal Vision and the Book of the Watchers. 28.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 360. 29.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 360. Nickelsburg here notes that the Animal Vision divides the period of apostasy into four segments. 30.  Other sections of 1 Enoch do include self-references to portions of Enochic material: The Book of Luminaries refers to a ‘book’ (72.1) and ‘this account’ (82.7); the Book of Parables refers to itself as ‘wisdom’ (37.1–5) and ‘the book of all secrets’ (68.1); and ch. 108 calls itself a ‘book’ and also makes reference to earlier Enochic books (108.10). These sections also make mention of the writing down of the revelation (74.2; 82.7; 40.1). 31.  ‘The writing down of revelation is attested already in the prophetic books: Isa 30:8; Jer 36:2; Hab 2:2. It is often mentioned in the apocalyptic books: 1 En. 81:6; 82:1; 2 Esdr 14:37–48; Rev 1:19; 21:5. Compare further Dan 12:4’ (Collins, Daniel, 294).

46

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

the aim of this chapter is to explore texts that depict their own future use in order to provide a possible background against which to understand the saints ‘having’ the book of Revelation, the sections of 1 Enoch that do not mention or depict the future use of Enoch’s books will not be discussed. 2.1.4 The Book of Watchers + The Epistle of Enoch (1–36 + 81.1–82.4c + 83–90 + 91.1–10, 18–19 + 92–105) 2.1.4.1 Internal Self-References Like the book of Daniel, this section of 1 Enoch contains various selfreferences to its own corpus. Perhaps the most striking self-reference occurs at 104.12, 13. Here Enoch declares that he knows a ‘second mystery, that to the righteous and pious and wise my books32 will be given for the joy of righteousness and much wisdom. Indeed, to them the books will be given, and they will believe in them, and in them all the righteous will rejoice and be glad, to learn from them all the paths of truth.’33 Here ‘the books’ are specified as ‘my books’, suggesting that they have become Enoch’s by virtue of his writing them down. These ‘books’ most likely refer to the literary unit composed of the Book of Watchers and the Epistle of Enoch (1–36 + 81.1–82.4c + 83–90 + 91.1–10, 18–19 + 92–105).34 This is supported by strong evidence that 32.  While the Ethiopic simply reads ‘books’ (maṣāḥeftāt), the Greek text is more specific, reading ‘my (i.e. Enoch’s) books’ (L. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, CEJL [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007], 599). 33.  Unless otherwise noted, all translations of 1 Enoch are taken from Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation. This translation uses the Ethiopic version as its text base, but uses the Greek ‘where it is available…[as it] provides better readings and gives a better sense of the original Aramaic’. Aramaic fragments have been consulted, although their fragmentary nature ‘makes it difficult to employ them in any sustained way’ (p. 14). 34.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 422, notes that ‘The Epistle is the last major component of a text that was composed as an Enochic testament (1–36 + 81:1–82:4 + 83–90 + 91:1–10, 18–19 + 92–105).’ Indeed, the book of 1 Enoch is a work that represents ‘developing stages of the Enochic tradition, each one building on the earlier ones – though not in the order in which they presently stand in the collection’ (Nickelsburg and VanderKam, ‘Introduction’, in A New Translation, 1). For example, chs. 37–82, although placed in the middle of the Enochic collection, are probably the latest additions to the literary corpus (G.W.E. Nickelsburg, J.C. VanderKam and K. Baltzer, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of Enoch Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012], xvii). For this reason, chs. 37–71 (Book of Parables) and the bulk of 72–82 (Book of Luminaries), has not been included as part of the ‘books’ that are referred to in 104.12, 13. The exception to this is 81.1–82.4c.

2. Internal Self-References

47

the author of the Epistle (which contains ch. 104) knew earlier parts of the corpus, and expected his audience also to know the earlier accounts of Enoch’s visions.35 These references to ‘books’ really come as no surprise, given that throughout the Enochic corpus various sections are labelled as literary units and Enoch is repeatedly reported as writing down what he sees. In ch. 81 the seven holy ones instruct Enoch to ‘tell everything to your son Methuselah and show all your children that no human is righteous before the Lord…’ They inform Enoch that they will leave him with Methuselah for one year, ‘until you again give your (last?) command, to teach your children, write for them, and testify to all your children…’ (81.5b–6). Enoch then begins his instructions (82.1), saying to Methuselah, ‘I am telling you all these things and am writing (them) down. I have revealed all of them to you and have given you the books about all these things.’ By this point, it appears that a significant amount of time has passed, as Enoch has already composed the books that the seven holy ones commanded him to write.36 Like 104.12, 13, the references to ‘books’ and ‘the book’ in 82.1 refer to earlier parts of the Enochic corpus, although here they do not allude to the same texts as those in ch. 104, since this section was most likely composed before the Epistle. This narrative sequence is continued with the introduction to the Apocalypse of Weeks, where it is said that Enoch ‘took up his discourse’ (93.1, 3).37 The Aramaic here makes reference to Although in the standing collection this text is part of the Book of Luminaries, this is most likely a later amendment to the text (for a discussion of the misplacement of 81.1–82.4a-c in the Book of Luminaries, see Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 334–38). 35.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 423, claims that ‘language and phraseology in the Epistle have been drawn from an earlier part, especially references to heavenly books. Even if the Epistle was at some point preserved on manuscripts separate from those that contained the visions, it was preserved within a communal context that knew and used the accounts of the visions.’ 36.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 342. He notes the perfect tense of the verb in these verses – ‘has given’. 37.  Following the Aramaic reconstruction of 4QEng (see J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch [London: Oxford University Press, 1976], 263–64). The original form and origin of the Ethiopic text at this point are ‘difficult to determine’ and may be corrupt (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 435, note on 1a); for this reason, Nickelsburg prefers the reconstructed text from Milik. One version of the Ethiopic reads: ‘And after this, it came to pass that Enoch began to speak from the books, and Enoch said…’ (wa’emdeḫraze kona hēnok wa’aḫaza yetnāggar ’emaṣāḥeft wayebē hēnok) Ethiopic β U11 (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 435).

48

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

a ‘writing,’ most certainly a ‘letter’ or ‘epistle’.38 Although it is possible that this refers to chs. 91–108 (given the subscription ‘Επιστολη Ενωχ’ that occurs in the Greek version of 97–107), the description of Enoch ‘giving over’ the writing to Methuselah indicates that this writing was a literary epistole, and not a reference to the Epistle of Enoch.39 This literary epistole may have simply been the Apocalypse of Weeks, or may have included earlier parts of the corpus.40 These references echo the opening lines of the book of Enoch, where the text declares that Enoch ‘took up his discourse’ (1.2, 3) (Aramaic matla’; Greek παραβολή),41 referring to the Book of Watchers (chs. 1–36) that follows. Indeed, the parallel between these texts42 increases the likelihood that this is a common way for Enoch to introduce smaller portions of his corpus. Similarly, in 100.6 Enoch predicts that ‘the wise among men will see the truth, and the sons of the earth will contemplate these words of this epistle…’. The Greek here reads ἐπιστολή, but the original ‫ כתבא‬or ‫ סיפרא‬could simply be translated as ‘writing’ or ‘book’.43 The ambiguity of the Aramaic could indicate that this is a reference to the entire Enoch corpus,44 or could be a reference to a shorter literary unit, as is indicated by the Greek translation ‘ἐπιστολή’. While the existence of Daniel as a physical book was merely implicit within the text, on the whole 1 Enoch is much more aware of the fact that it is being produced as a written text. The language used to describe many of the self-references indicates the existence of Enoch’s books as physical, written entities, and the multiple mentions of writing down the revelations in chs. 81–82 heighten the feeling that Enoch is actually producing a written text. Together, these references make it clear that the multiple references to ‘books’ allude to the books that Enoch wrote.45

38.  M. Black, The Book of Enoch Or 1 Enoch, SVTP 7 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 11. 39.  Black, 1 Enoch, 11. 40.  Black, 1 Enoch, 11. 41.  Nickelsburg and VanderKam, New Translation, 19, note a. 42.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, says of 93.1–3a, ‘This passage as a whole imitates the introduction to the corpus (1:1-3)’ (citing J.C. VanderKam, ‘Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks [1 Enoch 93:1–10; 91:11–170]’, CBQ 46 [1984]: 516–17). 43.  Black, 1 Enoch, 12. The Ethiopic reads ‘discourse of this book’ (nagara zāti maṣḥaf) (Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 438). 44.  So speculates Black, 1 Enoch, 12. 45.  The fact that the seven holy ones give Enoch one year to complete his task (81.5–6) suggests that Enoch actually is expected physically to write down what he has seen.

2. Internal Self-References

49

The language used to describe the transmission of Enoch’s books also indicates an awareness of the books’ existence in written form. In the sectio­ns discussed above, Enoch tells Methuselah that he has ‘given’ him ‘the books about these things’ (82.1). And as noted above, even the specification of the books in 104.12 as ‘my books’ signifies a written quality to the work. Whereas a reference to ‘books’ could simply be a general reference to the heavenly books that Enoch was shown, ‘my books’ suggests that they have become Enoch’s by virtue of his writing them down. But despite the book’s awareness of its own existence as a physical document, not all of 1 Enoch’s self-references refer to the book in terms of a literary body (i.e. ‘book’ or ‘word’). Enoch also repeatedly refers to his own works as ‘wisdom’. In 82.1–3, Enoch depicts the books that he is writing and passing down via Methuselah as such, saying, ‘Wisdom I have given to you and to your children so that they may give this wisdom which is beyond their thought to their children for the generations’ (v. 2). Similarly, 92.1 introduces the writing of Enoch the scribe as ‘this complete sign of wisdom’.46 (‘The term te’merta tebab could translate σημεῖον σοφίας [“sign of wisdom”] or δήλωσις σοφίας [“revelation (or ‘teaching’) of wisdom”]’.)47 Recognizing that the term ‘wisdom’ is a common way for Enoch to refer to his own works will be important as one seeks to determine how Enoch envisions his books being used. 2.1.4.2 Use of the Book Although the book is most often presented as being given to Methuselah and the other sons of Enoch (81.5; 82.1–2; 91.1–3), throughout 1 Enoch the author(s) makes it clear that he intends his work to be read and used by future generations. Not only does Enoch declare his books to be ‘for future generations’ (1.1; 92.1), he also commands the transmission of his message from his sons to subsequent generations (82.1–2), and like the book of Daniel, depicts their future transmission, use and influence. The superscription to the book (1.1) declares what follows (originally, chs. 1–36) to be ‘the words of the blessing with which Enoch blessed the righteous chosen who will be present on the day of tribulation…’. This

46.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 422, notes 82.1–3, 92.1 and 104.12–13 as passages that identify wisdom ‘in large part with Enoch’s words’. 47.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 431. He notes M. Knibb and E. Ullendorf, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 2:222, for a discussion of the meaning of ‘teaching’ in this passage.

50

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

day of tribulation is clearly in the future, for Enoch then says, ‘Not for this generation do I expound, but concerning one that is distant I speak. And concerning the chosen I speak now, and concerning them I take up my discourse’ (1.2d–3). A similar statement is also made at the beginning of ch. 91, where Enoch states not only that he is writing ‘to all [his] sons who will dwell on the earth’, but also ‘to the last generations who will observe peace and truth’ (92.1). And Enoch is not ambiguous as to how his message will reach future generations. He writes down his revelation and instructs his sons to pass down these writings to subsequent generations – indeed, this is the reason why he must record what he has seen. For example, when Enoch addresses Methuselah in 82.1, he says that he has written down his teaching, and instructs him to ‘keep the book written by your father so that you may give (it) to the generations of the world’. He declares, ‘Wisdom I have given to you and to your children and to those who will be your children so that they may give this wisdom which is beyond their thought to their children for the generations’ (82.2). 2.1.4.2.1 Depictions of Future Use Following on these commands are the depictions of Enoch’s books being spread and made available. In ch. 5 Enoch depicts the future time of salvation, in which ‘wisdom will be given to all the chosen; and they will all live, and they will sin no more through godlessness or pride. In the enlightened man there will be light, and in the wise man, understanding’ (5.8). Similarly, in a description of the future within the Epistle, Enoch gives a beatitude for all those who listen to the wise: ‘Then blessed will be all who listen to the words of the wise, and learn to do the commandments of the Most High’ (99.10). Similarly, in 100.6, Enoch foresees a day when ‘…the wise among men will see the truth, and the sons of the earth will contemplate these words48 of this epistle, and they will recognize that their wealth cannot save them when iniquity collapses’. In each of these passages, Enoch foresees people receiving his corpus, and this ‘truth’ that is the book will bring enlightenment and changed behaviour. The fullest depiction of the reception and use of the Enochic books is seen in the Apocalypse of Weeks (91.11–17; 93.1–10). In the conclusion to the seventh week, ‘the chosen will be chosen, as witnesses of righteousness from the everlasting plant of righteousness, to whom will be 48.  As discussed previously, ‘these words’ could refer to the Epistle of Enoch specifically, or to the entire Enochic corpus that has been written at this point.

2. Internal Self-References

51

given sevenfold wisdom and knowledge’.49 The ‘sevenfold wisdom and knowledge’ that they are given no doubt includes50 the Enochic corpus,51 especially given Enoch’s predisposition to labelling his own work as ‘wisdom’. The link between sevenfold wisdom and the Enochic corpus is confirmed when 94.1–5, one of the sections of ethical instruction that frames the Apocalypse of Weeks,52 commands the ‘righteous’ to ‘hold fast the thought of your heart, and do not erase my word from your heart’. But the reception of this sevenfold wisdom in the Apocalypse of Weeks is not simply for the benefit of the chosen. They are to become ‘witnesses of righteousness’, and their testimony, which includes the Enochic corpus, will be used to ‘uproot the foundations of violence, and the structure of deceit in it, to execute judgment’ (91.11). It is not surprising that Enoch would depict his books being used in the seventh week of this apocalypse, for this is the author’s own period53 and thus the presumed time when the Enochic books are to be revealed. This

49.  The phrase ‘witnesses of righteousness’ does not appear in the Ethiopic, but has been reconstructed from the Aramaic text (4QEng 1 iv 12-13) (Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 123). Also from 4QEng ‘we have confirmation that the Ethiopic tradition displaced the original order of the Apocalypse, as 91.11 follows directly upon 93.10 as part of the seventh week’ (Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 121, citing Milik, The Books of Enoch, 247–48). Also noted by Black, 1 Enoch, 11. 50.  To be sure, the ‘sevenfold wisdom and knowledge’ is a phrase that ‘denotes salvific knowledge in its entirety’ (Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 125). Thus it is important to understand that while the phrase would have certainly included the Enochic books, it may have also included other revelations. 51.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 422, 535; Nickelsburg and VanderKam, A New Translation, 11; Portier-Young, Apocalypse, 330, citing R. Charles, Book of Enoch: Or 1 Enoch Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 229. Portier-Young also includes the following quote from R.A. Argall (1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995], 42): ‘in the Enochic corpus, the expression “to give/be given wisdom”…is a technical term for the reception of revelation’. 52.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 336, notes that both apocalypses in this section (91.5–11 and 93.3–10; 91.10–17) are framed by ethical instruction: 91.3–4 / 91.5–10 / 91.18–19 and then 91.18–19 / 93.3–10; 91.11–17 / 94.1–5. He reiterates the connection between the passages, saying, ‘Thus the latter generation of the seventh week, to whom wisdom will be revealed (93:10; 91:11), is addressed in the second part of the instruction (94:3-5)’ (p. 337). 53.  Nickelsburg and VanderKam, A New Translation, 11.

52

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

same time period is described again in 104.12–105.1,54 which (like 100.6 and 93.10ff.) prophesies and depicts the reception of Enoch’s work by future generations. Enoch reveals that at this time, some will seek to adulterate Enoch’s books, while others will receive his ‘books…for the joy of righteousness and much wisdom’. In 104.10–11 Enoch reveals a first ‘mystery’ – that is, that sinners will somehow tamper with the words of his book.55 His ‘second mystery’, however, is much more positive. He reveals that ‘…to the righteous and pious and wise my books will be given for the joy of righteousness and much wisdom. Indeed, to them the books will be given, and they will believe in them, and in them all the righteous will rejoice and be glad, to learn from them all the paths of truth.’ In this future time period, Enoch’s books will bring joy and gladness, and people will respond to his words with belief and changed behaviour.56 Not only will future generations be changed by Enoch’s words, but they will also seek to change others by spreading his message. In 105.1 he declares, ‘In those days, says the Lord, they will summon and testify to57 the sons of earth in their wisdom. Instruct them, for you are their leaders…’. ‘Their wisdom’ undoubtedly refers to Enoch’s books,58 and in 54.  104.12, 13 and 105.1–2 appear to be a brief summary and conclusion of the events that are described in the Apocalypse of Weeks, as will be shown. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 535, notes that these two passages are linked together by their use of similar terminology. The wisdom language of 12c and 13a parallels the ‘sevenfold wisdom’ in 93.10, and the use of the phrases ‘the sons of earth’, ‘all the earth’ and ‘the paths of righteousness’ connect 105.1–2 with 91.14. As Stuckenbruck (1 Enoch 91–108, 598) notes, ‘both mysteries take the form of predictions from the point of view of the patriarch, though they are meant by the real author to describe activities that have transpired in his own time’. 55.  Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 598, notes a difference in understanding that results from different translations in the Ethiopic vis-à-vis the Greek. Whereas the Ethiopic simply states that sinners are writing words that are ‘neither the words of truth nor the words of the Holy One’ (i.e. writing their own words), the Greek ‘complains that sinners are writing “in their own names”, that is, without divine warrant in either composing their own works or in the way they transmit Enochic tradition’. 56.  Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 600, notes that the statement ‘they will believe in them’ most likely carries the connotation of obedience. 57.  Although Nickelsburg and VanderKam translate the phrase ‘testify against’, I am here taking the other possible translation provided in their footnote, ‘testify to’. As will be discussed below, this translation better fits the description of the activity of ‘instructing’ as described in the second part of the verse. 58.  The introductory adverbial expression at the beginning of 105.1 (possibly translating the Greek as τότε) connects ‘the action in these verses with what precedes’

2. Internal Self-References

53

this way, 104.12, 13–105.1 describes the completion of a process that began in 82.1–4 with the transmission of his revelation to his sons,59 with the command to spread the message of his books to all humanity. So too does the depiction of the revelation being proclaimed to all humanity in 105.1 complete the vision of the ninth week in the Apocalypse of Weeks (91.14), and thus provide further confirmation that the sevenfold wisdom of the seventh week should be understood to include Enoch’s books.60 Both 93.10 and 104.12–105.1 – two sections describing the same ‘future’61 time period – depict the reception and use of Enoch’s books by future generations. These future generations, represented by the characters labelled ‘the chosen’ (cf. 93.10) or ‘the righteous and pious and wise’ (104.10–11), are shown using the book to bring down violence and deceit, and eventually to bring all humanity to knowledge of the truth. Now this is not to say that Enoch envisions each of the ‘chosen’ receiving a physical copy of his books. In fact within depictions of the future use of the book there is variation concerning the degree to which this collection of Enochic books sees its future use as linked to its existence as a written corpus. In some depictions the books’ intrinsic written quality remains intact, such as in 100.662 and 104.10.63 But as Enoch depicts his message going out to even further generations, there is a subtle shift in language that seems to suggest that the books’ physical existence is no longer essential. For example, in 105.1, when those who (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 535). Stuckenbruck notes that the placement of 105.1a after 104.12–13 suggests ‘that the means by which divine revelation would be brought to the world is the faithful copying and translation of the Enochic tradition’ (1 Enoch 91–108, 601). 59.  See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 337, for the idea of 104.12–105.2 completing the process that began in 82.1–4 and was seen in 91.14. 60.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 336, states, ‘the sevenfold wisdom that will be given to the chosen in the seventh week (93:10) parallels the transmission of Enoch’s books to the generations of eternity. The theme will recur in 104:12–13.’ 61.  As noted, this time period is in the future from the point of view of the patriarch, but is probably the real author’s own era. 62.  1 En. 100.6 states, ‘the sons of earth will contemplate these words of this epistle…’. 63.  In ch. 104, Enoch reveals that in the end time sinners will ‘alter and copy the words of truth’ (104.10), with the words ‘alter’ and ‘copy’ indicating the presence of a written corpus. Thus a written text can be inferred when, in this same section, Enoch also declares, ‘my books will be given for the joy of righteousness and much wisdom. Indeed to them the books will be given, and they will believe in them, and in them all the righteous will rejoice and be glad, to learn from them all the paths of truth.’

54

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

have received Enoch’s books are summoned to ‘testify to the sons of earth in their wisdom’, it is said that in doing this they will ‘instruct them’. Although ‘wisdom’ here is closely connected to the Enochic corpus, the shift in wording is nevertheless significant. Rather than declaring that those who have received Enoch’s message will then testify to the sons of earth from the books, the text declares that the righteous and pious will testify from their wisdom, moving away from any language that suggests the use of a physical corpus of written material. This same language is used in other depictions of the books’ use in the future. In 5.8 Enoch foretells that ‘wisdom will be given to the chosen’, and in 99.10 he announces a blessing on ‘all who listen to the words of the wise’, and of course ‘wisdom’ language is used in the Apocalypse of Weeks’ declaration that the chosen will receive ‘sevenfold wisdom and righteousness’ (93.10). By dropping the emphasis on the physical nature of his books, Enoch is able to depict more realistically his message being spread to a wider audience than would be possible if he continued to emphasize the physicality of the books. The sense is that Enoch’s message will be so widespread that it can no longer be contained and transmitted via written books. In the end days, the message of his books will continue to be spread by way of the teaching of the wise, spreading salvation to all of humanity. 2.1.5 The Book of Dreams (83–90) 2.1.5.1 Use of the Book Unlike the literary unit comprised of the Book of Watchers and the Epistle, the Book of Dreams does not contain any references to its own corpus as a ‘word’ or ‘book’. At one point Enoch does state that he will write down his prayer (83.10), the text of which appears in ch. 84, but other than this there are no other statements of writing down what he sees. Despite this lack of self-references to a textual corpus, the Book of Dreams does depict the future use of the Enochic message. Looking at the final years of history before the eschaton,64 Enoch reports that the lambs ‘born of those white sheep’ ‘began to open their eyes and to see and to cry out to the sheep’ (90.6).65

64.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 396. 65.  1 En. 90.6: ‘wanawā maḥāse‘āt tawaldu ’emzeku ’abāge‘t ṣa‘ādā wa’axazu ’a‘yentihomu yekšetu wayer’ayu wayeṣrexu xaba ’abāge’ (‘And behold lambs were born from those white sheep, and they began to open their eyes and to see and to cry out to the sheep’) (Tiller, Animal Apocalypse, 202, 349).

2. Internal Self-References

55

This phrase echoes a similar statement in 89.28: ‘they began to open their eyes and see’. In 89.28 this is an allusion to Exodus 15.22–16.36, where God provides the Israelites water at Marah and then makes a statute and ordinance with them.66 Just as the revelation at Marah led to the opening of their eyes, so also in 90.6 a revelation leads to the restoration of Israel’s sight.67 On one level, this revelation most certainly results from obedience to Torah.68 Yet on another level, ‘sight refers to knowledge and understanding derived both from attention to the workings of the created order and from revealed knowledge, including the Enochic revelations’.69 Indeed, references to ‘seeing’ and sight are found throughout the dream vision, with repeated reminders that this is a visual experience (e.g. 85.1, 4, 5, 7, 9; 86.1, 2, 3, 4; 87.1, 2, 4; 88.1, 3; 89.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 19, 21, 27, etc.).70 More specifically, in 1 En. 1.2, a text of which the author of the Book of Dreams would have been aware, Enoch is described as ‘a righteous man whose eyes were opened by God’. Here the opening of Enoch’s eyes undoubtedly refers to God giving him a revelation through dreams and visions. Thus one finds in 1 Enoch a passage with strikingly similar language in which the opening of someone’s eyes refers to the reception of a revelation. Combined with this precedence of the opening of eyes being related to receiving a revelation is the fact that 90.6 is describing a future time – the time of the eschaton. The author of the Book of Dreams would have been aware of the predictions that Enoch’s books would be spread in the last days (cf. 104.12–13), increasing the likelihood that here the author envisioned Enoch’s books as part of what leads to the opening of Israel’s eyes. Furthermore, just as is envisioned in the final chapters of the Epistle (specifically, 104.12–13 and 105.1–2), those who receive the Enochic revelation then continue to spread the message (cf. 105.1 ‘testify to the sons of earth in their wisdom’ with 90.6, where the lambs ‘cry out to the sheep’). Indeed, the conversion of humanity that was accomplished in large part by the spreading of the Enochic books in the Epistle (91.14; 93.10; 104.11; 105.1) seems to be echoed in 90.5, where ‘the eyes of all were opened’. 66.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 379; see also Tiller, Animal Apocalypse, 292. 67.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 381. 68.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse, 364; J.C. VanderKam, ‘Open and Closed Eyes in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)’, in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. H. Najman and J. Newman (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 282; Tiller, Animal Apocalypse, 292. 69.  Portier-Young, Apocalypse, 363–64. 70.  VanderKam, ‘Open’, 280–81.

56

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Just as Enoch’s eyes were opened by the reception of the revelation, so too are the eyes of faithful Israelites to be opened when they obey God’s law and receive the same revelation that was given to Enoch (by way of the transmission of Enoch’s books). So although the Book of Dreams does not make an explicit reference to any part of the Enochic corpus as a literary unit, the scene of the opening the eyes of the lambs in ch. 90 makes an implicit reference to the books of Enoch and the way in which the author sees them being used in the future. 2.3.4 Conclusion: Implications for the Book of Revelation As noted in the Introduction, although the opening lines of the Apocalypse declare the ‘testimony of Jesus’ to be the message of the book of Revelation itself (1.2), many scholars have trouble reconciling the idea of maintaining this interpretation in 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.471 with the fact that characters within the book are characterized as those who ‘have the testimony of Jesus’ (using ἔχω 12.17; 19.10; see also 6.9). But as we have seen from the examples of Daniel and 1 Enoch, it is not uncommon for an apocalyptic book to contain internal self-references to its own corpus and to envision the use of its message by future generations. There are, of course, differences in how the two books do this, primarily relating to the degree to which each apocalypse sees its existence as a written document to be important. Although the book of Daniel implies its existence as a physical corpus, this existence is downplayed, and attention is drawn more to the role of the maśkîlîm in the end time. The lack of emphasis on physicality is even more noticeable in the Book of Dreams. There the existence of Enoch’s books as physical written documents is unimportant – the book neither refers to itself as a ‘book’ or ‘epistle’ nor does it mention Enoch writing it down. The Book of Watchers + The Epistle of Enoch, on the other hand, sees its existence as a written document as crucial to its initial stages of transmission, but as the passing down of the books continues to further generations, the importance of the books’ physicality is less consistent. At times the books’ physical existence seems essential (100.6; 104.10–13). At other times, however, the books’ physical existence no longer seems intrinsic (5.8; 105.1; 93.10), as Enoch shifts from describing his work as ‘books’ to referring to it as ‘wisdom’.

71.  The majority of scholars actually agrees with this interpretation of the phrase in 1.2; it is in subsequent uses of the phrase that scholars tend to disregard this particular interpretation.

2. Internal Self-References

57

Despite these differences, both apocalypses exhibit a common practice of depicting characters within the book as somehow receiving and using the message of which they themselves are a part. If one reads the ‘testimony of Jesus’ in light of these internal self-references in Daniel and 1 Enoch, then it is entirely possible that the ‘testimony of Jesus’ refers to the contents of the book of Revelation, not only in the opening lines of the Apocalypse, but also in each occurrence of the phrase. Just as the maśkîlîm have understanding that includes the book of Daniel, and just as the ‘chosen’ in the Apocalypse of Weeks have ‘sevenfold wisdom and knowledge’ that is largely identified with the books of Enoch, so also it is possible that the saints of Revelation have ‘the testimony of Jesus’, a testimony identified as the Apocalypse itself. Whether or not this proposed interpretation actually fits within the context of each section where ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is used in conjunction with ἔχω (12.17; 19.10; also 6.9) will be explored in the next chapter. But for now, it is sufficient to conclude that ‘having’ the testimony of Jesus should not be seen as incompatible with an interpretation that declares the ‘testimony of Jesus’ to be the book of Revelation based on the intratextual situation created by such an interpretation. 2.2 Part Two: A Similar Intratextual Situation in Revelation? 2.2.1 Depictions of the Use of the Book: Revelation 10–11 The conclusion to the previous section argued that the description of some characters within the book of Revelation as ‘ἔχοντες τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ’ (12.17 and 19.10) need not contradict the understanding of the ‘testimony of Jesus’ as a reference to the book of Revelation itself. Although creating what may seem at first to be an odd intratextual situation in which the followers of the Lamb ‘have’ the book that they themselves are a part of, previous sections have shown that this is not unlike what happens in the books of Daniel and 1 Enoch. While they employ the technique in different ways, both of these apocalypses depict characters within the text as receiving and using the books that they themselves are a part of. Having demonstrated this practice in Daniel and 1 Enoch, in this section I will argue that Revelation also clearly depicts its own reception, use and transmission in the two connected pericopes that extend from 10.1 to 11.13. While subsequent chapters must determine the meaning of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4, the intratextual situation presented in Rev 10.1–11.13 makes understanding the phrase as a reference to the message of the Apocalypse itself a more viable option.

58

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

2.2.1.1 The Scrolls of Chapters 5 and 10: One Scroll or Two? The ‘interlude’ of 10.1–11.1372 begins with John, who is given an open scroll by ‘another mighty angel’ and is told to consume the scroll. Although the identity of this scroll has been the subject of debate, there is good reason to believe that it is the same as that of ch. 5.73 Scholars have often regarded these scrolls as different, given that the word used for scroll in 5.1–9 is βιβλίον, whereas 10.2 and 10.9–10 use the word βιβλαρίδιον. Although the term βιβλαρίδιον is certainly highly unusual (occurring only here in the New Testament),74 the rarefied nature of this term does not necessarily mean that this βιβλαρίδιον should be distinguished from the βιβλίον of ch. 5. First, despite the appearance of βιβλαρίδιον in 10.1, 9 and 10,75 it is important to note that βιβλίον is used in 10.8.76 Since both βιβλίον and βιβλαρίδιον are used in this passage to describe the same scroll, there is no reason that the βιβλαρίδιον of ch. 10 could not be used to describe the βιβλίον of ch. 5. The interchangeable use of these varying forms in this passage demonstrates that John does not intend the different terms to be used as a way of distinguishing between two different scrolls.

72.  Revelation 10.1–11.13 is recognized as an ‘interlude’ or ‘parenthesis’ by a number of scholars: Beale, Revelation, 108–109; Boxall, Revelation, 17; BeasleyMurray, Revelation, 31; Mounce; Revelation, 34. Bauckham, Climax, 12, calls this an ‘intercalation’. 73.  Mazzaferri, Genre, 265–76; followed by Bauckham, Theology, 80–84 and Bauckham, Revelation, 243–55. Beale, Revelation, 527, essentially agrees, but is less confident in his assertion, saying, ‘a reasonable assumption is that the meaning of the scroll of ch. 10 is generally the same as that of ch. 5’. Contra, e.g., P. Müller, ‘Das Buch und die Bücher in der Johannesoffenbarung’, in Studien zur Johannesoffenbarung und ihrer Auslegung: Festschrift für Otto Böcher zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. F.W. Horn and M. Wolter (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005), 303–304, who sees the two as different scrolls. 74.  For an excellent summary of the textual variants and weight of various readings, see Mazzaferri, Genre, 267. The only other known use of βιβλαρίδιον occurs in the Shepherd of Hermas (written around the time of Revelation), where it is used interchangeably with βιβλίδιον and βιβλίον (Bauckham, Climax, 244). Interestingly, The Shepherd of Hermas also has this as a heavenly document that is to be used on earth (Smalley, Revelation, 250, commenting on Hermas, Vis. 2.1, 4), which is what this chapter will argue happens in Revelation. 75.  Based on the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. For a discussion of variant readings, see Mazzaferri, Genre, 267. 76.  Mazzaferri, Genre, 269; Bauckham, Climax, 243.

2. Internal Self-References

59

One must also be careful not to assign too much weight to the fact that βιβλαρίδιον is a diminutive.77 As one scholar has noted, ‘This word is not previously attested so we do not know whether the diminutive termination is to be taken seriously or not (biblion is also a diminutive).’78 During the time that Revelation was written, the distinction between diminutives and the words from which they are derived was in significant decline.79 In fact, John uses the diminutive form for a number of words in the Apocalypse without any indication that he actually has a minuscule object in mind (θηρίον rather than θηρ; ποτήριον appears indistinguishable from ποτήρ;80 and perhaps most significant is ἀρνίον, the diminutive of ἀρήν81);82 and in other places John appears to switch between a word and its diminutive with no apparent distinction in meaning (note the way in which he uses τὸ βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς and ἡ βίβλος τῆς ζωῆς interchangeably83). 77.  Some scholars have overemphasized the diminutive form. Prigent, for example, says, ‘Βιβλαρίδιον est un hapax, mais il est clair qu’il s’agit d’un diminutif de βιβλάριον qui est lui-même un diminutif de βιβλίον. C’est donc un tout petit livre’ (L’Apocalypse, 253). Similarly, Beale, Revelation, 526 n. 138, notes that βιβλαρίδιον may be considered a ‘double diminutive’, claiming that while βιβλίον has lost its diminutive force, the addition of -αρίδιον to βιβλ- results in a diminutive with real diminutive force. Beale notes that the diminutive form ‘is pointed to by the fact that apparently the book has to be small enough for the seer to eat and swallow’ (Revelation, 526 n. 138). However, the grammatical form of the word is not contingent upon its edibility. The entire scene is symbolic, and so there is no reason that the scroll must be shrunk in order for John to eat it. Beale does appeal to Mussies’ list of ‘the relations between the different formations and diminutives which contain the basis βιβλ-’ (Morphology, 116), but this is ultimately unconvincing since Mussies does not give sufficient explanation as to why he classifies some forms as diminutive (or double diminutive) or non-diminutive. 78.  L. Morris, The Revelation of St. John, rev. ed., TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 134. 79.  J.H. Moulton, W.F. Howard and N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Volume 2, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929), 345; Cf. K. Elliot, ‘Nouns with Diminutive Endings in the New Testament’, NovT 12 (1970): 391. 80.  Mazzaferri notes that ‘it is no demitasse from which God’s wrath is poured out’ (14.10; 16.19; 18.6) (Genre, 268). 81.  Mazzaferri, Genre, 269, notes that BAG concurs, ad loc. 82.  Mazzaferri, Genre, 268–69, lists each of these examples, and says that ‘it is an impressive fact that, βιβλαρίδιον possibly apart, John does not employ a single formal diminutive with diminutive force. This suggests that even βιβλαρίδιον may not be an exception.’ 83.  Compare 13.8; 17.8; 20.12; 21.27 with 3.5; 20.15 (Mazzaferri, Genre, 268 nn. 78–79).

60

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Thus the scroll of ch. 10 should not be translated or understood as the ‘little scroll’, but rather simply as a scroll, and, as such, comparable to that of ch. 5. Yet these two scrolls are not merely comparable, for a number of links between them indicates that they are actually best understood as referring to the same scroll. John creates a clear literary link between the giving of the scroll in 5.2 and the scroll in ch. 10.1. In both places John says that ‘he saw a mighty angel’ (καὶ εἶδον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν [5.2] and καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν [10.1]).84 Not only do the descriptions point towards them actually being one and the same,85 but so also does the fact that in each pericope the mighty angel is said to cry out ‘in a great voice’ – something unique to these two chapters.86 The physical description of the angel in ch. 10 also helps to connect the two scrolls. In 10.1 the mighty angel is described as ‘clothed with a cloud’ (περιβεβλημένος νεφέλην), with a rainbow on his head. His face is said to be ‘like the sun’ (τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος) and his feet ‘like pillars of fire’ (οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὡς στῦλοι πυρός). This vivid description is strikingly similar to the description of Christ in ch. 1. There Christ is described as coming on a cloud (1.7), and then ‘the one like a son of man’ is described as having a face that shines like the sun (ἡ ὄψις αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος φαίνει ἐν τῇ δυνάμει αὐτοῦ [1.16]) as well as feet that glow like bronze in a furnace (οἱ πόδες αὐτοῦ ὅμοιοι χαλκολιβάνῳ ὡς ἐν καμίνῳ πεπυρωμένης [1.15]). This very similar description designates

84.  Sweet, Revelation, 176, says that ‘The little scroll (v. 2) is explicitly linked with the sealed scroll of ch. 5 by the mighty angel who delivers it (52)…’; so also Bauckham, Climax, 245, although he notes that this connection alone could simply indicate that the scrolls are parallel. Beale, Revelation, 522, lists several links between ch. 10 and ch. 5, and says that ‘the links indicate that the revelation here will be similar to the revelation given in ch. 5’ (following Caird, Revelation, 125). 85.  Although John clearly specifies the mighty angel in 10.1 as ‘ἄλλος’, the word ‘another’ ‘is not meant to contrast this messenger with the first ‘powerful angel’ referred to at 5:2 (also 18:21). Rather, in its immediate literary context, it distinguishes him from the seven archangels with the trumpets, and the four bound angels just mentioned at 9:14–15’ (Boxall, Revelation, 151–52; contra Aune, Revelation 1–5, xcix; and M. Jauhiainen, ‘ “ΑΠΟΚΑΛΨΙΣ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ” [Rev. 1:1]: The Climax of John’s Prophecy?’, TynBul 54 [2003]: 5 n. 27, who sees ‘another’ as forming a contrast with the mighty angel of ch. 5, and regards this as a major weakness of the argument that the two scrolls are the same). For this reason, Boxall translates the beginning of 10.1 as saying, ‘Then I saw another angel, a powerful one, descending from heaven…’ (Revelation, 150). 86.  Beale, Revelation, 522.

2. Internal Self-References

61

the angel of ch. 10 as Christ’s representative.87 This is significant for the identification of the scrolls, in that the scroll of ch. 10 is brought down from heaven by an angel who is clearly representative of Christ, thereby strengthening the argument that the scroll he bears is indeed the Lamb’s scroll, first seen in Revelation 5. Further strengthening the argument that the two scrolls are identical is the fact that both pericopes draw on Ezekiel’s call narrative.88 In ch. 5, John sees a scroll, with writing on the front and back, in the hand of the One seated on the throne: ‘And I saw, in the right hand of the one sitting on the throne, a scroll that had been written on front and back, sealed with seven seals.’ Similarly, in Ezek 2.9–10, the prophet says, ‘So I looked and saw a hand reaching out to me, and there was a written scroll in it. When He unrolled it before me, it was written on the front and back…’ (HCSB).89 The allusion to Ezekiel’s call narrative is then picked up again in ch. 10, where John is commanded to eat the scroll that is given to him (Rev 10.9–10; cf. Ezek 3.1: ‘Son of man, eat what you find here. Eat this 87.  Boxall, Revelation, 152. Contra, Beale, Revelation, 525, who argues that ‘the angel is the divine Angel of the Lord, as in the OT, who is to be identified with Christ himself’(citing M. Kline, Images of the Spirit [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980], 70–75, 82–84; and Kraft, Offenbarung, 147, as in agreement), although he admits that ‘it is possible that the angelic figure of Rev. 10:1 is merely an angelic representative of Christ who therefore possesses Christ’s traits’ (p. 526). Of course, Beale was not the first to identify this mighty angel as Christ himself. As Kovacs and Rowland have noted, the Geneva Bible identifies the mighty angel as ‘Jesus, who “came to comfort his Church against the furious assaults of Satan and Antichrist…” ’ (J. Kovacs and C. Rowland, Revelation: The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, BBC [Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004], 118). Despite this reception history, it is not likely that this heavenly being is Christ himself. The figure is specified as an ‘angel’ – beings that are clearly distinguished from Christ in the book of Revelation (e.g. note the distinction between the Lamb and the mighty angel in ch. 5). Rather the similar description simply serves to specify this angel as Christ’s special agent (‘ἀγγέλος αὐτοῦ’ [1.1]) (Boxall, Revelation, 152). 88.  Sweet, Revelation, 176; Bauckham, Climax, 246–47; S. Moyise, The Old Testa­ ment in the Book of Revelation, JSNTSup 115 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995), 77. 89.  Aune, Revelation 1–5, 339; Beale, Revelation, 337; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 122, all see an allusion to Ezek 2.9–10 in Rev 5.1. John’s Greek even shares similarities with the Septuagint: ‘Καὶ εἶδον ἐπὶ τὴν δεξιὰν τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου βιβλίον γεγραμμένον ἔσωθεν καὶ ὄπισθεν κατεσφραγισμένον σφραγῖσιν ἑπτά’ (Rev 5.1) and ‘Καὶ εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ χεὶρ ἐκτεταμένη πρός με, καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ κεφαλὶς βιβλίου· καὶ ἀνείλησεν αὐτὴν ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ, καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ γεγραμμένα ἦν τὰ ὄπισθεν καὶ τὰ ἔμπροσθεν’ (Ezek 2.9–10).

62

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

scroll, then go and speak to the house of Israel’ [HCSB]). Like Ezekiel, John’s scroll is sweet like honey in his mouth (cf. Ezek 3.3). Although John’s scroll is also described as ‘bitter in his stomach’ (a description not present in Ezekiel) the idea is certainly the same. The scroll is bitter to John’s stomach because the message that he must prophesy is difficult, whereas Ezekiel’s scroll has ‘words of lamentation, mourning, and woe’ (2.10) written on it. Even the fact that the scroll first appears as sealed and then reappears as open may be modelled on the fact that in Ezekiel 2–3 the scroll is sealed and then opened by God.90 As one scholar has noted, allusions from Ezekiel 1.1–3.11 ‘move from Rev. 5.1, [with] the scroll in God’s right hand, to its opening by the Lamb (5.7–8.1); the scroll is then taken by the strong angel from heaven to earth (10.1–2), and given to the prophet-seer to eat (10.8–10)’.91 These connections with Ezekiel are most certainly not incidental, and serve as yet another connection between the scrolls of chs. 5 and 10. 2.2.1.2 The Scroll as the Ἀποκάλυψις of Revelation 1.1 Having identified the scroll of ch. 10 as the same as that of ch. 5, the scroll’s ‘chain of transmission’ can be seen clearly. In tracing the scroll’s journey from heaven to earth, it becomes apparent that the scroll follows the same ‘chain of transmission’ as the ἀποκάλυψις of Rev 1.1–2: from God to Christ to Christ’s angel and then to John, who is then to give the word to the church. It is clear that the scroll originates from God, for John first sees it ‘in the right hand of the one who sits on the throne’ (5.1). But when the Lamb appears, he takes the scroll out of the hand of the one sitting on the throne (5.7). This is where ch. 5 ends – with the scroll in the possession of the Lamb who will begin opening it in 6.1. Yet when the scroll reappears in ch. 10, this time it is in the hands of a mighty angel. Even though the text does not depict the transfer of the scroll from Christ to the angel, the physical similarities between this ‘mighty angel’ and ‘the one like a son of man’ (1.13–16) indicate that this is the angel specified as Christ’s angel in 1.1. It is this angel who then gives the scroll (now specified as ‘open’ since the Lamb has unsealed it) to John, who eats the scroll in order that he might prophesy. 90.  Bauckham, Climax, 246–47, and M. Boring, Revelation, IBC (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1989), 139–40, both of whom are cited by Beale, Revelation, 530 (Beale simply lists this as one of the strongest arguments in favour of the two scrolls being identical). 91.  Smalley, Revelation, 126.

2. Internal Self-References

63

The fact that the scroll’s ‘chain of transmission’ corresponds to the ‘chain’ described in 1.1 identifies the scroll as the ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.92 This ἀποκάλυψις, which is the content of John’s prophetic proclamation, is the book of Revelation itself, as is made clear in 1.1–3. Although the contents of the scroll are often said to be ch. 11, or chs. 12–22 (or at least some portion of these subsequent chapters)93 the identification of the scroll as the ἀποκάλυψις indicates that the message is the whole of the book of Revelation.94 92.  Bauckham, Climax, 254; Bauckham, Revelation, 82; Boxall, Revelation, 152–53. 93.  Some scholars see the whole of the scroll as being revealed in ch. 11 (J. Lambrecht, ‘A Structuration of Rev 4, 1–22,5’, in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. J. Lambrecht and G. Beasley-Murray, BETL 53 [Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1980], 96; Mounce, Revelation, 202; Charles, Revelation, 1:260, 269; G. Schrenk, ‘βίβλος, βιβλίον’, TDNT 1:619; Lohmeyer, Offenbarung, 89). Also common is the view that ch. 11 is a summary of the scroll, and that the contents will be revealed more fully in chs. 12–22 (Bauckham, Revelation, 83; Boxall, Revelation, 160). There are also some who include ch. 10 as part of the contents of the scroll: Rev 10.1–15.4 (E. Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘The Eschatology and Composition of the Apocalypse’, CBQ 30 [1968]: 565–66; E. Schüssler Fiorenza, ‘Composition and Structure of the Book of Revelation’, CBQ 39 [1977]: 363). Yet there are also those who argue that the contents of the scroll are only revealed after the interlude of chs. 10 and 11. Maier, Offenbarung 1–11, 437, says that the content of the scroll is most likely chs. 12–22, but cautions against holding to this too firmly since ‘die Offb selbst über den Inhalt nichts Direktes sagt’. Others see only portions of chs. 12–22 as the content of the scroll (Aune, Revelation 1–5, xcic, lists the following two views): Rev 12 or 17 (Yarbro Collins, Combat Myth, 26); Rev 15.1–22.9 (C.H. Giblin, ‘Revelation 11.1–13: Its Form, Function, and Contextual Integration’, NTS 30 [1984]: 455 n. 10); Giblin, ‘Revelation 11.1–13’: 455 n. 10, notes that Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 171, restricts the scroll to chs. 20–22. 94.  Some have suggested that the scroll will be revealed before the seventh angel sounds his trumpet, meaning that the contents of the scroll begin to be revealed in 11.1, before the sounding of the trumpet in 11.15 (Boxall, Revelation, 156). But there are a few problems with this view. The first problem concerns how to translate and understand the declaration: ‘ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ ἑβδόμου ἀγγέλου, ὅταν μέλλῃ σαλπίζειν, καὶ ἐτελέσθη τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θεοῦ’. This could mean that the mystery of God is completed before the seventh angel sounds his trumpet (Boxall, Revelation, 156, lists this as a possibility). However, the use of μέλλω + infinitive most likely expresses divine determination and thus should be translated with the sense of a future indicative (Smalley, Revelation, 265; Beale, Revelation, 541; both cite Mark 13.4 [and Luke 21.7] as the only other place in the New Testament where ὅταν μέλλῃ + an infinitive occurs). Thus ‘the meaning of the text in verse 7 is that the hidden purpose of God for his world will be fulfilled “when the moment

64

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

However amongst those who do identify the scroll with the ἀποκάλυψις, it is often assumed that what precedes the open scroll of ch. 10 cannot be part of the contents of the scroll, and so then the contents of the scroll must be what follows. But inherent to this view is the idea that Revelation has a straightforward, linear structure – a structure that modern scholarship has essentially rejected.95 Revelation’s structure is complex, and although the book has a forward-projection, it is certainly not linear. Thus there is no structural reason why that which precedes the description of the open scroll cannot be part of the scroll. It is poor logic to assume that chs. 11–22 provide the content of the scroll simply because these chapters are subsequent to the open scroll of ch. 10, especially since there are no indicators in the text itself that the contents of the scroll are being revealed in ch. 11, or even in chs. 12–22. Another major reasons why it is thought that chs. 1–9 are not part of the scroll is the fact that a large portion of these preceding chapters is dedicated to the description of the unsealing of the scrolls,96 and so it is arrives for the seventh angel to sound his trumpet” ’ (Smalley, Revelation, 265). This connects the completion of the mystery of God with 11.15ff., where the angel sounds his trumpet in celebration of the completion of the kingdom of God. This is the completion of the mystery of God, not the completion of the unsealing of the scroll. Secondly, that the sounding of the seventh trumpet comes in 11.15 does not mean that the ‘mystery of God’ was completed in what happened in 11.1–13. These verses are not chronologically connected, and one must take seriously the fact that 10.1–11.13 form an interlude. Thus there is no reason to believe that what is shown in between the announcement that the ‘mystery’ will be completed at the sounding of the seventh trumpet (10.7) and the angel sounding the trumpet (11.15) is the actual completion of the mystery of God. Nor are the actions of the two witnesses connected to the completion of the second woe (contra Boxall, Revelation, 167). When the passing of the second woe is announced in 11.14, ‘The literary and theological parenthesis in 10:1–11:13 has ended. Therefore, v 14 begins where 9:21 ended: “the second woe has passed” in 9:13–21, and “behold, the third woe comes quickly” ’ (Beale, Revelation, 609). 95.  As Mounce, Revelation, 31, notes, ‘The continuous chronological approach is not accepted by the majority of contemporary writers’ (citing A. Farrer, The Revelation of St. John the Divine [Oxford: Clarendon, 1964], 23; S. Smalley, Thunder and Love: John’s Revelation and John’s Community [Milton Keynes: Word, 1994], 103 as in agreement). The complexity of the book’s structure is attested by the lack of scholarly consensus on the issue. ‘In current research on the book of Revelation, there is very little consensus on the overall structure of the work and how that structure should be interpreted. There are almost as many outlines of the book as there are interpreters’ (Yarbro Collins, Combat Myth, 8). 96.  As Bauckham, Climax, 255, writes, ‘everything which precedes John’s consumption of the scroll is preparatory to the real message of his prophecy’.

2. Internal Self-References

65

supposed that everything before the seventh seal is broken cannot be part of the scroll.97 Yet this view does not account for the possibility that the scroll contains an account of its own unsealing and journey from heaven. The depiction of John receiving the open scroll in ch. 10 is a picture of him receiving the entire ἀποκάλυψις, the whole of the vision that he is to receive from heaven (cf. ‘ὅσα εἶδεν’ in 1.2). What he prophesies (cf. 10.11), then, must be the entire ἀποκάλυψις itself. This accords with John’s description of his writing as ‘the words of prophesy’ or ‘book of prophesy’ (1.3; 22.7, 9, 10, 18), and suggests that recording the Apocalypse in written form is an integral part of John’s prophetic mission (cf. the various commands to write: 1.11, 19; 2.1, 8, 12, 18; 3.1, 7, 14; 14.13; 19.9; 21.5). Structurally, the fact that chs. 10 and 11 form an interlude allows for this possibility. As already mentioned, it is improper to view chs. 10 and 11 as part of a linear or chronological sequence. In the book of Revelation ‘interludes’ are literary devices, used to heighten a sense of delay and build anticipation.98 It is more appropriate, then, to view this interlude as a ‘snapshot’ designed to give more information about the role of the church during the eschaton. In this sense, interludes are ‘atemporal’, giving the reader virtually no information about how the snapshot relates temporally to the events happening in its literary context.99 It is thus entirely possible that the interlude at chs. 10 and 11 is a ‘snapshot’ of John receiving the ἀποκάλυψις. In fact, this understanding is to be preferred, as it is the only one to make sense of the fact that the scroll is the ἀποκάλυψις, and that the ἀποκάλυψις is the entire book of Revelation, not just portions of chs. 12–22. To say that the scroll John consumes is simply ch. 11, or chs. 12–22, contradicts the idea that the scroll is the ἀποκάλυψις.100 97.  This appears to be Bauckham’s main reason for saying that the ἀποκάλυψις starts after ch. 10 (Bauckham, Climax, 249–50). He is certainly right in rejecting explanations that claim the contents of the scroll are revealed gradually as the seals are broken one by one (Bauckham, Climax, 249–50). But this does not necessarily mean that the scroll’s contents can only be revealed in the text that follows the depiction of John consuming the open scroll. The structure of Revelation certainly does not necessitate this view. 98.  Boxall, Revelation, 17; Beale, Revelation, 147; Smalley, Revelation, 253; Mounce, Revelation, 199. 99.  Contra Beale, who argues that this interlude ‘offers a further interpretation of the church age, the period of time covered by the first six trumpets’ (Revelation, 521). 100.  Richard Bauckham tries to get around this by saying that the scroll is the main message of the ἀποκάλυψις (and so then the main message is given in condensed form in ch. 11, and then more fully in chs. 12–22). But there are several problems with

66

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

2.2.1.3 The Scroll as the Message of the Prophecy of John and the Church Since the scroll is to be equated with the ἀποκάλυψις, it represents the ‘word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ and is the entire vision that becomes the book of Revelation by virtue of John’s writing it down. The depiction of John receiving and eating this scroll is thus to be understood as his receiving the ἀποκάλυψις. It follows, then, that his prophecy will feature the contents of the ἀποκάλυψις (also called the ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) in a major way. Yet John is not the only one called to prophesy. There are also good reasons to believe that the scroll, identified as the contents of the book of Revelation, is also part of that which is prophesied by the two witnesses (representing the church as a whole101). Chapter 11 is often seen as expanding upon 10.8–11,102 and thus the task given to John in ch. 10 is depicted as the task of the whole church in 11.3–13. Within this interlude, both John and the witnesses are commissioned for the specific task of prophesying (10.11 and 11.3103), and in each case this prophesying is directly connected to the same groups of people. 10.11 states that John must prophesy again104 ἐπὶ λαοῖς καὶ ἔθνεσιν καὶ γλώσσαις καὶ βασιλεῦσιν this view. First, ἀποκάλυψις cannot be only a portion of the book, for 1.1–3 make it clear that the Apocalypse is ‘as much as (John) saw’. Furthermore, there is no basis for understanding chs. 12–22 as the ‘main message’ of the Apocalypse, other than the fact that it comes after the open scroll of ch. 10. But as discussed above, chs. 10 and 11 form an interlude and thus cannot be considered a way of dividing the text into pre- or post-scroll-opening. 101.  Sweet, Revelation, 175; Mounce, Revelation, 217; Boring, Revelation, 142. 102.  Beale, Revelation, 551, states that 10.8–11 is expanded in 11.1–13, although this may be a reference to the contents of the scroll being revealed in 11.1–13 (as this is what Beale argues). Others, however, are more specific, seeing the church’s mission as a continuation of the mission given to John in ch. 10 (D.E. Holwerda, ‘The Church and the Little Scroll [Revelation 10–11]’, CTJ 34 [1999]: 156; Bauckham, Climax, 265). 103.  10.11 and 11.3 are the only places in the book where the word προφητεύω appears. 104.  It is necessary to comment on the fact that John is told that he must prophecy ‘again’ (πάλιν). It is correct that πάλιν generally refers to the ‘renewal of a mission that has already begun’ (Aune, Revelation 6–16, 573). The question, then, is ‘what mission?’ The best understanding translates πάλιν as ‘in turn’, meaning that John must ‘prophecy in turn’, like the prophets that came before him (Mazzaferri, Genre, 294–95, following D. Hill, New Testament Prophecy [London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1979], 73, and H. Lilje, The Last Book of the Bible [Philadelphia: s.n., 1957], 157). This would certainly make sense in the context of a clear allusion to Ezekiel’s

2. Internal Self-References

67

πολλοῖς.105 Just as prophets before John prophesied against foreign nations, so John must prophesy to those outside the church.106 Peoples, tribes (or kings), nations and tongues107 also appear to be the target audience of the two witnesses, as is evidenced by the way this group of people treats the witnesses after their death. After being killed by the beast from the abyss, the group ‘from peoples, tribes, nations and tongues’ continues persecuting the witnesses by preventing their bodies from being buried for three and a half days.108 Just as John was called to prophesy to ‘peoples, nations, tribes and tongues’, so also must the church participate in this same mission to this same group of people. Since the church shares in John’s prophetic mission, it follows that they too will receive and prophesy the ἀποκάλυψις that John will pass down to them (cf. 1.1–2). This is not to say that their prophecy consisted of the book of Revelation alone, but rather that the Apocalypse was at least a key prophetic commission (Mazzaferri, Genre, 295, specifies that John is ‘urged to don Ezekiel’s metaphorical mantle just as Elisha did Elijah’s…’, but this is probably pushing the evidence too far). This view is set in contrast with those that understand πάλιν as indicating a renewal of the mission given to John in 1.10–11 and 4.1–2 (Beale, Revelation, 555; cf. Bauckham, Climax, 266, who sees πάλιν as contrasting John’s prophetic activity to the churches in chs. 2–3 with his prophetic activity to the nations from 10.11 onwards). The problem with this view is that the preceding chapters of Revelation do not actually contain any clear command to John to ‘prophesy’. 1.10–11 is a command to write – something which is certainly part of John’s prophetic activity, but this certainly does not encompass the whole of his prophetic task. 4.1–2 may be connected to ch. 10 by way of allusion to Ezekiel (Beale, Revelation, 555), but there is certainly nothing close to a command to prophesy in these verses. 105.  The word ἐπὶ here is probably best translated ‘about’, although it may certainly carry the sense of ‘against’. Aune, Revelation 6–16, 554, states that ‘prophesy about’ is certainly not wrong, but the ‘prophesy against’ is probably more precise. The two meanings are certainly overlapping – a prophecy ‘about’ the nations that refuse to follow God will no doubt be a prophecy ‘against’ them. As Bauckham, Revelation, 83, points out ‘It is a moot point whether the sentence just quoted from 10:11 should be translated, “You must prophesy again about many peoples…” or, “You must prophesy again to many peoples…” Either would make sense.’ 106.  Boxall, Revelation, 158, likens this to Jeremiah’s role (see Jer 25.13–14, 30). 107.  Although 11.9 replaces βασιλεύς with φυλή in the list, both fourfold formulas are a way of referring to the nations. This fourfold formula occurs seven times in Revelation, each time in varying form (see 5.9; 7.9; 10.11; 11.9; 13.7; 14.6; 17.15) (Bauckham, Climax, 326; Aune, Revelation 1–5, 362). 108.  To be left unburied and in a public square for days after death was considered horrific (see Tob 1.16–2.8) (Boxall, Revelation, 165).

68

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

part of their prophecy. Yet it is significant that what the two witnesses prophesy is not only called a ‘prophecy’ (11.6), but is also called a ‘testimony’ (11.7). This interchange between ‘prophecy’ and ‘testimony’ mirrors a similar interchange in the opening lines of the book, where the ‘apocalypse of Jesus Christ’ is also called ‘the word of God’, ‘the testimony of Jesus’ and ‘the words of the prophecy’ (1.1–3). This is not to say that chs. 10 and 11 depict the church receiving the book of Revelation in written form. In the scene with the two witnesses no physical copy of the book is mentioned. Yet when one looks at the book as a whole, it is clear that the church (represented by the two witnesses) would have received the book either by way of a written copy or by hearing the written word read aloud (cf. 1.3). So although the scene with the two witnesses does not mention a physical corpus, the book’s existence as a written corpus is certainly implied. This suggests that once those in the church have read the book or heard the book read, they have received the message and are then empowered to proclaim this message. It is this picture that is given in chs. 10 and 11: the church (of which John is a part; see 1.9109) receives the message of the book of Revelation and is thus empowered to prophesy. 2.2.1.4 Conclusions In depicting its own reception and transmission, Revelation 10–11 employs a practice similar to what was observed in both Daniel and 1 Enoch. Although there are differences in how each work employs this practice,110 109.  In 1.9 John introduces himself as ‘ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῶν καὶ συγκοινωνὸς’. 110.  Perhaps the main difference between Revelation and the books of Daniel and 1 Enoch is the ‘distance’ between the supposed time of composition and the envisioned time of reception. Both Daniel and 1 Enoch claim to have been written several years before the time they were actually composed. Thus when they depict their future use, they envision this happening in the eschaton, many years in the future. This is necessary in order to fit with their claims to have been written by someone who was deceased long before the time they were composed. As a result, the practice of depicting their future use is closely bound to pseudepigraphical devices (most noticeably the commands to ‘seal up’ the scroll in Dan 12). But Revelation is different. It can depict its future use without pseudepigraphical devices, because it does not claim to have been written long ago and then passed down to the church through the ages. Also unlike Daniel and 1 Enoch, the ‘future’ in Revelation is not far off – rather the time of the eschaton, when the book will be used, is imminent. The author is not someone who lived long before those who are depicted as receiving the book. Rather, he is their ‘brother and fellow-sharer’, one of the ‘brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus’ (19.10).

2. Internal Self-References

69

all three apocalypses in some way depict their own messages going out and being used by future recipients.111 In terms of the importance placed on the existence of a written corpus, Revelation is much closer to 1 Enoch than to Daniel. The written text is clearly important: John is commanded to write twelve times (1.11, 19; 2.1, 8, 12, 18; 3.1, 7, 14; 14.13; 19.9; 21.5), and it is clear that the text is meant to be read aloud for many to hear (1.3; 22.18). The importance of the written text is highlighted by the stern warning given by the Revealer himself (22.18–19).112 But in the depiction of the reception of the ἀποκάλυψις in chs. 10–11, the book’s physical existence is not emphasized. John receives a scroll, but this is clearly symbolic and cannot be representative of the actual written corpus that John will subsequently compose. Although from the frame of the book one can surmise that part of John’s prophetic ministry will be to write down all that he has seen, this is not evident from the details given in 10.10–11. Nor is a physical corpus in view in the summarized description of the church’s ministry in ch. 11. Although their testimony includes the message of the book of Revelation, it is a verbal proclamation, not the transmission of written books. Thus the reader is presented with a somewhat mixed picture: while the written corpus appears to be the means by which the message is to be communicated to the churches (1.3), upon the church’s hearing of this written ἀποκάλυψις, the book’s physicality begins to fade. In this one can observe an implicit correlation between the importance of the written text and the 111.  An interesting link between the ‘ἀποκάλυψις of Jesus Christ’ in 1.1 and Daniel 12 has been noted by Bauckham: ‘It is worth noting a possible linguistic link between John’s use of ἀποκάλυψις, for the revelation that Jesus Christ discloses to him by opening the scroll, and Dan 12:9 (cf. 8:26; 12:4), which, we have argued, is the basis for his image of the sealed scroll. STM (Hebrew), which in Dan 12:9 (cf. 8:26; 12:4) refers to the “closing up” of the scroll, could be translated by καταλύπτω (as in Dan 12:9 LXX) or καλύπτω (as in Dan 12:4 LXX). To these Greek words, meaning “to veil, to cover, to conceal”, the opposite is άποκαλύπτω, “to uncover, to reveal” ’ (Climax, 254 n. 20). R. Bergmeier also links the scroll to Daniel 12, although he does not specifically connect this with Rev 1.1 (‘Die Buchrolle und das Lamm [Apk 5 und 10]’, ZNW 76 [1985]: 240). 112.  While the warnings against ‘adding to’ or ‘taking away from’ the book are in some sense referring to generally obeying it and guarding against false teaching contrary to that which is disclosed in the Apocalypse (Smalley, Revelation, 584), there are also good reasons to believe that John was actually afraid that someone would tamper with his book (Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1231–32). As, Lohmeyer (Offenbarung, 182) says, the book has a claim to ‘Heiligkeit und Vollständigkeit; deshalb muss es unversehrt bleiben’.

70

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

book’s function. When being handed down to those within the church, the written corpus appears to be important. This may have to do with the apparent concern with false prophecy within the church (Rev 2.6, 14–15, 20–23),113 for a written text would have provided more protection against corruption. But when the message is received by the church and becomes a part of the saint’s testimony, the writtenness of the book is no longer explicit. Yet at the same time, the stern warning in 22.18–19 dictates that the church’s prophecy must faithfully adhere to John’s written words, even if they are not expected to read from the written text as part of their prophetic testimony. The intratextuality seen in Revelation 10–11 significantly weakens the objection that it is not possible for characters within the book of Revelation to ‘have’ or be characterized by the message of which they themselves are a part. The links with Daniel and 1 Enoch in terms of such intratextuality further weakens this objection, as they demonstrate that this intratextual practice is not something foreign to apocalyptic literature. The scene depicted in Revelation 10–11 is also significant in that it strengthens the connection between the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and the contents of the book. Since ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is another name given to the ἀποκάλυψις in 1.1, it follows then that the depiction of the reception and proclamation of the scroll can be understood as the reception and proclamation of ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ. The book is keenly aware of the importance of its own message for the church, and Revelation 10–11 simply reinforces this idea that has been stated explicitly elsewhere (cf. 1.3; 22.6, 10, 16, 18–19). The scenes with John and the two witnesses demonstrate specifically how the book envisions itself being used in the future: its message is to be an essential part of the prophetic proclamation of the church. Thus this important ‘interlude’ in Revelation not only removes the main objection to even considering ‘the testimony of Jesus’ to be a reference to the ἀποκάλυψις outside of 1.2, but it also increases the possibility that characters within the visions are in fact characterized as those who have received the message of the revelation itself. With this main objection having been removed, it is now permissible to proceed to test whether or not the phrase ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ should be interpreted as a reference to the Apocalypse in Rev 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4. 113.  ‘John, it seems, was a member of a prophetic community that was in opposition to other prophetic groups (“Jezebel” and her prophetic circle [Rev. 2.20–23] and the Nicolaitans [Rev. 2.6, 14–15], a situation which suggests that Revelation was written at a time of prophetic conflict’) (Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1231–32).

Chapter 3 ‘ ἡ μ α ρ τ υρ ί α Ἰ η σοῦ ’ i n R e ve lati on 1.9

3.1 Introduction The second occurrence of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ comes in Rev 1.9, when the Seer declares: ‘I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and kingdom and endurance in Jesus, came to be on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.’ Although most commentators associate the phrase with the vision in their interpretations of 1.2, the majority abandon this understanding when the phrase appears seven verses later in 1.9. Although not always explicitly stated, often the reason for this change of interpretation is that understanding ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ as a reference to the message of the Apocalypse does not easily fit with the traditional view that John was on Patmos as a result of persecution.1 Indeed, the majority of modern commentators unequivocally state that John was on Patmos as a result of persecution, either in mandated or self-imposed exile.2 As a result of this consensus, scholars have consequently understood the phrase ‘the word of God and the testimony of 1.  As Aune, Revelation 1–5, 81, notes, this was the position held by many of the church fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Quis dives 42; Origen, Hom. in Mt. 7.51; 16.6; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.18; Jerome, De vir. illustr. 10). I. Boxall, ‘Reading the Apocalypse on the Island of Patmos’, ScrB 40 (2010): 30, notes, ‘by far the most widespread view is that John was exiled to Patmos by the authorities, as a direct consequence of his preaching’. 2.  This of course assumes that Patmos was a real geographical location. As Boxall has pointed out, it is possible that ‘Patmos’ was actually a mythical, analogical or figurative location, or at least contains elements of the three (Boxall, Patmos, 20–21; Boxall notes the work of M. Himmelfarb, ‘The Temple and the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel, the Book of the Watchers, and the Wisdom of ben Sira’, in Sacred Places and Profane Spaces: Essays in the Geographics of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. J. Scott and F. Simpson-Housley [Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1991], 63, in his discussion of mythical locations).

72

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Jesus’ as necessarily referring to some sort of activity that would have led to John’s exile, such as ‘preaching about Jesus’ or perhaps missionary activities more generally. Yet there are three major problems with changing the interpretation of the phrase in order to fit better with the idea that John was exiled on Patmos. The first problem is that which has already been alluded to – namely, that understanding ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ as a testimony about Jesus by Christians or as a testimony given by Jesus during his life is not consistent with the understanding of the phrase given in Rev 1.2. Understanding the phrase as referring to John’s preaching would certainly be more of a possibility if the text had not given any indication as to how to understand the phrase. But the fact is that John does give an indication of how to understand this phrase: it has been specified in 1.1–2 as the ἀποκάλυψις itself. Therefore it stands to reason that unless there is evidence in the text that the phrase in 1.9 should be interpreted differently from its designation as a name for the ἀποκάλυψις, John’s declaration that he was on the island of Patmos ‘because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ should be understood as somehow relating to his reception of the vision. The second problem with this hermeneutical approach is that it moves in the opposite direction from what is indicated in the text. The text states that the reader is to understand John’s reason for being on Patmos in the light of ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’, not the other way around. In this way the reasoning employed by the majority of scholars on this verse has been backwards, in that it seeks to interpret the phrase ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ by way of a preconceived understanding of why John was on the island. The third problem is the fact that despite the long-standing tradition that John was exiled on the island,3 the text itself is actually rather ambiguous as to the reason for John’s location. Since this tradition has 3.  This chapter states this as the ‘traditional view’ as it has been the majority view for quite some time. However, this is not to say that other theories have not been proposed. Boxall summarizes four main interpretations that have been proposed for understanding the reason for John’s being on Patmos: (1) evangelistic – John went to Patmos to preach the gospel (citing P. Trudinger, ‘The Ephesus Milieu’, DRev 106 [1988]: 289; and also W.J. Harrington, who lists this as a possibility [Revelation, 50]); (2) visionary – John was either ‘impelled to go to the island with a view to receiving the “word of God” ’ or was commanded by a ‘word of God’ to go to the island to receive a vision (citing L. Thompson, ‘A Sociological Analysis of Tribulation in the Apocalyspe of John’, Semeia 36 [1986]: 150; J. Knight, Revelation, Readings [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], 38); (3) flight – ‘John fled to the island to escape the ire of the authorities’; (4) enforced exile.

3. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 1.9

73

been the primary impetus for altering the interpretation of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ after 1.2,4 this chapter will carefully assess the claim that John was exiled to Patmos, using evidence from the text itself. After highlighting the paucity of evidence in support of this traditional view, it will be argued that it is possible to understand ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ in Rev 1.9 as a reference to the message of the Apocalypse itself, as indicated in 1.2. In light of this, an alternative reading that understands John’s location on Patmos as connected to his reception of the vision will be proposed. 3.2 John on Patmos in Exile? In favour of the traditional view is the fact that when the phrase ‘because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ is used in Rev 20.4 (and something similar in 6.9), there is a clear link with persecution – that is, people were killed as a result of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. Furthermore, scholars have seen John’s introduction of himself as a ‘co-sharer in tribulation’ as suggesting that he was facing some sort of persecution at the time of writing the Apocalypse.5 Yet when one looks at 1.9 and the surrounding context alone, there is actually very little evidence that John was on Patmos because of persecution. Although John does describe himself as a co-sharer in θλίψις,6 one must be careful not to assign too much weight to this mention of ‘tribulation’. ‘Θλίψις’ is used in association with persecution in 2.9 and 10, but elsewhere the word seems to convey a more general sense of ‘trials and tribulations’. In 2.22 θλίψις will be part of the punishment of ‘Jezebel’, and ‘the great tribulation’ in 7.14, while no doubt including persecution, is used to describe the sum of the eschatological woes experienced by the 4.  Whether one understands the phrase as a reference to the vision or as a reference to John’s preaching in general is important and should be considered carefully, as it affects not only one’s interpretation of 1.9, but also subsequent meanings of the phrase and even how one reads the Apocalypse as a whole. As David Barr notes, how the reader interprets John’s reason for being on Patmos ‘will have a major impact on how one reads the rest of the story’ (D.L. Barr, Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation [Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 1998], 39). 5.  Boxall also notes the ‘anti-imperial’ themes that run through the book as also being part of the basis for the majority view (e.g. Rev 6.2; 13.3, 18; 17.8–11) (Patmos, 31). 6.  Boxall, ‘Reading’, 29, confirms that this word is often used in support of the traditional view; Beale, Revelation, 202, says that his being exiled on Patmos is part of his ‘tribulation’.

74

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

church.7 These eschatological woes may have included martyrdom and punishment from local authorities (cf. Mark 13.9), but could also include false teaching and false prophecy (Matt 24.24), along with ‘natural’ disasters such as earthquakes and famines, as well as warfare (Mark 13.8). Since this word clearly can refer to eschatological troubles generally, there is not enough evidence to assume that the θλίψις John refers to in 1.9 was the sort that would leave him exiled on Patmos. Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that θλίψις is not the only thing in which John claims to be a co-sharer with his recipients.8 He is also a partner with his brothers and sisters in βασιλεία (‘kingdom’) and ὑπομονή (‘endurance’). Yet neither of these terms necessarily supports the view that John was in exile. Βασιλεία is probably best understood as ‘rule’ or ‘sovereignty’. In 1.6 and 5.10 it is used to describe the group of believers that Christ has redeemed, and in 11.15 and 12.10 it is used as part of a celebratory proclamation concerning the victory of God. John’s statement that he is a fellow-sharer in the ‘βασιλεία in Jesus’ is an acknowledgement of the rule and certain victory of Christ and his followers, and is set in sharp opposition to the rule of Satan and his earthly counterparts (cf. 16.10; 17.12, 17, 18). This positive description indicates the presence of God’s saving power, not the presence of persecution.

7.  This final tribulation or period of woes as the beginning of the eschaton was well-known in Jewish and Christian literature (Dan 12.1; T. Moses 8.1; Jub. 23.11–21; 4 Ezra 13.16–19; 2 Apoc. Bar. 27.1–15; Mark 13.7–19; Matt 24.6–28; 1 Cor 7.26; Did. 16.4–5; Hermas, Vis. 2.2.7) (Aune, Revelation 6–16, 473, citing P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter: nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und apokryphen Literatur [Hildesheim: Olms, 1966], 147–63). Boxall, Revelation, 38, makes a statement that agrees with the caution against reading too much into the word θλιψις: ‘The tradition about Domitian has often led to this word being translated as “persecution”, but that need not be at issue here. The word can describe physical afflictions and hardships (e.g. Acts 20:23; Jas 1:27), though in the New Testament it often refers to the particular tribulations of the end-times (e.g. Mt. 24:21, 29; Rom. 8:35).’ 8.  Note the shared definite article: ‘Here the three substantives θλίψει, βασιλείᾳ, and ὑπομονῇ are probably all governed by the single definite article before θλίψει, and thus all refer to the same person or thing’ (Aune, Revelation 1–5, 75, citing A. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research [New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919], 784–85 [although I think he means 787]; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples, English ed., adapted from 4th Latin ed., Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 114 [Rome: s.n., 1963], § 184). In other words, the three descriptors are seen as inseparably linked.

3. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 1.9

75

John’s mention of ‘ὑπομονή’ or ‘endurance’ is also sometimes referred to by commentators as support for seeing persecution in the background of 1.9.9 While ‘enduring under difficult circumstances’ is an acceptable understanding in some contexts, the use of the word in Revelation reveals that these ‘difficult circumstances’ may not necessarily involve persecution. Take, for example, the two instances that the word is used in the letter to the church at Ephesus. At first mention (2.2) the church’s ὑπομονή appears to be in relation to the fact that they do not tolerate evil men and that they test false apostles. When commended again in 2.3 for their ‘endurance’, it is revealed that they are again being praised for their vigilance against evil and against those who might lead them astray. This connection is strengthened by the play on words using the verb βαστάζω: they do not ‘endure’ evil men, and in this way they themselves ‘endure’ for the sake of the name of Christ. Thus from the message to the Ephesian church one can surmise that ‘endurance’ in the book of Revelation relates not just to enduring persecution, but refers to remaining faithful amidst any kind of eschatological woe, including evil men and false teachers. Later parts of the book also show that ‘endurance’ is needed in the face of various types of difficulties. Whereas in 13.10 the call for ὑπομονή is preceded by an announcement that hints at persecution (‘If anyone is meant for captivity, into captivity he will go; if anyone is to be killed by the sword, by the sword he shall be killed’), in 14.12 the call for endurance is connected to an exhortation to resist the ways of beast, and so is a call to stand firm in the face of temptation to compromise.10 In summary, John’s self-designation as a fellow-sharer ἐν τῇ θλίψει καὶ βασιλείᾳ καὶ ὑπομονῇ ἐν Ἰησοῦ appears to be a general description of what is shared by all believers at the time of the eschaton. They will all encounter troubles of various kinds (θλίψις), and must remain faithful in the face of these troubles (ὑπομονή), yet through it all they are joined together, with Christ, as a kingdom belonging to God (βασιλεία). Persecution may be a part of what John and his fellow believers experience, but this is not necessarily the focus of their situation or their identity as described in 1.9.

9.  For example, Farrer, Revelation, 64, mentions the possibility that John was on Patmos in order to preach, but says that given his self-description as ‘ “partaker with you in the suffering, the sovereignty and the endurance” it is more natural to suppose that he had been deported to the island on account of his apostolic activity’. 10.  Boxall, Revelation, 210.

76

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Furthermore, one must be careful not to assign a function to John’s self-description that may not have been originally intended. The selfdescription in 1.9 appears to be a sort of expansion of the ‘A to B Greeting’ formula used in 1.4 (‘John to the seven churches that are in Asia’).11 These greeting formulas were common in ancient letters,12 and expansions to these formulas often incorporated mention of the relationship between the sender and the recipient, which was included in order to remind the recipient to read the letter in light of this relationship.13 In Paul’s letters, these expansions or modifications to the prescript typically served to ‘reinforce and draw upon positive relations existing between Paul and his recipients’, or to establish or reinforce Paul’s authority in some way.14 Since John begins his description as a ‘brother’ and ‘fellow-sharer’, it seems likely that he is here trying to strengthen his connection with his recipients. Thus the purpose of his description as their partner in tribulation, kingdom and endurance (all recurring themes in the letters to the seven churches) is to indicate his relationship and position amongst those to whom he is writing, not to provide the reason for his being at Patmos. For this reason one must be careful not to read too much into the use of θλίψις (as well as ὑπομονή) with regard to John’s location. So in conclusion, even if John was persecuted in some way, there is no evidence in 1.9 or the immediate context to suggest that this was the reason for his being on Patmos, nor is there any indication that his persecution was the sort that would have caused him to seek or be forced into exile. This lack of textual evidence is compounded by the fact that there is no evidence that Patmos was a place of punishment. If Patmos had been well-known as a place of exile, then it would be reasonable to assume that John had been banished to the island. But this is certainly not stated in the text, and it seems unlikely that this would have been common knowledge, 11.  As Boring, Revelation, 80, notes, it is at 1.9, ‘instead of the letter greeting in 1:4’, that John chooses to identify himself. 12.  P.L. Tite, ‘How to Begin, and Why?’, in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, ed. S.E. Porter and S.A. Adams (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 64. 13.  Tite, ‘How to Begin’, 64. In ancient letters this would often be an ‘affectionate family designation, and the qualification in the salutio [would] help to place the recipient in a positive position in relation to the sender: they have a positive relationship, and it is on this basis that the letter is to be read’. J. White, The Form and Structure of the Official Petition: A Study in Greek Epistolography, SBLDS 5 (Missoula, MT: SBL, 1972), 13, notes four elements that are commonly found in this part of an ancient letter: ‘(1) the opening formulaic address, (2) a lineage item, (3) a vocation item… (4) a residence item’ (cited in Tite, ‘How to Begin’). 14.  Tite, ‘How to Begin’, 66–98, especially 98.

3. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 1.9

77

for there is no historical evidence that the Romans used Patmos as a place of imprisonment.15 Rather, historical evidence suggests that Patmos was a well-populated and vibrant place of residence and commerce.16 A similar lack of evidence can be seen when one examines the historical situation thought to be facing John’s audience. Although it was once thought that Domitian’s fierce persecution was most certainly the primary impetus for the writing of Revelation, the uncertainty that now surrounds the scholarly assessment of the historical situation casts further doubt on the conviction that John was exiled to Patmos.17 15.  Although some have claimed that Patmos was a penal colony, this may not have been the case (see F.W. Horn, ‘Johannes auf Patmos’, in Horn and Wolter, ed., Studien zur Johannesoffenbarung, 150; Boxall, Revelation, 39, citing Caird, Revelation, 21). 16.  Aune, Revelation 1–5, 77, appeals to a second-century BC inscription from Patmos (SEG 1068.2) that mentions a man named Hegemandros who ‘was honored by the Association of Torch Runners on Patmos’. The inscription also mentions a gymnasium and a stone statue of Hermes. An inscription from the second century AD tells of the strong presence of the cult and temple of Artemis on the island, as well as public feasts and processions in association with the goddess. Boxall (Patmos, 225 n. 30) makes the excellent point that comments such as ‘[a]pparently the Asian authorities had interpreted his preaching as seditious and removed him from the mainland in an attempt to inhibit the growth of the early church’ (Mounce, Revelation, 54–55) or ‘Patmos was indeed no prize to live on’ (B. Witherington III, Revelation, New Cambridge Bible Commentary [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003], 9), are just as imaginative as those early commentators who understand Patmos as a mythical location. 17.  ‘…the recent shift in Revelation studies away from Domitianic persecution as the historical background to Revelation has the potential to undermine the consensus which treats the exile explanation as the original sense of the text’ (Boxall, Patmos, 229, citing Thompson, Revelation, on the current view of Domitianic persecution as the background to Revelation); contra e.g. R. Bergmeier, ‘Zeugnis und Martyrium’, in Die Johannesapokalypse : Kontexte - Konzepte - Rezeption, ed. J. Frey, J.A. Kelhoffer and F. Tóth (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 619–47, who argues that persecution in Revelation is the direct result of refusal to participate in the imperial cult during the reign of Domitian. It is possible that John’s exile was a ‘self-exile’: that is, that John fled to Patmos in order to escape persecution (e.g. Horn, ‘Patmos’, 153–57). Under this interpretation Patmos need not be known or specified as a place of punishment. But this interpretation has the same problems as the interpretation that argues that John was in forced exile. There is absolutely nothing in the text (or by way of historical evidence) that would indicate to the reader that John fled to Patmos because of persecution. There is no clear link between persecution and Patmos, and there is also the problem of the fact that ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ has been specified as the ἀποκάλυψις itself in 1.1–2 (see further discussion below).

78

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

A look at the wider context of Revelation also reveals very little evidence for understanding persecution as the reason for John being on the island. Although in 6.9 and 20.4 ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ results in persecution, this is made clear by the context, not the use of the phrase itself.18 Thus appeals to the use of similar phrases in these two verses are ultimately unhelpful in determining John’s historical context in 1.9. Just because ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ led to death for those in 6.9 and 20.4, it does not necessarily follow that it also led to persecution for John. In fact, the only real support to be had for the consensus view is the fact that it has been the traditional and majority view for so long. The tradition dates back to the early second century, and can be found in the comments of early church fathers such as Victorinus and Tertullian.19 However, the reception-historical work done by I. Boxall has recently cast doubt on the relevance of these early interpretations to understanding John’s historical circumstances. He notes that nearly all of the early commentators shared the conviction that Revelation was actually part of a ‘broader narrative’ of which their own story was a part, causing them to read Revelation with a ‘didactic and even imitative purpose’ in mind. Thus their story actually played a major role in reconstructing John’s historical situation. Recognizing that this hermeneutical strategy was at work at the time this tradition emerged is important. Many of these early commentators were themselves facing persecution from Roman imperial authorities and so ‘prioritize an interpretation of Rev. 1:9 which finds a correlation between their own situation and that of the seer of Patmos; i.e. exile and persecution by imperial decree’.20 As Boxall notes, ‘…the early popularity of what would become the received wisdom of modern Apocalypse commentators – that John arrives on Patmos as a persecuted exile – may tell us more about the circumstances of Revelation’s early interpreters than

18.  The grammatical context of 6.9 and 20.4 makes it even more clear that διά ‘points backwards’ to something that has already happened: in 6.9 the preposition is governed by the immediately preceding perfect passive participle ἐσφαγμένων; and in 20.4 it is governed by another perfect passive participle, πεπελεκισμένων. The διά in 1.9, in contrast, is governed by ἐγενόμην (an aorist deponent indicative) making the ‘direction’ of the preposition less clear. 19.  Boxall, Patmos, 215. 20.  Boxall, Patmos, 30. Boxall notes that this hermeneutical practice is an example of what Kovacs and Rowland call ‘actualizing interpretations’ of the text (Kovacs and Rowland, Revelation, 7–11).

3. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 1.9

79

about John’s historical situation’.21 It seems, therefore, that the tradition that has been inherited by scholars for centuries may not be the best background against which to understand why John is on Patmos, nor to understand the phrase ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’. 3.3 John on Patmos for the Sake of the ἀποκάλυψις In light of the lack of evidence that persecution should be a key factor in determining the meaning of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’, this chapter will now examine another possible interpretation that is supported by the specification in 1.2 that ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ is the ἀποκάλυψις itself: that John was on Patmos because of the revelation shown to him. Although certainly not a new proposal, this interpretation is often dismissed by scholars on the basis of the claim that the causal meaning of διά never indicates purpose, only result.22 But this interpretation should not be so quickly discarded.23 First of all, it is simply not true that διά never signifies purpose. The preposition commonly conveys this meaning in classical Greek literature,24 and 21.  Boxall, Patmos, 55. 22.  Beale, Revelation, 202; Satake, Offenbarung, 140; Smalley, Revelation, 51; Roose, Zeugnis, 41–42; deSilva, Seeing, 33; ‘διά’, BDAG 225–26; implied by Prigent, L’Apocalypse, 97. It must be noted here that citing a lexicon does not in and of itself prove that a particular use of a preposition does or does not exist. Lexicons are the outcome of exegesis, and thus may differ in whether or not a word can carry a specific meaning. This is the case with διά: while BDAG does not list ‘purpose’ as a possible meaning, BDF and LSJ do. Thus rather than stating that διά never indicates purpose, it is more precise to follow the words of M.J. Harris and state that ‘…there is no unanimity concerning the alleged prospective (= telic) sense of διά’ (Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012], 80). 23.  A specific case for a broader meaning of διά will be made below, but it must be noted here that it seems generally brash to dismiss this particular use of the preposition on the basis of rarity. John’s Greek is notoriously unusual, and certainly departs from normal Greek grammar. (D. Matthewson, Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse, LBS 14 [Leiden: Brill, 2010], 1 n. 2, points out that even commentators as early as Dionysius of Alexandria noted this [see his comments cited by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. 7.25.26– 27].) For a number of proposed ‘theories of explanation’ regarding John’s Greek, see Matthewson, Verbal Aspect, 1. 24.  LSJ cites the following examples of places where διά essentially ‘= ἑνεκα, to express Purpose, δἰ ἀχθηδόνα for the sake of vexing, Th. 4.4, cf. 5.53; δ. τὴν τούτου σαφήνειαν with a view to clearing this up, Pl.R. 524c, cf. Arist. EN 1172b2I; αὐτὴ

80

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

more significantly, in Hellenistic literature25 as well as in the LXX.26 Occurrences in the LXX are especially pertinent to Revelation, as it is often claimed that much of Revelation’s ‘unique’ grammatical style is a result of John ‘thinking in Hebrew but writing in Greek’.27 And although

δἰ αὑτήν for its own sake, Pl.R.376b, etc.’. In Thucydides 5.53, for example, the Argives prepared to invade Epidaurus, for the purpose of taking the offering (διὰ τοῦ θύματος τὴν ἔσπραξιν ἐσβαλοῦντες). Here διά clearly ‘looks forward’, indicating purpose. 25.  E.g. Polybius 2.56.12; see E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit: mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften. Band II 2: Satzlehre. Analytischer Teil, zweite Hälfte (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1934), 2:426, for the papyri. Mayser lists the following as a possible translation and use of διά: ‘umwillen, jemand zuliebe, zu Gefallen...; manchmal = ἕνεκα’. This categorization demonstrates how a translation such as ‘for the sake of’ actually tends towards indicating purpose. He gives the following examples: Lond. I nr. 42 = Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (ältere Funde) (UPZ) 59, 29 καλῶς ποιήσεις καὶ διὰ ταύτην καὶ δι’ ἡμᾶς (= καὶ ταύτης καὶ ἡμῶν ἕνεκα) παραγενόμενος εἰς τὴν πόλιν (168a); note also this example, where he says ‘Persönliche und sachliche Begründung ist verbunden’: ‘Par. 49 = UPZ 62,2 τοιαύτην ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλευθεριότητα, οὐ βαναυσίαν ἐκτέθεικα πᾶσιν ἀνθρῶποις διά τε τὸν Σάραπιν καὶ τὴν σὴν ἐλευθερίαν um des Sarapis und deiner freien Gesinnung willen’. 26.  Johannessohn has demonstrated that in the LXX, διά is used interchangeably with ἕνεκα to indicate result. He gives the example of Gen 12.13: ‘εἰπὸν οὖν ὅτι Ἀδελφὴ αὐτοῦ εἰμι, ὅπως ἂν εὖ μοι γένηται διὰ σέ (‫ )‏בעבללד‬καὶ ζήσεται ἡ ψυχή μου ἕνεκεν σοῦ (‫’)‏בגללד‬. In this example Johannessohn notes that the change between διά and ἕνεκεν is based on a change between the two Hebrew words ‫ בעבללד‬and ‫‏בגללד‬. He also gives the example of Gen 18.24 ‘οὐκ ἀνήσεις πάντα τὸν τόπον ἕνεκεν τῶν πεντήκοντα δικαίων’ compared with 18.26 ‘ἀφήσω πάντα τὸν τόπον δι᾿ αὐτούς’. His final example comes from 2 Kgs 9, comparing v. 1 (ποιήσω μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἕνεκεν Ιωναθαν) with v. 7 (ποιήσω μετὰ σοῦ ἔλεος διὰ Ιωναθαν τὸν πατέρα σου) (M. Johannessohn, Der Gebrauch der Präpositionen in der Septuaginta, MSU 3 [Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1926], 242). 27.  This is a paraphrase of R.H. Charles’ statement: ‘while he writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew, and the thought has naturally affected the vehicle of expression’ (R. Charles, Studies in the Apocalypse [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913], 82). Following Charles is Steven Thompson, who refers to the Greek language of the Apocalypse as ‘little more than a membrane, stretched tightly over a Semitic framework’ (The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax, SNTSMS 52 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985], 108). Using a different metaphor, Roloff states that ‘Nowhere is the Greek “ground cover” over Semitic “subsoil” as thin as it is here’ (J. Roloff, The Revelation of John: A Continental Commentary, trans. J.E. Alsop [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 12).

3. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 1.9

81

not the most common use, there are also places in the New Testament where διά may be seen as expressing purpose.28 Second, it is ultimately unhelpful to think strictly in terms of ‘purpose’ or ‘result’, as the preposition does not always fall neatly within one of these two categories. For example, there are several places in the New Testament where διά is translated ‘for the sake of’, conveying a more basic causal meaning that only tends toward expressing purpose29 (rather than conveying a strong sense of purpose). This usage within the New Testament is commonly recognized, and was also a usage familiar to the writer of the Apocalypse (cf. Rev 2.3).30 These instances show that διά does not always fit neatly into the categories of either ‘purpose’ or ‘result’, and demonstrate how grammatical categories are ultimately the result of subjective exegesis.31 Therefore it may be better to think of διά as generally either ‘pointing forward’ or ‘pointing backward’.

28.  BDF cites ‘Mark 2.27; John 11.42; 12.30; and 1 Cor 11.9, etc.’; Harris discusses Rom 3.25 and 4.25, the two places he sees as the ‘alleged instances’ of διά indicating purpose ‘that are most regularly adduced’ (Prepositions, 80). Although in the end Harris does not read διά in these passages as indicating purpose, his discussion highlights the possibility and demonstrates how subjective the discussion is. In each of the passages in Romans an exegete could easily argue that διά expresses purpose. Note also διά + infinitive in the accusative to mean ‘with a view to, especially with infinitive διά τὸ ἐῖναι’ (Ephiph., Haer. 52.2 [p. 312.29; M.41.956c]) (G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford: Clarendon, 1961], 344). 29.  Harris gives several examples of places where διά could be rendered ‘for the sake of’ or ‘for the benefit of’ and ‘so approaches a prospective sense (Mt 24.22; Mk 2.27; John 11.42; 12.30; Romans 11.28a; 1 Cor 11.9)…’ (Prepositions, 80); some of these are simply listed under ‘purpose’ in BDF (see n. 22 above). 30.  Here Jesus praises the church at Ephesus, saying that they ‘have endured for my name’s sake’ (διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου). This common translation of διά is clearly not indicating result, and is actually much closer to a ‘purpose’ meaning (Harris, Prepositions, 80). 31.  This accounts for the fact that BDF labels the use of διά in Mark 2.27; John 11.42; 12.30; and 1 Cor 11.9, etc. as examples of places in the New Testament where διά with the accusative indicates purpose, whereas Harris lists these same citations as examples of places where διά ‘approaches a prospective sense’ (Prepositions, 80, italics mine). It is for this reason that appeals to the phrase’s use in Rev 6.9 and 20.4 are ultimately unhelpful in determining its meaning in 1.9. Although in these two passages διά clearly indicates result, this is made clear by the context, not its use in conjunction with ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’.

82

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Given the preposition’s flexibility, the possible interpretations should not be limited to those where διά conveys a strong sense of result.32 This means that there are two conceivable ways to move forward with the proposal that John was on Patmos ‘because of’ the vision. The first possible scenario is that John came to the island of Patmos for the purpose of receiving the revelation33 – that is, he went there seeking a revelatory vision from heaven.34 However, although it was not uncommon in the ancient world for seers to carry out various rituals in preparation for a visionary experience,35 in view of the fact that travel to a certain location was not a usual part of such preparations, this option is less likely.36 A second and more likely possibility is that John, looking back on his time at Patmos,37 saw the ἀποκάλυψις as the true reason for his being on 32.  Boxall, Patmos, 22, is in agreement: ‘…the Greek διά with the accusative and the Latin propter retain an inherent ambiguity, irrespective of the use of the preposition elsewhere in Revelation. Such ambiguity calls for consideration before final conclusions are drawn’. See Boxall for a list of scholars who consider other possibilities for διά (Patmos, 22 n. 40). 33.  This interpretation would understand διά as ‘pointing forward’, and even here conveying a sense of purpose. 34.  Knight, Revelation, 38, for example, states that the ambiguous phrase ‘most obviously implies that John had gone to Patmos in the exercise of his prophetic ministry – perhaps to receive apocalyptic revelation’; see also Schüssler Fiorenza who states that it is possible that John went to Patmos seeking ‘prophetic inspiration’, although she sees exile as the more likely reason (E. Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World, PC [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 50). 35.  I. Boxall, Revelation: Vision and Insight: An Introduction to the Apocalypse (London: SPCK, 2002), 31–32, notes how seers would often undergo various types of prayer and fasting in order to prepare to receive a revelation. Boxall sees elements of both fasting and prayer in Revelation: John eats the scroll given to him in 10.9, and John also ‘is seized by the spirit and receives his inaugural vision “on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1.10), implying a context of prayer and waiting on God’ (p. 32). 36.  M. Barker has made the interesting proposal that John came to Patmos after having already received the ancient material, making the island the place where John composed the written text of the Apocalypse (M. Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000], 57). 37.  It is likely that John was no longer on Patmos at the time of writing down his apocalypse (Horn, ‘Patmos’, 141–42; Aune, Revelation 1–5, 77, citing Lohmeyer, Offenbarung, 12). Furthermore, the use of the verb γίνομαι in the aorist tense supports the idea that John is giving background information, as the aorist in past context indicates ‘a background narrative tense’ (Aune, Revelation 1–5, 77; cf. S.E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, With Reference to Tense and Mood, SBG 1 [New York: Lang, 1989], 151).

3. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 1.9

83

the island.38 In support of this interpretation is John’s striking use of γίνομαι in 1.9. This deponent verb usually carries a passive sense, and the first-person use in 1.9 is often translated ‘I came to be’. It is significant that John does not say that he was ‘sent’ to Patmos, nor does he say that he ‘went’ to Patmos. Rather he says that he ‘came to be’ on the island. Elsewhere in Revelation John uses this verb when he is taken somewhere by a heavenly agent (4.2; cf. also 1.10). In this scenario John’s original reason for travelling to Patmos is not given – nor does it matter.39 The real cause, ordained by God, was that John might receive the vision.40 A further advantage to this view is that it does not require the phrase ‘the word of God and testimony of Jesus’ to carry a meaning different from that expressed in 1.2. Had John indicated that the phrase was to be interpreted one way in 1.1–2 and then a different way in 1.9, then one could make a case for two different ways of understanding the phrase. But since there is no such indication, there is no reason for the reader to understand the phrase in 1.9 as referring to something other than the ἀποκάλυψις, as indicated in 1.1–2.41 Furthermore, understanding the phrase in 1.9 as a reference to the ἀποκάλυψις itself seems a better fit with the immediate 38.  Here διά is understood as ‘pointing forward’ (he came to the island in order that he might receive the vision in the future), but without a strong sense of purpose on John’s part. 39.  It is even possible that John was in exile on Patmos. But this is not necessarily the reason, at least in John’s eyes, why he was there. Exile may have been the means by which God brought him to the island, but the reason for this divine act was so that God might show him the revelation. 40.  Boxall, Patmos, 23, recognizes this possibility in light of his reception-historical study. He reports that although the majority of patristic commentators viewed Patmos primarily as a place of banishment (although there is significant variation with regard to the details of John’s banishment), there is a strong minority of interpreters during the patristic period that viewed Patmos primarily as a place of revelation. John may have arrived in Patmos by way of exile, but the focus is on the reception of the revelation. See Boxall, Patmos, 45–46, 55. There is evidence that Hippolytus and Jerome held such a view; see also Acts of John at Rome and Virtutes Johannis (Boxall, Patmos, 41, 46–55). An emphasis on John finding himself on Patmos as a result of divine initiative and orchestration can later be seen in some of the Eastern traditions from the fifth century, such as the Prochorus Acts. In the Prochorus Acts, although John has a chance to be freed, he chooses to be exiled to Patmos anyway, understanding it to be God’s will. Similarly, the Arabic Travels of St. John the Son of Zebedee understands John being on Patmos primarily as a result of God’s will. See Boxall, Patmos, 107–109, 132. 41.  As Boxall notes, the possibility that John’s location on Patmos was somehow related to his reception of the vision ‘is underscored by the earlier use of the phrase

84

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

context, since Rev 1.1–11 is primarily focused on introducing the vision. The opening verses describe the ‘descent’ of the vision from God (1.1–3), and 1.3 pronounces a blessing on all who read and hear its words. John introduces himself and the ultimate ‘authors’ of the revelation (1.4–7) and is then commanded to write what he sees in the verses following (1.10). Since the focus thus far has been on the vision, it seems fitting that the focus in v. 9 would also be on John’s reception of the Apocalypse itself. 3.4 Summary and Conclusions Having examined Rev 1.9 in its immediate and wider context, one finds very little evidence to support the traditional consensus that John was on Patmos as a means of punishment. Thus the basis upon which many commentators have taken their understanding of the phrase ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ is consequently undermined. Even the tradition that John was on Patmos because of persecution, despite its long standing as the majority view, does not appear to be a suitable background against which to understand the Seer’s location. Unfortunately it is this tradition that has so heavily influenced the way that scholars have interpreted the phrase ‘the testimony of Jesus’.42 Given the prevalence of the traditional view throughout the book’s reception history, it is highly likely that this tradition of seeing John in exile, which has been passed down from the second century, has skewed the way in which scholars have interpreted ‘the testimony of Jesus’, not just in 1.9, but also in subsequent places in the book.43 After all, ‘…all readings of texts are historically conditioned, as all interpreters are affected by the Wirkungsgeschichte of which they are part’.44

“the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” (τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) at Rev. 1:2, where it refers not to John’s preaching of the gospel, but to what John saw (ὅσα εἶδεν); i.e. the Apocalypse itself’ (Patmos, 23). 42.  It is very possible that the patristic situation of imperial persecution also led to the understanding that Revelation was written as a book of martyrs (see Boxall, Patmos, 229). 43.  Boxall notes the ‘readings to which an interpreter has been exposed’ significantly ‘impacts…how that interpreter sees a text, and the range of questions posed to it’ (Boxall, Patmos, 209). He notes that this is an important aspect of what Gadamer calls ‘wirkungsgeschichtliches Bewußtsein or “historically effected consciousness” ’ (citing H.G. Gadamer, Truth and Method, 2nd ed. [London: Sheed & Ward, 1989], 300). 44.  Boxall, Patmos, 209.

3. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 1.9

85

But with our eyes having been opened to the circumstances surrounding the conception of what has long been understood as the traditional view, we are able to remove the presupposition that persecution was the ultimate reason for John’s location on Patmos. In doing this the modern reader can more easily see that the ambiguity and ‘gaps’ in the text at Rev 1.9 allow for a much wider range of possibilities for understanding the phrase ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ than has traditionally been thought, including that which is suggested by the text itself in Rev 1.2: that the ‘word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ is the message of the ἀποκάλυψις itself.45 The possibility, and indeed preferability, of understanding ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in 1.9 as a reference to the Apocalypse is significant, since this is the point in the book where the interpretation often changes. Although certainly not determinative of the phrase’s meaning in 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4, it does mean that understanding ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ as a reference to the vision of the Apocalypse should at least be a serious consideration as scholars encounter this same phrase later in the book.

45.  ‘…many so-called “pre-critical” commentators eschew the temptation of their “critical” successors to treat the various options as mutually exclusive. Often the issue is rather one of emphasis. Thus those who prioritize the visionary potential of John’s location on Patmos are not necessarily denying that he arrived there as a consequence of banishment or exile, nor do those who prefer the latter rule out missionary activity by John on Patmos’ (Boxall, Patmos, 215).

Chapter 4 ‘ ἡ μ α ρ τ υρ ί α Ἰ η σοῦ ’ i n R ev e lati on 12.17

4.1 Introduction Revelation 12.1–17 forms the first part of the ‘narrative’ that stretches until the end of ch. 14.1 As a whole, this narrative describes the cosmic battle between God and Satan, and their respective followers on earth. Chapter 12, however, is significant in the fact that it encapsulates the cosmic battle as a whole, and thus is paradigmatic of the entire book of Revelation.2 Whereas the chapters that follow (13–14) describe the time period immediate to the author (and into the future), ch. 12 provides an overview of the great battle between good and evil. It is at the very end of this paradigmatic section that the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ appears again, this time as part of a description of a group of Christians (12.17). Although 12.17 alone does not give any indication as to what is meant by ‘having the testimony of Jesus’, the temporal aspect of the verse allows for an interpretation consistent with the meaning of ‘the testimony of Jesus’ given in Rev 1.1 (see section 1.7). While the paucity of detail regarding the identity of this group of people in v. 17 only allows for the possibility that this is the correct 1.  Aune, Revelation 6–16, 660, sees ‘a roughly continuous narrative of eschatological events’ running from 11.19 to 14.20, framed by the sounding of the seven trumpets (11.15–18) and the seven bowls (15.1–16.21). Smalley, Revelation, 311, considers chs. 12–14 to be one vision, followed by the interval in chs. 15. 2.  Yarbro Collins, Combat Myth, 232, states that the ‘paradigmatic character’ of this chapter is ‘illustrated in terms of the pattern of the combat myth’. She claims that this ‘pattern’ is ‘repeated in each series of visions and in fullest form at the end… The overcoming of the Threat, the defeat of chaos and the re-establishing of order is thus the fundamental significance of each of the cycles of visions and of Revelation as a whole. The paradigmatic nature of ch. 12 is evident in the fact that the pattern of the combat myth is reflected in quite full form within this single chapter. The following elements of the pattern are present in Revelation 12: a. Threat (vss. 3–4); d. Salvation (vss. 5–6); b. Combat-Victory (vss. 7–9); f. Victory Shout (vss. 10–12).’

4. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 12.17

87

interpretation of the phrase, this interpretation is to be preferred as it makes sense of the temporal context and the book’s emphasis on its own message, while also allowing for a meaning consistent with that explicitly given in Rev 1.2. 4.2 Description of the Scene The story begins with a woman and a dragon. The woman, described as being ‘clothed with the sun’, having ‘the moon under her feet’, with a ‘crown of twelve stars’ on her head (12.1), is pregnant, and cries out in pain as she is about to give birth. The woman is clearly representative, although scholars have made various proposals as to her identity.3 A number of scholars have identified her with Israel,4 but she is probably best understood as representing the Church in continuity with Israel (that is, not the Church in contrast with Israel).5 While it is from her that the Messiah comes, the fact that the woman continues to be persecuted even 3.  The woman of ch. 12 has been identified as a number of different figures: Mary, the Heavenly Jerusalem of Rev 19, an astrological figure, Isis, Israel and the Church (see Aune, Revelation 6–16, 680, for this list of possible identities and the respective scholars who hold each view). There are also some who see her as a composite figure: ‘The woman is not Mary, nor Israel, nor the church but less and more than all of these’ (Boring, Revelation, 152). 4.  Yarbro Collins, Combat Myth, 134; J. Court, Myth and History in the Book of Revelation (London: SPCK, 1979), 119–21. Yarbro Collins operates from a redactional theory that understands ch. 12 as originally existing as a Jewish source (Combat Myth, 131–32), so it is not surprising that she understands the woman as representing Israel instead of the Church. Although she recognizes the popularity of the view that the woman represents the Church, her main difficulty in accepting this argument is ‘the problem of explaining how the Church can be the mother of the messiah’ (Combat Myth, 134). But as Boxall has noted, ‘…John makes no harsh distinction between Israel and the Church’ (Revelation, 178). Court has related the protection of the woman to the Roman protection of the Jews (Myth, 119–21); however, it is more likely that this represents God’s protection of his people in a general sense. The location of her protection as the wilderness is part of an allusion to the Israel story, for this is where God protected and provided for his people when he brought them out of Egypt (for a discussion of the connection between the ‘wilderness’ and the Exodus, see Boxall, Revelation, 181). 5.  Following Boxall, Revelation, 178; J. Michl, ‘Umschau und Kritik: Die Deutung der apokalyptischen Frau in der Gegenwart’, ΒΖ 3 (1959): 309, argues that for John, the Old Testament and New Testament people of God represent ‘eine einzige Größe’; U.B. Müller, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, ÖTK zum Neuen Testament 19 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1984), 240.

88

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

after her messianic child is ‘caught up’ (see 12.6 and 12.13–16)6 goes against reading her as representing Israel vis-à-vis the Church.7 Her appearance in heaven is accompanied by the appearance of another figure: ‘a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns’ with seven diadems on his heads. Although he is not explicitly named at his appearing, v. 9 identifies him as ‘the devil and Satan.’ The dragon waits before the woman as she labours, eager to devour her child when she gives birth (5.4). But when the woman eventually gives birth – to a son, ‘who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron’ – the dragon’s plans are thwarted, for the child is ‘caught up’ to God and his throne, safely out of the dragon’s reach while the woman flees into the wilderness. This story is then temporarily ‘interrupted’ in v. 7 with the announcement: ‘and there was battle in heaven’. The shifting of focus up to heaven is most likely due to the fact that the child is caught up to God and his throne, and so ‘it is implicit that the heavenly battle was caused by the dragon’s futile attempt to devour the male child’.8 In this battle of Michael and his angels versus the dragon and his angels (12.7), the dragon is again thwarted, for he and his angels are not strong enough and are thrown down to earth (vv. 8–9).9 The focus of the cosmic story then shifts back to the woman and the dragon again in 12.13. The dragon, finding himself having been thrown down to earth, persecutes the woman who gave birth to the male child. But once again the woman is divinely rescued and taken up into the wilderness again, where she is cared for. The dragon (here called ‘the serpent’) persists, pouring out water from his mouth so as to sweep her away. Yet the woman remains safe, for the earth ‘helps’ the woman and swallows up the water that was poured out of the serpent’s mouth. In the face of yet another failed attempt, the dragon is ‘enraged’ with the woman, and so then turns his attention to her offspring. And so ch. 12, paradigmatic for 6.  Following the view that the child’s being ‘caught up’ is a reference to the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ (Sweet, Revelation, 197; Boring, Revelation, 158; Boxall, Revelation, 180; although see the possible objections discussed by Aune, Revelation 6–16, 689). 7.  Contra Yarbro Collins, who reads the attack on the woman in vv. 13–16 as a repetition of the same attack as recorded in vv. 1–6 (Combat Myth, 143–44). She views the placement of the attack after the casting down of the dragon as a literary device used in order ‘to renew the situation of conflict as an introduction to ch. 13’ (p. 144). But this ignores the natural flow of the narrative and the fact that an attack on the woman appears both before and after the fall of the dragon. 8.  Aune, Revelation 6–16, 691. 9.  For a fuller discussion of 12.7–12, see Chapter 5.

4. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 12.17

89

the book of Revelation as a whole, ends with the declaration that he ‘went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus’. 4.3 ‘…those who have the testimony of Jesus’ The phrase appears as part of a description of the woman’s children – they are ‘those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus’. Since the immediate context gives no obvious indication as to how the moniker is to be understood, the phrase is usually treated as a general way of referring to the Church. Not only do they do the things that God demands, but they follow and preach the gospel of Christ. This could either be a way of referring to those who imitate the testimony of Christ’s faithful life (subjective genitive), or it could refer to those who have a testimony about Jesus (objective genitive). Yet it is also possible that the phrase is referring to something more specific. Given the clear identification of the ἀποκάλυψις as ‘the testimony of Jesus’ in 1.2, one must ask whether or not the phrase might carry the same meaning in 12.17. Chapter 3 demonstrated that it was not uncommon for characters in apocalyptic literature to be depicted as receiving and using the message of the revelation that they themselves are a part of, and it has indeed been argued that one such depiction has already occurred in Revelation (see Chapter 2, Part Two). The depiction of characters within the book receiving the revelation opens up the possibility for a similar situation in 12.17, whereby ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’ is understood as referring to the recipients of John’s letter – that is, those who have heard or received the message of the Apocalypse. 4.3.1 The Woman and ‘the Rest of Her Children’ Yet it is not just the depiction in Rev 10.1–11.13 that makes this a possibility. The relationship between the woman and ‘the rest of her children’ not only allows for, but even supports, this interpretation. If the woman is to be understood as representing the Church,10 then there are a number of possible ways to interpret her relationship with these children, who also appear to represent the Church in some manner.11 10.  As I have explained above, any references to ‘the Church’ are meant as a reference to the true people of God under both the old and new covenants – this is the Church that includes Israel, not the Church in contrast to Israel. 11.  See Beale, Revelation, 676, for a footnote that lists several sources.

90

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

One popular consensus is that v. 17 is a sort of repetitive summary of vv. 13–16, thus making the woman and her children essentially one and the same, but simply viewed from different perspectives. For example, perhaps the most common view is that the woman in vv. 6 and 13–16 represents the suffering church from a heavenly perspective, while v. 17 depicts the suffering church on earth.12 Thus ‘the rest’ serves to distinguish the heavenly church from the earthly church.13 The woman, protected from the dragon, then, represents the church’s ultimately inviolable nature, even while being persecuted on earth (represented by the rest of her children).14 While this interpretation is attractive, there are a number of problems that make it unlikely. First, there is no real reason to believe that v. 17 is a repetition of vv. 13–16. The statement ‘so the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children…’ frames the dragon’s attack on her children as the direct result of his inability to devour the woman. The relationship between vv. 13–16 and v. 17 is one of progression, not repetition. Secondly, ‘the rest of her children’ most naturally refers to her children in contrast to the male that was born to her. The only other offspring mentioned is the male child (vv. 5 and 13), so it follows that ‘the rest of her children’ in v. 17 is in contrast with her firstborn,15 not with the rest of the Church in heaven. The author needs to make clear that the dragon goes off to make war not with the male child, but with the other children belonging to the woman. Another difficulty with this view is the fact that for much of the story, the woman appears to be located on earth, not in heaven.16 This is not to 12.  Beckwith, Apocalypse, 619–20; G. Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 167; see also Beale, Revelation, 676, calling this ‘the most plausible view’ (following Beckwith and Ladd). 13.  In other words, Rev 12.17 is ‘best taken as a contrast between the whole heavenly church and the whole earthly church’ (Beale, Revelation, 676). 14.  ‘Consequently, the point of vv 13–17 is that the one heavenly church being persecuted on earth cannot be destroyed because it is heavenly and ultimately inviolable spiritually, but the many who individually compose the church can suffer physically from earthly dangers. In relation to Revelation 11 this means that the woman is equivalent to the spiritually invincible inner court of the temple and her “seed” equivalent to the outer court, which is susceptible to physical harm’ (Beale, Revelation, 677). 15.  ‘Such a contrast between individual and corporate seeds is supported by observing that v 17 alludes to Gen. 3:16, where John would have seen that Eve’s messianic seed has both individual and corporate meaning’ (Beale, Revelation, 677). 16.  Although the woman first appears as a sign ‘in heaven’ (12.1), this is due to the fact that the vision John sees is ‘in heaven’. In the setting of the story of the woman

4. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 12.17

91

deny that there is a spiritual or heavenly aspect to the woman – after all, she does first appear in heaven, and is described as being clothed with celestial bodies. But given her location on earth in much of the story, it is unlikely that she should be understood purely as the spiritual and thus inviolable character of the church.17 Chapter 12 does present a spiritual counterpart to the Church, but this comes through Michael and his angels who battle the dragon in heaven.18 Another more plausible view is that v. 17 refers to the church in the final stages of history.19 This view understands the relationship between the woman and her children to be very similar to that of any mother and and the dragon, there are a number of details that seem to locate the woman on earth. When she gives birth her child is ‘caught up’ to God and his throne, suggesting that the woman was on earth when she gave birth. Her location is even clearer in vv. 13–16. When the dragon begins to pursue the woman again in these verses, it is after he finds that he has been thrown down to earth (v. 13). Furthermore, when he tries to drown the woman, it is the earth (ἡ γῆ, v. 16) that helps the woman. Müller, Offenbarung, 240, is in agreement. 17.  H. Gollinger, Das ‘große Zeichen’ von Apokalypse 12, SBM 11 (Stuttgart: Echter, 1971) asserts that there is both a heavenly and earthly aspect to the woman, represented by her presence in both heaven and the wilderness. This view is essentially correct, although one must be careful not to draw too sharp a distinction between the woman’s location in 12.1–6 and 12.13–16, especially given that her appearance as a ‘sign’ in heaven may simply be a reference to the location of the vision (cf. 4.4). After all, it is the presence of Michael and his angels that makes clear that the Church is ultimately inviolable. 18.  Michael is often regarded as the heavenly protector of God’s people (‘the great prince who has charge of your people’ in Dan 12.1; see 1 En. 20.5; and ‘the ruler of the Jewish people’ [Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita, De caelesti hierarchia 9.2, cited by Aune, Revelation 6–16, 694]). See Aune, Revelation 6–16, 693–95, for a fuller discussion of Michael’s role in Jewish and Christian texts. Gollinger, Zeichen, 176, says ‘Der Engelkampf und der Siegeshymnus im Himmel (12, 7–12) sind vom Apokalyptiker eingefügt, um die untrennbare Verbundenheit von Himmel und Erde darzustellen: nichts geschieht auf der Erde, was nicht im Himmel seinen Ursprung hat.’ 19.  Beale, Revelation, 678, discusses a historical progression as a ‘viable alternative view’, although his view is slightly different from my own. Beale divides ch. 12 into ‘four temporal stages’: ‘(1) the messianic community before Christ (vv 1–4), (2) the appearance of Christ in the covenant community (v 5), (3) the persecuted messianic community immediately following Christ’s ascension (vv 6, 13–16), and (4) the later stages of the persecuted community (v 17)’. While there certainly is a shift in temporal aspect in 12.17–18, it is not clear that the preceding narrative can be neatly divided into stages as Beale proposes, especially given the paradigmatic nature of ch. 12 (although I would agree that there is a general chronological progression to the narrative).

92

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

her offspring. On the one hand, if the woman represents the true followers of God, it then follows that her children (apart from her son who represents the Messiah20) can be none other than believers who come out of her. As a mother and offspring, the two are, at least in some sense, ontologically bound together. Yet at the same time, although both the woman and her children represent the Church, there must be some distinction21 that is meant to be made, otherwise the author would have absolutely no reason for introducing ‘her children’ into the story at this point.22 By introducing a new character (or set of characters) it is implied that these children are somehow distinct from the woman.23 4.3.2 Revelation 12.17 as a Temporal Transition The shift in characters representing the Church most likely reflects a change in temporal aspect.24 Whereas the woman of ch. 12 represented the Church in a paradigmatic and timeless narrative, the shift to ‘her children’ moves the story out of the paradigmatic and into the more temporally specific. The author now addresses the present and future age. John no

20.  In this view, the label ‘the rest’ is in contrast to the woman’s original child (12.5). On this point I differ from Beale, who says that ‘this temporal scheme is based on the plausible understanding of v 17 as affirming only a distinction between the woman…and a remainder of her seed in v 17’ (Revelation, 678). As demonstrated above, the children are distinct from both the male child of vv. 5 and 13 and from the woman. Their description as ‘the rest’ distinguishes them from the woman’s first child, while other factors within the story distinguish them from the woman (see above). 21.  In his description of the possible temporal progression in ch. 12, Beale notes that ‘the rest of her children’ could be distinct from the woman, ‘as she implicitly represents part of her seed as a group of believers in vv 6, 13–16, and a remainder of her seed in v 17’ (Revelation, 678). 22.  Against those who say that v. 17 is a repetitive summary of vv. 13–16. 23.  This distinction too is an instinctive and intrinsic part of the relationship between parents and their children. 24.  Several scholars have recognized some sort of transition in v. 17. Yarbro Collins notes that at v. 17 the story shifts to the ‘human realm…with the mention of the dragon’s attack on the “rest of her seed” ’ (Combat Myth, 144). Although Gollinger sees the main distinction between the woman and ‘the rest of her children’ as a distinction between ‘das Kollektiv’ (the woman in the wilderness) and individual Christians (the rest of her children), he nevertheless observes that ‘the rest of the children’ are Christians living at the time of the writing of the Apocalypse (Gollinger, Zeichen, 179).

4. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 12.17

93

longer speaks in broad generalities of the battle between God and Satan (as he did in ch. 12) but now speaks to the conflict that the Church finds itself in from the time of John’s seeing the vision and onward.25 These offspring still represent the Church, but are specifically connected to those whom John is addressing.26 The literary relationship of 12.17–18 to what follows and what precedes confirms that this is indeed the best understanding of the identity of ‘the rest of her children’. The καί at the beginning of v. 17 serves to move the story forward,27 and the unexpected mention of ‘the rest of her children’

25.  G.H. van Kooten has shown how the seven heads on the beast (Rev 13 and 17) correspond to specific Roman emperors, from Augustus to Otho, with John and his audience living during the reign of Otho (and his successor Vitellius) (‘The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John: The “pro-Neronian” Emperors Otho and Vitellius, and the Images and Colossus of Nero in Rome’, JSNT 30 [2007]: 205–12; see also G.H. van Kooten, ‘The Jewish War and the Roman Civil War of 68–69 C.E.: Jewish, Pagan, and Christian Perspectives’, in Jewish Revolt Against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. M. Popović [Leiden: Brill, 2011], 433–38). See also C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982), 403–405, and A.A. Bell, ‘The Date of John’s Apocalypse: The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered’, NTS 25 (1979): 97–100, who likewise argue that the seven heads of the beast correspond to seven emperors, but see John and his audience as contemporaneous with either Nero or Galba (contra deSilva, who agrees that ch. 13 describes the events at the time Revelation was written, but argues that the seven heads do not correspond to seven specific emperors [Seeing, 35]). Whichever precise dating is accepted, the way that the beast’s description corresponds to these emperors strengthens the link between Rev 12.17ff. and the specific situation facing John and his original audience. That being said, there is, of course, a certain timelessness to the images of ch. 13. That is, what may have once been applied to certain Roman emperors in John’s day could certainly be reapplied to other leaders throughout the ages. The many parallels between the beast and Christ also identify the beast with Satan himself, since he is Christ’s ultimate antithesis (see Beale, Revelation, 690–91, although I do not agree with his conclusion that the beast does not correspond to a specific empire or emperor). 26.  Although John’s ἀποκάλυψις is addressed specifically to the ‘seven churches in Asia’, it is likely that the Seer is actually addressing Christians generally. Since these seven messages would have been proclaimed publicly, it would appear that the intended audience is actually much broader than just these seven particular congregations (Boxall, Revelation, 46). 27.  In agreement with the observation of Smalley, Revelation, 333: ‘…the introductory καί (kai, “then”, lit. “and”) suggests a sequential movement in the action of the scene’.

94

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

serves as a transition from the story of ch. 12 to the story in ch. 13.28 Immediately after the declaration that the dragon ‘went off to wage war with the rest of her children’, the audience hears the declaration ‘and he stood on the sand of the seashore’. The dragon is now in place, ready to wage his war against the rest of the woman’s offspring. Chapter 13, then, is a detailed revelation of the war declared against the woman’s children in 12.17. The dragon’s standing on the seashore shifts the visions away from the paradigmatic, and focuses in on the part of the battle happening in John’s day.29 The shift to the author’s present day is confirmed by the fact that the first beast from the sea represents the Roman Empire,30 indicating that in this time period the cosmic battle between good and evil manifested itself primarily in their ‘battle’ against the pagan and ungodly practices of the Roman Empire. Indeed, the language of ch. 13 would have clearly indicated to them that this is the battle they are now facing. As one scholar notes, ‘As John builds up his total presentation, he uses recognizable pictures drawn from the situation in Asia Minor to indicate the immediacy of his prophecy’.31 The immediate relevancy of ch. 13 to John’s audience 28.  Satake, Offenbarung, 278 (see also Satake, Gemeindeordnung, 109); Aune, Revelation 6–16, 708, following W. Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis, 5th ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906), 356–57, states that the ‘abrupt’ mention of ‘the rest of her children’, ‘anticipate[s] the mention of the war that the beast from the sea wages on the saints (13:7–10), i.e., to provide a transitional link from this textual unit to that found in Rev 13’. 29.  Although she does not frame the comment in terms of a temporal shift, Yarbro Collins does see v. 17 as indicating a shift to ‘the human realm’ (Combat Myth, 144). Blount clearly links v. 17 to the time of the giving of the revelation to John: ‘In chapters 1–11, Satan is clearly wreaking havoc through Rome on earth. And yet, when chapter 12 opens, Satan is still in heaven; everything chronicled here in the chapter’s opening verses, then, must have happened well before the chaos taking place in chapters 1–11… In other words, chapter 12 ends at the place where the book of Revelation begins’ (Witness?, 62). 30.  ‘If the first beast is the Roman Empire, the second beast is some entity that induces people of the world to give loyalty to the empire and its emperors. It appears to represent a web of emperor-worship institutions that orchestrated allegiance to Rome in John’s day’ (N.J. Kraybill, Apocalypse and Allegiance: Worship, Politics, and Devotion in the Book of Revelation [Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010], 53). 31.  Court, Myth and History, 137. Court argues that John draws heavily from the Nero Redivivus myth in sourcing his imagery, thus ‘stressing the continuity of the prophet’s message and the immediate relevance of its expectations in the contemporary situation’ (p. 138; see 122–53 for Court’s full discussion of John’s use of this

4. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 12.17

95

makes it all the more likely that those hearing (or reading) it would have identified themselves with the woman’s children. Changing the imagery not only helps to signal a shift in temporal aspect, but would have also helped John’s first-century audience to find their ‘place’ within the cosmic narrative. They are the woman’s children, and they are in the midst of a war with ‘the dragon’. They are those who ‘keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus’. The fact that these children represent the people of God in John’s present day and in the future opens up the possibility that the description of the woman’s children as those ‘who have the testimony of Jesus’ is a reference to their having the message of the Apocalypse. Having read or heard the vision described as ‘the testimony of Jesus’ in the opening lines (1.2), John’s audience would have included themselves among those who ‘have the testimony of Jesus’. Thus the application of this meaning in 12.17 would have further alerted the hearer to his or her place in the divine drama. After all, 22.8–11 makes it clear that the vision of the ἀποκάλυψις is to go out to the churches immediately. While commands to ‘seal up’ the prophecy were common in other apocalyptic literature, the angel in Revelation gives John the opposite command. ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near’ (12.10). This negative command ‘ensures that the prophetic words are communicated immediately to the seven congregations…the monster has begun to stir and Babylon is yet again in the ascendant…the crucial time is very close’.32 This statement of the immediate need for the churches to hear the message of the Apocalypse echoes an earlier statement found in 1.3: ‘blessed is the one who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things which are written in it, for the time is near’. In light of the importance and immediate relevance of the message, it is fitting that John would describe those in the war with the beast (that is, those living both in his present day and in the future) as those ‘who have the testimony of Jesus’. Although this is not the only way that they are identified (they are also called those who ‘keep the commandments of

myth). J.W. van Henten remarks, ‘Readers of Rev 12–13 familiar with the Roman emperor’s ideology may well have associated one emperor or all of them not only with Satan but also with…the chaos monsters according to the emperor’s own ideological frame of reference’ (‘Dragon Myth and Imperial Ideology in Revelation 12–13’, in The Reality of the Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation, ed. D.L. Barr, SBLSymS 9 [Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006], 203). 32.  Boxall, Revelation, 314.

96

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

God’;33 cf. also 14.12, the ‘saints who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus’34), their having heard and accepted the message of the ἀποκάλυψις is an important part of their identity, especially as they are engaged in ‘battle’. 4.4 Summary and Conclusions In a similar way to that in 1.9, in 12.17 John uses ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ without any explicit explanation as to what this phrase refers. The relationship between the woman and ‘the rest of her children’ (two characters who represent the Church), along with the unique position of v. 17 as a transitional link between the paradigmatic narrative of ch. 12 and the more specific narrative of chs. 13 and 14, clearly indicates that the group identified as ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’ is to be 33.  The commandments of God are typically taken to mean ‘the traditional commands of God, understood from a Christian perspective’ (Aune, Revelation 6–16, 709), although Aune specifies ‘the commandments of God’ in 12.17 and 14.12 as a reference to the ethical commands of Torah (see ‘Excursus 12B: The Commandments of God and the Torah’, in Aune, Revelation 6–16, 710–12). Given the context, however, these commandments of God may very well carry a ‘heightened’ importance. A. Chester (Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology, WUNT 1/207 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007], 521) argues that the ‘commandments’ most likely refers to Torah, with an intensification of ‘its demands in the messianic age’ (the ‘intensification of Torah in relation to the final or messianic age’ was a theme evident in many other related texts [see Messiah, 533–34]). 34.  The genitive phrase ‘ἡ πίστις Ἰησοῦ’ can be understood as ‘faith in Jesus’ or preferably, ‘faithfulness to Jesus’. It occurs as part of a parenthetical statement introduced by ὧδε and ‘reads like a commentary on the preceding text’ (Aune, Revelation 6–16, 798). This verse ‘provides a direct challenge to the audience of this apocalyptic drama to persevere through suffering, and remain true to Jesus rather than Satan’ (Smalley, Revelation, 368). Although there certainly is a connection between 12.17 and 14.12, there is no reason to read ‘ἡ πίστις Ἰησοῦ’ as defining or as equivalent to ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’. Both phrases carry some degree of ambiguity in meaning, and thus it should not be said that ‘ἡ πίστις Ἰησοῦ’ serves as a definition of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’. Rather, since both appear as a means of describing Christian believers, together they form a fuller picture of the identity of these followers of the Lamb. That being said, it should be emphasized that the two phrases are complementary and thus closely related. The message of the Apocalypse (‘the testimony of Jesus’) is, in a nutshell, an exhortation and warning to remain true to Jesus. Thus those who ‘have the testimony of Jesus’ are also described as those who ‘keep their faithfulness to Jesus’.

4. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 12.17

97

understood as referring to Christians living in John’s day (and presumably in the future). While ‘ἐχόντες τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ’ could still be a general reference to those who preach about or act like Jesus, the group’s specific identification with Christians contemporaneous with the time of the writing of the Apocalypse makes it entirely possible to understand ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ as a reference to the message of the book itself. While any proposed interpretation for the phrase’s meaning in this verse remains only a possibility, the proposal made here is to be preferred, as it has the advantage of being consistent with the explicit definition of the phrase in 1.2, while also taking seriously the book’s emphasis on the immediate importance of its own message.

Chapter 5 ‘ ἡ μ α ρ τ υρ ί α Ἰ η σοῦ ’ i n R ev e lati on 19.10

5.1 Introduction The phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is used twice in the short pericope of 19.9–10. Having witnessed the visions of 17.1–19.8, John falls down at the feet of the angel who showed him these things in order to worship him. But the angel refuses, saying ‘ὅρα μή· σύνδουλός σού εἰμι καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν σου τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ· τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον. ἡ γὰρ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ ἐστιν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας’. Although the angel’s refusal of John’s worship is expected, in many ways this scene is unexpected and unusual. Recognizing the scene’s peculiarities and understanding what John communicates through them creates a context in which reading ‘the testimony of Jesus’ as a reference to the message of the Apocalypse is both natural and appropriate. Thus this chapter will begin by unpacking the significance of both John’s attempt to worship the celestial being and also the angel’s emphatic response. In light of this, it will then be shown that the understanding of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ that is most suitable for the context is one that reads the phrase as a reference to the ἀποκάλυψις. 5.2 Context: Angelic Refusal of Worship Unlike refusal scenes1 in other literature, John’s desire to worship the angel in 19.9 does not appear to be motivated by the angel’s appearance.2 1.  Here I am using the language of L.T. Stuckenbruck (Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John, WUNT 2/70 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995]) who uses the term ‘refusal tradition’ to refer to a scene where an angel refuses worship from someone. 2.  Stuckenbruck (Angel, 82–87, 245 n. 120) notes that in other literature ‘refusals’ often come after an angelophany (see Asc. Isa. 7.2, 19; Apoc. Zeph. 6.11–15; 2 En. 1.4–8; 3 En. 16; Tob 12.15–16). He concludes that ‘the seer’s desire to worship the angel in 19.10 and 22.8–9 has little or nothing to do with the features attributed to the angels in 15.6; an angelophany proper has not prompted John’s proskunesis’ (Stuckenbruck, Angel, 246). Contra P. Hughes, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary

5. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 19.10

99

This angel is part of the group of seven angels that the Seer is first introduced to in 15.1,3 and although their description (wearing ‘bright and clean linen’ with golden sashes around their chests) bears some similarity to the description of Christ in 1.13–16, their appearance does not seem to be of great importance.4 Furthermore, if it was the angel’s appearance to John or his visual similarity to the ‘one like a son of man’ that prompted the Seer to fall down in worship, presumably he would have done this immediately (perhaps in 17.1). But by 19.10 John has been with this same angel for some time, and it is only at the end of the series of visions (17.1–19.8) that he tries to worship the angelic being.5 Since John’s attempt to worship comes not at the angel’s appearing but rather after he shows John a series of visions, it appears that it is the angel’s role as a mediator that prompts John to prostrate himself in worship.6 Having been shown the heavenly visions, in awe John turns to worship the one who has shown him these things. Indeed, there are numerous angels within the Apocalypse that John could have worshipped, but it is this particular angel – the angelus interpres – that John attempts to venerate. Since this angel is the one to show and interpret the vision for John,7 ‘the reason for attaching the refusal tradition to this angel is, from within the narrative, transparent enough’.8 (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1990), 201, who does see the angel’s visual appearance as part of the reason that John prostrates himself before the angel. 3.  As 17.1 states, it is ‘one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls’ (cf. 15.5–16.1) who shows John the judgment of the great harlot and the subsequent visions thereafter, ending with the wedding feast of the Lamb in 19.8 (although this angel may possibly be the same one who shows John the vision of the New Jerusalem [21.9]; see Stuckenbruck, Angel, 227). 4.  Stuckenbruck, Angel, 246. As argued in Chapter 2, Part Two, the angel’s visual similarities with Christ may simply serve to identify him with Christ – that is, he is Christ’s angel. 5.  Indeed, Kraft (Offenbarung, 244–45) insists that this refusal scene must have originally been found at the beginning of the book, for there ‘noch ein Irrtum über die Person des Offenbarungsmittlers möglich war’, although there is no real evidence of this. 6.  Stuckenbruck, Angel, 246–48. 7.  Stuckenbruck, Angel, 247–48, has noted that: ‘(1) The angel has mediated the vision to the seer (17:1; 21:9); (2) the angel has put the seer in a position to see the vision (17:3; 21:10); and (3) the angel has acted as the seer’s interpreter (17:7, 15; 21:15); (4) the angel has enabled the seer to participate in that which he has heard (19:9); and (5) the angel is prominent because he is one of the seven angels in 15:6 (17:1; 21:9) whose clothing resembles Christ in chapter 1…’. 8.  Stuckenbruck, Angel, 248.

100

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

But what remains puzzling is that it was actually very common for angels to act as mediators of visions, yet in no other literature does this lead to them being worshipped.9 This is important, for by using the refusal tradition in a new way John draws the reader’s attention to the angel’s role as mediator. The inclusion of this refusal scene highlights the angel and provides John with the opportunity to clarify the angel’s role in relation to the vision he is mediating. The ‘chains of transmission’ in 1.9, 22.6 and 22.16 shed light on why John includes this scene of angelic refusal.10 In each of these ‘chains’, a mediatory angel is mentioned as part of the transmission process, yet at the same time it is made clear that the angel is in a ‘subordinate role to God (22:6) and to Christ (1:1 and esp. 22:16)’11 with respect to the origin of the vision. As discussed in section 1.7, Rev 1.1 makes evident the origin of the vision and the means by which it is to reach John and, ultimately, the wider church. The visionary text begins by calling itself ‘the revelation of Jesus Christ’ but then states that God gave it to him, beginning a chain of transmission that places the origin and ownership of the ἀποκάλυψις in God and Christ. Christ then communicates it via ‘his angel’ and thus begins ‘passing it down’ to earth (note that he does not even say that Christ ‘gave’ it to his angel – Christ is still the one performing the action of communicating, even if it is through his angel). 22.6 and 22.16, then, simply reiterate this same message. The angel in 22.6 reaffirms that God sent ‘his angel to show to his servants the things which must happen soon’, and then Christ himself states, ‘I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you these things for the churches’ (22.16). The refusal scenes, then, reiterate and visually demonstrate what John states elsewhere: that this revelation is from the One on the Throne and the Lamb, and that any angels involved are to be viewed merely as messengers and mediators. They serve to underscore what the angel is not – he is not the giver of the revelation. This connection between ‘chains of transmission’ and the refusal scenes is made clear by the fact that a ‘chain of transmission’ almost 9.  Stuckenbruck, Angel, 248–49. 10.  I am indebted to Stuckenbruck, Angel, 252, for his keen observation that these ‘chains of mediation’ (as he calls them) are pertinent in determining why the Seer’s attempted worship of the angel would result from the angel’s ‘mediary role in the visions’. He asserts that in order to understand the significance with which the ‘refusal tradition is invested’, one must ‘take into account some further aspects of the author’s literary and theological design’ and therefore must look ‘beyond the literary boundaries marked by the final two visions’ (Angel, 249). 11.  Stuckenbruck, Angel, 252.

5. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 19.10

101

immediately precedes the refusal scene in 22.6–9, implying ‘that the author considered it necessary to delineate further the nature and origin of this mediation’.12 Here the need for such further delineation may be due to the fact that the language used of the assignment given to the angel ‘to show his servants what must happen soon’ (22.6 – δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει) is exactly the same terminology used in describing the task of Christ in 1.1.13 This, combined with the angel’s prominence in showing John the visions of 17.1–19.8 (and possibly the vision of the New Jerusalem), could have possibly led to some ambiguity regarding the origin of the vision and the role of key characters within the ‘chain of transmission’. In light of this, ‘it would be reasonable to suppose that the refusal tradition was directed against a possible misconstrual of the significance of angelic mediation’.14 Yet the fact that the author employs the refusal tradition not once, but twice, may indicate that John is not simply clearing up possible ambiguities, but is also using the refusal tradition to communicate something further.15 Each refusal scene follows some sort of statement concerning the special nature of the message being given to John. In 19.9 John’s sudden prostration is on the heels of the angel’s declaration, ‘These are true words of God’. Similarly, John’s attempt to worship in 22.8–9 follows the pronouncement of a blessing on the one who ‘heeds the words of the prophecy of this book’. Placing the refusal scenes after statements regarding the ‘words’ of the prophecy implicitly comments on the status of the book. Thus not only do the refusal scenes emphasize the subordinate role of the angel (and are thus a call to monotheism16), they also serve to lend legitimacy to John’s book by making clear the divine origin of the visions that he has recorded.17 12.  Stuckenbruck, Angel, 252. 13.  Stuckenbruck, Angel, 252. 14.  Stuckenbruck, Angel, 252. 15.  Stuckenbruck, Angel, 253–56. 16.  As Chester (Messiah, 54) has observed, angelology has provided ‘one main way for biblical writers to cope with the dangers of polytheism and allow God’s presence and activity to be mediated’, yet it is exactly for this reason that ‘it can become very difficult to find clear differences between God and the angels’. Since angels were often very closely associated with God in both deed and ‘visible likeness’ (see Chester, Messiah, 57, for further discussion), it is not surprising that John may have felt the need to reinforce monotheistic devotion, especially given the prominence assigned to angels in Revelation. 17.  This is essentially Stuckenbruck’s conclusion: ‘it is possible to detect in the refusal tradition of the Apocalypse a dual concern: (1) to safeguard monotheism over against an exalted view of angelic mediation and (2) to legitimate his prophetic

102

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

5.3 ‘I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers and sisters who have the testimony of Jesus…’ Since the purpose of the scene of 19.9–10 as a whole is to emphasize monotheistic devotion and to lend legitimacy to John’s book by making clear its divine origin, it follows that any proposed interpretation of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ must work to reinforce the purpose of the refusal scene as a whole. The common interpretation of the angel’s statement typically understands ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ as a general description, meaning simply that the angel, along with John and his brothers and sisters, is a follower of the Lamb.18 While understanding ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ as ‘the testimony about Jesus’ or ‘the testimony that Jesus gave in his life and death’ does not conflict with the context, it does not necessarily work to reinforce the angel’s status with regard to the vision, nor does it help to reiterate the divine origin of the ἀποκάλυψις. Since the statement comes in the context outlined above, it would make sense for the angel’s explanation of why John must not worship him to refer to his status in relation to the message he is mediating. Thus he is not just a fellow-servant with John and his brothers simply because he follows Christ.19 Rather, when he claims to be a fellow-servant of John and his brothers, he is stating that he too message’ (Angel, 255–56). Similarly, Beale, Revelation, 946, says, ‘This episode is recorded to underscore the divine source of John’s visions and to put in proper perspective the nature and function of angelic intermediaries. The theme of angels refusing worship to highlight the divine source of visions and to tone down the role of mediating angels is found in other Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature (see esp. Asc. Isa. 7:21; 8:5; Tob. 12:16–22; Apocalypse of Zephaniah 6:11–15; Gospel of pseudo-Matthew 3; Cairo Genizah Hekhalot a/2, 13–18).’ So also Holtz, Offenbarung, 123. 18.  Obviously, there are many variations within what I have termed ‘the common interpretation’ (see end of this footnote). This umbrella term is simply meant to refer to those interpretations that understand ‘having the testimony of Jesus’ as a way of referring to Christian believers generally – whether that is because they imitate or follow the testimony given by Jesus, or because they have faith in and bear witness to Jesus. See Chapter 1 for more on these two most common views. 19.  In this sense, the majority of commentators simply do not go far enough in specifying the content of what the angel proclaims. Take, for example, Beale who says that the statement ‘does not mean that the speaker is a glorified believer but that, though an angel, he is also a servant to God like John and his comrades in proclaiming “the testimony of Jesus” (cf. 22:8–9 for clarification). Angels proclaim from heaven and believers from earth.’ While this statement is not untrue, it is clear from the context of Revelation that what this angel is specifically proclaiming is the message of the Apocalypse.

5. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 19.10

103

is merely a recipient of the message, not the author or originator. He is simply one, along with John and others, who has received the ἀποκάλυψις from heaven – they are all ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’.20 If one takes ‘the testimony of Jesus’ as a reference to the Apocalypse itself, then the angel’s insistence that he is simply a recipient of the apocalypse works to reinforce further the main function of this refusal scene. It clarifies the angel’s role with regard to the revelation (reinforcing the point that he is not the giver of the revelation) and indicates once again that this ἀποκάλυψις is of divine origin. This identification of ‘the testimony of Jesus’ with the ἀποκάλυψις itself is strengthened by the fact that in the parallel refusal scene in 22.8–9, having ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is replaced with keeping ‘τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου’. A comparison of the two verses reveals the exchange between ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and ‘τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου’: 19.10: And he said to me, ‘Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers and sisters τῶν ἐχόντων τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησου’. 22.9: And he said to me, ‘Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brothers and sisters the prophets, and τῶν τηρούντων τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου’.

Given that the passages are nearly identical in both imagery (refusal scene) and in wording, and as such are clearly parallel, it is not enough simply to understand the two phrases as different ways of describing ‘σου καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν’. Rather, the exchange serves to define further ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ as ‘τοὺς λόγους τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου’.21 As D. deSilva has observed in his study of Revelation’s use of language, Revelation relies heavily on verbal repetition to suggest meaning by creating webs of association, reinforcing boundaries and incompatibilities, and the like. It may be significant, then, that the most extensive and exact verbal repetition within Revelation occurs between 19:10 and 22:8b–9. ‘Holding on to the witness of Jesus’ has become, in the second iteration, ‘keeping the words of this book’. The second may be heard as a clarification and specification of the first.22 20.  In agreement with this conclusion is Hill, ‘Prophecy’, 411–13. 21.  deSilva notes that this is one of the ways that the book ascribes authority to its own message (Seeing, 134–36). 22.  deSilva, Seeing, 135. Providing further support for this viewpoint is his observation that ‘…the visions that the angel was showing John (“The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show to his slaves what must happen quickly”,

104

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

This exchange further demonstrates that the vision – now completed and so called ‘this book’ – is of divine origin. By switching to the more ‘concrete’ description of the book (that is, from ‘the testimony of Jesus’ to ‘the words of this book’), John is claiming authority not only for the vision itself, but for his writing.23 Likewise, the resumption of the makarism in 22.7b within the refusal scene (22.9) legitimates John’s message and ‘communicates that “keeping the words of the prophecy of this book” involves the recognition that the visions granted him are ultimately an act of divine (not angelic) communication’.24 The exchange of wording between 19.10 and 22.9, along with the fact that the function of the pericope of 19.9–10 is to grant authority and divine origin to John’s message, clearly demonstrate that the best understanding of ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ is one that maintains the definition of the phrase given in the opening lines of Revelation – that ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ is a reference to the ἀποκάλυψις itself.25 This is not to say that 19.10 envisions ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’ as those who have the book of Revelation in the form of a written document. After all, the angel includes himself as one of those who have the testimony, and he certainly has not received a physical corpus of any kind, nor has the Seer. Although it is clear that the message of the Apocalypse will go out to the Church via a written corpus,26 within the visionary body of the text it is not clear that ‘the testimony of Jesus’ refers to the book in any physical, written sense. 22:6) have become “these words” (22:6; see also 22:9). The sights, for example, of the new Jerusalem, are transformed into the words John has used to record the things seen (and heard, 1:2).’ See also Roose, Zeugnis, 39. 23.  Stuckenbruck, Angel, 255, claims that 22.6–9 further legitimates John’s message not only by claiming divine origin for the message, but also by ‘situating him as a leading figure among contemporary early Christian prophetic circles’. Just as John and his brothers and sisters are ‘prophets’ (22.9), so also is the angel sent from ‘the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets’ (22.6), meaning that, for John, ‘as far as his status before God and in relation to the angel is concerned, no distinctions are maintained’. Maier, Offenbarung, 343, also states that 19.9–10 serves to affirm both John and his message. 24.  Stuckenbruck, Angel, 260; see also Roose, Zeugnis, 206. 25.  Mazzaferri, ‘Martyria’, 121, agrees with this view, stating that ‘martyria Iēsou, in apposition to logos tou theou, signifies John’s entire prophetic book’. So also does Hill, ‘Prophecy’, 411–13. 26.  This is made clear in various ways: the various commands to ‘write’ (1.11; 2.8, 12, 18; 3.1, 7, 12, 14; 14.13; 19.9; 21.5); the language of ‘the words of this book’ (22.7, 9, 10, 18); and the letters to the seven churches (2.1, 8, 12, 18; 3.1, 7, 14; cf. 22.16).

5. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 19.10

105

5.4 ‘For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy’ The angel’s explanation of why John must not worship him does not end with the declaration that he too is a recipient of the message. He continues, ‘τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον. ἡ γὰρ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ ἐστιν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας’. This enigmatic statement (19.10d) is among the most debated verses in the entire Apocalypse. The interpreter must discern not only the meaning of ‘the testimony of Jesus’, but must also determine what is meant by ‘the spirit of prophecy’ (and how the two ambiguous phrases are related to one another). Used in such close proximity, it is clear that the two occurrences of ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ should be interpreted in the same way. The use of γάρ to connect 19.10d to what precedes adds further understanding to the use of ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ in the first instance. It seeks to reiterate why the angel’s being one with ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’ is a reason why John must not worship the heavenly messenger, that is by illuminating how both angels and Christians can be considered ‘σύνδουλοι’.27 Since the first occurrence of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in this short pericope is best understood as a reference to the ἀποκάλυψις, the enigmatic statement can thus be paraphrased: ‘for the message of the ἀποκάλυψις is the spirit of prophecy’.28 But two questions still remain: What is ‘the spirit of prophecy’,29 and how does it relate to the message of the Apocalypse? 27.  Beale, Revelation, 947. 28.  M.W. Wilson, ‘Revelation 19.10 and Contemporary Interpretation’, in Spirit and Renewal: Essays in Honour of J. Rodman Williams, ed. J.C. Thomas, R.D. Moore and S.J. Land (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), 201, agrees with this part of our conclusion, noting that Rev 19.10 offers ‘insight into the gift of prophecy, the ministry of the prophet and the prophetic message…through the paradigm of the book of Revelation as the pre-eminent Christian prophecy… The “witness to Jesus” that John and the saints are holding is identical with the prophecy the Spirit is speaking to the seven churches.’ However, his final understanding of 19.10 differs from the one proposed here (see below) in that he reads ‘the spirit of prophecy’ as ‘the essence of prophecy’ (see p. 198). 29.  Wilson, ‘Revelation 19.10’, 198–201, argues that the definite article before ‘prophecy’ should be translated, so that ‘τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας’ reads ‘the spirit of the prophecy’. ‘The prophecy’ would then refer to ‘this book of prophecy’, as the construction (πνεῦμα with the definite article) does in five of its six other occurrences in Revelation. While προφητεία with its definite article does appear as a clear reference to the book in 1.3; 22.7, 10, 18 and 19, Wilson too easily dismisses the one exception that appears in the story of the two witnesses, where reference is made to τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς προφητείας αὐτῶν (11.6). Not only is προφητεία here not a reference to the book of Revelation, it is also clear from this context that the definite article should

106

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Although there have been a number of proposed interpretations of ‘the spirit of prophecy’,30 the most plausible way to understand this is as a reference to the Holy Spirit who inspires prophecy.31 ‘The prophetic Spirit’ is, in the words of one scholar, ‘the power that allows certain not be translated in English translations. Wilson also fails to note that all five places where ἡ προφητεία clearly refers to the book appear within the literary frame where it is clear from further description (not from the definite article) that this is a reference to the Apocalypse itself. 1.3 mentions ‘οἱ λόγοι τῆς προφητείας’ in the context of that which is read (ἀναγινώσκω); and 22.7, 10, 18, 19 all make reference to ‘οἱ λόγοι τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου’ (‘οἱ λόγοι τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης’ in 22.19). 30.  Beale reads τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας as meaning ‘prophetic people’, taking πνεῦμα as a collective singular and τῆς προφητείας as a descriptive genitive (so ‘prophetic soul[s]’ or ‘prophetic spirit[s]’) (Revelation, 947). There is a reference to the ‘spirits of individual prophets’ in 22.6 (F.F. Bruce, ‘The Spirit in the Apocalypse’, in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, ed. Barnabas Lindars and S.S. Smalley [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], 339), but this construction is quite different from that which appears in 19.10. There, πνεῦμα appears in the plural, and the genitive that follows is not ‘τῆς προφητείας’ but rather ‘τῶν προφητῶν’, making it clear that this is a reference to individuals who serve as prophets. Perhaps the most common interpretation (apart from the one that is argued for in this chapter) is that which understands τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας as ‘the essence of prophecy’ (Boxall, Revelation, 270; Witherington, Revelation, 234, lists ‘the very gist of Christian prophecy’ as a possibility). While this is an attractive interpretation, the translation of ‘πνεῦμα’ as ‘essence’ is anachronistic. Neither BDAG (pp. 832–36) nor LSJ (p. 1424) list this as a possible translation of the word. Furthermore, πνεῦμα in Revelation never carries the sense of the ‘essence’ of an abstract object (such as prophecy). Most of the references are to an animate being (note how the spirit speaks (λέγω) in each of the letters to the seven churches (2.7, 11, 17, 29; 3.1, 6, 13, 22) and in 14.13 and 22.17; cf. also the seven spirits of God before the throne: 1.4; 4.5; 5.6; cf. the spirit-agents of the beast in 16.13, and 18.2 similarly). Other references are to John’s being caught up in the spirit (cf. 1.10; 4.2; 17.3; 21.10 ‘ἐν πνεύματι’); and to a πνεῦμα as a life-breath (11.11; 13.15); and the description the Lord as ‘the God of the spirit of the prophets’ (22.6). 31.  Mounce, Revelation, 349, insists that this is most likely the way that John’s original audience would have understood the phrase; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 276, similarly says that this would have been at the forefront of most Jews’ minds, since ‘their favourite name for the Spirit of God was precisely “the Spirit of prophecy” ’; Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1039, likewise argues that ‘The genitive phrase τῆς προφητείας, “of prophecy”, suggests that the Spirit is chiefly characterized by prophetic manifestations, a view of the Spirit that is characteristic of late second temple Judaism and taken over by early Christianity’. Lampe, ‘Testimony’, 250, decisively states, ‘The “Spirit of prophecy” can only be the inspiration of prophetic utterance.’

5. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 19.10

107

individuals to have visionary experiences and gives them revelatory insights not available to ordinary people’.32 In the Old Testament, prophecy was often preceded by God putting his Spirit on someone (Num 11.25–26; 1 Sam 10.6, 10; 19.20, 23) and it was acknowledged that God’s Spirit was required for someone to be a prophet (Num 11.29; 2 Kgs 2.9, 15; Joel 2.28),33 for it was through the prophets that God’s spirit spoke (Neh 9.30; Zech 7.12). In the Targums ‘the Spirit of Prophecy’ was sometimes used as a way of referring to God’s Spirit that comes upon a prophet.34 This means that the statement ‘for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy’ is best understood as meaning ‘for the message of the ἀποκάλυψις is a manifestation of the prophetic spirit from God’.35 Indeed, 32. Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1039, following Schweizer, ‘πνεῦμα, πνευματικός, πνέω, ἐμπνέω, πνοή, ἐκπνέω, θεόπνευστος’, TDNT 6:449. M. Turner, ‘The Spirit of Prophecy and the Power of Authoritative Preaching in Luke–Acts: A Question of Origins’, NTS 38 (1992): 38, notes that in both CD 2.12 and Wis 9.17–18, ‘the Spirit enables the mediator to receive the divine revelation or wisdom that he is to convey; and it is the revelatory wisdom itself which is the charisma, not specifically the (usually subsequent) bringing of that revelation to public speech’ (pp. 84–85). 33.  In the New Testament, see Luke 1.67; Acts 2.17–18; 19.6; 28.25; Eph 3.5; 1 John 4.1. Mounce, Revelation, 350, helpfully notes 2 Pet 1.21: ‘…for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’. 34.  Bruce, ‘Spirit’, 337. He gives the example of Targum Jonathan of the Prophets, whose opening words of Isa 61.1 read, ‘The Spirit of prophecy from before the Lord God is upon me’. 35.  This understanding of how the two parts of the phrase relate to each other (that is, how ‘the testimony of Jesus’ relates to ‘the spirit of prophecy’) is not dissimilar from that given by many commentators. That is, many interpreters see the ‘testimony of Jesus’ as a ‘manifestation’ of ‘the spirit of God’ (this possibility is similar to one listed by Mounce, Revelation, 349, citing Morris, Revelation, 228; similarly, Bruce, ‘Spirit’, 338, understands ‘the testimony of Jesus’ as ‘the very substance of the Spirit of prophecy’). The key and significant difference in my proposal lies in the recognition that ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is a reference to the message of the Apocalypse, and that the message itself is then a manifestation of the prophetic Spirit. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 276, holds a view similar to the one argued for in this chapter, stating that v. 10 means that ‘the testimony borne by Jesus is the concern or burden of the Spirit who inspires prophecy’. His understanding of ‘the testimony of Jesus’ comes close to my own, as he understands the phrase to be ‘closely related to that in the opening paragraph of the Revelation, which describes the book as John’s witness to “the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ”…’ (italics mine), but he does not go so far as to say that ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is actually a reference to the message of the Apocalypse itself.

108

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

this makes sense in light of the fact that this episode follows on the heels of the declaration, ‘These are true words of God’.36 Just as the ‘word’ that God would give to a prophet was a manifestation of the work of the Holy Spirit, so the message of the Apocalypse is a prophetic manifestation of this same Spirit. The overlap between the Spirit’s voice and that of the exalted Christ giving the message of the Apocalypse is first seen in the letters to the seven churches where ‘what the Spirit says is what the exalted Christ says’.37 Once again, this interpretation makes sense in light of the two functions of the refusal scene outlined above: (1) to put the angel in proper relationship to God (a call to monotheism); and (2) to ascribe authority to John’s message. If ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is equated with the Spirit that inspires prophetic utterances, then ‘to have the testimony of Jesus’ is ‘to have the Spirit that inspires prophecy’. Thus the angel must not be worshipped because he is not the Prophetic Spirit himself, but rather simply the recipient of this Spirit from God, and so is the recipient (not the originator!) of the revelation. By declaring that the message is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit,38 John once again affirms the divine origin of his message and assigns great authority to the revelation shown to him. John and the angel are servants of the one true God, and as such they are servants of his prophetic word, now appearing in the form of the ἀποκάλυψις. 5.5 Summary and Conclusions In seeking to understand the two uses of ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ in 19.10, this chapter began by examining the context of what has been called a ‘refusal scene’. It was determined that the function of the two refusal scenes in Revelation are twofold. First, the refusal scenes work to clarify any ambiguities regarding the role of the angel in the giving of the revelation. Second, these scenes appear to be one of the ways in which John ascribes authority to his message. Since any understanding of ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ should work within this context and thus should also support these two 36.  Lohmeyer, Offenbarung, 156, affirms that ‘these words’ refers not just to the preceding hymnic section, but to all of 7.1–19.8. 37.  R. Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, NTTh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 117; Bruce, ‘Spirit’, 340. 38.  The proposed interpretation therefore disagrees with Bauckham’s statement that ‘the more general statement of 19:10…does not give specific words of the Spirit…’ (Theology, 118). On the contrary, Revelation does provide a record of the specific words of the prophetic Spirit – they are recorded in the book itself by John.

5. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 19.10

109

functions, it was established that the best interpretation should follow that outlined in Rev 1.1–2, that ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ is a way of referring to the message of the ἀποκάλυψις itself. This interpretation is supported by the replacement of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ with ‘the words of this book’ in 22.9. Finally, in light of the proposed interpretation of ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ, this chapter offered a fresh understanding of the angel’s enigmatic statement: ‘for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy’. It was argued that ‘the spirit of prophecy’ should be understood as a reference to God’s spirit as the one to inspire prophecy, meaning that ‘ἡ γὰρ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ ἐστιν τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας’ should be taken to mean ‘for the message of the ἀποκάλυψις is the manifestation of the spirit of prophecy’. Unlike some other proposed interpretations of the phrase, this understanding does not seem like an awkward add-on,39 but rather fits the context and provides further support for the divine origin of the ἀποκάλυψις.

39.  Beckwith, Apocalypse, 730, claims that in this pericope there is ‘no intimation of a particular kind of service, prophetic or other’ in which the angel and John (and his brothers and sisters) commonly participate, stating that there is ‘no allusion to the prophetic character of the angel’. He observes that ‘the angel bases his reproof on the fact that he himself is only a servant of God like all Christians’ and so concludes that the ‘explanatory sentence, “for the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy”, appears therefore inappropriate…’. Satake, Gemeindeordnung, 104, likewise mentions that the phrase is possibly a marginal gloss; as does Charles, Revelation, 2:130–31, who is followed by J.M. Ford, ‘ “For the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy” ’, ITQ 42 (1975): 284–85. However, if one understands ‘the testimony of Jesus’ as a reference to the prophetic book (cf. 1.3; 22.7, 10, 18, 19) of Revelation itself, then the angel’s reproof does relate to prophecy, thus erasing the need to see ‘the explanatory sentence’ as an ill-fitting gloss.

Chapter 6 ‘ ἡ μ α ρ τ υρ ί α Ἰ η σοῦ ’ i n R e ve lati on 20.4

6.1 Introduction The final occurrence of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ within the book of Revelation comes in 20.4. In this scene, situated after the binding of the Satan (20.1–3), John declares that he saw ‘thrones’, and that on them were ‘the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand…’.1 Here, as in other occurrences, John gives no indication as to exactly what he means by ‘the testimony of Jesus’. It is simply one of the ways that John describes the group of those who ‘came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years’ (20.4).2 As with most other occurrences 1.  Although the subject of ἐκάθισαν is not immediately clear, the most likely explanation is to take the καί that follows as epexegetical, making the subject of the verb that which follows: τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν πεπελεκισμένων…καὶ οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύνησαν… (Sweet, Revelation, 288; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 739; Witherington, Revelation, 248; Aune, Revelation 7–22, 1084; and Boxall, Revelation, 283 agree, with Boxall noting the epexegetical function of καί). Others, have argued that those seated on the thrones are the elders, since it is they who sit upon thrones in ch. 4 (Ford, Revelation, 349); others have said that since the text is not explicit in naming the subject of the verb, ‘it may be wise not to go beyond suggesting that they may be a heavenly court (as in Dan 7:26) that will assist in judgment’ (Mounce, Revelation, 365). 2.  For a survey of both past and current views on the millennium, see A. Wainwright, Mysterious Apocalypse: Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 21–103; R. McKelvey, The Millennium and the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1999), 13–41; Kovacs and Rowland, Revelation, 201–14; Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1089–90. See Smalley, Revelation, 502, and Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1089, for a summary of premillennial, postmillennial and amillennial views. Of the various scholarly issues surrounding this 1,000 years, the debates over the time and location of this ‘millennium’ are arguably the most prominent. Concerning location, the question is whether the resurrection and subsequent reign of the faithful

6. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 20.4

111

of the phrase, scholars have tended to understand this as meaning that these Christians were beheaded because they were preaching a testimony about Jesus and the word of God, or because they were following the example of Jesus and thus were maintaining the witness that he bore.3 occurs on earth (C. Rowland, Revelation, Epworth Commentaries [London: Epworth, 1993], 147), or in heaven (M. Gourgues, ‘The Thousand-Year Reign [Rev 20:1–6]: Terrestrial or Celestial?’, CBQ 47 [1985]: 679–81). Given that the reigning of the faithful is simultaneous with the removal of Satan from earth (implied by the fact that he can no longer deceive the nations [20.3]), it would appear that the main goal of this pericope is to describe ‘who or what will take the place on earth of the now-defeated instruments of rebellion and corrupt rule?’ (Boxall, Revelation, 282) – making earth the most likely location. In support of this view is the fact that in similar depictions ‘of an interim reign period to the judgment and the new heavens and new earth’ found in other literature, the events appear to take place on earth (1 En. 91.11–17; 2 Bar. 29.1–30.4; 40.1–4; 72.1–74.3; although 1 En. 91.15–16 is clear that some events also take place in heaven [Boxall, Revelation, 281]). Concerning timing, although some have argued that the millennium represents ‘the timeless reign of God in Christ’ and so stretches from the incarnation to the final parousia of Christ (Smalley, Revelation, 504), it is probably best understood as occurring in the eschatological future. Since the binding of Satan appears simultaneous with the reigning of the saints (both for one thousand years; 20.2, 4), it is difficult to see how this time period could represent ‘the Church Age’. During his binding Satan is rendered powerless, yet elsewhere Revelation makes clear that Satan is still clearly active during the age of the Church (cf. 12.17). It is also difficult to reconcile the idea that the millennium symbolizes the Church Age with the fact that the souls in 6.9 – presumably including Christians – are clearly still in agony. The picture of the saints reigning with Christ in 20.4 stands in sharp contrast to the picture of the saints crying out for vindication in 6.9, making it highly unlikely that both scenes refer to the age of the Church. In fact, the similarities between 6.9–11 and 20.4 actually seem to present the millennium as the answer to the soul’s question ‘how long, O Lord?’ (6.10), indicating that this 1,000 year period is actually part of the final judgment (when no more martyrs will be added to their number (6.11). This being said, to affirm that the millennium is an event that will occur in the future is not to say that the binding of Satan and the vindication of the faithful will last a literal thousand years, for this may simply be representative of a special era of messianic reign. Indeed, there are a number of specific issues surrounding this event that Revelation simply does not address. As R. Bauckham has noted, ‘the theological point of the millennium is solely to demonstrate the triumph of the martyrs’ (Theology, 107), not to predict the manner of their vindication (p. 108). Therefore questions such as ‘Whom do the saints rule? Do they rule from heaven or earth? How is the eschatological life of resurrection compatible with an unrenewed earth? Who are the nations Satan deceives at the end of the millennium?’ are actually irrelevant (p. 108). 3.  See Introduction for scholars who hold these views.

112

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

While these ‘usual’ interpretations are not necessarily incorrect, there are good reasons to believe that those who died were beheaded because of behaviour guided by the message of the Apocalypse itself. By looking at the relationship between 20.4 and 6.9–11, as well as the very specific description of the faithful as those ‘who did not take the mark of the beast’, this section will demonstrate how the message of the Apocalypse itself played a crucial role in the identity of the faithful saints, creating a context in which ‘the testimony of Jesus’ can easily be understood as a reference to the ἀποκάλυψις itself. 6.2 Revelation 20.4: The Fulfilment of the Hoped-For Vindication in 6.9–11 The description of what John sees in Rev 20.4 bears a striking resemblance to the scene described in 6.9–11. There, John also sees ψυχάς (although here underneath the altar instead of on thrones). These souls are said to have been slain (‘τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν ἐσφαγμένων’) because of the word of God and the testimony that they had (‘διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἣν εἶχον’). Like those in 20.4, these souls have been persecuted4 and are reliant upon God for vindication, much like the group in 20.4.5 The continuity between the two passages and the groups presented in each suggests that 6.9–11 actually provides the audience with a glimpse of the group of those who will later be shown as vindicated in 20.4, a pattern that fits with Revelation’s use of recapitulation.6 As one scholar 4.  Collectively, this group represents those who died as a result of persecution. Beale suggests that the group of ‘those who were slain’ in 6.9 may include more than just martyrs, stating that ‘ “slain” is metaphorical and those spoken of represent the broader category of all saints who suffer for the sake of their faith (so 13:15–18 and perhaps 18:24; 20:4)’ (Revelation, 390). 5.  The group in 20.4 certainly includes the persecuted, although other faithful followers would have most likely been included. The group represents faithful believers – including both those who died for their faith along with those who died of other causes (see below for further discussion). It need not be problematic that 6.9 refers only to those slain (although Beale argues that others may be included here, see n. 4 above), whereas 20.4 refers to both martyrs and non-martyrs. Since 20.4 depicts the vindication of the martyrs mentioned in 6.9 as part of the final judgment, it is fitting that at this later and more final point all the faithful, not just martyrs, would be included. 6.  This fits with how the seals (of which 6.9–11 is the fifth) are often thought of – as providing a preview of what is to come later. As Mounce says, ‘The seals allow the scroll to be opened and in the process anticipate its contents’ (Revelation, 33).

6. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 20.4

113

notes, ‘There is progress in the book, but it is a progress that moves the reader to a fuller experience of the divine plan for final victory rather than a progress that ticks off the minutes on an eschatological clock. Each new vision intensifies the realization of coming judgment.’7 In fact, in her discussion of the structure of the book, A. Yarbro Collins notes that the theme of persecution is recapitulated through five series of visions in the book.8 According to Yarbro Collins, persecution is first mentioned in 6.9–11, and is revisited again in the three visions that comprise chs. 12 and 13,9 in 16.4–7 and finally in 20.4.10 At each of these points, the theme of persecution is addressed from ‘different angles’, with a general increase in ‘precision and clarity’11 as one traces the theme throughout the book, with different bits of information being added at each point. Thus the group of ‘martyrs’ first seen in 6.9 is then seen more fully in 20.4.12 Yet when John mentions this persecuted group for a final time in 20.4, he makes a subtle yet significant change in the way that he refers to them. Whereas in 6.9 the persecuted are described as having died ‘because of 7.  Mounce, Revelation, 33. 8.  Yarbro Collins, Combat Myth, 33. Persecution is actually part of the three-fold pattern of themes that she sees recapitulated throughout a series of five visions: ‘(a) persecution, (b) punishment of the nations, and (c) triumph of God, the Lamb, or the faithful’. 9.  Yarbro Collins states, ‘The first series of unnumbered visions opens with a vision which interprets the persecution faced and expected by the first readers of the book by placing it within the framework of a cosmic conflict (ch. 12). The two visions of ch. 13 further characterize this conflict’ (Combat Myth, 37). 10.  Yarbro Collins, Combat Myth, 32–40, with a chart on p. 41. Even if one does not accept Yarbro Collins’ exact structure of the book of Revelation, it is still possible to trace the theme of persecution through the book and see the increasing detail and the different perspectives added to the theme. 11.  Yarbro Collins notes that the use of recapitulation was observed by scholars even before G. Bornkamm revived the theory, and made it acceptable among scholars in 1937 (Combat Myth, 11). One such scholar was E.B. Allo, who ‘recognized a limited degree of recapitulation in the book, and explained it as a conscious literary device which he called the loi des ondulations. He referred to the device by which a schematic vision is related first, followed later by a more extended account which gives the message more precision and clarity (L’Apocalypse, LXXXV– LXXXVI)’ (Combat Myth, 53 n. 108; describing part of E.B. Allo’s work: Saint Jean: L’Apocalypse, 4th rev. ed., EBib [Paris: Gabalda, 1933]). 12.  It appears that a significant part of the climax of intensity in this recapitulated theme is the eventual inclusion of John’s audience in the group of the faithful, some of whom have been martyred (20.4) (for further discussion, see below).

114

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

the word of God and the testimony which they had’, in 20.4 the group of those slain13 is described as those who died ‘because of the testimony of Jesus and the word of God’. The addition of ‘τοῦ Ἰησοῦ’ is more than just a specification of their testimony as ‘Christian’, for Christian martyrs would have already been in view in 6.9.14 This group would have been comprised of all martyrs who had been killed up until the time John received the vision,15 including Christian martyrs, such as Antipas (2.13), meaning that the addition of ‘of Jesus’ in 20.4 as a reason for faithful followers of the Lamb being killed must designate something more than that they are Christians. 6.3 ‘…And those who did not take the mark of the beast’ The specification of their testimony as ‘τοῦ Ἰησοῦ’ is not the only addition that John makes to his description of the persecuted as he depicts their vindication in 20.4. Here John also includes ‘οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύνησαν τὸ θηρίον οὐδὲ τὴν εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἔλαβον τὸ χάραγμα ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν χεῖρα αὐτῶν’. Although some have argued that ‘those who did not worship the beast…’ is simply explaining why this group was beheaded, this would mean that only martyrs are vindicated. However, to deny a part in the millennial reign of Christ ‘to those whose witness during the time of the monster, although faithful, had fallen short of the supreme sacrifice’ would be completely ‘out of character for the Apocalypse’.16 The declaration in 20.6 makes it clear that those who have a part in the first resurrection will not be hurt by the second death, but ‘will be priests of God and of Christ and will

13.  Although 20.4 labels the group as those who were beheaded (πελεκίζω), it is unlikely that only those who had been killed by decapitation are included in this group (Kraft, Offenbarung, 257; Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1086; Beale, Revelation, 998; Mounce, Revelation, 365; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 740). 14.  This is not to say that the martyrs depicted in 6.9–11 are explicitly or solely Christian martyrs. For further discussion regarding the identity of the ‘souls’ in 6.9–11, see Chapter 8. 15.  On this note I would then disagree with those who see future martyrs included in 6.9 (Boxall, Revelation, 114). The text is clear that those depicted in 6.9 are those who have been killed up until that point. Those who will be martyred in the future are not depicted, for they are those who will be added to their number (cf. 6.11). See Chapter 8 for further discussion. 16.  Boxall, Revelation, 284; Maier, Offenbarung, 385; and Kraft, Offenbarung, 257, agree that this group is comprised of more than just martyrs.

6. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 20.4

115

reign with him for a thousand years’, indicating that this blessed reward applies to all believers.17 In the subsequent description of the ‘second death’ (cf. 20.11–15) there are clearly two groups in mind: the righteous (those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life) and the unrighteous (those whose names do not appear in the Lamb’s book of life). Therefore, those who take part in the first resurrection must include all faithful believers, whether or not they have been martyred.18 Revelation 20.4–6 is another way of describing what happens to Christians vs. non-Christians (with ‘the rest of the dead’ in v. 5 clearly referring to those who did not have a part in the first resurrection and so are not protected from the second death19). For these reasons it is more plausible that those ‘beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and the word of God’ are to be included within those ‘who did not worship the beast and his image’.20 Since ‘those who did not worship the beast’ is best understood as a way of describing the faithful generally, those who were killed for it would certainly be included in this description. The fact that death is threateningly ‘promised’ to all who refuse to worship the beast implies that some of those ‘who did not worship the beast’ would have been killed.21 And although John could

17.  E. Müller, ‘Microstructural Analysis of Revelation 20’, AUSS 37 (1999): 235. 18.  Maier, Offenbarung, 385; Beale, Revelation, 999–1000, although he does admit that this cannot be determined definitively. 19.  Beale, Revelation, 1000. 20.  Smalley, Revelation, 505–507; Beale, Revelation, 999–1000; R.S. Yates, ‘The Resurrection of the Tribulation Saints’, BSac 163 (2006): 454–57, all agree that ‘those seated on the thrones’ would have included both martyrs and those who did not face such a death, but were nevertheless faithful to Christ. 21.  The beast’s threat in 13.15 does not, however, mean that ‘οἵτινες οὐ προσεκύνησαν τὸ θηρίον…’ in 20.4 should be understood as simply another way of referring to those who have been beheaded (Beckwith, Apocalypse, 740; Mounce, Revelation, 365; Witherington, Revelation, 249; there are also others who see the group as only consisting of martyrs, but do not specify 13.15 as the reason: Boring, Revelation, 203–204; Farrer, Revelation, 205–206; Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1088; S. Woodman, The Book of Revelation, SCM Core Text [London: SCM, 2008], 54). As Smalley (Revelation, 348) observes in his discussion of 13.15, ‘the narrative in this part of John’s vision does not presuppose a situation of universal martyrdom… The text does not say either that the beast’s commands will in fact be fully implemented, or that all believers will in the end be martyred (cf. Beale 713).’ Furthermore, ‘Even if the beast’s image has ordered “any who will not worship” him to be killed (13.15), this does not mean that only those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for their loyal testimony to Christ are left to celebrate the millennium…such an interpretation

116

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

have simply left out the mention of ‘the beheaded’, he is sure to mention them explicitly not because they are distinct from ‘those who did not worship the beast’, but because this scene depicts the long-awaited vindication of the ‘slain’ first mentioned in 6.9. 6.3.1 The Significance of John’s Specific Designation John could have chosen any number of ways to refer to the faithful in his depiction of the final judgment and vindication. Elsewhere John refers to the followers of the Lamb as ‘saints’ (5.8; 8.3, 4; 13.7, 10; 14.12; 16.6; 17.6; 18.20, 24;22 19.8; 20.9) or ‘servants’ (1.1; 2.20; 7.3; 11.18;23 15.3; 19.2, 5; 22.3, 6, 924), and he could have easily used one of these terms in 20.4. But John instead chooses to describe the group as ‘those who did not worship the beast or his image and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand’. By describing the faithful in this very specific way, John actually highlights the place of his contemporaries in this final vindication. As can be recalled, ‘the beast’ is first mentioned in 13.1 (and another beast in 13.11), at which point the focus of the visions turns toward the ‘war’ in which John and his fellow Christians are engaged.25 The ‘beasts’ represent figures and principalities in John’s day.26 Likewise, the first two mentions of ‘the mark of the beast’ occur as part of this same vision

presses the details of an apocalyptic vision in an unacceptably literal and specific manner’ (Smalley, Revelation, 507). Likewise Beale, Revelation, 1000, argues that in 13.15 (as he has argued also in 6.9; cf. Beale, Revelation, 390) ‘various degrees of suffering are in mind’ (as demonstrated by the economic sanctions imposed on those who do not worship the beast [13.16–17]), not just martyrdom. 22.  In 16.6, 17.6 and 18.24 the reference to ‘saints’ is accompanied by another reference – ‘witnesses of Jesus’ (17.6) and ‘prophets’ (16.6; 18.24) and ‘apostles and prophets’ (18.20). 23.  In 11.18 ‘servants’ is further defined as ‘the prophets and the saints and those who fear your name’; cf. 22.9. 24.  There are, of course, other ways within Revelation that John refers to ‘the saints’. At times they are those who ‘have the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus’ (12.17) or ‘my people’ (20.4; cf. 21.3, 7). But since ‘saints’ and ‘servants’ is the most common way for John to refer to the people of God in the Apocalypse, it is significant when he uses a different designation. 25.  See Chapter 4. 26.  See Chapter 4, especially n. 25. For a full discussion of the various ways that ‘the beast and his image’ specifically correspond to Nero and his Golden House (and the pro-Neronian emperors Otho and Vitellius), see van Kooten, ‘Four Emperors’, 221–31.

6. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 20.4

117

focused on the original audience’s situation (13.15–17 and 14.9–11).27 This unusual and very specific description of the faithful indicates that John is here specifically interested in his audience envisioning themselves as part of the vindicated faithful. This emphasis on his own time period, although certainly not determinative, allows for the possibility that in this pericope, ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is a reference to the Apocalypse itself, for this is the message that John’s audience is being encouraged to uphold. The specification of the slain as those who were beheaded (πελεκίζω) may also have been a way to draw attention to the crisis that he and his fellow Christians were experiencing. Beheading was a method of execution often associated specifically with the Romans.28 Josephus uses the verb πελεκίζω in his descriptions of executions carried out by Roman officials (Ant. 14.39; 15.8–9; 20.117) and mentions the noun πέλεκυς (‘axe’) ‘in connection with Roman executions in Palestine (Jos., J.W. 1.154, 185, 357; 2.242; Ant. 11.205; 14.73, 124, 140)’.29 It is even possible that this choice of wording was motivated by a number of Christian martyrs (perhaps Antipas) having been killed in this way,30 although this is merely speculative.31 Further supporting the possibility that ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is a reference to the ἀποκάλυψις are the hints that the message of the Apocalypse is actually key to avoiding the mark of the beast. Although in both 13.15–17 and 14.9–11 it is clear that Christians should avoid this ‘devilish’ mark,32 how they are meant to do this is less clear. The beast’s 27.  ‘The mark of the beast’ is subsequently mentioned in 16.2; 19.20 and then in 20.4. Whereas the first two mentions of this ‘mark’ appear in warnings that it should be avoided, the last three mentions appear in descriptions of how those who do take the mark will be punished. 28.  Smalley, Revelation, 365; Witherington, Revelation, 248. 29.  Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1087 (quote and Josephus citations). Aune also notes that ‘Many other texts described executions by lictores with axes (Livy 1.26; 26.15, 16; 28.29.10; 8.7.20; 8.32.10; 36.28.6; Cicero Verr. 3.67.156; 5.54.142; 5.45.118; Polybius 11.30.2)’ (p. 1087); Others have noted that decapitation was a means of execution that was often reserved for those of a higher status (Witherington, Revelation, 248; Boxall, Revelation, 283–84; Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1086). 30.  Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1087. 31.  Historical evidence suggests that Christians were killed in various ways, such as by crucifixion or wild animals (Kraybill, Apocalypse, 64, citing Tacitus, Annals 15.44; Beale, Revelation, 998). 32.  Although 13.15–17 is not an explicit directive against taking the mark, its association with the first and second beast makes it clear that it is something that

118

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

‘mark’ (χάραγμα) is most surely the antithesis of the ‘seal’ (σφραγῖδα θεοῦ) put on the followers of the Lamb (cf. 7.3–4; 9.4).33 While this mark may have some links to an actual physical or historical ‘mark’ used within the Roman Empire,34 it is most likely part of an apocalyptic motif,35 and is clearly symbolic and not literal.36 Since the mark is not physical, in order to determine who has the mark (and also to avoid getting the

followers of the Lamb should be careful to guard against. The second mention is even more clearly a warning: ‘If anyone worships the beast or his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God…’ (14.9–10). 33.  Aune, Revelation 6–16, 768; Lohmeyer, Offenbarung, 117. 34.  There are several backgrounds for understanding the mark of the beast. It may refer to: (1) the branding or tattooing of slaves (Boxall, Revelation, 196; Aune, Rev 6–16, 767; Beale, Revelation, 715, citing Plutarch, Pericles 26 and Herodotus 7.233), or the branding of devotees of pagan gods in other religions (Aune, Revelation 6–16, 767; C. Schneider, ‘μέτωπον’, TDNT 4:635–36; Beale, Revelation, 715, citing Lucian, De Syria Dea 59 and Herodotus 2.113); (2) a parody of the Jewish practice of wearing tephillin or phylacteries on the forehead and left hand (Boxall, Revelation, 196, following Charles, Revelation, 1:362; and Aune, Revelation 6–16, 767, also following Charles as well as Schneider, ‘μέτωπον’, 635–37; Lohmeyer, Offenbarung, 117); (3) Roman coins used in local commerce (Aune, Revelation 6–16, 767; Caird, Revelation, 173; Kraft, Offenbarung, 182; and A. Yarbro Collins, ‘The Political Perspective of the Revelation to John’, JBL 96 [1977]: 253–540); (4) Roman imperial seals (Aune, Revelation 6–16, 767; A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East [New York: Doran, 1927], 341). Aune, Revelation 6–16, 767, and Smalley, Revelation, 349, list all four of these as possible backgrounds. However, none of these proposed explanations exactly corresponds to the way the mark of the beast is described (Smalley, Revelation, 349). Furthermore, there is no historical evidence that ‘an edict of the kind envisioned here was ever issued in the establishment of first-century imperial worship’ (Smalley, Revelation, 349, following Beckwith, Apocalypse, 642). Kraft, Offenbarung, 182, is also unconvinced that any of the proposed historical backgrounds are in mind. He speculates that John may not have had any historical situation in mind, and notes that given the context of idolatry, the specification that the mark appears on the forehead or hand may be an allusion to Matt 5.29. 35.  Smalley, Revelation, 349. Beale, Revelation, 716, mentions the use of the ‘mark’ motif (to refer either to those who belong to Satan or to those who belong to God) in Pss. Sol. 15.6–9; Ignatius, Mag. 5.2; Isa. 44.5 LXX). 36.  Beale (Revelation, 716) and Boxall (Revelation, 196) are in agreement with this view. Interpreting the mark as symbolic (rather than literal) clearly fits with the tone of the passage. Obviously there are not two literal beasts, but rather the beasts represent a real threat to the people of God.

6. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 20.4

119

mark), the reader must have wisdom and discernment – they must have ‘apocalyptic eyes’.37 Although the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly implicit in this, Revelation also makes it clear that its own message is important in discerning false from true. The importance of the book for this task is most clearly seen in the Apocalypse’s ‘asides’ to the reader. Interestingly, all four of the ‘asides’ in Revelation (13.10, 18; 14.12; 17.9) have to do with discernment concerning the beast,38 suggesting that John viewed his message as important in discerning the false prophets from the true. Revelation 13.18, following the first mention of the beast and his mark, says, ‘here is wisdom: Let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six’. Following the second warning is 14.12: ‘Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.’ Both of these asides begin with ὧδε,39 a further clue for the reader to engage with what is being said.40 They communicate to the reader that what they are hearing is important – they grab the reader’s attention41 and

37.  Wording borrowed from Howard-Brook and Gwyther, Unveiling, 116. As Boxall states, the mark ‘cannot be seen by the naked eye (any more than the sealing of God’s servants), but only in the apocalyptic vision’ (Revelation, 196). Indeed, the need for apocalyptic insight is enhanced by the fact that this beast looks like the Lamb, ‘another satanic parody…’ (Boxall, Revelation, 193). 38.  Two of the references (13.18 and 14.12) come directly after a warning against the worship of and the mark of the beast, while the two others (13.10 and 17.9) come in the context of John seeing the beast (but do not specifically mention the mark or worship of the beast). 39.  G.K. Beale, ‘The Revelation 13:18 and 17:9’, TynBul 31 (1980): 168, notes that 13.10b, 18; 14.12; and 17.9 are all ‘linked together’ by their unique usage of ὧδε, and ‘may be John’s way of introducing exhortations to Christians whom he views as the Danielic maśkilîm’. 40.  Boxall, Revelation, 197, notes that 13.10b, 18; 14.12; and 17.9 all have a ‘call to attention’ (although he does not mention the word ‘ὧδε’ specifically, this is presumably what he is referring to). In commenting on the ‘aside’ in 14.12, BeasleyMurray (Revelation, 227) says that the verse is ‘a spur for Christians not to join their number’, while Smalley (Revelation, 350) states that the verse ‘provides a direct challenge to the audience of this apocalyptic drama to persevere through suffering, and remain true to Jesus rather than Satan’. 41.  Boxall, Revelation, 197, notes that ‘it is possible that the singular ὁ ἔχων refers to the reader of the Apocalypse in the liturgical assembly, who would be expected to stop reading at this point and explain the number’s significance (cf. 1:3; Neh. 8:8; Mk 13:14)’. However, the fact that ὁ ἔχων appears in the singular is not really a

120

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

say ‘take note!’ and remind the audience that the vision that they are reading or hearing applies directly to their daily lives.42 Even more significant is the fact that the asides in 13.18 and 17.9 have ties to Daniel 11 and 12. G. Beale has noted that the unique combination of νοῦς and σοφία in these verses most likely indicates an allusion to the Danielic maśkilîm. The Hebrew equivalents to νοῦς and σοφία, sākal (‘wisdom or understanding’) and bin (‘understanding’), are used in combination with each other in Daniel 9.22–23 (25), 11.33 and 12.10.43 In both Daniel and Revelation the combination of these terms is used to exhort the faithful to exercise spiritual insight in order to understand correctly the eschatological tribulation and persecution brought about by an evil king who practices deceit and false authority.44 The similarities in wording and context in these allusions (13.18 and 17.9), along with the fact that each of these ‘asides’ begins with an introductory ὧδε, indicate that John is exhorting Christians to act as Danielic maśkilîm and practice spiritual insight in order to discern true from false.45 reason to believe this is an aside to only the one publicly reading the message. Revelation has a habit of addressing those hearing the message as ‘individuals’, using the singular (cf. 2.7, 11, 17, 26; 3.5, 12, 21; 21.7). As in the challenges to ‘the one who overcomes’, the use of the singular here in 13.18 acts to challenge each hearer directly. 42.  deSilva, Seeing, 230, agrees, noting that 13.18 and 17.9 are both texts in which the audience is ‘explicitly invited to engage the experience’. Similarly, Beale (Revelation, 725) states that these ‘asides’ serve ‘to exhort Christians not to be taken in by the beast’s deceptions like the rest of “the earth-dwellers” (17:8)’, and says that the ‘wisdom’ mentioned in 13.18 and 17.9 helps believers ‘to know God’s wise plan and to be prepared to discern imposters and their propagandists…’ (p. 726). 43.  Daniel 12.10 LXX says that ‘οἱ διανοούμενοι προσέξουσιν’, while 11.33 says that ‘ἐννοούμενοι…συνήσουσιν εἰς πολλούς’. In 9.22–23 the angel tells Daniel that he has come to give him ‘διάνοιαν’, and then commands him ‘διανοήθητι τὸ πρόσταγμα’ (for a full discussion, see Beale, ‘Danielic Background’, 164). See also Beale, Revelation, 725; Smalley, Revelation, 350; Aune, Revelation 6–16, 769. 44.  These similarities between Dan 11.33 and 12.10 and Rev 13.18 and 17.9 are listed by Beale, ‘Danielic Background’, 164; see also Beale, Revelation, 725. Beale also notes that in both apocalypses the need for such understanding is communicated in an apocalyptic vision. 45.  Beale, ‘Danielic Background’, 168–69. Lohmeyer, Offenbarung, 117–18, says, ‘ὁ ἐχων νοῦν ist also der Pneumatiker…und pneumatische Interpretation wird hier gefordert (s. zu 11.8). Aber die Weisheit ist eschatologisch bestimmt; der “Verständige” ist der, der in den satanischen Zeichen der Endzeit göttlichen Sinn zu entdecken vermag: diese Zeichen sind gleichsam das Element, in dem die Weisheit der erweckenden Deutung harrt (daher ὧδε ἡ σοφία).’

6. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 20.4

121

But the spiritual insight that is called for is not simply a general wisdom that all believers are assumed to possess. As can be recalled from Chapter 2, the wisdom and insight of the maśkilîm consisted of, in large part, the visions recorded in the book of Daniel itself. Thus when these ‘asides’ call for the reader to act as a maśkil, they are actually calling for the reader (or hearer) to exercise apocalyptic wisdom and insight by using the visions that they have received in order to understand and survive the world they are a part of.46 It is this apocalyptic insight, attained at least partly from the message of the ἀποκάλυψις itself, that guides the faithful to resist the mark of the beast. The Apocalypse’s instrumentality in helping its audience discern truth from deceit is of course mentioned elsewhere. The makarisms in both 1.3 and 22.7 declare those who read and hear to be ‘happy, provided they hear and observe the words’.47 And to be ‘happy’, in the worldview of Revelation, is to be aligned with the victorious Lamb and the One on the throne. Similarly, the exhortation of 22.11 (‘let the one who does wrong still do wrong…’48), like the hearing formulas at the end of each of the letters to the seven churches,49 urges believers to hear the message, knowing that they will understand and act accordingly while unbelievers

46.  Interestingly, Beale notes that Rev 22.10–11 may also be associated with the maśkilîm of Dan 12.4, 9–10, for in both passages ‘the unsealing of a book is followed by two descriptions of both the wicked and the righteous in the end-time’ (‘Danielic Background’, 169). He states: ‘John is again exhorting Christian saints to persevere on the basis that, as maśkilîm, they have special divine insight into the events occurring in their midst’ (‘Danielic Background’, 169). However, it should be noted that while Beale connects the unsealing of a book with the call for Christians to act as maśkilîm, neither in 22.10–11, nor in 13.18 and 17.9, does he see their divine insight as coming from the unsealed book (nor does he explicitly connect the ‘book’ with the visions of Daniel). 47.  Boxall, Revelation, 27. 48.  Although the command that the wicked remain wicked presents a challenge for interpretation, it is probably best understood as a further development of the obduracy theme that has been touched upon in earlier parts of Revelation (Beale, Revelation, 1132, cites the theme of ‘hardening’ from the Exodus narrative that stands in the background to some of the trumpets and bowls in Revelation). 49.  ‘Let the one who has an ear hear what the Spirit says to the churches’ in 2.7, 11, 17, 29; 3.6, 13, 22; cf. 13.9 (see Beale, Revelation, 1132). These ‘hearing’ formulas are in the same fashion as Isa 6.9–10 (and so then Matt 13.9–17, 43) where it urges believers to hear while the unbelieving are urged not to (Beale, Revelation, 1132–33; Beale also notes that Rev 22.11 may echo Ezek 3.27 specifically [which is in itself a development of Isaiah 6]).

122

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

remain unhearing.50 As this exhortation directly follows the command that the book be left unsealed, it is clear that the message of the Apocalypse is that which will be either heard by the believer, or ‘unheard’ by the unbeliever. Those who do not hear or understand the message of the Apocalypse will continue in their ‘darkened’ minds and will continue in their unrighteousness and their filth. But those who do hear the message of Revelation will continue in righteousness and holiness, because they will act in accordance with the instructions of the ἀποκάλυψις.51 Considering the importance of the book’s message for resisting the beast, John’s description of the group in 20.4 as ‘those who did not worship the beast or take his mark’ actually emphasizes the eschatological reward promised to those who heed the advice of the Apocalypse. And since those who were ‘beheaded’ would have been included as part of those ‘who did not worship the beast’, the possibility that some of the beheaded died ‘because of their adherence to the message of the Apocalypse’ (understanding ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ as a reference to the message of the book) is increased. This is not to say that the connection between heeding John’s message and avoiding ‘the beast’ indicates that John is limiting participation in the first resurrection to a special group of those who have heard his message. Nor does his use of language associated with his own time period indicate that only those living in John’s day will receive such an eschatological reward. The description of the ‘beheaded’ as having died ‘because of the word of God’ indicates that even those who were faithful under the 50.  This is strengthened by the fact that the command that the book be left unsealed is probably an allusion to Dan 12.4, 9, for in these final verses of Daniel it is predicted that ‘during the latter days false members of the covenant community will not understand the dawning of fulfilment of prophecy’ (Beale, Revelation, 1133). Beale sees the Danielic background as essential to understanding Rev 22.11, and the fact that these exhortations follow on the heels of the command to leave the book of Revelation unsealed makes this meaning clear enough (see discussion in following paragraph). 51.  Beale, Revelation, 1132–33, notes that while in Daniel the statement about unbelievers continuing in unrighteousness and believers continuing in righteousness comes in the form of a prediction, in Revelation this same statement has been changed to a command. He says, ‘The change from prediction in Daniel to imperatives in Rev. 22:11 expresses awareness that Daniel’s prophecy is beginning to be fulfilled in John’s own time and that genuine believers should discern this revelation and respond positively to it’. J. Seiss, The Apocalypse: A Series of Special Lectures on the Revelation of Jesus Christ (London: James Nisbet, 1892), 460, comes to a similar conclusion, saying that the exhortation of v. 11 ‘is that of an argument for the writing and publishing of these revelations, and the holding of them up to the view of all men…’.

6. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in Revelation 20.4

123

Old Covenant are included in this vindication.52 Revelation 20.6 (and so also 20.11–15) makes it clear that all the faithful will be included in the first resurrection, presumably, that is, those under both the Old and New covenants. Thus the description of the group as ‘those who did not take the mark of the beast’ should be seen as a means of encouraging those living in John’s day, not as an indication that only those living in John’s day would receive vindication.53 By building upon his description of the vindicated with references that specifically include Christians living in his time and reading his message, John is able to encourage his audience to stand firm in the face of the beastly Empire by assuring them of their place in the resurrection. It is also a way of encouraging them to ‘keep the words of this book’ – for even if they die as a result of heeding this book of prophecy, they are sure to be vindicated and rewarded.54 Thus in this context, specifically mentioning saints who are ‘beheaded’ because of their adherence to ‘the testimony of Jesus’ actually provides further encouragement and exhortation to heed John’s message. His radical message may lead to trouble, but it will be well worth it in the end. 6.4 Summary and Conclusions Although it is tempting to assume that in his depiction of this eschatological vindication John would use ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in a more general way (referring to either a testimony about Jesus or modelled after Jesus), this chapter has demonstrated that this passage is actually concerned with making sure the audience recognizes their place in the millennial reward. 52.  Unlike 1.2 and 1.9, here ‘the word of God’ is not epexegetical with ‘the testimony of Jesus’, and is thus best understood as a way of referring to God’s prophetic word as revealed to the Old Testament prophets (for further discussion, see Chapter 7). Contra Witherington, Revelation, 249, who states that this passage does not speak of what happens to ‘OT saints’ (or to Christians who are not martyred), but only to those who were martyred. 53.  The purpose of this pericope is to demonstrate the vindication of the righteous, not to explain every aspect or detail of this eschatological reward (Bauckham, Theology, 107–108, although he limits the vindication to martyrs). Therefore it is reasonable to assume (from statements made in 20.6, 11–15) that all those who were faithful to God would be included in this vindication, even though John does not specifically mention them in his ‘list’ at 20.4. 54.  This is similar to what John does by promising a reward to ‘the one who overcomes’ – that is, to the one who hears what the Spirit says to the churches (2.7, 11, 17, 29; 3.6, 13, 22).

124

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

From his adding ‘of Jesus’ to the wording of 6.9–11, to the very specific language of ‘beheading’ and ‘those who did not worship the beast’, it is clear that John is highlighting the inclusion of his contemporaries. Within a context that places so much focus on those living in John’s day, understanding ‘the testimony of Jesus’ as a reference to the message of the Apocalypse is certainly plausible. The fact that his contemporaries are expected to be familiar with the book (1.3; 22.7), and even use its apocalyptic insights to avoid the mark of the beast, further this possibility and make the proposed interpretation fit even better into the context.

Chapter 7 ‘ ἡ μ α ρ τ υρ ί α Ἰ η σοῦ ’ a n d R elate d L anguage

7.1 Introduction As with any study of a word or phrase within a literary work, it must be recognized that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ does not occur in a vacuum. In the preceding chapters I have endeavoured to discern the best interpretation of the phrase in each pericope where it occurs. Having done this, it is now necessary to examine the meaning of the phrase vis-à-vis related language. This chapter will first examine John’s use of linguistically related words – specifically, those with the μαρτ- root. This will include a study of the noun μαρτυρία when used without the modifier ‘τοῦ Ἰησοῦ’, as well as the related noun μάρτυς and the verb μαρτυρέω. The goal here will be to determine the relationship between ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and these related words, and to discern whether the way that John uses these terms provides any support for the proposed interpretation of ‘the testimony of Jesus’. In the second section of this chapter, I will discuss the relationship between ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’. Besides determining the relationship between the two phrases, my aims in this section will be to discuss how ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’ is to be interpreted when it appears on its own, and to discern the significance of the fact that the two phrases are often used in conjunction with one another. Finally, the third section of this chapter will examine the use of the ‘προφήτης’ and ‘προφητεία’ word group vis-à-vis the ‘μαρτ-’ word group. The main goal of this section will be to determine what, if any, distinction is made between these terms in the book of Revelation. 7.2 Μαρτυρία 7.2.1 Revelation 6.9 ‘…διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἣν εἶχον’ When the Lamb breaks the fifth seal on the scroll that was given to him, John is met with a vision of souls (τὰς ψυχὰς) gathered underneath the

126

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

altar.1 This group of souls is made up of those who had been slain ‘διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἣν εἶχον’. This is one of the few places in Revelation where a testimony is not explicitly connected to Jesus. Thus in looking at this set of verses, it will be important to note not only what the text does say, but what it does not say. Since this pericope uses language that is very similar to that used elsewhere in the book, any changes or differences made in wording may be significant. The audience is told that these souls have been killed ‘because of the word of God and the testimony which they had’, but the specific nature of what exactly leads to their apparent persecution and eventual death has been debated. Since elsewhere μαρτυρία is specified as ‘τοῦ Ἰησοῦ’, a number of scholars have assumed that their μαρτυρία was their testimony about Jesus,2 assuming, then, that they were killed because they were preaching the gospel. The main objection to this view is that this testimony is specified as something they possess (ἔχω), implying that it is that which they have received3 from another and made their own. This has led a number of scholars to say that their testimony must have been the testimony that they received from Jesus by way of his teaching, including the example of his death. While this interpretation addresses the issue raised by the use of ἔχω + μαρτυρία, it still assumes that this testimony is to be specifically associated with Jesus, making their testimony essentially a Christian one.4 1.  The location of the souls underneath the altar has led many scholars to argue that the image in 6.9 resonates with Old Testament sacrificial imagery in which the blood of a slain animal was poured out beneath the altar (Lev 4.7; 8.15; 9.9) (Stefanovic, Revelation, 239; so also Smalley, Revelation, 158; Boxall, Revelation, 113). Blount (Witness?, 50–51) and J.N. Musvosvi (Vengeance in the Apocalypse, AUSDDS [Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1993], 185–89), on the other hand, argue that their location under the altar primarily has to do with the altar as the place of God’s judgment. 2.  E.g. Brox, Zeuge, 94. 3.  Sweet, Revelation, 142; Charles, Revelation, 1:174; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 526; the last two followed by Aune, Revelation 6–16, 406. While agreeing that the use of ἔχω indicates a testimony that has been received (rather than a testimony that is borne), the current work disagrees with the conclusion made by each of these scholars that the testimony they received must be one received from Jesus (see below for further discussion). 4.  Stefanovic, Revelation, 239; Aune, Revelation 6–16, 406; Smalley, Revelation, 157; Caird, Revelation, 84; and Charles, Revelation, 1:174, all conclude that this group is most likely Christian martyrs, specifically including those who died under Nero’s persecution; Beckwith, Apocalypse, 526, reads the phrase as referring to ‘the divine revelation which Jesus had given in the gospel’ that Christians had received.

7. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language

127

The similarities to 1.2, 9; 12.17; 19.10; and 20.4 make it tempting to assume that ‘τοῦ Ἰησοῦ’ is implied, but the simple fact of the matter is that John does not include this specification. As one scholar notes, ‘unlike [similar]5 verses…there is no explicit reference to Jesus’ witness, only to the witness that they bore. This suggests a wider group than Christian martyrs.’6 He goes on to note that language used by the martyrs ‘evokes the Jewish tradition of the blood of the righteous crying out for vindication, which traces its origin to the story of Abel (e.g. Gen. 4:10; 2 Macc. 8:3–4; 4 Macc. 17:22; 18:11; Mt. 23:35; 1 Enoch 47)’.7 Given this language, and the fact that the testimony is not specifically Christian, it seems that 6.9–11 is actually a vision of those slain faithful under both the old and new covenants.8 They held to ‘the word of God’, faithfully upholding, in both word and deed, the testimony they had received from the prophets of old.9 Yet this does not mean that these souls are only those who were slain long ago. This group would have certainly included faithful Christians as well. The ‘souls’ are all those who have been killed for their faithfulness up until the time that John receives the vision.10 In fact, the only martyrs not included in this group are the martyrs who have not yet been killed.11 Rather than being included in the scene here, the martyrs that have not yet been slain at the time John sees this vision (before the scroll is completely unsealed) are depicted in 20.4 as part of John’s portrayal of the final judgment. That future martyrs are not included here is evident by the response given to the souls’ cry for vindication. When they ask, ‘how long?’ until their vindication, they are given white robes and told ‘that they should rest still a little longer, until the rest of those who were going to be killed as they have been killed join their number’ (‘ἕως πληρωθῶσιν 5.  Here Boxall is referring to 1.2, 9; 12.17; 19.10; 20.4. 6.  Boxall, Revelation, 114. 7.  Boxall, Revelation, 114. 8.  ‘Feuillet…argues that the motif of “their testimony” rather than “the testimony of Jesus” indicates that here their number includes all pre-Christian martyrs who gave their lives for the cause of moral and religious truth (see Matt 23:31–35; Heb 11:4; 12:24)’ (Aune, Revelation 6–16, 406, citing A. Feuillet, ‘Les Martyrs de l’Humanité et l’Agneau Égorgé’, NRTh 99 [1977]: 189–207). As Boxall, Revelation, 114, notes, John often chooses not to make a sharp distinction between the old covenant and the new. 9.  See below for further explanation of ‘the word of God.’ 10.  This makes sense in view of the fact that John sees this scene as the Lamb opens the fifth seal, indicating that it has occurred prior to the message being fully revealed to John. For more on the opening of the seals, see section 2.2. 11.  Contra Boxall, Revelation, 114, who says that John may here see ‘the martyrs of the visionary future’.

128

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

καὶ οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν οἱ μέλλοντες ἀποκτέννεσθαι ὡς καὶ αὐτοί’, 6.11). From this response it is clear that more will be added to their number – something that John and his audience would most likely not have found surprising, given the current political and social climate. The way that John continually adds to his depiction of the persecuted faithful, along with the declaration that more must be added to their number (6.11), confirms that those slain ‘because of the word of God and the testimony which they had’ are to be identified as all God’s faithful who have been killed up until the time John sees the Lamb unsealing the fifth seal. Since John sees the scene at 6.9 before the scroll is completely unsealed, it is reasonable to assume that the souls John sees at that point would be those who died before the time of his receiving the vision, since the scroll contains the contents of the ἀποκάλυψις. This group would have included both Jewish and Christian martyrs, all of whom had been killed as a result of their faithfulness to God. The identification of those killed ‘because of the testimony which they had’ also provides important insight into how John uses the noun μαρτυρία. From this passage it is clear that one’s testimony is not always a Christian testimony. That is, John does not always associate μαρτυρία exclusively with Jesus. Thus there is significance when John adds ‘τοῦ Ἰησοῦ’ to ‘μαρτυρία’ in the related passage in 20.4.12 7.2.2 Revelation 11.7 The noun μαρτυρία appears again on its own in Rev 11.7.13 In this section the noun is closely connected to prophecy, for what the two witnesses ‘prophesy’ (προφητεύω; 11.3) is called a ‘prophecy’ (προφητεία) in v. 6, but is labelled a ‘testimony’ in v. 7. Although their ‘testimony’ could certainly have included the message of the Apocalypse,14 the context makes it clear that this ‘testimony’ is most likely a broader message, encompassing the gospel message (since the two witnesses represent the Church) and a warning of punishment for those who reject their message (cf. 11.5–6). Thus this passage provides an example in which μαρτυρία is used to speak of a message generally, and points to a distinction between the use of the noun on its own and the use of the noun in combination with ‘τοῦ Ἰησοῦ’. 12.  See Chapter 6. 13.  Revelation 11.2–13 will be discussed further in the next section. 14.  Given the connection between the story of the two witnesses and John’s reception of the ‘scroll’ in ch. 10, this is certainly possible (Chapter 2, Part Two). However, there is no indication that the message of the book constitutes the complete content of their testimony.

7. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language

129

7.2.3 Revelation 12.11 ‘…διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς μαρτυρίας αὐτῶν’ Embedded within ch. 12’s cosmic story of the woman and the dragon is a description of a war in heaven.15 The battle, described in both militaristic and forensic terms,16 is between Michael and Satan (and their respective angels) and ends with the latter being thrown down to earth in defeat. Although this battle may look like a one-off event, it is actually descriptive of the ongoing battle between God’s people and their Accuser. As Smalley notes, ‘Verses 7–12 of Rev. 12, and especially the action in vv. 7–9, may be interpreted as a “play within a play” (see on 12.7), which dramatizes the theological truth belonging to the Apocalypse as a whole.’17 Satan may be waging war, but his ultimate defeat is imminent, as foreshadowed by his being thrown down to earth.18 Since these verses ‘dramatize’ the Apocalypse’s message generally, the hymn that follows (12.10–12) is a celebration of the ultimate victory of God and his people over the dragon. In this celebratory hymn it is declared that ‘the accuser’ has been thrown down, and that ‘they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with

15.  As mentioned in Chapter 4, this ‘interruption’ of the story of the woman and the dragon with the announcement of battle in heaven (12.7) is most likely due to the fact that the child is caught up to God and his throne. 16.  The description of Satan as ‘the accuser’ in 12.10 adds a forensic aspect. Satan’s ‘legal’ role in the heavenly court is found in other Jewish literature (see Job 1.6–12; 2.1–7; Zech 3.1–2; 1 En. 40.7; 3 En. 26.12; Jub. 1.20; 17.15–16; Apoc. Zeph. 6.17; et al. [Smalley, Revelation, 326]), and is sometimes connected with Michael as the defender of Israel in the heavenly court (T. Levi 5.6 and T. Dan. 6.1–6 [Beale, Revelation, 661]). Indeed, some scholars have read the battle as almost entirely forensic (Smalley, Revelation, 326; Beale, Revelation, 661, following Caird, Revelation, 154–56), while others argue that Satan’s role as an ‘accuser’ is actually ‘subordinated’ to his role as warrior (Yarbro Collins, Combat Myth, 161). However, it is not necessary to emphasize one role over another. A similar combination of language appears in 20.8, where Satan ‘deceiving’ the nations ‘is equated with gathering them for battle…’ (Yarbro Collins, Combat Myth, 161). Given the interchange of language used, it seems more appropriate to read Satan’s role as having multiple layers rather than viewing the battle as purely forensic or purely militaristic. He is both an accuser and a warrior, and the battle is both militaristic and forensic. 17.  Smalley, Revelation, 327. 18.  Given the connection to Satan’s final defeat, there is no need to view vv. 10–12 as a redactional interpolation (in agreement with Smalley, Revelation, 327; against Charles, Revelation, 1:328–29; Aune, Revelation 6–16, 702–703).

130

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

death’ (‘καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐνίκησαν αὐτὸν διὰ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ἀρνίου καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς μαρτυρίας αὐτῶν καὶ οὐκ ἠγάπησαν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτῶν ἄχρι θανάτου’, 12.11). In this verse διά signals the means by which Satan is conquered, and so it becomes clear that Christ’s sacrificial death is crucial to the overthrow of the dragon. Although the Church is said to be the conquerors (‘they’), they are only able to do so by the blood of the Lamb. But also key to their victory over Satan is ‘the word of their testimony’. Although this is clearly important, it is not immediately clear to what ὁ λόγος τῆς μαρτυρίας αὐτῶν is referring. The close connection with Christ’s death (‘the blood of the Lamb’) and the fact that ‘witnesses’ are killed as a result of persecution elsewhere in the book (2.13; 20.4), has led some to believe that the ‘word of their testimony’ is their death as a martyr.19 However, while their μαρτυρία may have resulted in death, their martyrdom was not the sum of their testimony. Since the preposition διά indicates the two reasons for Satan’s defeat (the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony), it is significant that διά does not occur before the statement ‘and they did not love their life even when faced with death’. This indicates that while death was certainly a possibility for those who gave a μαρτυρία, it was not the means by which victory over Satan was achieved.20 Perhaps the biggest clue to the phrase’s meaning is its use in conjunction with the verb νικάω. The use of this verb in connection with the saints in other parts of the book21 reveals that their ‘testimony’ most likely refers to faithful living generally. At the end of each of the letters to the seven churches, the verb appears as a substantival participle, used as part of an exhortation and promise of reward to ‘the one who overcomes’ (ὁ νικῶν). Since these promises come at the end of each letter

19.  For example, Yarbro Collins says that ‘the policy advocated by the book is a non-violent course of action in which martyrdom is idealized’ (Combat Myth, 3). She arrives at this conclusion for the book partly by way of the reference to ‘the word of their testimony’ in ch. 12. In her view, the combat myth of ch. 12 interprets ‘a situation of persecution’ and places the focus on the conflict of the individual’s possible martyrdom (Combat Myth, 2–3, 157, 231–32). Middleton goes a step further and argues that the focus is not simply on non-violence that results in martyrdom, but is actually a call to seek death (Radical, 163). Interestingly, Middleton also understands τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ἀρνίου not as a reference to Christ’s atoning sacrifice, but to the saints’ own blood that is spilt as a result of persecution (Radical, 163 n. 157). 20.  Maier, Offenbarung 12–22, 55, and Roose, Zeugnis, 49, both agree that they are not simply martyrs. 21.  See 2.7, 11, 17, 26; 3.5, 12, 21; 15.2; 21.7.

7. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language

131

after a message of condemnation and/or exhortation is given, it can be inferred that ‘the one who overcomes’ is a way of referring to the one who does what Jesus has commanded in the preceding letter. Now in some instances it does appear that becoming ‘one who overcomes’ will require martyrdom, or at least a willingness to die, such as in the letter to the church at Smyrna (cf. 2.10).22 Yet in other letters, overcoming appears to be related to resisting false apostles or false teaching (2.2, 6, 14–15, 20, 24; 3.2–3, 15) and doing good deeds (2.5; 3.3). Given the various ways that a person becomes ‘one who overcomes’, it is reasonable to assume that all of these things – dying as a martyr, resisting false teaching, practising good deeds – played a part in the saints overcoming Satan in 12.11.23 Their overcoming is ultimately won through the blood of the Lamb, and through the ‘testimony’ of a faithful life – the evidence of a true follower of the Lamb. Although one might be tempted to think that λόγος must refer to a verbal testimony, in this forensic scene the word may very well refer to the collective ‘statement’ of their testimony (this may also explain the use of the singular noun with reference to a group of believers). The faithfulness of the saints acts as a statement of evidence in the ‘courtroom’, proving that the Accuser’s accusations are false. The two occurrences of the word ‘testimony’ within ch. 12 point to a distinction in John’s use of this particular language. In 12.17 ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is best understood as a reference to the Apocalypse. In 12.11, however, the context makes it clear that the use of the term μαρτυρία alone is more general. It is general in the sense that it refers to the summation of faithful activity on behalf of the saints, including everything from adherence to sound doctrine to doing good deeds. It is also general in that it refers to the testimony of the faithful community throughout the ages, as indicated by the proleptic nature of the hymn.24

22.  A situation of persecution may also loom in the background of the letter to the church at Philadelphia, since Jesus praises them because they have kept his word and have not denied his name (3.8) and foretells of ‘the hour of testing’, encouraging them to ‘hold fast’ to what they have (vv. 10–11). 23.  Contra Middleton, Radical, 161, who boldly states, ‘It is my contention that, in the Apocalypse, the call for Christians “to conquer” always denotes a call to achieve death through martyrdom.’ 24.  Contra Roose (Zeugnis, 81–82), who is one of the few scholars who does not regard the hymn as proleptic.

132

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

7.3 Mάρτυς 7.3.1 Revelation 11.3–13 ‘οἱ δύο μάρτυρες’ The two witnesses of Rev 11.3–13 have been understood in various ways: as Enoch and Elijah;25 as Moses and Elijah;26 and as Elijah and Jeremiah.27 However, since these two witnesses demonstrate characteristics of each of these, they are probably best understood as an amalgamation of these famous prophetic figures,28 here representing the prophetic people of God. They represent not just prophets, but the whole Church and its prophetic ministry.29 The statement that ‘their Lord’ was ‘crucified’30 indicates that John has the New Testament people of God in mind specifically. Their ministry also appears to follow the pattern of Christ’s,31 further indicating that they are to be identified as Christians. As one scholar notes, the ‘plot’ of their story makes it ‘relatively clear that they represent the witness of 25.  Aune, Revelation 6–16, 599, notes that this view ‘was virtually unanimous in patristic exegesis after the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian’. 26.  This view is more popular amongst modern scholars, since the ministries of both Moses and Elijah involved manipulating water and fire (Aune, Revelation 6–16, 600). 27.  Aune, Revelation 6–16, 600. These three prophetic combinations are listed and discussed by Aune, but are also noted by a number of other commentators. While these pairs are the most prominent, Aune notes that the witnesses are also sometimes identified as New Testament figures, such as Peter and Paul, Stephen and James the Just, James and John, Jesus and John the Baptist, or James the Just and James the son of Zebedee (Revelation 6–16, 601–602). There are, of course, other interpretations possible (K. Strand, for example, understands the two witnesses are representing ‘the word of God’ and the ‘testimony of Jesus’ as a twofold message [‘The Two Witnesses of Rev 11.3–12’, AUSS 19 (1981): 127–35]). 28.  For example, their ability to call down fire from heaven does have links with Elijah’s ministry (1 Kgs 18.36), but is probably a closer fit with Jeremiah (Jer 5.14) (Boxall, Revelation, 164). Furthermore, as Boxall (following Strand, ‘Two Witnesses’, 127–35) notes, the two witnesses do not have separate descriptions (indicating one as Moses and one as Elijah, for example), but rather are described in the same terms (Revelation, 164). 29.  Beale, Revelation, 574–75, discusses several reasons for understanding the two figures as representing the Church; see also Aune, Revelation 6–16, 603; Mounce, Revelation, 217. 30.  Fee, Revelation, 150. 31.  They proclaim a message, are killed for it, but are then vindicated by God and raised from the dead (Boxall, Revelation, 165). G.W. Campbell, Reading Revelation: A Thematic Approach (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2012), 181, relates their faithfulness until death and triumph in it to the praise given to the Lamb in 5.6–14.

7. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language

133

the people of God in a godless world…’32 The fact that they are said to be ‘the two menorahs that stand before the Lord of the earth’ may also be an indication that they represent the Church, since this same imagery is used in 2.1.33 Although it is not entirely clear why the number of witnesses is specified as two,34 it may have something to do with the fact that in Jewish custom, two witnesses were needed in order to verify the truth of a testimony.35 Although these two witnesses are recipients of the message of the Apocalypse,36 their testimony is most likely broader than the contents of John’s prophetic book (note the lack of ‘τοῦ Ἰησοῦ’; see above).37 Their testimony would have included the message of the Apocalypse, but their characterization as ‘witnesses’ is not dependent on this. Here μάρτυς is used to refer to the New Testament people of God, with specific focus on their prophetic role. 7.3.2 Revelation 17.6 ‘τὸ αἷμα τῶν μαρτύρων Ἰησοῦ’ The term ‘witnesses’ appears again in ch. 17, where the harlot woman is described as being drunk with ‘the blood of the saints and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus’. The context makes it clear that these μάρτυρες are the people of God. As with Antipas, the designation ‘τοῦ Ἰησοῦ’ most likely means that they testified about Jesus (although this certainly implies that they belong to Christ as his followers), identifying them as Christians specifically. Although it is possible that the harlot is drunk on the blood of two groups of people (reading ‘the saints’ as distinct from ‘the witnesses of Jesus’), the καί joining ‘saints’ and ‘witnesses’ here is probably best understood 32.  Aune, Revelation 6–16, 603. 33.  Boxall, Revelation, 164. 34.  Boxall suggests that the fact that there are only two menorahs may indicate that the prophetic ministry is reserved for only part of the Church, or that there are only a few congregations being faithful in their prophetic ministry (Revelation, 164). However, limiting the prophetic vocation to a part of the Church does not fit with the fact that the pair is also described as ‘the two olive trees’. This designation is most likely an allusion to Zerubbabel and Joshua, eliciting the royal and priestly aspects of the Church (Boxall, Revelation, 164). Since this image is used in conjunction with their prophetic ministry, it is unlikely that John is here drawing distinctions between different groups or ministries within the Church. 35.  See Num 35.30; Deut 17.6; 19.15; 1 Kgs 21.10 (Aune, Revelation 6–16, 602). 36.  See Chapter 2, Part Two. 37.  Thus ‘μάρτυρες’ cannot be understood as equivalent to ‘ἐχόντες τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ’ (Satake, Gemeindeordnung, 117, is in agreement; contra Roose, Zeugnis, 40–41).

134

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

as epexegetical.38 ‘Witnesses’ would most certainly be included within the group labelled ‘saints’ – thus it would be odd for John to mention a group that encompasses all believers before then singling out ‘witnesses’. That this is most likely a way of referring to the Church generally is supported by the fact that in 19.2, when the multitude in heaven celebrates Rome’s destruction, they proclaim that God has ‘avenged the blood of his bondservants on her’. The connection with Rome (and thus John’s day) makes it possible that the Church’s role as witness would have included proclaiming the message of the Apocalypse. Indeed, John’s message may have even been part of what provoked the harlot to violence. While certainly a possibility, there is nothing in this passage to suggest that John described the saints as ‘the witnesses of Jesus’ specifically because they have received his prophetic book. Like the designations ‘saints’ and ‘bondservants’, ‘witnesses’ seems to be a general way of describing the followers of the Lamb. They are his ‘holy ones’, serving him and bearing witness to him. 7.3.3 Revelation 2.13 ‘Ἀντιπᾶς’ Other than Jesus, Antipas is the only individual in the book to be explicitly identified as a μάρτυς (2.13).39 In the letter to the church at Pergamum, Jesus praises believers there for their faithfulness ‘even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells’. The statement ‘in the days of Antipas’ seems to suggest that he lived and died at some point in the community’s past, meaning that his being a ‘witness’ cannot conceivably be connected to the message of the Apocalypse. Christ’s designation of Antipas as ‘my faithful witness’ (ὁ μάρτυς μου ὁ πιστός μου) indicates that he was Jesus’ faithful follower and thus (at least implied) proclaimer of the gospel.40 The fact that Jesus himself is also called ‘ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός’ also connects Antipas to his Lord, although the specific connection between the two is unclear. The use of this same moniker may indicate that Antipas somehow followed Christ in the pattern of his testimony, although the specific details of this are difficult to discern since no other information about Antipas is given. One thing that is clear is that Antipas was killed by those who oppose Christ. While 38.  Boxall, Revelation, 243; Beale, Revelation, 860 (he uses the term ‘explanatory’). For a discussion of how this differs from the places where ‘prophets’ are specifically mentioned, see below. 39.  Obviously the two witnesses are individual characters, but they represent a group of people. 40.  The pronoun here may very well be possessive, such as in 18.4 (ὁ λαός μου).

7. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language

135

his death may very well have resulted from the fact that he was a faithful witness, it should not be assumed that he is called a witness because he dies.41 7.3.4 Revelation 1.5 and 3.14: Jesus, ‘ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός’ Within the book of Revelation, Jesus is twice called ‘the faithful witness’. In 1.5, the description comes as part of John’s epistolary opening, declaring grace and peace ‘from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth’. The second appearance of this description comes as part of the opening address to the church at Laodicea, where Jesus declares himself to be ‘the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the Beginning of the creation of God’ (3.14). Given that the titles ‘firstborn of the dead’ and ‘ruler of the kings of the earth’ both have strong ties to Psalm 89,42 it is likely that the author of Revelation also drew ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός from the same psalm.43 In Psalm 89.37, God says of David, ‘His offspring will continue forever, his throne like the sun before Me, like the moon, established forever, a faithful witness in the sky’ (Ps 98.36–37 HCSB) (‫סלה נאמן בׁשחק ועד‬, with the LXX reading, καὶ ὁ μάρτυς ἐν οὐρανῷ πιστός). Although there is less in the immediate context of Rev 1.5 that demonstrates that John had this specific text in mind, the text may also have links with Isaiah 55,44 where the 41.  Although Aune disagrees, he notes that because the term μάρτυς always appears in connection with those who die for their faith (2.13; 11.3; 17.6), some have understood μάρτυς as one who seals his testimony through his death (Revelation 1–5, 37, citing T. Holtz, Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes, TUGAL 85 [Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962], 143; Satake, Gemeindeordnung, 115). Note how the two witnesses in Rev 11 are designated as such before they are killed. 42.  In Ps 89, God swears his faithfulness to David, saying, ‘I will also make him My firstborn, the greatest of the kings of earth’ (v. 27 HCSB). A number of commentators have identified this allusion: Beale, Revelation, 190–92; Caird, Revelation, 16; Aune, Revelation 1–5, 37; Smalley, Revelation, 34. 43.  Among those scholars who see ‘faithful witness’ as an allusion to Ps 89 are: Beale, Revelation, 190–91; O. Hofius, ‘Das Zeugnis der Johannesoffenbarung von der Gottheir Jesu Christi’, in Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr, 1996), 3:518; Stefanovic, Revelation, 61; Sweet, Revelation, 65. 44.  Sweet, Revelation, 65; E. Schüssler Fiorenza, Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts-und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse, NTAbh 7 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1972), 199–200; Smalley, Revelation, 34, all list Isa 55.4 and Ps 89.37 as background texts.

136

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

prophet declares, ‘Pay attention and come to Me; listen, so that you will live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, the promises assured to David. Since I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander for the peoples’ (Isa 55.3–4 HCSB). Since both Psalm 89 and Isaiah 55 are messianic texts, there is no doubt that, for the alert reader, this wording would have evoked ‘messianic descriptions’ that would have an effect on how they read these descriptions of Jesus.45 Yet in being imported into the Apocalypse, these terms also take on new meaning.46 Revelation 1.5 and 3.14 are the only places in the New Testament where Jesus is called a ‘witness’, meaning that one’s understanding of this particular title can only be formed by a close reading of these passages. The title is usually understood as somehow referring to Christ’s earthly ministry or death. The ‘sequence’ created by the three titles in 1.5 supports this view. Since ‘the firstborn of the dead’ is most likely an allusion to Christ’s resurrection, and ‘ruler of the kings of the earth’ an allusion to Christ in his victorious exaltation, it follows that ‘faithful witness’ most plausibly refers to Christ’s life and death. Thus in 1.5 one finds a reference to Christ’s death, resurrection and exaltation.47 Despite the fact that the sequence makes it clear that the title most plausibly refers to Christ’s ministry, it is unclear exactly what aspect of his life and/or death makes him a μάρτυς. Whether it is the example of his perfect life, his prophetic teaching or his sacrificial death is not specified – indicating that the role most likely includes and refers to all three aspects. This same ambiguity regarding what qualifies one as a μάρτυς can be seen in the other μάρτυρες in Revelation. Virtually no information is given about Antipas, whose title ‘ὁ μάρτυς μου ὁ πιστός μου’ so clearly indicates that the role is patterned after Christ, the ultimate ‘ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός’ (3.14). The same holds true for the two witnesses of Rev 11.3–13. Their controversial ministry, death and resurrection after three and a half days clearly echoes the ministry of Christ. Yet despite the various details about their ministry that are given, it is still not entirely clear precisely what 45.  Moyise, Old Testament, 118. 46.  As Moyise, Old Testament, 118, notes, ‘There is no denying that a Christian will read into words like “firstborn” and “faithful witness” connotations that were not present in the psalm.’ Of course some changes made to the text are even more obvious and are clearly the intent of the author (e.g. changing ‘firstborn’ to ‘firstborn of the dead’). 47.  Prigent, L’Apocalypse, 83; Hofius, ‘Zeugnis’, 512. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 56, comments that the threefold description may have ‘in view the three tenses of his action’, although he understands ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός as referring to Jesus’ earthly life and ministry, rather than his death.

7. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language

137

qualifies them as μάρτυρες. Yet for both Antipas and the two witnesses of Revelation 11, being a witness involved a life of preaching and action, and resulted in death from opposing forces. Since these witnesses are so clearly patterned after The Faithful Witness, these details confirm that the title ‘ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός’ in 1.5 and 3.14 generally refers to Christ’s life and death.48 While it certainly involves a reference to his life and death, Jesus’ role as ‘ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός’ also appears to be connected to his role as the giver of the revelation that John records. In 3.14, at the beginning of the letter to the church at Laodicea, Jesus declares himself to be ‘ὁ ἀμήν, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός καὶ ἀληθινός’. Here ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός καὶ ἀληθινός appears in apposition to ὁ ἀμήν, and as such ‘serves to define the essential meaning of “Amen” ’.49 The name ‘ὁ ἀμήν’ is an allusion to Isaiah 65.16, where God is called ‘God of Amen’, a phrase generally taken to mean ‘God of Truth’.50 This phrase is often used in connection with oaths and blessings,51 and is an affirmation of what is being said.52 Given this meaning of ‘ἀμήν’, ‘ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός καὶ ἀληθινός’ may also be a reference to Jesus’ role as the giver of the revelation. Jesus, the one who has proved himself faithful in his life and death, is also faithful in revealing the ἀποκάλυψις given to him by God (cf. 1.1). The introduction of Christ as ‘ὁ ἀμήν, ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός

48.  This is not to say that their death alone qualifies them as a ‘witness’. Although there is certainly a connection between the term μάρτυς and those who die as a result of persecution, it is important to note that the two witnesses were labelled as such long before they were killed. Dying may be the result of one’s testimony, and may even be understood as a part of being a witness, but it is not death in and of itself that makes one a μάρτυς (contra those who understand a μάρτυς as someone who ‘seals’ his testimony through death (Holtz, Christologie, 143 [cited by Aune, Revelation, 37]); J. Ellul, L’Apocalypse: Architecture en movement, EssBib 44 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2008), 124. Satake, Gemeindeordnung, 114, argues this is the case with Jesus. 49.  Aune, Revelation 1–5, 255, citing K. Berger, Die Amen-Worte Jesu: eine Untersuchung zum Prolem der Legitimation in apokalyptischer Rede, BZNW 39 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970), 109, as well as M. Rissi, The Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Revelation 19.11–22.15, SBT (London: SCM, 1972), 21; Satake, Gemeindeordnung, 115 n. 1. 50.  Boxall, Revelation, 76. Sweet, Revelation, 107, also reads ‘Amen’ as an allusion to Isa 65.15ff. 51.  Aune, Revelation 1–5, 255. 52.  ‘In the Old Testament and Judaism ‫( אמן‬Greek ἀμήν, amēn, “amen”) means that which is “sure and valid” (H. Schlier, “ἀμήν”, 336); it involves the acknowledgment of a word which is valid, and the validity of which is binding (ibid. 335)’ (Smalley, Revelation, 96, citing H. Schlier, ‘ἀμήν’, TDNT 1).

138

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

καὶ ἀληθινός’ thus serves to reiterate further the truthfulness and validity of the message Christ is giving.53 Also significant is the fact that the adjectives used in 3.14 – πιστός καὶ ἀληθινός – are used elsewhere in the book only when referring to Jesus (19.11) and the words of the book of Revelation: ‘οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί’ (‘these words are faithful and true’) (21.5; 22.6).54 The repetition of these adjectives suggests a link between Jesus and the words of the book; Jesus is the ‘faithful and true witness’, and so it follows that his message is described as ‘faithful and true’. The message and the messagegiver are described in the same terms. This is not to say that the fact that Jesus is given the title ‘ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός’ originates from his role as the giver of the revelation.55 The connection with Antipas, who cannot have heard the message of the Apocalypse, makes this highly unlikely. Rather, it seems that Jesus’ role as witness in his life and death qualifies him also to be the giver and validator of the ἀποκάλυψις. And although not determinative on its own, the fact that Jesus’ role as ‘μάρτυς’ is clearly connected to the message of the book certainly provides support for understanding his testimony as the ἀποκάλυψις itself. 7.4 Μαρτυρέω Also providing further support for understanding ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ as a reference to the message of the book is the use of the verb μαρτυρέω in 22.16 and 20.56 In 22.20 Jesus is called ‘ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα’, with ταῦτα most naturally referring to the content of the preceding vision (now recorded in a book). Similarly, in 22.16 Jesus proclaims, ‘Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις.’ As was stated in Rev 1.1–2, Jesus sent his angel to testify ταῦτα – ‘these things’ once again referring to the vision that the angel showed to 53.  Smalley, Revelation, 96, citing Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 104: ‘So, in this context, Jesus Christ is regarded as guaranteeing the truth of his message, just as God’s sure character stands behind his word.’ 54.  Rissi, Future, 21; followed by Mazzaferri, Genre, 307–308; see also Aune, Revelation 1–5, 256. 55.  Our view here is similar to Brox, Zeuge, 97, who says that ‘ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός’ refers to Christ’s revelatory activity in both his earthly life and in his exalted state. Contra Roose, who states that ‘ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός’ refers only to the revelatory activity of Christ, and has no connection with his earthly suffering and death (Zeugnis, 27–28, 37). 56.  So also Brox, Zeuge, 94.

7. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language

139

John.57 Although here it is the angel, not Jesus, who is said to be the subject of the verb μαρτυρέω, the angel is clearly a representative of Christ, bearing witness on his behalf. Just as was outlined in 1.1–2, the revelation comes to the churches via the angel and via John, but it originates from and ultimately belongs to Christ. Although Christ is not the one giving the testimony, in 1.2 the same verb is used again, with the Apocalypse being the content of what is testified. Having received the revelation, there John says that he ‘testified’ the word of God and the testimony of Jesus, ὅσα εἶδεν, specifying John’s testimony as the vision given to him from heaven. Like Christ’s angel, John takes his place in the chain of transmission, continuing to pass on the testimony that belongs to Jesus. The only time that μαρτυρέω does not appear in connection with the message of the Apocalypse is 22.18. There Jesus issues a warning: ‘Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου…’. Obviously the testimony given here is not the preceding vision of Revelation. Rather the content of the testimony is given in the lines that follow, a warning to anyone who might not take seriously the message of the book. However, the use of μαρτυρέω in this text is nevertheless significant, as it provides a clear example of the exalted Jesus58 giving a testimony. Although obvious, it is nevertheless important to recognize that the exalted Jesus can give a testimony, especially in view of the fact that many have assumed that ‘testimony’ must refer to some word or action of Jesus during his earthly ministry. 7.5 Reflections on μαρτ- Language From this study of John’s use of related language, a few important observations can be made: First, although it has been argued that the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is a reference to the message of the Apocalypse, the same cannot be said of the noun ‘μαρτυρία’ when it is used without the specification ‘τοῦ Ἰησοῦ’. Revelation 6.9, 11.7 and 12.11 make it clear that the noun on its own refers to a ‘testimony’ generally. 57.  This is strengthened by the fact that these things have been written ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. From the outset the vision that is being shown to John is to be transmitted to the churches (cf. 1.1 ‘…to show to his bond-servants’; 1.11). 58.  Here I refer to Jesus as ‘the exalted Jesus’ for two reasons: (1) the Jesus who is enthroned in ch. 5 is clearly exalted, as his throne is in heaven; (2) the references to ‘coming’ in 22.17, 20 refer to the second coming of Christ, not the first.

140

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Given that John always uses the term μάρτυς (and μάρτυρες) without any indication of exactly what qualifies one as such, it would appear that he uses these words generally to describe one who is actively faithful in word and in deed. The story of the two witnesses reveals that it is not just preaching that makes one a witness, for their ‘testimony’ clearly involves prophetic action (cf. 11.6). Nor does the word seem to describe the ‘everyday’ faithfulness that Christians are generally called to possess. Rather the role of ‘witness’ appears inherently to involve being proactive. The two witnesses actively spoke out, wearing sackcloth and performing dramatic actions. It is perhaps this ‘activeness’ that distinguishes the word ‘μάρτυς’ from ‘ὁ ἅγιος’.59 The noun μάρτυς also does not appear to have any implicit connection to the message of the book. Rather, the term appears to be one of the ways that John refers to believers in general, especially with regard to their prophetic role (as can be seen in 11.2–13). Although it is possible that the μάρτυρες in 11.2–13 and 17.6 would have had access to the message of the Apocalypse,60 there is no evidence that their designation as ‘witness’ stems specifically from having received John’s message. The application of this noun to Antipas, who clearly died before the writing of the Apocalypse, confirms this. However, there are details about the way John uses this noun that support the proposed interpretation of ‘the testimony of Jesus’. First, the noun’s clear connection with prophecy supports the proposed link between ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and ‘ὁ λόγος τῆς προφητείας (τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου)’, as it indicates that John views these two word groups as very closely related. Second, the clear relationship between Jesus’ role as ‘ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός’ and the ἀποκάλυψις (see discussion above in section 7.3.4) furthers the possibility that the author understood Jesus’s ‘testimony’ to be the message of the book. Finally, Revelation’s use of ‘μαρτυρέω’ lends further support for the proposed interpretation of ‘the testimony of Jesus’, especially since in three of the book’s four uses of the verb, the ἀποκάλυψις is the content of what is being testified (with Jesus as the subject of the verb twice).

59.  This is not to say that ‘witnesses’ are to be understood as distinct from ‘saints’. Rather, the noun ‘witness’ highlights the active role of all the saints. 60.  In 11.2–13 it is implied that these μάρτυρες are recipients of the same scroll given to John in 10.1–11 (see previous section for further discussion); in 17.6 the link with the whore of Babylon (representing Rome to John’s original audience) connects at least some within this group to those living at the time of the writing of the Apocalypse.

7. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language

141

7.6 ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’ Outside of those words that form the ‘μαρτ-’ word group, ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is perhaps most strongly connected to the phrase ‘the word of God’. In fact, of the six times that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ appears in Revelation, three are in conjunction with ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’.61 In 1.2 and 1.9, ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’ appear together, and are joined by an epexegetical ‘καί’, meaning that the two expressions should be read as referring to and explaining one another.62 In both of these places, ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ is a way of referring to the message of the Apocalypse. By identifying the vision that follows as both the testimony of Jesus and the word of God, John is able to ascribe special authority to his work. On its own, ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’ is probably best understood as the revelation of God’s secret purposes, as was often given via the prophets (e.g. Amos 3.7).63 By calling his work ‘the word of God’, John places his writing amongst those of the Old Testament prophets. Since in the Old Testament ‘the word of God’ ‘functions as a technical expression for the message (“the word of the Lord”) that the prophets received from God (Jer. 1:2; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon. 1:1; Zeph. 1:1; Zech. 1:1)’, the use of the same phrase in Revelation suggests that John ‘considers himself to be in the line of the Old Testament prophets, and that the book of Revelation has all the authority of Old Testament prophecy’.64 As C. Rowland notes, ‘Here for the first time is a Christian text which comes close to portraying itself as sacred scripture on par with the writings of the old covenant.’65

61.  1.2, 9; 20.4. 62.  When ‘the word of God’ and ‘the testimony of Jesus’ appear together, most commentators regard them as ‘epexegetical’ (although this specific term may not be used). For example, Beale, Revelation, 184, calls the two expressions ‘parallel’, and says that ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ ‘clarifies the precise content’ of the expression ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 19, states, ‘Four times the phrases “the word of God” and “the testimony of Jesus” are closely associated or virtually equated (1:2, 9; 6:9; 20.4).’ He then goes on to say that ‘It is possible that the καί joining “the word of God” and “the witness of Jesus Christ” is epexegetical; i.e., “the word of God” is further defined by the phrase “the witness of Christ”.’ So also Smalley: ‘…the message from God, to which testimony is given by Jesus the Christ…’ (Revelation, 30). 63.  Boxall, Revelation, 26. Aune, Revelation 1–5, 19, notes that ‘in the LXX the phrase λόγος κυρίου, “word of the Lord”, is a stereotypical formula used to categorize a sequence of revelatory experiences (Zech 1:1; Jonah 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1)’. 64.  Stefanovic, Revelation, 54. 65.  Rowland, Revelation, 57.

142

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Yet at the same time, the vision shown to John is different from the divine ‘words’ given to the prophets of old. This ‘word of God’ is distinct in that it is first and foremost the testimony of Jesus, not just the testimony of a prophet. It has been divinely revealed to John by the risen and exalted Christ himself. Thus this message, although situated amongst those that have come before (that is, John’s message is not discontinuous with nor should it be separated from, previous prophetic words of God), does bear a higher authority than it would if it was not also ‘the testimony of Jesus’.66 Of course, ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’ is not always epexegetically connected to ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in the Apocalypse. In Rev 6.9, John sees the souls of those who had been slain ‘because of the word of God and the testimony that they had’. Although the phrase does appear alongside ‘μαρτυρία’, here ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’ does not form part of a set expression alongside ‘the testimony of Jesus’ as it did in 1.2 and 1.9. Thus in 6.9, ‘the word of God’ does not refer to the message of the Apocalypse, but rather retains its ‘original’ meaning as a reference to the revelation of God’s word via the prophets.67 The appearance of ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’ in 20.4 also appears to be separate from ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ as well as the message of the book. Although many commentators have equated the expression here with ‘the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ that appears in 1.2 and 1.9, there are subtle differences that indicate that ‘the word of God’ and ‘the testimony of Jesus’ are no longer epexegetical. The first is the difference in word order. In both 1.2 and 9, the phrase appears in virtually the same way: ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’. In 20.4, however, the order is reversed, with ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ appearing before ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’. 66.  This does not mean that John is seeking to replace the Old Testament scriptures, as some have claimed (Robert Royalty, ‘Don’t Touch This Book! Revelation 22:18–19 and the Rhetoric of Reading [in] the Apocalypse of John’, BibInt 12 [2004]: 293; see convincing rebuttal by deSilva, Seeing, 153–74). In fact, by labelling his work as ‘the testimony of Jesus’, John seems to be doing precisely the opposite – he is drawing attention away from himself and centring the focus on Jesus as the giver of the message. deSilva, Seeing, 157, argues that the way Revelation is saturated with Old Testament language actually ‘bear[s] out the claim that John regards himself as standing under the authority of the Hebrew Bible, discerning its guidance as he identifies and interprets the challenges facing the congregations on whose behalf he exercises his prophetic ministry, rather than regarding himself as having power over the Hebrew Bible, to use its words at will for his own agenda’. 67.  For further discussion of how this understanding of the phrase fits with the scene in 6.9–11, see above.

7. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language

143

The significance of this change in word order is augmented by the insertion of an ‘additional’ διά between the two expressions. Whereas in 1.9 a single διά governed both ‘the word of God’ and ‘the testimony of Jesus’ (strengthening the idea that the two expressions are there being used together to refer to one unit), in 20.4 the two expressions are governed by their own prepositions: ‘…διὰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν Ἰησοῦ καὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ…’. This change in word order and the insertion of another preposition indicate that here ‘the word of God’ is something separate from ‘the testimony of Jesus’. Since in 20.4 ‘the word of God’ is not joined to ‘the testimony of Jesus’ as it was in 1.2 and 1.9, and since no other indication of its meaning is given, it is best to understand the expression here as referring to the prophetic word of God in a general sense and not as a specific reference to the message of the Apocalypse. That the expression here retains its ‘original’ sense is not surprising, given that 20.4–6 appears to be building upon 6.9–11, where there too ‘the word of God’ refers to the revelation of his divine word. Finally, the phrase ‘word of God’ also appears in 19.13 as part of the description of the rider on the white horse: ‘His name is called the word of God.’ Here the phrase is used in a way that differs from others in Revelation. Whereas elsewhere the phrase is used to refer to an actual ‘word’ or message from God (cf. also the plural expressions in 17.17 and 19.9), here the phrase is used as a figurative title for Christ.68 Unlike the other times the phrase appears in the book, this is the only place where it does not appear alongside a ‘μαρτυρία’ of any sort. However, although using the phrase as a title for the Rider on the White Horse is certainly unique to 19.13, its use here is not necessarily completely unrelated to earlier uses. Jesus, the one whose testimony (specifically, that testimony revealed to John) is ‘the word of God’, is also the living embodiment of that word. Since part of Christ’s testimony as given in the Apocalypse is the prophetic assurance that Christ will one day destroy pain and suffering (cf. 21.4), it is fitting that in 19.13, ‘the same Christ, who is the embodiment of the word of God, is coming to provide deliverance for his oppressed and persecuted people, and bring the prophetic word to its final and definite fulfilment’.69 68.  The figure of the Rider on the White Horse has a stronger affinity with the ‘all-powerful word’ (ὁ παντοδύναμός σου λόγος) in Wis 18.15–16 (cf. 1 Chr 21.16) (Aune, Revelation 17–22, 1058) than it does with any of the other uses of ‘λόγος’ elsewhere in the Apocalypse. 69.  Stefanovic, Revelation, 553. See also Beale, Revelation, 958, who suggests that the use of this title for Christ in 19.13 alludes to ‘Christ’s execution of final judgment

144

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

In conclusion, ‘the word of God’ only refers to the ἀποκάλυψις when it appears as part of the same phrase alongside ‘the testimony of Jesus’ (1.2, 9). In these situations, what the phrase communicates is that John’s message is in line with Old Testament prophecy. On its own, however, ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’ does not refer specifically to the ἀποκάλυψις, but is instead a general reference to God’s word that has been revealed to the prophets. 7.7 Witness and Prophecy There is obviously no lexical relationship between ‘μάρτυς’ and ‘προφήτης’ or between ‘μαρτυρία’ and ‘προφητεία’. Yet within the book of Revelation the two word groups are certainly related, although it is not always clear exactly how they are associated or to whom the terms refer. From the story of 11.2–13, it is clear that the task of being a ‘μάρτυς’ is one that is assigned to the whole Church.70 The interchanging of terms in this passage indicates that being a ‘προφήτης’ is also a task assigned to all believers.71 The main characters are first called ‘witnesses’ in 11.3, but are called ‘prophets’ in 11.10 by those who kill them; in 11.6 their ministry is called ‘the days of their prophecies’, but in 11.7 is called ‘their testimony’. In some sense, John’s use of the two terms here is very similar to what one finds in the Old Testament. In his study of the concept of ‘witness’ within the New Testament, A. Trites finds that the ‘use of witnesses rests squarely on the Old Testament concept of justice in the gate’. More specifically, the New Testament concept of witness finds its key background in Old Testament lawsuit language.72 Lawsuit language is found throughout the Old Testament, and is often connected with prophetic proclamations or found within prophetic literature73 – as, for on the remaining enemies of God in fulfilment of OT and NT prophecy’. Of course, the relationship between the meaning of ‘the word of God’ in 19.13 in comparison with other occurrences in the Apocalypse is almost certainly more complex than has been stated above; unfortunately, further discussion is not possible here. 70.  Roose, Zeugnis, 39, agrees that all Christians are witnesses. 71.  The interchanging of ‘witness’ and ‘prophet’ terminology in ch. 11 may be John’s way of showing how the entire Church is charged with the prophetic task of being a witness, even if one does not hold the official title ‘prophet’. See also D.E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 206. 72.  Trites, Witness, 223. 73.  Trites states that ‘the lawsuit or controversy theme’ is ‘evident in the frequency of quarrelling in Israelite life, the judicial terminology of the Old Testament, the

7. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language

145

example, in Isaiah 40–55, where God brings a case against Israel. Indeed, it has even been said that the ‘lawsuit motif’ is a ‘prophetic subgenre’.74 Since ‘witness’ and ‘testimony’ language is an important part of any lawsuit motif, and given that the lawsuit motif is frequently used in prophetic proclamations, we find within the Old Testament a compatibility between prophetic and testimony language. Thus in some sense it is no surprise that John uses these terms interchangeably in ch. 11. Although in ch. 11 these two word groups appear interchangeable, the way that ‘προφήτης’ and ‘προφητεία’ are used elsewhere suggests that this word group may be used to refer to something more specific than ‘μάρτυς’ language.75 Of the six times that the noun ‘προφητεία’ appears in the book, in four of these instances the noun clearly relates to the message of the Apocalypse in its written form (1.3; 22.7, 10, 18). This is certainly not always the case, as the other two occurrences have no clear connection to a written message (11.6 and 19.10). However, the fact that John never refers to his written message as a ‘testimony’ may suggest that ‘prophecy’ is generally to be understood as a testimony in a more specific or concrete form. He refers to the message of the ἀποκάλυψις as ‘the testimony of Jesus’, but when speaking of its concrete form as a book, he uses ‘words of the prophecy’ or ‘the words of this book of prophecy’. It would appear that οἱ λόγοι τῆς προφητείας can refer to the message of the Apocalypse on its own, but when this happens, it always refers to the written form controversy of the Book of Job, the use of traditional names, phrases and oaths, the preaching of the prophets, the lawcourt scenes of Isa 40–55, and in certain passages in the Apocrypha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus and Philo’ (Witness, 223). 74.  A.S. Bandy, The Prophetic Lawsuit in the Book of Revelation, NTM (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010), 24–27. Bandy states that ‘the concept of the prophetic Gerichtsrede (lawsuit speech) quickly attained the status of an established subgenre in OT literature, especially the prophetic writings’ (Lawsuit, 24). He cites numerous scholars as having significantly contributed to the establishment of Gerichtsrede as a subgenre: Hermann Gunkel introduced the concept of Gerichtsrede as a literary type within the Psalms and Proverbs (H. Gunkel, Einleitung in die Psalmen [Göttingen: s.n., 1933], 329), and a number of scholars developed the idea in prophetic literature (see H. Gressmann, ‘Die literarische Analyse Deuterojesajas’, ZAW 34 [1914]: 254–97; L. Köhler, Deuterojesajas: Jesaja 40–55 stilkritisch untersucht, BZAW 37 [Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1923]; J. Begrich, Studiem zu Deuterojesaja, TB 20 [Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1938], 26–48; F.M. Cross, ‘The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah’, JNES 12 [1953]: 274–77). For a fuller list, see Bandy, Lawsuit, 24–25. 75.  Contra Roose, Zeugnis, 225, who argues that John equates testimony and prophecy.

146

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

of the message. Whereas ‘the testimony of Jesus’ appears to refer to the ἀποκάλυψις in a more abstract sense, οἱ λόγοι τῆς προφητείας is John’s way of referring to the more concrete form of his message. This relationship is further supported by the way that the verb μαρτυρέω is used in combination with προφητεία language in the epilogue. In 22.16 Jesus declares that he has sent his angel μαρτυρῆσαι ταῦτα for the churches (cf. 22.20), with ταῦτα most naturally referring to the book as a whole (especially given the specification ἐπι ταῖς ἐκκλησίας; cf. 2.1, 8, 12, 18; 3.1, 7, 14). However, when Jesus specifically refers to that which is ‘written in this book’ (22.18, 19), he refers to the message as ‘οἱ λόγοι τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου’ (22.18; cf. 22.7, 10) and ‘οἱ λόγοι τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης’ (22.19). ‘Prophets’ are also specifically mentioned in several ‘lists’ within the book. In 16.6, at the unveiling of the third bowl of wrath, the angels praise God’s just judgment on the wicked, ‘for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets…’. Similarly, 18.24 mentions that in Babylon ‘was found the blood of the prophets and of the saints and of all who have been slain on earth’. In both of these cases it is not entirely clear whether prophets are to be understood as distinct from (yet obviously included within) ‘the saints’ or whether the καί joining the two is epexegetical, meaning that all saints are prophets.76 The mention of ‘bondservants, prophets and saints’ in 11.18 may suggest an equivalence between the terms (since bondservants and saints are both ways of referring to the church collectively), but the fact that this group is called ‘both small and great’ may equally indicate that this group was comprised of those in different positions.77 Also slightly increasing the odds that the prophets are a distinct group is 18.20, which mentions ‘saints and apostles and prophets’.78 Since ‘apostles’ are typically thought to hold a special role within the early Church,79 it is likely that prophets did too, and for this reason are mentioned here specifically. 76.  Some see ‘prophets’ as being distinct from other believers (Mounce, Revelation, 227; R. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963], 356; Satake, Gemeindeordnung, 60); while others see ‘prophets’ as a way of describing the ‘saints’ or ‘bondservants’: Beale, Revelation, 616–17; Brütsch, Offen­ barung, 2:41–42. 77.  Aune, Prophecy, 206, notes that ‘the phrase “small and great” is an idiom occurring frequently in Revelation and in the OT for a group composed of those representing various stations in society…’. 78.  Prigent, L’Apocalypse, 59, sees prophets as a distinct group. 79.  J. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992),

7. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language

147

Given the somewhat obscure nature of these ‘lists’, what may be most revealing about the relationship between ‘witnesses’ and ‘prophets’ is that Jesus himself is twice called a witness (1.5; 3.14) and is twice said to ‘testify’ (22.18, 20; cf. 22.16), but is never called a prophet and is never said to prophesy. This suggests that ‘witness’ is indeed a broader term, with ‘prophet’ then referring to a more specific role assigned to some within the Church. To be sure, being a ‘witness’ certainly had a prophetic connotation (cf. 11.2–13), but this may have been different from the role of ‘prophet’ that existed within the early Church.80 Within the book of Revelation, there are hints that the role of ‘prophet’ was an authoritative teaching and mediatorial role. Revelation 10.7 mentions ‘the mystery of God’ being finished ‘as he proclaimed to his servants the prophets’. Here this most likely alludes to both Old Testament and New Testament prophets,81 evoking the imagery of various Hebrew prophets who authoritatively spoke to God’s people. Mention of the woman ‘Jezebel’, who calls herself a ‘prophetess’ (προφῆτις) in 2.20, may also hint at a special role for those called ‘prophets’, as she is condemned for her ‘teaching’ (διδάσκω) that deceives Jesus’ bondservants. The situation suggests that her self-given title of ‘prophetess’ ascribes to her an authority that makes others in the church more likely to listen to her false teaching. These two uses of the term suggest that being a ‘prophet’ was a specific role assigned to only some within the church, despite the fact that as ‘witnesses’ all Christians were to act unofficially as prophets (cf. 11.3–13).

288–92. Burtchaell notes how in the book of Acts, Paul and Barnabas (called apostles in 14.4, 14) are said to be ‘set apart’ (ἀφορίζω) for a special work, and are then commissioned by the other church leaders by fasting, praying and laying on of hands (Acts 13.1–3). He also notes how Paul uses his title as ‘apostle’ to assert his authority when writing to the churches in Corinth and Galatia, indicating that being an apostle was a special position that gave Paul the power to speak into their situations. 80.  Prophets are often mentioned as having a special role within the church: Acts 11.27; 13.1; 15.32; 21.10; 1 Cor 12.28; 14.29, 37; Eph 2.20; 3.5; 4.11. Although prophets held a special role in the church, Aune warns that there is no evidence ‘that prophets occupied a prophetic “office”, nor is there any indication that they possessed personal or professional qualifications or talents other than the ability to prophesy’ (Prophecy, 204). 81.  G. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 401; Boxall, Revelation, 157; Mounce, Revelation, 208. Mounce relates the use of εὐαγγέλισεν in this verse to Amos 3.7, where it is said that God ‘does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets’ (Revelation, 208).

148

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Although never labelled specifically as such, John clearly sees himself in the position of a prophet.82 His role, along with those mentioned in 10.7 and 2.20, suggests that ‘prophets’ held an authoritative role and were responsible for the transmission of God’s revelations (as was the task of the Old Testament prophets). This group may very well have been those who were initially charged with the task of proclaiming the message of the Apocalypse to the congregations (cf. 1.3, ‘the one who reads aloud’).83 After all, the ‘chain of transmission’ in 1.1–3 describes the ἀποκάλυψις as passing through the prophet John in order ultimately to reach the ‘bondservants’. This also fits with the angel’s statement in 22.6: ‘…the God of the spirits of the prophets sent his angel to show to his bondservants that which must soon take place’. Indeed, recognizing the prophet’s special role in relation to the ἀποκάλυψις may help to explain the link between 19.10 and 22.9. Whereas in 19.10 the angel declares himself to be a fellow servant of John and his brothers and sisters who ‘have the testimony of Jesus’, in 22.9 he declares himself to be a fellow servant of John and his brothers and sisters ‘the prophets and those who keep the words of this book’. The second passage divides the group first mentioned into two: those who ‘have the testimony of Jesus’ are made up of ‘prophets’ and ‘those who keep the words of this book’ (cf. the ‘division’ of recipients in 1.3: the one who reads aloud and the hearers). But this does not mean that John’s message is only for those assigned this role within the Church.84 As 1.2 and 22.6 clearly state, the message is ultimately intended for the bondservants. Once they have received the message, they then become ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’. The message of the Apocalypse then becomes an essential part of their 82.  Hill, Prophecy, 87; Aune, Prophecy, 206–208; Prigent, L’Apocalypse, 59; B. Kowalski, ‘Prophetie und die Offenbarung des Johannes? Offb 22,6–21 als Testfall’, in Verheyden, Zamfir and Nicklas, eds., Prophets and Prophecy, 273. Mazzaferri (Genre, 383) and Moyise (Testament, 78–80) argue that John patterned himself after Ezekiel. Perhaps most telling for the view that John thought of himself as a prophet is the fact that he repeatedly refers to his own work as a prophetic book. Note also the prophetic elements in John’s ‘call narrative’ (Rev 1.10–20; Hill, New Testament Prophecy, 82). 83.  Prigent, L’Apocalypse, 59. 84.  Contra Charles, who argues that in 19.10 the statement ‘for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy’ limits ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’ to Christian prophets (Revelation, 2:129). Hill agrees that both prophets and the whole church are given the ‘task of holding and communicating the “testimony of Jesus” ’ (Hill, ‘Prophecy’, 418).

7. ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and Related Language

149

prophetic witness as a Church. Both prophets and saints have received the message of the Apocalypse and thus are equal under its authority; prophets are simply singled out as those who are first charged with the task of transmitting the message.85 If this understanding of the role of a prophet is correct, then it seems that one can generally understand ‘prophets’ and ‘prophecy’ as indicating a more specific role or message than is indicated by the ‘μάρτυς/ μαρτυρία’ word group.86 All Christians are witnesses (this appears to be inherent to all believers, as they are modelled after Christ ‘ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός’ himself), meaning that all prophets would have been witnesses, but not all witnesses (Christians) would have been prophets. As witnesses they were charged with this task (cf. 11.3–13), but would not have necessarily held the authoritative role in the Church that is hinted at in 10.7 and 2.20.87

85.  I agree with Hill that prophets within the church may have been distinct from other believers, but that there is no evidence ‘such as to allow the distinction to be drawn in terms of precedence or position’ (New Testament Prophecy, 89); contra Satake, Gemeindeordnung, 56, who states that the order in 18.20 makes it clear that prophets hold a special position. 86.  I say ‘generally’ because the evidence is not always clear. But this seems to be the general trend. 87.  On this point I disagree with Hill that prophets are those within the Church who ‘actually fulfil the ministry of witness and prophecy that is expected of the entire Church’ (Hill, ‘Prophecy’, 414) (see also Roose, who argues that all Christians are potential prophets [Zeugnis, 158]). Those who are not labelled ‘prophets’ have not necessarily failed to fulfil this commission, but simply do not exercise their role as prophets in any official capacity. Aune (Prophecy in Early Christianity, 206) also disagrees with this conclusion drawn by Hill. He notes that ‘while John does view all Christians, regardless of their role within the church, as sharing the same basic privileges and obligations, that does not mean that prophets and apostles merely exemplify the potentials of which all Christians are capable’.

Chapter 8 C on cl u s i on

8.1 Summary The goal of this study has been to undertake a comprehensive study of the phrase ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ in the book of Revelation. The meaning of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ has been the centre of much debate in Revelation scholarship, and until now there has been no in-depth study that examines the phrase in its immediate context at each occurrence. As part of this investigation, this study has sought to determine whether or not the phrase should be interpreted in the same way at each occurrence. A survey of scholarship revealed that the majority of commentators did not interpret the phrase consistently, but rather changed their understanding after the phrase’s first appearance in 1.2. Whereas most commentators understand ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ to be a reference to the message of the ἀποκάλυψις in 1.2, in later occurrences (1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4), it is most commonly understood to be a reference to a testimony that Jesus gave in his life and/or death,1 or a reference to a Christian’s testimony about Jesus. The introduction identified three main reasons for this interpretive shift. The first reason is that in 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4 the phrase is used in connection with people and events described within the vision itself, making it difficult to see how the phrase could refer to the message of the book. Relatedly, the use of the phrase in conjunction with the verb ἔχω in 12.17 and 19.10 seems to indicate that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is something possessed by all believers. Since characters within the book are described as ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’, most commentators assume that this cannot possibly be describing the message of the ἀποκάλυψις. The third reason is that the long-standing assumption that John’s original audience was facing persecution simply because they were Christians has led to interpretations of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ as preaching about or acting like Jesus. 1.  This testimony is then emulated by Christ’s followers.

8. Conclusion

151

Despite these reasons, shifting the interpretation of the phrase is also problematic, as John gives no indication that the phrase should carry any meaning other than the one he identifies in 1.2. Although a change in meaning is certainly possible, it is only justified if a consistent interpretation cannot be maintained (that is, if the interpretation identified in 1.2 does not make sense in the context of 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4). Given the lack of any clear indication that the phrase carries different meanings depending on context, this study began with the hypothesis that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ can (and indeed, should) be interpreted consistently. The chapters that followed then tested this hypothesis and sought to address the assumptions and difficulties that have led most scholars to interpret the phrase in 1.9, 12.17, 19.10 and 20.4 in a way that differs from how they understand the phrase in 1.2. Thus the study began with an examination of the meaning of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ at its first occurrence in 1.2 (see section 1.7). The study here was in agreement with the majority of scholars that at this first occurrence the phrase clearly refers to the message of the Apocalypse. Having confirmed that this is indeed how John intended the phrase to be understood in the first sense, I then proceeded in Chapters 3 to 6 to test whether this same interpretation should be maintained in the remaining five occurrences. Before proceeding to test this interpretation in other occurrences, in Chapter 2 I addressed the potential objection that it is not possible for characters within the book to be depicted as having access to the message which they themselves are a part of. This chapter demonstrated how similar intratextual phenomena can be found in the books of Daniel and 1 Enoch. While the presence of these intratextual situations certainly does not mean that Revelation necessarily operates in the same way, they demonstrate that it is possible that an apocalyptic book depicts the use of its own message by characters internal to the vision. The second part of this chapter then further opened the way for the possibility that ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is an internal self-reference to the book’s own message by demonstrating how Revelation 10 and 11 depicts the ἀποκάλυψις’s own reception, transmission and use. Chapter 3 then resumed the testing of the hypothesis formed after examining the phrase in 1.2: that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is a reference to the message of the book of Revelation. This chapter challenged the long-standing assumption that John was in Patmos serving a sentence of exile, by highlighting the paucity of evidence in the text for this view and by pointing out that it may actually stem from the historical situation of early interpreters. Having shed significant doubt on the certainty that

152

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

John was in Patmos due to persecution, the chapter then proposed an alternative interpretation in which ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is a reference to the message of the book (as it is in 1.2). This interpretation understands the statement that John was on Patmos ‘because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ as meaning that he was on the island because of the revelation shown to him. Reflecting on his time on Patmos, John saw the ἀποκάλυψις as the divinely ordained reason for his being on the island, with the specific, immediate cause of him coming to the island being left unspecified. Chapter 4 then examined the use of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in 12.17, where the phrase is used to describe those against whom the dragon wages war. As 12.17 serves as a transitional verse to a section that describes the ‘battle’ facing those living in John’s day, it is highly plausible that those described as ‘having the testimony of Jesus’ are those who have received the message of the Apocalypse. Further adding weight to this possibility is the fact that this interpretation makes the best sense of the relationship between ‘the woman’ and ‘the rest of her children’. Both clearly represent the people of God; the difference between the two is that the latter describes the people of God in John’s day. The testing of the hypothesis continued with the examination, in Chapter 5, of Rev 19.10, where ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ appears twice. Here it was argued that the scene in which the angel emphatically refuses John’s worship serves to reiterate the divine origin of the ἀποκάλυψις. In light of a context focused on the origin and nature of the ἀποκάλυψις, the proposed interpretation in which ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is a reference to the message of the book is certainly more fitting than the two majority interpretations. Understanding ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ as a reference to the message of the book also makes sense in light of the link between 19.10 and 22.9, where the phrase ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’ is replaced with ‘those who keep the words of this book’. Chapter 6 studied the use of the phrase in its final occurrence in 20.4, where John sees ‘the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus’. The main reason for understanding ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ as a reference to the ἀποκάλυψις here is the fact that Rev 20.4 shows the fulfilment of the hoped-for vindication of those slain in 6.9–11. Whereas the group in 6.9–11 is told that they must wait for their vindication until the rest of those who are to be slain are added to their number, 20.4 shows this vindication finally being completed, meaning that ‘the rest’ have been added. The slight alteration in the way that John refers to the group that has been slain indicates that at least some of those

8. Conclusion

153

who have been added are those who have kept John’s message. Rather than being described as those who have died ‘because of the word of God and the testimony which they had’, the persecuted in 20.4 consists of those who died ‘because of the testimony of Jesus and the word of God’. Since the group in 6.9 would have certainly included Christians, it follows that the addition of ‘of Jesus’ is not an indication that they were Christian witnesses, but that they died because of an even more specific testimony – that is, the testimony given to them by Jesus through a revelation to John. The inclusion of those beheaded ‘because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ within the group of those ‘who did not worship the beast and his image’ also strengthens the possibility that here ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ refers to the message of the book, primarily because elsewhere it is clear that the ἀποκάλυψις is key in discerning the deceptive ways of the beast. Chapter 6 was the final instalment in the testing of the hypothesis that ‘the testimony of Jesus’ should be consistently interpreted as a reference to the message of the book. In each case it was shown that this interpretation was not only possible, but was often the preferable interpretation, as it made sense of issues within the text that other interpretations could not. Finally, in Chapter 7, I examined the interpretation of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ vis-à-vis related language. First, I compared the findings on the meaning of the phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ with the way that John uses the noun ‘μαρτυρία’ on its own. Here it was shown that ‘μαρτυρία’ (without the specification τοῦ Ἰησοῦ) is distinct from the specific phrase ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and is not used as a way of referring to the message of the Apocalypse. Similarly, it was shown that being a μάρτυς may sometimes include having ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’, but this can only be determined from the context in which the noun occurs, and is not intrinsic to the word itself. In the second section of Chapter 7, I discussed the relationship between ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and ‘ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ’. There it was determined that when ‘the word of God’ appears epexegetically with ‘the testimony of Jesus’, it is another way of referring to the ἀποκάλυψις. When the phrase occurs on its own, however, it is best understood as a reference to God’s word given through his prophets. The final section of this chapter then discussed the relationship between the ‘μαρτυρία’ and ‘προφητεία’ word groups in the book. It was here determined that ‘μαρτυρία’ was the more general term, with ‘προφητεία’ being a more specific subcategory.

154

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

8.2 Our Findings in Wider Context 8.2.1 How Do Our Findings Fit with Revelation’s Own View of Its Message? Although this study is not the first to argue that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ should be consistently interpreted as a reference to the message of the Apocalypse,2 it is the first to demonstrate how this interpretation is both possible and preferable in the immediate context of each occurrence. Although the interpretation proposed here is certainly a minority view, in many ways the context of the book makes these results unsurprising. At more than one point John makes it clear that he intends his book to be read and heeded. The book is presented to the churches in letter form, with the exalted Jesus declaring that what John sees is to be recorded and sent to the seven congregations (1.11, 19; cf. 22.16). More explicitly, 1.3 declares: ‘blessed is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written in it, for the time is near’. Similarly, in 22.7 Jesus himself says, ‘And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.’ This statement is soon followed by the angel’s command, ‘do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near’. Indeed, the warning against tampering with the words of the book (22.18–19) sends a negative version of the same message: that this book is important. These blessings, warnings and commands highlight the importance of John’s particular message, and convey that the message of the book is essential to Christians’ efforts to live faithfully in the final days, ‘for the time is near’. Given this, it makes sense for John to describe his original audience as those who ‘have’ his message. This not only heightens the sense of urgency, but also highlights the importance of John’s message. This ἀποκάλυψις, passed down from heaven via John, is to define and shape the identity and actions of those who hear it. That John would describe his audience (and future recipients) as those who have the message of his book also fits with his obvious concern that his readers identify themselves within the apocalyptic vision. As discussed previously, the imagery of Revelation, especially chs. 13–19, clearly evokes the practices of the Roman Empire. In this way John communicates that his message has specific relevance to the everyday

2.  So also Hill, ‘Prophecy’ (although he adds Jesus’ life and death as a part of the testimony of the visions); Mazzaferri, ‘Martyria’ (but no discussion of 1.9); Stefanovic, Revelation (but no comment on 20.4). See Introduction for more details.

8. Conclusion

155

situations Christians in his day were facing. Thus in a further effort to get his audience to apply this message to their lives, John characterizes them as those who have received and heeded the ἀποκάλυψις. Their place and role in the divine drama is clear, and essential to their ‘overcoming’ is ‘keeping the words of this book’.3 8.2.2 How Do Our Findings Compare to Daniel and 1 Enoch? Having determined that Revelation presents the reader with an intratextual situation similar to those in Daniel and 1 Enoch, it is necessary here to note similarities and differences between Revelation and these two earlier apocalypses in this regard. One aspect of comparison is the role of the written text. As demonstrated in Chapter 2, in both Daniel and 1 Enoch there is some degree of ambiguity regarding the ‘writtenness’ of the text. In Daniel, the book’s existence as a written text is certainly implied, but within ch. 11 its physicality is downplayed in order to highlight the role of the maśkîlîm. The Book of Watchers (plus the Epistle of Enoch) in 1 Enoch sees its existence as a physical corpus as essential to its initial transmission, yet when envisioning the book’s use in the future (that is, beyond just a few generations), the book’s physical existence no longer features as important. In this way Revelation is most similar to the Book of Watchers. John certainly sees his book’s existence as a written document as important (see the commands to write in 1.11; 2.8, 12, 18; 3.1, 7, 12, 14; 14.13; 19.9; and 21.5; note also the exhortation to preserve things that are ‘written in this book’ [22.18–19]), yet when referring to the Apocalypse’s message within the visionary sections (12.17, 19.10 and 20.4; see also the ‘little scroll’ of chs. 10–11 [see Chapter 2, Part Two]), he refers to the message in a way that does not necessarily demand a physical document. As with 1 Enoch, this allows the author to envision the message of his book reaching a greater number of people than would be possible if each was required to attain a written copy of the manuscript.

3.  Woodman discusses how the different names for the people of God in the Apocalypse are part of the author’s rhetorical strategy ‘that encourages readers of the Apocalypse to locate themselves within the text’ (Revelation, 229; see also 91–114). He states, ‘Those reading the work are invited not only to identify themselves as various characters within the narrative, but also to find their circumstances reflected in the imagery that John constructs’ (p. 229). Although he does not discuss the moniker ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’, the conclusions of this study would certainly fit with his analysis of John’s rhetorical strategy.

156

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

In the context of Revelation’s depictions of characters within the book receiving or preaching the message (both at the time of its writing and in the future), the deliberate omission of any explicit connection between the phrase ‘the testimony of Jesus’ and the written text of the book accords with how the book envisions its own transmission. Although evidently a written text, the book is clear that it intends most people to receive the message by way of hearing, not by reading a copy of the written text. Even John’s warning against tampering with the words of the book is addressed to ‘everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book’ (22.18). It is a message that is to be spread through preaching and teaching in the churches, as is demonstrated by the makarism of 1.3: ‘Blessed is he who reads aloud4 and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things that are written in it; for the time is near.’5 In light of Revelation’s own understanding of how its message is to be spread, it is thus best to understand ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’ as a way of referring to those who have either read or heard the message and have taken it to heart (cf. the exhortation to ‘keep’ [τηρέω] the things written in the book in 1.3 and 22.7). Revelation also differs from Daniel and 1 Enoch in that it does not create this intratextual phenomenon through the device of pseudonymity. Because both Daniel and 1 Enoch claimed to be written many years prior to the time in which they were actually composed, both apocalypses depict their message being used by generations well in the ‘future’ (but actually contemporary with the real authors). But because Revelation is not pseudonymous, it has no need to create a gap between the time when it is written and the depicted time of use. Rather, John’s Apocalypse seems to have the opposite goal. It emphasizes the immediacy of its message by depicting it being used by those followers of the Lamb who are contemporaneous brothers and sisters of its author.

4.  The translation of ἀναγινώσκω here is taken from Boxall, Revelation, 21. Boxall rightly translates the verb in this way for two main reasons. First, the historical reality is that most first-century Christians would have been illiterate, and thus unable to access John’s book except by way of hearing. Second, it is highly likely that Revelation was intended to be read publically in a liturgical setting (as is suggested by various ‘clues’ throughout Revelation: 1.10; 2.7, 17; 19.7, 9; 22.17, 20) (see Boxall, Revelation, 26, for fuller discussion; see also Müller, Offenbarung, 69). 5.  Here note the singular ‘ὁ ἀναγινώσκων’, but the plural ‘οἱ ἀκούοντες’.

8. Conclusion

157

8.3 Implications of Our Findings: ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ and the Rhetorical Goal of the Apocalypse The Introduction demonstrated that while it is clear that ‘the testimony of Jesus’ plays a key role in determining the rhetorical goal of the Apocalypse, the ambiguity regarding the phrase’s meaning has led to several different views on exactly what John’s rhetorical goal is.6 Hence a few implications of our findings for understanding the rhetorical goal of the Apocalypse should be noted here. First, John is not calling for all Christians to become martyrs, nor does he see martyrdom as essential to bringing about the victory of Christ and his people. This study has confirmed what others have concluded on this matter – that ‘death’ is not inherent in the meaning of ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ or ‘μάρτυς’ in Revelation.7 Although Christ’s death may have been a part of his being a μάρτυς (see above), his death is not the sum of his role as witness. Furthermore, when the term ‘μάρτυς’ is used of the people of God, it is clear that one can be a ‘witness’ before being killed, thus eliminating any notion that death is inherent to being a witness.8 Second, while John does want his audience to be faithful in the way that they live their lives, and ‘active’ in their preaching and living (as indicated by the way that he uses the term μάρτυς), he specifically wants them to heed the words of his apocalyptic book and spread that particular message as part of their testimony. This certainly does not contradict the argument that John is calling upon his readers actively to ‘resist the unjust and evil practices of the Roman Empire’.9 Indeed, it lends a more specific content to their testimony and so supports this understanding, as these ideas are certainly present within the message of Revelation.

6.  Obviously, being a ‘witness’ and having ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is only one aspect of the rhetorical goal; given the importance of this theme within the book, it sheds light on what exactly John wants his audience to do. 7.  E.g. A.A. Trites, ‘Μάρτυς and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse: A Semantic Study’, NovT 15 (1973): 76; J.W. van Henten, ‘The Concept of Martyrdom in Revelation’, in Frey, Kelhoffer and Tóth, eds., Johannesapokalypse, 618; Brox, Zeuge, 100; Roose, Zeuge, 15–16, 35, 140. 8.  That being said, one could argue that the fact that the witnesses in Revelation often die as a result of their testimony is proof that the term is moving in this direction (H. Strathmann, ‘μάρτυς, μαρτυρέω, μαρτυρία, μαρτύριον’, ThWNT 4:507–508; E. Günther, ‘Zeuge und Märtyrer’, ZNW 47 [1956]: 156). 9.  E.g. Blount (see Introduction).

158

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

Rather than the saints somehow ‘having’ the witness of Jesus’ life and death, or preaching a general message about Jesus, it is clear that they ‘have’ a specific message from the exalted Lord Jesus, recorded in the book that John wrote.10 As has been mentioned at various points, this is not to say that John envisions his audience as actually possessing a physical copy of his written book.11 Rather it is the message of the book, read by some but heard by most (cf. 1.3), that Christians will have and use.12 The obvious question, then, is how is the message to be used? It is likely that it is to be preached and proclaimed, as can be seen in the ministry of the two witnesses in Revelation 11. But more fundamentally, it is to be heeded (τηρέω) and followed, and thus is primarily for the church’s instruction and edification. It is a part of ‘overcoming’ and is essential to the saints as they distance themselves from the idolatrous and wicked social and economic systems of the Roman Empire.13 In many ways this is similar to the function of the testimony of Enoch. In the section of 1 Enoch discussed in Chapter 2, ‘witness’ and ‘testimony’ language is used repeatedly to refer to the transmission of the Enochic books, with key words being used for various stages of transmission.14 Although Enoch’s testimony clearly has a forensic 10.  This also explains the ‘unusual’ use of the verb ἔχω in combination with ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ in 12.17 and 19.10. It is a message that the Church has received, and is therefore something that they possess. 11.  Rather, John uses ‘words of prophecy’ or ‘words of this book of prophecy’ to refer to the message in its written form (see Chapter 8). 12.  I use the term ‘Christians’ here to refer to the whole church. Although John’s Apocalypse is addressed to seven specific churches, the number seven most likely symbolizes the wider body of Christian believers (Trites, Witness, 165; Boxall, Revelation, 29–30). 13.  This fits with deSilva’s findings in his study of Revelation’s discourse, where he concludes that John desired ‘continued withdrawal from every setting where idolatrous rites, however minimal, would be performed, or where a person’s presence might imply support for idolatrous religion’ as well as ‘caution in regard to engaging in an unjust economic system’ and ‘willingness to suffer marginalization and even death rather than compromise allegiance to the One God and God’s Messiah’ (Seeing, 90). 14.  In the first stage of transmission Enoch testifies to Methuselah and his sons (81.5–6; 91.3). But the word is also used to describe a second layer of transmission – from those who have received Enoch’s revelation to the rest of humanity (93.10; 104.11; 105.1). Jubilees refers to Enoch’s work as a ‘testimony’ (Ethiopic samā‛t; Greek διαμαρτυρία; Hebrew ‫)תעודה‬: ‘This one was the first (who) wrote a testimony and testified to the children of men throughout the generations of the earth’ (4.18) and ‘he saw and knew

8. Conclusion

159

function (see below), it also serves as a source of exhortation and instruction in its current day.15 In 81.6, the seven holy ones tell Enoch that they will leave him with Methuselah for one year, saying, ‘We will leave you with your son for one year until you again give your (last?) command, to teach your children, write for them, and testify to all your children…’. Here ‘testify’ carries the positive connotation of instruction, with the words of Enoch being used to train his children in the way of righteousness. This also seems to be the connotation of the word in 91.3. Enoch, again instructing his sons, is said to have spoken ‘righteousness’ (91.3a) to them. He begins his discourse, saying, Hear, O sons of Enoch, every word of your father, and listen aright to the voice of my mouth; for I testify to you and speak to you, my beloved. Love the truth and walk in it; but do not draw near to the truth with a double heart, and do not associate with those of a double heart. But walk in righteousness, my children; and it will guide you in the paths of goodness, and righteousness will be your companion. (91.3–4).

Here the meaning is clearly one of instruction; Enoch’s books will help his children to walk in the right path. But this positive instruction is not just for Enoch and his children; his message will be further proclaimed in order to convert humanity to obedience and righteousness. Those who receive Enoch’s message will then ‘testify to’ the sons of earth in their wisdom (105.1)16 and are commanded to ‘instruct them…’. The picture given is one in which those who receive the Enochic revelations spread its message to others in order that they too may become wise. The connection between 104.12–105.2

everything and wrote his testimony and deposited the testimony upon the earth against all the children of men and their generations’ (4.19). (Ethiopic, Greek and Hebrew terms provided by S. Ryan, ‘ “The Testimony of Jesus” [Rev 1:2] & “The Testimony of Enoch” [Jub 4:18–19]: A Reconsideration of the Generic Self-designation of the Apocalypse’ [paper presented at the annual meeting of the British New Testament Society, Bangor, 4 September 2010], 15.) 15.  So also Ryan, ‘ “Testimony of Jesus” ’, 17–18. 16.  This phrase could be translated ‘testify against’ or ‘testify to’, with ‘testify against’ implying judgment, and ‘testify to’ carrying the sense of both a warning and a chance to be persuaded and converted by the message. Although either is possible, the latter seems to be the correct understanding, for the prediction that they will ‘testify to the sons of earth in their wisdom’ is followed by the command: ‘instruct them, for you are their leaders…’.

160

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

and the Apocalypse of Weeks17 further supports this understanding. In the Apocalypse of Weeks, ‘the conversion of the Gentiles, anticipated in the ninth week, is here attributed to the testimony of the righteous based on the books of Enoch’.18 Indeed, the ‘chosen’ who are given the Enochic books (that is, the ‘sevenfold wisdom and knowledge’) are said to become ‘witnesses of righteousness’. As witnesses they have a mission. By their testimony they will ‘uproot the foundations of violence, and the structure of deceit in it, to execute judgment’ (91.11). Their testimony will no doubt lead to the just condemnation of those who practise violence and deceit. But there is also a positive side to their testimony, as seen in the ninth week. 1 Enoch 91.14 declares that ‘the righteousness realized in the seventh and eighth weeks is extended over “the whole earth” ’.19 As a result of the witness of the chosen, ‘righteous law’ is revealed to all the earth, wicked deeds vanish and ‘all humankind will look to the path of everlasting righteousness’.20 Although in the first ‘level’ of transmission Revelation is very similar to 1 Enoch, Revelation is less explicit about its testimony being used for those outside of the Church. ‘The testimony of Jesus’ is explicitly said to be ‘for the churches’ (22.16; cf. 22.6; 1.4, 11), but is never explicitly said to be for the rest of the world. That being said, if ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is in fact part of the ‘testimony’ given by the two witnesses (as argued in Chapter 2, Part Two), then the message of Revelation is also a message for those outside the church.21 But other than this ‘hint’ that the message is to go out to ‘the nations’, Revelation does not go to great lengths to show the transmission of its message to future generations. Although the chain of transmission implies that the message is to spread to the whole church, Revelation says nothing about future generations. This is most likely a result of the fact that John

17.  See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 535, for a discussion of the terminology that links the two passages. 18.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 535. 19.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 449. 20.  Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 449, states, ‘the process begun in the seventh week is brought to its completion. The conversion of the human race is a topos in the Enochic corpus.’ 21.  deSilva notes how the two witnesses’ ‘witness unto death (and God’s vindication of the same) moves nine-tenths of the population’ to be afraid and give glory to God in heaven (11.13) (Seeing, 76). Although it is certainly debateable whether or not this implies conversion, it is clear that God’s words and actions through these two prophets are meant to have an impact on the ungodly.

8. Conclusion

161

viewed himself and his recipients as living in the last days (1.3; 22.10, 20). It may also be due to the fact that the book of Revelation, unlike Daniel and 1 Enoch, is not pseudonymous, meaning that John does not need to show its transmission through various generations in order for the message to reach the author’s actual ‘current’ day. Revelation is also more subtle about the forensic role of its testimony compared to 1 Enoch.22 In 1 Enoch 96.4, Enoch declares, ‘Woe to you, sinners, for your riches make you appear to be righteous, but your heart convicts you of being sinners; and this word will be a testimony against you, a reminder of (your) evil deeds.’ Here Enoch’s ‘word’ will function as a forensic testimony against the wicked on the day of judgment (cf. 96.8).23 1 Enoch 97.4 (see also v. 6) likewise declares that ‘this word will be a testimony’ against sinners.24 The sins of the wicked have been revealed to Enoch (cf. 98.6–8), and thus ‘the formal record of these deeds gains a juridical potency that will make divine justice on behalf of the righteous an eschatological certainty…’.25

22.  The ‘prototype’ for this twofold function of a testimony is found in the final chapters of Deuteronomy (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, 75.). In 31.19, God tells Moses to ‘write this song for yourselves and teach it to the Israelites; have them recite it, so that this song may be a witness for Me against the Israelites’ (HCSB). God knows that Israel will sin and turn to other gods; therefore he will use these words of Moses as a testimony to indict them on that day (31.20–21). But this song is also an instrument of instruction. After speaking the words of the song to the Israelites, Moses exhorts them, ‘Take to your heart all these words I am giving as a warning to you today, so that you may command your children to carefully follow all the words of this law. For they are not meaningless words to you but they are your life, and by them you will live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess’ (32.46–47, HCSB). Although Moses’ song will be used against Israel in judgment in the future, until then it is to be a source of ‘life’, a means by which their days are prolonged. 23.  This is certainly the connotation in Jubilees, where the author explicitly states that ‘the work of Enoch had been created as a witness to the generations of the world so that he might report every deed of each generation in the day of judgment’ (10.17). Similarly, 4.19 states that it is a testimony ‘against all the children of men and their generations’, and 4.24 declares that Enoch was put in Eden ‘so that he might bear witness against all of the children of men, so that he might relate all of the deeds of the generations until the day of judgment’. So in the eyes of the author of Jubilees, Enoch’s testimony ‘functions as a legal testimony to be presented in the setting of the divine courtroom, on the day of judgment’ (Ryan, ‘ “Testimony of Jesus” ’, 16). 24.  Noted by Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 297 and 313. 25.  Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91–108, 297.

162

The Testimony of the Exalted Jesus in the Book of Revelation

But in Revelation there are only hints of ‘the testimony of Jesus’ having a forensic function. The story of the two witnesses indicates that the message will be testified both to and against26 those outside the church.27 Furthermore, a forensic sense for the noun μαρτυρία is certainly evident in 12.11, where the language used of Satan makes it entirely possible that μαρτυρία is a live metaphor. Likewise, the commands to ‘keep’ or ‘heed’ (τηρέω) the words of the book imply judgment on those who fail to do so, but again this is never explicitly stated. If one understands the warning in 22.18–19 to be about keeping the message of the book and not just against tampering with the message,28 then these verses also indicate that failure to keep the testimony certainly will lead to condemnation in the final judgment. A forensic function is seen most clearly in the ‘hearing’ formula of 22.11: ‘Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous still practice righteousness, and the one who is holy still keep himself holy’. Following on the heels of the angel’s command to leave the book unsealed (22.10), this statement suggests that ‘for those who have ears to hear’,29 the message of the book will lead to righteousness, but for those who do not have ‘ears to hear’, the message will be further condemnatory. While these strong hints are certainly significant for understanding how ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is to be used by those who hear (or ‘have’) it, the fact that ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is never explicitly connected to the future judgment of the wicked may also be significant for one’s understanding 26.  This is obvious given the reaction of ‘those from the people and tribes and tongues and nations’. Their indignation at the words and ministry of the prophets strongly suggests that their message condemns the practices of the wicked and warns of their destruction. 27.  While this is clear from the story of the two witnesses, it cannot be said that ‘the testimony of Jesus’ is primarily a prophetic witness to the nations (Bandy, ‘Words’, 24–26, argues that Rev 19.10c is a comment on the role of God’s people as witnesses to the nations). 28.  Osborne, Revelation, 795; Beale, Revelation, 1151. Beale notes how the similar language in Deuteronomy serves as a warning against false teaching. He notes that ‘ “adding and taking away” are not general disobedience to the divine word, but adherence to false teaching about the inscripturated word’ (p. 1151). 29.  Beale, Revelation, 1132, notes how Rev 22.11 is best understood in light of the ‘hearing’ formula at the end of the seven letters and the obduracy theme developed through allusion to the Exodus plagues in the trumpets and bowls. The statement thus follows the pattern of Isa 6.9–10 and similar statements made by Jesus (e.g. Matt 13.9–17, 43).

8. Conclusion

163

of how μαρτ- language is used in the Apocalypse, and thus also in the New Testament as a whole. To be sure, the fact that this testimony will most likely be used against the wicked in the final judgment does indicate that μαρτυρία in Revelation still retains some of its original forensic sense.30 However, this is certainly not the message’s primary function. The primary function, as stated above, is for the edification and instruction of the churches. This suggests that μαρτυρία in Revelation is not always a ‘live metaphor’ with conscious links to a lawcourt setting as has been suggested.31 8.4 Concluding Remarks In conclusion, ‘ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’ is best understood as a reference to the message of the book of Revelation. It is the ἀποκάλυψις of Jesus Christ, given to the churches by way of a vision shown to John the Seer. Yet the phrase is not just another title for John to assign to his book. John also describes characters within his book as ‘those who have ἡ μαρτυρία Ἰησοῦ’, thus assigning the reader (or hearer) a place within the divine drama he depicts. By doing this, John is able to communicate to his audience what he wants from them and so reinforce the rhetorical goal of his book. What John wants, put quite simply, is for his audience to take seriously the message of the Apocalypse. Heeding ‘the words of the prophecy of this book’ is crucial to their survival as faithful followers of the Lamb in a world dominated by Roman rule and pagan culture, and as such is key to their being ‘those who overcome’. Although ‘keeping the words of this book’ may ultimately involve preaching the gospel, emulating the life of Jesus or dying as a martyr, these things in and of themselves are not what John is calling his audience to do when he labels them as ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’. But labelling the audience as ‘those who have the testimony of Jesus’ is not simply a way for John to get them to obey his message. It is also a means of encouragement. In ‘having the testimony of Jesus’, John’s audience knows the sovereignty and power of the One Who Sits on the Throne and of the Lamb, and the vindication that awaits them. Even though the cost of ‘having the testimony of Jesus’ may be high, they know that for those who do heed the message of the ἀποκάλυψις, their reward is great. 30.  Trites, Witness, sees ‘witness’ language as having strong roots in a legal or lawcourt setting. 31.  Trites, Witness, 154, following the work of Caird, Revelation, 17–18.

B i b l i og ra p h y

Reference Works Bauer, W., W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Bauer, W., F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich. Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R.W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76. ———. Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 11 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1942. Lampe, G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. Liddell, H.G., R. Scott, and H.S. Jones. A Greek–English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Mayser, E. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit: mit Einschluss der gleichzeitigen Ostraka und der in Ägypten verfassten Inschriften. Band 2: Satzlehre. Analytischer Teil, zweite Hälfte. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1934. Moulton, J.H., W.F. Howard, and N. Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908–76. Nickelsburg, G.W.E., and James C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Novum Testamentum Graece. Nestle–Aland. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel­gesellschaft, 1993. Robertson, A. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919. Zerwick, M. Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples. English ed., adapted from 4th Latin ed. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 114. Rome: s.n., 1963.

Works Cited Aland, K., and B. Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Brill, 1989. Allo, E.B. Saint Jean: L’Apocalypse. 4th ed. Ebib. Paris: Gabalda, 1933. Argall, R.A. 1 Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

Bibliography

165

Aune, D.E. ‘Following the Lamb: Discipleship in the Apocalypse’. Pages 269–84 in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. ———. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. ———. Revelation 1–5. WBC 52A. Dallas: Word, 1997. ———. Revelation 6–16. WBC 52B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998. ———. Revelation 17–22. WBC 52C. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998. Bandy, A.S. ‘Words and Witness: An Analysis of the Lawsuit Motif in Revelation Based on Witness Terminology’. GJCT 6, no. 1 (2005): 1–34. ———. The Prophetic Lawsuit in the Book of Revelation. NTM. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010. Barker, M. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000. Barr, D.L. Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 1998. Bauckham, R. The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993. ———. ‘The Role of the Spirit in the Apocalypse’. EvQ 52 (1980): 66–83. ———. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. NTTh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Beale, G.K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. ‘The Danielic Background for Revelation 13:18 and 17:9’. TynBul 31 (1980): 163–70. Beasley-Murray, G.R. The Book of Revelation. NCBC. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974. Beckwith, I.T. The Apocalypse of John. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919. Begrich, J. Studien zu Deuterojesaja. TB 20. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1938. Bell, A.A. ‘The Date of John’s Apocalypse: The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered’. NTS 25 (1979): 93–102. Berger, K. Die Amen-Worte Jesu: eine Untersuchung zum Problem der Legitimation in apokalyptischer Rede. BZNW 39. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. Bergmeier, R. ‘Die Buchrolle und das Lamm (Apk 5 und 10)’. ZNW 76 (1985): 225–42. ———. ‘Zeugnis und Martyrium’. Pages 619–47 in Die Johannes­apokalypse: Kontexte – Konzepte  –  Rezeption. Edited by Jörg Frey, James A. Kelhoffer, and Franz Tóth. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Bevan, A. A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel for the Use of Students. Cambridge: s.n., 1892. Black, M. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch. SVTP 7. Leiden: Brill, 1985. Blount, B.K. Can I Get a Witness? Reading Revelation Through African American Culture. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Boring, M. Revelation. IBC. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1989. Bousset, W. Die Offenbarung Johannis. 5th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906. Boxall, I. Patmos in the Reception History of the Apocalypse. OTRM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. ———. ‘Reading the Apocalypse on the Island of Patmos’. ScrB 40 (2010): 22–33. ———. The Revelation of Saint John. BNTC 18. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Continuum, 2006.

166 Bibliography ———. Revelation: Vision and Insight: An Introduction to the Apocalypse. London: SPCK, 2002. Bredin, M. Jesus, Revolutionary of Peace: A Nonviolent Christology in the Book of Revelation. PBTM. Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster, 2003. Brox, N. Zeuge und Märtyer: Untersuchungen zur Frühchristlichen Zeugnis-Terminologie. SANT 5. Munich: Kösel, 1961. Bruce, F.F. ‘The Spirit in the Apocalypse’. Pages 333–44 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Edited by Barnabas Lindars and S.S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Brütsch, C. Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi: Johannes-Apokalypse. 2 vols. ZBK. Zurich: Zwingli, 1970. Burtchaell, J. From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Caird, G.B. A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine. BNTC. London: Black, 1966. Campbell, W.G. Reading Revelation: A Thematic Approach. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2012. Carey, G. Elusive Apocalypse: Reading Authority in the Revelation to John. StABH 15. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1999. Charles, R.H. The Book of Enoch: Or 1 Enoch Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text. Oxford: Clarendon, 1912. ———. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1929. ———. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920. ———. Studies in the Apocalypse. Edinburgh: s.n., 1913. Chester, A. Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology. WUNT 1/207. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Collins, J.J. The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. HSM. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977. ———. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Court, J. Myth and History in the Book of Revelation. London: SPCK, 1979. Cross, F.M. ‘The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah’. JNES 12 (1953): 274–77. Davies, P. Daniel. OTG. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985. Dehandschutter, B. ‘The Meaning of Witness in the Apocalypse’. Pages 283–88 in L’Apocalypse Johannique et L’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament. Edited by J. Lambrecht and G. Beasley-Murray. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1980. Deissmann, A. Light from the Ancient East. Translated by Lionel R.M. Strachan. New York: Doran, 1927. deSilva, D. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. ———. Seeing Things John’s Way: The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009. ———. ‘A Sociorhetorical Interpretation of Rev 14:6–13’. BBR 9 (1999): 65–118. Dixon, Sarah S. Underwood. ‘ “The Testimony of Jesus” in Light of Internal Self-References in the books of Daniel and 1 Enoch’. Pages 81–94 in The Book of Revelation: Currents in British Research on the Apocalypse. Edited by G.V. Allen, I. Paul and S. Woodman. WUNT 2/411. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.

Bibliography

167

Donegani, I. A cause de la parole de Dieu et du témoignage de Jésus: Le témoignage selon l’Apocalypse de Jean. EBib Nouvelle Série 36. Paris: Gabalda & Cie, 1997. Duff, P.B. Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Elliot, K. ‘Nouns with Diminutive Endings in the New Testament’. NovT 12 (1970): 391–98. Ellul, J. L’Apocalypse: Architecture en mouvement. EssBib 44. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2008. Farrer, A. The Revelation of St. John the Divine. Oxford: Clarendon, 1964. Fee, G. Revelation. NCC. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2013. Feuillet, A. ‘Les Martyrs de l’Humanité et l’Agneau Égorgé’. NRTh 99 (1977): 189–207. Ford, J.M. ‘For the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy’. ITQ 42 (1975): 284–91. ———. Revelation: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. AB 38. New York: Doubleday, 1975. Gadamer, H.G. Truth and Method. 2nd ed. London: Sheed & Ward, 1989. Gager, J.G. Kingdom and Community. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1975. Giblin, C.H. ‘Revelation 11.1–13: Its Form, Function, and Contextual Integration’. NTS 30 (1984): 433–59. Giesen, H. Studien zur Johannesapokalypse. SBAB 29. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2000. Goldingay, J. Daniel. WBC 30. Dallas, TX: Word, 1989. Gollinger, H. Das ‘Große Zeichen’ von Apokalypse 12. SBM 11. Stuttgart: Echter, 1971. Gourgues, M. ‘The Thousand-Year Reign (Rev 20:1–6): Terrestrial Or Celestial?’. CBQ 47, no. 4 (1985): 676–81. Green, J. ‘The Challenge of Hearing the New Testament’. Pages 1–14 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by Joel Green. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. ‘Discourse Analysis and New Testament Interpretation’. Pages 218–39 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by Joel Green. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Gressmann, H. ‘Die literarische Analyse Deuterojesajas’. ZAW 34 (1914): 254–97. Gunkel, H. Einleitung in die Psalmen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933. Günther, E. ‘Zeuge und Märtyrer’. ZNW 47 (1956): 145–61. Hanson, P.D. ‘Apocalypticism’. Pages 28–34 in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. Harrington, W.J. Revelation. SP 16. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1993. Harris, M. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Hartman, L.F., and A.A. DiLella. The Book of Daniel. AB 23. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978. Hill, D. New Testament Prophecy. MTL. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1979. ———. ‘Prophecy and Prophets in the Revelation of St John’. NTS 18 (1971): 401–18. Himmelfarb, M. ‘The Temple and the Garden of Eden in Ezekiel, the Book of the Watchers, and the Wisdom of Ben Sira’. Pages 63–78 in Sacred Places and Profane Spaces: Essays in the Geographics of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by J. Scott and F. Simpson-Housley. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1991.

168 Bibliography Hofius, O. ‘Das Zeugnis der Johannesoffenbarung von der Gottheit Jesu Christi’. Pages 511–28 in Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Vol. 3. Edited by H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996. Holtz, T. Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes. TUGAL 85. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1962. ———. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. NTD 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Holwerda, D.E. ‘The Church and the Little Scroll (Revelation 10–11)’. CTJ 34 (1999): 148–61. Horn, F.W. ‘Johannes auf Patmos’. Pages 139–59 in Studien zur Johannesoffenbarung und ihrer Auslegung: Festschrift für Otto Böcher zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn and Michael Wolter. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005. Howard-Brook, W., and A. Gwyther. Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999. Hughes, P. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1990. Jauhiainen, M. ‘ “ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ” (Rev. 1:1): The Climax of John’s Prophecy?’ TynBul 54 (2003): 99–117. Johannessohn, M. Der Gebrauch der Präpositionen in der Septuaginta. MSU 3. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1926. Kline, M. Images of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: s.n., 1980. Knibb, M., and E. Ullendorf. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978. Knight, J. ‘Apocalyptic and Prophetic Literature’. Pages 467–88 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period: 330 B.C.–A.D. 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ———. Revelation. Readings. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Köhler, L. Deuterojesajas: Jesaja 40–55 stilkritisch untersucht. BZAW 37. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1923. Kovacs, J., and Rowland, C. Revelation: The Apocalypse of Jesus Christ. BBC. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. Kowalski, B. ‘Prophetie und die Offenbarung des Johannes? Offb 22,6–21 als Testfall’. Pages 252–92 in Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Edited by Joseph Verheyden, Korinna Zamfir, and Tobias Nicklas. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Kraft, H. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. HNT 16a. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974. Kraybill, J.N. Apocalypse and Allegiance: Worship, Politics, and Devotion in the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010. Lacocque, A., D. Pellauer, and P. Ricoeur. The Book of Daniel. English ed. London: SPCK, 1979. Ladd, G. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Lambrecht, J. ‘A Structuration of Rev 4, 1–22,5’. Pages 77–104 in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament. Edited by J. Lambrecht and G. Beasley-Murray. BETL 53. Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1980. Lampe, G.W.H. ‘The Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy (Rev 19:10)’. Pages 245–58 in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke. Edited by William C. Weinrich. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1984. Lenski, R. The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963. Lilje, H. The Last Book of the Bible. Philadelphia: s.n., 1957.

Bibliography

169

Lindenberger, J.M. ‘Daniel 12:1–4’. Int 39 (1985): 181–86. Lohmeyer, E. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. 2nd ed. HNT 16. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1953. Longenecker, B.W. 2 Esdras. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Lucas, E. Daniel. ApolOTC 20. Leicester: Apollos, 2002. Maier, G. Die Offenbarung des Johannes, Kapitel 1–11: Historisch-Theologische Auslegung. Witten: SCM R. Brockhaus, 2009. ———. Die Offenbarung des Johannes, Kapitel 12–22: Historisch-Theologische Auslegung. Witten: SCM R. Brockhaus, 2011. Martian, S. ‘Prophétisme et symbolisme dans l’Apocalypse’. Pages 243–51 in Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature. Edited by Joseph Verheyden, Korinna Zamfir, and Tobias Nicklas. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Matthewson, D. Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse. LBS 14. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Mazzaferri, F.D. The Genre of the Book of Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective. BZNW 54. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. ———. ‘Martyria Iēsou Revisited’. BT 39, no. 1 (1988): 114–22. McKelvey, R. The Millennium and the Book of Revelation. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1999. McLay, T. The OG and Th Versions of Daniel. SCS Series 43. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996. Michl, J. ‘Umschau und Kritik: Die Deutung der apokalyptischen Frau in der Gegenwart’. BZ 3 (1959): 301–10. Middleton, P. Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity. LNTS 307. London: T&T Clark International, 2006. Milik, J.T. The Books of Enoch. London: Oxford University Press, 1976. Montgomery, J. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. ICC 22. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927. Morris, L. The Revelation of St. John. Rev. ed. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Mounce, R.H. The Book of Revelation. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Moyise, S. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. JSNTSup 115. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Müller, E. ‘Microstructural Analysis of Revelation 20’. AUSS 37, no. 2 (1999): 227–55. Müller, P. ‘Das Buch und die Bücher in der Johannesoffenbarung’. Pages 293–309 in Studien zur Johannesoffenbarung und ihrer Auslegung: Festschrift für Otto Böcher zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn and Michael Wolter. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 2005. Müller, U.B. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. OTK zum Neuen Testament 19. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1984. Mussies, G. The Morphology of Koine Greek: As Used in the Apocalypse of St. John. NovTSup 27. Leiden: Brill, 1971. Musvosvi, J.N. Vengeance in the Apocalypse. AUSDDS. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1993. Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Nickelsburg, G.W.E., and J.C. VanderKam. 1 Enoch: A New Translation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Nickelsburg, G.W.E., J. VanderKam, and K. Baltzer. 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of Enoch Chapters 37–82. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Osborne, G. Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

170 Bibliography Porter, S.E. ‘Discourse Analysis and New Testament Studies: An Introductory Survey’. Pages 14–35 in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. JSNTSup 113. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and D.A. Carson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. ———. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, With Reference to Tense and Mood. SBG 1. New York: Lang, 1989. Portier-Young, A.E. Apocalypse Against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Prigent, P. L’Apocalypse de Saint Jean. CNT - Deuxième Série 14. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2000. Rissi, M. The Future of the World: An Exegetical Study of Revelation 19.11–22.15. SBT. London: SCM, 1972. Rist, M. ‘Revelation’. Pages 347–613 in The Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by G.A. Buttrick. New York: Abingdon, 1957. Roloff, J. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. 2nd ed. ZBK NT 18. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987. ———. The Revelation of John: A Continental Commentary. Translated by John E. Alsop. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Roose, H. ‘Das Zeugnis Jesu’: seine Bedeutung für die Christologie, Eschatologie und Prophetie in der Offenbarung des Johannes. TANZ 32. Tübingen: Francke, 2000. Rowland, C. The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity. London: SPCK, 1982. ———. Revelation. Epworth Commentaries. London: Epworth, 1993. Rowley, H.H. The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. London: Lutterworth, 1952. Royalty, R. ‘Don’t Touch This Book! Revelation 22:18–19 and the Rhetoric of Reading (in) the Apocalypse of John’. BibInt 12 (2004): 282–99. ———. The Streets of Heaven: The Ideology of Wealth in the Apocalypse of John. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998. Ryan, S. ‘ “The Testimony of Jesus” (Rev 1:2) & “The Testimony of Enoch” (Jub 4:18–19): A Reconsideration of the Generic Self-designation of the Apocalypse’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the British New Testament Society, Bangor, September 4, 2010. Sand, A. ‘Zur Frage nach dem “Sitz im Leben” der Apokalyptischen Texte des Neuen Testaments’. NTS 18 (1972): 167–77. Satake, A. Die Gemeindeordnung in der Johannesapokalypse. WMANT 21. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1966. ———. Die Offenbarung des Johannes. KEK 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Schüssler Fiorenza, E. ‘Composition and Structure of the Book of Revelation’. CBQ 39 (1977): 344–66. ———. ‘The Eschatology and Composition of the Apocalypse’. CBQ 30: (1968): 537–69. ———. Priester für Gott: Studien zum Herrschafts- und Priestermotiv in der Apokalypse. NTAbh 7. Münster: Aschendorff, 1972. ———. Revelation: Vision of a Just World. PC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Seiss, J. The Apocalypse: A Series of Special Lectures on the Revelation of Jesus Christ. London: James Nisbet, 1892. Seow, C. Daniel. WMBC. London: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Bibliography

171

Smalley, S. The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse. London: SPCK, 2005. ———. Thunder and Love: John’s Revelation and John’s Community. Milton Keynes: Word, 1994. Stefanovic, R. Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2002. Strand, K. ‘The Two Witnesses of Rev 11.3–12’. AUSS 19 (1981): 127–35. Stuckenbruck, L. 1 Enoch 91–108. CEJL. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. ———. Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. WUNT 2/70. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995. Sweet, J. Revelation. TPINTC. London: SCM, 1979. Swete, H.B. The Apocalypse of St John: The Greek Text. London: Macmillan, 1906. Thompson, L. The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. ———. ‘A Sociological Analysis of Tribulation in the Apocalypse of John’. Semeia 36 (1986): 147–74. Thompson, S. The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax. SNTSMS 52. Cambridge: University Press, 1985. Tiller, P. A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch. SBLEJL 4. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993. Tite, P.L. ‘How to Begin, and Why?’. Pages 57–99 in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Towner, W. Daniel. IBC. Atlanta: John Knox, 1984. Trites, A.A. ‘Μάρτυς and Martyrdom in the Apocalypse: A Semantic Study’. NovT 15 (1973): 72–80. ———. The New Testament Concept of Witness. SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Trudinger, P. ‘The Ephesus Milieu’. DRev 106 (1988): 286–96. Turner, M. ‘The Spirit of Prophecy and the Power of Authoritative Preaching in Luke– Acts: A Question of Origins’. NTS 38 (1992): 66–88. van Henten, J.W. ‘The Concept of Martyrdom in Revelation’. Pages 587–618 in Die Johannesapokalypse: Kontexte - Konzepte - Rezeption. Edited by Jörg Frey, James A. Kelhoffer, and Franz Tóth. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. ———. ‘Dragon Myth and Imperial Ideology in Revelation 12–13’. Pages 181–203 in The Reality of the Apocalypse: Rhetoric and Politics in the Book of Revelation. Edited by David L. Barr. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. van Kooten, G.H. ‘The Jewish War and the Roman Civil War of 68–69 C.E.: Jewish, Pagan, and Christian Perspectives’. Pages 419–50 in Jewish Revolt Against Rome. Edited by M. Popović. Leiden: Brill, 2011. ———. ‘The Year of the Four Emperors and the Revelation of John: The ‘pro-Neronian’ Emperors Otho and Vitellius, and the Images and Colossus of Nero in Rome’. JSNT 30 (2007): 205–48. VanderKam, J.C. ‘Open and Closed Eyes in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90)’. Pages 279–92 in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel. Edited by Hindy Najman and Judith Newman. Leiden: Brill, 2004. ———. ‘Studies in the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93:1–10; 91:11–170)’. CBQ 46 (1984): 511–23.

172 Bibliography Vassiliadis, P. ‘The Translation of Marturia Iēsou in Revelation’. BT 36, no 1 (1985): 129–34. Volz, P. Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter: nach den Quellen der rabbinischen, apokalyptischen und apokryphen Literatur. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966. Wainwright, A. Mysterious Apocalypse: Interpreting the Book of Revelation. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993. White, J. The Form and Structure of the Official Petition: A Study in Greek Epistolography. SBLDS 5. Missoula, MT: SBL, 1972. Wilson, M.W. ‘Revelation 19.10 and Contemporary Interpretation’. Pages 191–202 in Spirit and Renewal: Essays in Honour of J. Rodman Williams. Edited by John Christopher Thomas, Rick D. Moore, and Steven J. Land. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Wilson, R.R. ‘From Prophecy to Apocalyptic’. Semeia 21 (1981): 79–95. Witherington III, B. Revelation. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Woodman, S. The Book of Revelation. SCM Core Text. London: SCM, 2008. Yarbro Collins, A. The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation. HDR. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for Harvard Theological Review, 1976. ———. ‘The Political Perspective of the Revelation to John’. JBL 96 (1977): 241–56. Yates, R.S. ‘The Resurrection of the Tribulation Saints’. BSac 163, no. 652 (2006): 453–66.

I n d ex of R ef ere nce s Genesis 3.16 90 4.4 91 4.10 127 12 91 12.1–6 91 12.13–16 91 12.13 80, 91 12.16 91 12.17 91 18.24 80 18.26 80 Exodus 15.22–16.36 55 Leviticus 4.7 126 8.15 126 9.9 126 Numbers 11.25–26 107 11.29 107 35.30 133 Deuteronomy 17.6 133 19.15 133 31.19 161 31.20–21 161 32.46–47 161 1 Samuel 10.6 107 10.10 107 19.20 107 19.23 107

1 Kings 18.36 132 21.10 133

61.1 107 65.15 137 65.16 137

2 Kings 2.9 107 2.15 107 9 80 9.1 80 9.7 80

Jeremiah 1.2 141 5.14 132 25.13–14 67 25.30 67 36.2 45

1 Chronicles 21.16 143

Ezekiel 1.1–3.11 62 2–3 62 2.1 62 2.9–10 61 3.3 62 3.27 121

Nehemiah 8 36 8.7 36 8.8 119 8.13 36 9.30 107 Job 1.6–12 129 2.1–7 129 Psalms 89 135 89.27 135 89.37 135 98.36–37 135 Isaiah 6 121 6.9–10 121, 162 30.8 45 40–55 145 44.5 LXX 118 55 136 55.3–4 136

Daniel 1–6 35 1.4 36, 37 1.17 37 1.20 37 2 45 2.2 37 2.7 121 2.11 121 2.17 121 2.29 121 3.6 121 3.13 121 3.22 121 7–12 35–37 7 45 7.1 35 7.2–28 35 8.1 35 8.2–14 35

174 Daniel (cont.) 8.5 37 8.15 37 8.16 37 8.17 37, 38 8.19 38 8.23 37 8.26 38, 69 8.27 37 9.2 37 9.22–23 120 9.22 37 9.23 35, 37 9.24–27 35, 36 9.25 120 10.1 35, 37 10.11 37 10.12 37 10.14 37, 38 10.21 35 11 36, 40, 41, 120 11.1–12.3 35, 36 11.1 35 11.21–45 38 11.22–45 38, 39, 41, 42 37, 38 11.30 11.33–35 37–39, 41, 42 11.33 36, 37, 39, 120 11.35 39 11.37 37, 38 39, 41, 12 68, 69, 120 12.1 74, 91 12.2 40 12.3 40 12.4 35, 36, 38–41, 45, 69, 121, 122 12.4 LXX 69 12.8 37, 43

Index of References 12.9–10

39, 40, 121 12.9 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 69, 122 12.10 37, 40, 41, 120 12.10 LXX 120 13.9 121 13.18 121 17.9 121 Hosea 1.1 141 Joel 1.1 141 2.28 107 Amos 3.7 141, 147 8 40 Jonah 1.1 141 Micah 1.1 141 Habakkuk 2.2 45 Zephaniah 1.1 141 Zechariah 1.1 141 3.1–2 129 7.12 107 New Testament Matthew 5.29 118 13.9–17 121, 162 13.43 121, 162

23.31–35 127 23.35 127 24.6–28 74 24.21 74 24.22 81 24.24 74 Mark 2.27 81 13.4 63 13.7–19 74 13.8 74 13.9 74 13.14 119 Luke 1.67 107 21.7 63 John 1.7 23 1.19 23 3.32 23 5.31 23 5.32 23 5.34 23 5.36 23 8.14 23 8.18 23 11.42 81 12.30 81 18.37 23 19.35 23 21.24 23 Acts 2.17–18 107 11.27 147 13.1–3 147 13.1 147 15.32 147 19.6 107 20.23 74 21.10 147 22.18 23 28.25 107

Romans 3.25 81 4.25 81 8.35 74 11.28 81 1 Corinthians 7.26 74 11.9 81 12.28 147 14.29 147 14.37 147 Ephesians 2.20 147 3.5 107, 147 4.11 147 1 Timothy 3.7 24 Hebrews 11.4 127 12.24 127 James 1.27 74 2 Peter 1.21 107 1 John 4.1 107 5.9–10 23 Revelation 1–11 94 1–9 64 1 60 1.1–11 84 1.1–8 30 1.1–3 30, 63, 68, 84, 148 1.1–2 30, 33, 62, 67, 72, 77,

Index of References 83, 109, 138, 139 1.1 19, 30, 31, 33, 61–63, 69, 70, 86, 100, 101, 116, 139 1.2 1, 3, 4, 8–10, 12, 13, 15, 19–21, 26, 29– 32, 34, 56, 65, 70–73, 79, 83– 85, 87, 89, 95, 97, 123, 127, 139, 141–44, 148, 150–52 1.3 19, 33, 65, 69, 70, 84, 95, 105, 106, 109, 119, 121, 124, 145, 148, 154, 156, 158, 161 1.4–8 30 1.4–7 84 1.4 76, 106, 160 1.5 10, 12, 15, 135, 136, 147 1.6 74 1.7 60, 86 1.9 1, 4, 5, 8–12, 15, 18–21,

175 26, 29, 30, 32, 56, 68, 70, 71, 73–76, 78, 81, 83–85, 96, 100, 123, 127, 141–44, 150, 151, 154 1.10–20 148 1.10–11 67 1.10 82–84, 106, 156 1.11 33, 65, 69, 104, 139, 154, 155, 160 1.12 31 1.13–16 62, 99 1.15 60 1.16 60 1.19 33, 45, 65, 69, 154 1.20 30 2–3 24 2.1 33, 65, 69, 104, 133, 146 2.2 75, 131 14, 75, 81 2.3 2.4 11 2.5 131 2.6 70, 131 14, 106, 2.7 120, 123, 130, 156 2.8 33, 65, 69, 104, 146, 155 2.9–10 11 2.9 11, 73 2.10 13, 73, 131

176 Revelation (cont.) 2.11 14, 106, 120, 123, 130 2.12 33, 69, 104, 146, 155 2.13 11–15, 114, 130, 134, 135 2.14–16 14 2.14–15 11, 70, 131 2.17 14, 106, 120, 123, 130, 156 2.18 33, 65, 69, 104, 146, 155 2.20–23 14, 70 11, 116, 2.20 131, 148, 149 2.22 73 2.24 14, 131 2.26 14, 120, 130 106, 123 2.29 3.1–2 11 3.1 14, 33, 65, 69, 104, 106, 146, 155 3.2–3 131 3.3 14, 131 3.5 14, 59, 120, 130 3.6 106, 123 3.7 33, 65, 69, 104, 146, 155 3.8 13, 131 3.9 11 3.10–11 131 3.10 13

Index of References 3.12

14, 104, 120, 130, 155 3.13 106, 123 3.14 12, 15, 33, 65, 69, 104, 135–38, 146, 147, 155 3.15 14, 131 3.16 11 3.19 14 3.21 14, 120, 130 3.22 106, 123 4.1–2 67 4.2 83, 106 4.5 106 5 60–62, 139 5.1 61, 62 5.2 60 5.4 88 5.6–14 132 5.6 106 5.7–8.1 62 5.7 62 5.8 116 5.9 67 5.10 74 6.1 62 6.2 73 6.9–11 11, 13, 16, 111–14, 124, 142, 143, 152 6.9 10, 12, 15, 26, 56, 73, 78, 81, 111–14, 116, 125, 126, 139, 141, 142, 153

6.10 111 6.11 111, 114, 128 7.3–4 118 7.3 116 7.9 67 7.14 11, 13, 73 8.3 116 8.4 116 9.4 118 9.13–21 64 9.14–15 60 9.21 64 10–11 68–70, 155 10 29, 60–63, 65–68, 128, 151 10.1–11.13 64, 89 10.1–11 140 10.1–2 62 10.1 60, 61, 66 10.4 33 10.7 64, 147– 49 10.8–11 66 10.8–10 62 10.9 82 10.10–11 69 10.11 65–67 11–22 64 11–13 17 11 17, 29, 63–66, 68, 69, 144, 145, 151, 155, 158 11.1–13 64 11.1 63 11.2–13 128, 140, 144, 147 11.3–13 15, 66, 132, 136, 147, 149

11.3

12, 66, 128, 135, 144 11.5–6 128 11.6 68, 105, 128, 140, 144, 145 11.7–10 13 11.7 12, 68, 128, 139, 144 11.9 67 11.10 144 11.11 106 11.13 160 11.14 64 11.15–18 86 11.15 63, 64, 74 11.18 116, 146 11.19 86 12–22 63–66 12–14 86 12–13 95 12 86–88, 92–94, 113, 129–31 12.1–17 86 12.1–6 88 12.1–4 91 12.1 87, 90 12.3–4 86 12.5–6 86 12.5 90–92 12.6 88, 90–92 12.7–15 88 12.7–12 91, 129 12.7–9 86, 129 12.7 88, 129 12.8–9 88 12.9 5, 88 12.10–17 11 12.10–12 86, 129 12.10 74, 95, 129

Index of References 12.11

12, 15, 129–31, 139, 162 12.12.11 17 12.13–17 90 12.13–16 88, 90–92 12.13 88, 90, 92 12.17–18 91, 93 12.17 1, 5–11, 13, 15, 19–21, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 56, 70, 85, 86, 89, 90, 92–96, 111, 116, 127, 131, 150–52, 155, 158 13–19 154 13–14 86 13 88, 93, 94, 96, 113 13.1 116 13.3 73 13.7–10 94 13.7 13, 17, 67, 116 13.8 59 13.10 75, 116, 119 13.11 116 13.15–18 112 13.15–17 117 13.15 106, 115, 116 13.16–17 116 13.18 73, 119, 120 14 17, 86, 96 14.4 147 14.6 67 14.9–11 117

177 14.9–10 118 14.10 59 14.12 6, 17, 75, 96, 116, 119 14.13 33, 65, 69, 104, 106, 155 14.14 147 14.20 86 15 86 15.1–22.9 63 15.1–16.21 86 15.1 99 15.2 130 15.3 116 15.5–16.1 99 15.6 98, 99 16.2 117 16.4–7 113 16.6 116, 146 16.10 74 16.13 106 16.17 59 17 93, 96, 133 17.1–19.8 98, 99, 101 17.1 99 17.3 99, 106 17.6 11–13, 15, 116, 133, 135, 140 17.7 99 17.8–11 73 17.8 59, 120 17.9 119, 120 17.12 74 17.15 67, 99 17.17 74, 143 17.18 74 18.2 106 18.4 134 18.6 59 18.20 116, 146, 149 18.21 60

178 Revelation (cont.) 18.24 112, 116, 146 19 87 19.2 13, 116, 134 19.5 116 19.7 156 19.8 99, 116 19.9–10 98, 102, 104 33, 65, 19.9 69, 98, 99, 101, 104, 143, 155, 156 19.10 1, 6–11, 15, 20, 21, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34, 56, 68, 70, 85, 98, 99, 103–108, 127, 145, 148, 150– 52, 155, 158, 162 19.11 138 19.13 143, 144 19.20 117 20–22 63 20.1–3 110 20.2 111 20.3 111 115, 143 20.4–6 20.4 2, 7–9, 11, 13, 15, 19–21, 26, 29, 30, 32, 56, 70, 73, 78, 81, 85, 110–17, 127, 128,

Index of References 130, 141– 43, 150, 151–55 20.5 115 20.6 123 20.9 116 20.11–15 115, 123 20.12 59 20.14 1, 59 21.3 116 21.4 143 21.5 33, 45, 65, 69, 104, 138, 155 21.7 14, 116, 120, 130 21.9 99 21.10 99, 106 21.15 99 21.27 59 22.3 116 22.6–9 101, 104 22.6 70, 100, 101, 104, 106, 116, 138, 148, 160 22.7 33, 65, 104–106, 109, 121, 124, 145, 146, 154, 156 22.8–11 95 22.8–9 98, 101– 103 22.9 33, 65, 103, 104, 109, 116, 148, 152 22.10–11 121 22.10 33, 65, 70, 104– 106, 109, 145, 146, 161, 162

22.11 22.16

22.17 22.18–19 22.18

22.19 22.20

121, 122, 162 10, 12, 33, 70, 100, 104, 138, 146, 147, 154, 160 106, 139, 156 33, 69, 70, 155, 162 12, 65, 69, 104–106, 109, 139, 145–47, 156 105, 106, 109, 146 12, 33, 138, 139, 146, 147, 156, 161

Apocrypha 2 Esdras 14.37–48 45 Tobit 1.16–2.8 67 12.15–16 98 12.16–22 102 Wisdom of Solomon 9.17–18 107 18.15–16 143 2 Maccabees 8.3–4 127 Pseudepigrapha 1 Enoch 1–36 43, 44, 46, 48, 49 1–5 44

1.1–3 48 1.1 49 1.2–3 50 1.2 48, 55 1.3 48 1.9 57 5 50, 58 5.1–9 58 5.8 50, 54, 56 6–11 44 6.9 57 9.1–9 43 9.18–19 43 10–11 57 10 58 10.1–11.13 57, 58 10.1 57, 58 10.2 58 10.8 58 10.9–10 58 10.9 58 10.10 58 11.13 57 12–33 44 12–16 44 12.17 57 17–36 44 18.11 44 19.10 57 20.4 57 20.5 91 21.7 44 26–27 44 36 44 37–82 46 37–71 43–46 37.1–5 45 40.1 45 40.7 129 47 127 68.1 45 72–82 43–46 72.1 45 74.2 45 81–82 48 81 44 81.1–82.4 44, 46, 47

Index of References

179

47, 48, 158 81.5 49 81.6 45, 159 82.1–4 53 82.1–3 49 82.1–2 49 82.1 45, 47, 49, 50 82.2 49, 50 82.7 45 83–90 43, 44, 46, 54 85.1 55 85.4 55 85.5 55 85.7 55 85.9 55 86.1 55 86.2 55 86.3 55 86.4 55 87.1 55 87.2 55 87.3–4 44 87.4 55 88.1 55 88.3 55 89.2 55 89.3 55 89.4 55 89.5 55 89.6 55 89.7 55 89.16 55 89.19 55 89.21 55 89.27 55 89.28 55 90 56 90.5 55 90.6 54, 55 90.24 44 90.26–27 44 91–108 48 91 44, 50 91.1–10 46

91.1–3 49 91.3–4 51, 159 91.3 158, 159 91.5–11 51 91.5–10 51 91.10–17 51 91.11–170 48 91.11–17 50, 51, 111 91.11 51, 160 91.14 52, 53, 55, 160 91.15–16 111 91.18–19 46, 51 92–105 43, 44, 46 92.1 49 93.1–10 48, 50 93.1–3 48 93.1 47 93.3–10 51 93.3 47 93.10 51–56, 158 94.1–5 51 94.3–5 51 96.4 161 96.8 161 97–107 48 97.4 161 97.6 161 98.6–8 161 99.10 50, 54 100.6 48, 50, 52, 53, 56 104 47, 53 104.10–13 56 52, 53 104.10–11 104.10 53 104.11 55, 158 104.12–13 49, 53, 55 104.12–105.2 53, 159 104.12–105.1 52, 53 104.12 46, 47, 49, 53 104.13 46, 47, 52, 53 105.1–2 52, 55

81.5–6

180

Index of References

1 Enoch (cont.) 105.1 52, 53, 55, 56, 158, 159 105.12 52 106–107 43–45 108 43–45 108.10 45

17.15–16 129 23.11–21 74

2 Baruch 27.1–15 74 29.1–30.4 111 40.1–4 111 72.1–74.3 111

Testament of Levi 5.6 129

2 Enoch 1.4–8 98

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Gospel of Pseudo Matthew 3 102

3 Enoch 16 98 26.12 129 4 Ezra 13.16–19 74 4 Maccabees 17.22 127 18.11 127 Apocalypse of Zephaniah 6.11–15 98, 102 6.17 129 Ascension of Isaiah 7.2 98 7.19 98 7.21 102 8.5 102 Jubilees 1.20 129 4.18–19 159 4.18 158 4.19 159, 161 4.24 161 10.17 161

Psalms of Solomon 15.6–9 118 Testament of Dan 6.1–6 129

Testament of Moses 8.1 74

Qumran 4QEng 1 iv 12–13

51

CD 2.12 107 Josephus Antiquities 11.205 117 14.124 117 14.140 117 14.39 117 14.73 117 15.8–9 117 20.117 117 War 1.154 117 1.185 117 1.357 117 2.242 117

Apostolic Fathers Didache 16.4–5 74 Ignatius To the Magnesians 5.2 118 Shepherd of Hermas Visions 2.1 58 2.2.7 74 2.4 58 Classical and Ancient Writings Aristotle Ethica nicomachea 1172b2I 80 Cicero In Verrem 3.67.156 117 5.45.118 117 5.54.142 117 Clement of Alexandria Quis dives salvetur 42 71 Epiphanius Adversus Haereses 52.2 81 Eusebius Historia ecclesiastica 3.18 71 Herodotus 2.113 118 7.233 118 Jerome De viris illustribus 10 71



181

Index of References

Livy 1.26 117 8.32.10 117 8.7.20 117 26.15 117 26.16 117 28.29.10 117 36.28.6 117

Plato Respublica 376b 80 524c 80

Lucian De syria dea 59 118

Polybius 2.56.12 80 11.30.2 117

Origen Homiliae in Matthaeum 7.51 71 16.6 71

Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita De caelesti hierarchia 9.2 91

Plutarch Pericles 26 118

Tacitus Annals 15.44 117 Papyri Lond I nr. 42

80

Other Ancient Sources Cairo Genizah Hekhalot a/2, 13–18 102 UPZ 29 80 49 80 59 80 62,2 80

I n d ex of A u t h or s Aland, B. 40 Aland, K. 40 Allo, E.B. 113 Argall, R.A. 51 Aune, D.E. 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 26–28, 30, 31, 60, 61, 63, 66, 67, 69–71, 74, 77, 82, 86– 88, 91, 94, 96, 106, 107, 110, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120, 126, 127, 129, 132, 133, 135, 137, 138, 141, 143, 144, 146–49 Baltzer, K. 46 Bandy, A.S. 3, 5, 8, 145, 162 Barker, M. 82 Barr, D.L. 73 Bauckham, R. 3, 10, 25, 27, 58, 60–67, 69, 108, 111, 123 Beale, G.K. 4–8, 30, 33, 58–67, 73, 89–93, 102, 105, 106, 112, 114–22, 129, 132, 134, 135, 141, 143, 146, 162 Beasley-Murray, G.R. 5, 7, 58, 61, 107, 119, 136, 138 Beckwith, L.T. 3, 5–7, 10, 12, 26, 90, 109, 110, 114, 115, 118, 126 Begrich, J. 145 Bell, A.A. 93 Berger, K. 137 Bergmeier,R. 69, 77 Bevan, A. 38 Black, M. 48, 51 Blount, B.K. 15, 16, 94, 126 Boring, M. 62, 66, 76, 87, 88, 115 Bousset, W. 94 Boxall, I. 4, 6, 7, 11, 30–33, 58, 60, 61, 63–65, 67, 71, 73–75, 77–79, 82–85, 87, 88, 93, 95, 106, 110, 111, 114, 117–19, 121, 126, 127, 132–34, 137, 147, 156, 158 Bredin, M. 17 Brox, N. 10, 126, 138, 157 Bruce, F.F. 6, 7, 106–108

Brütsch, C. 3, 5–8, 146 Burtchaell, J. 146 Caird, G.B. 4, 7, 23, 77, 118, 126, 129, 135, 163 Campbell, W.G. 132 Carey, G. 14 Charles, R.H. 3, 5–7, 10, 38, 51, 80, 109, 118, 126, 129, 148 Chester, A. 96, 101 Collins, J.J. 35–40, 42, 43, 45 Court, J. 87, 94 Cross, F.M. 145 Davies, P. 38, 40 Dehandschutter, B. 3, 5 Deissmann, A. 118 deSilva, D. 13–15, 22, 25, 33, 79, 103, 120, 142, 158, 160 DiLella, A.A. 35, 39, 40, 43 Dixon, S.S.U. 34 Donegani, I. 23 Duff, P.B. 14 Elliot, K. 59 Ellul, J. 137 Farrer, A. 64, 75, 115 Fee, G. 31, 32, 132 Feuillet, A. 127 Ford, J.M. 7, 109, 110 Gadamer, H.G. 84 Gager, J.G. 13 Giblin, C.H. 63 Giesen, H. 11 Goldingay, J. 35, 39, 40 Gollinger, H. 91, 92 Gourgues, M. 111 Green, J. 22, 24, 25



Index of Authors

Gressmann, H. 145 Gunkel, H. 145 Günther, E. 157 Gwyther, A. 14, 119 Hanson, P.D. 13 Harrington, W.J. 31, 32, 72 Harris, J. 79 Harris, M. 81 Hartman, L.F. 35, 39, 40, 43 Hill, D. 3, 5–8, 10, 12, 66, 103, 104, 148, 149, 154 Himmelfarb, M. 71 Hofius, O. 135, 136 Holtz, T. 3, 5, 6, 102, 135, 137 Holwerda, D.E. 66 Horn, F.W. 77, 82 Howard, W.F. 59 Howard-Brook, W. 14, 119 Hughes, P. 98, 99 Jauhiainen, M. 60, 74 Johannessohn, M. 80 Kline, M. 61 Knibb, M. 49 Knight, J. 11, 72, 82 Köhler, L. 145 Kovacs, J. 61, 78, 110 Kowalski, B. 148 Kraft, H. 4, 7, 61, 99, 114, 118 Kraybill, J.N. 94, 117 Lacocque, A. 40 Ladd, G.A. 90 Lambrecht, J. 63 Lampe, G.W.H. 4–7, 81, 106 Lenski, R. 146 Lilje, H. 66 Lindenberger, J.M. 40 Lohmeyer, E. 3, 63, 69, 108, 118, 120 Longenecker, B.W. 13 Lucas, E. 38 Maier, G. 4–7, 63, 104, 114, 115, 130 Martian, S. 13 Matthewson, D. 79 Mayser, E. 80 Mazzaferri, F. 3, 6–8, 18, 27, 58, 59, 66, 67, 104, 138, 148, 154

183

McKelvey, R. 110 McLay, T. 39 Michl, J. 87 Middleton, P. 16, 17, 130, 131 Milik, J.T. 47, 51 Montgomery, J.T. 39 Morris, L. 59, 107 Moulton, J.H. 59 Mounce, R.H. 3, 5–7, 58, 63–66, 77, 106, 107, 110, 112–15, 132, 147 Moyise, S. 61, 136, 148 Müller, E. 115 Müller, P. 58 Müller, U.B. 26, 87, 91, 156 Mussies, G. 27 Musvosvi, J.N. 126 Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 43–46, 48, 49, 51–55, 160, 161 Osborne, G. 147, 162 Pellauer, D. 40 Porter, S.E. 26, 82 Portier-Young, A.E. 38, 41, 51, 55 Prigent, P. 4, 7, 59, 79, 136, 146, 148 Ricoeur, P. 40 Rissi, M. 137, 138 Rist, M. 33 Robertson, A. 74 Roloff, J. 5, 80 Roose, H. 3, 5, 7, 14, 18, 79, 104, 130, 131, 133, 138, 144, 145, 149, 157 Rowland, C. 61, 78, 93, 110, 111, 141 Rowley, H.H. 35 Royalty, R. 14, 142 Ryan, S. 159, 161 Sand, A. 28 Satake, A. 3, 5–7, 79, 94, 109, 133, 135, 137, 146, 149 Schlier, H. 137 Schneider, C. 118 Schrenk, G. 63 Schüssler-Fiorenza, E. 63, 82, 135 Seiss, J. 122 Seow, C. 38, 40

184

Index of Authors

Smalley, S. 5–7, 30, 58, 62–65, 69, 79, 86, 93, 96, 110, 111, 115–20, 126, 129, 135, 137, 138, 141 Stefanovic, R. 3, 5, 7, 126, 135, 141, 143, 154 Strand, K. 132 Strathmann, H. 157 Stuckenbruck, L.T. 46, 48, 51–53, 98– 102, 104, 161 Sweet, J. 4–7, 23, 60, 61, 66, 88, 110, 126, 135, 137 Swete, H.B. 3, 5–7, 9, 23 Thompson, L. 11, 72, 77 Thompson, S. 80 Tiller, P. 44, 54, 55 Tite, P.L. 76 Towner, W. 38, 39 Trites, A.A. 13, 20, 144, 145, 157, 158, 163 Trudinger, P. 72 Turner, M. 107 Turner, N. 59

Ullendorf, E. 49 van Henten, J.W. 95, 157 van Kooten, G.H. 93, 116 VanderKam, J.C. 43, 44, 46, 48, 51, 55 Vassiliadis, P. 4–8, 11 Volz, P. 74 Wainwright, A. 110 White, J. 76 Wilson, M.W. 105 Wilson, R.R. 13 Witherington, III, B. 77, 106, 110, 115, 117, 123 Woodman, S. 115, 155 Yarbro Collins, A. 16, 63, 64, 86–88, 92, 94, 113, 118, 129, 130 Yates, R.S. 115 Zerwick, M. 74