The Use of the Old Testament in the Apocalypse

127

THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

IN THE APOCALYPSE

Gregory K. Beale

Until the early 1980s the use of the OT in the Apocalypse of John

received less attention than the use of the OT elsewhere in the NT—

merely two books

and six signicant articles.

Important discussion of

the subject could be found in commentaries and other books, especially

Swete,

Charles,

Vos,

Caird,

Van der Waal,

Ford,

Beasley-Murray,

Adol f Sc hl at ter, Das Alte Testament in der johanneischen Apokalypse (Gütersloh, Germany: C.

Bertelsmann, 1912); Ferrell Jenkins, e Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids:

Baker, 1976).

Albert Vanhoye, “L’utilisation duLivre d’Ezéchiel dans l’Apocalypse,” Biblica 43, no. 3 (1962):

436–76; Angelo Lancellotti, “L’Antico Testamento nell’Apocalisse,” RivB14, no. 4 (1966):

369–84; L. Paul Trudinger, “Some Observations concerning the Text of the Old Testament in

Revelation,” JTS 17, no. 1 (1966); Attilio Gangemi, “L’utilizzazione del deutero-Isaia nell’Apoca-

lisse di Giovanni,” Euntes Docete 27 (1974): 109–44; Benito Marconcini, “L’utilizzazione

del T.M. nelle citazione isaiane dell’ Apocalisse,” RivB 24 (1976): 113–36; Michael Douglas

Goulder, “Apocalypse as an Annual Cycle of Prophecies,” NTS 27, no. 3 (1981): 342–67; cf. also

J. Cambier, “Les images de l’Ancien Testament dans l’Apocalypse de saint Jean,” NR 77 (1955):

113–22; and Eduard Lohse, “Die alttestamentliche Sprache des Sehers Johannes,” ZNW 52, no.

1–2 (1961): 122–26, which are of more limited value.

H. B. Swete, e Apocalypse of St. John: e Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indices

(London: Macmillan, 1911), passim, but esp. cxl–clvi.

R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, 2 vols.

(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920), passim, but esp. 1:lxv–lxxxii.

Louis A. Vos, e Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse (Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, 1965),

16–53.

G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine, BNTC (London: Adam &

Charles Black, 1966).

C. van der Waal, Openbaring van Jezus Christus: Inleiding en vertaling (Groningen: de Vuurbaak,

1971), 174–241.

De smond Ford, Crisis: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Desmond Ford Pubns, 1982),

243–306.

George R. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).

Gregory K. Beale is professor of New Testament at Reformed eological Seminary-Dallas.

128 THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOCALYPSE

and, to a lesser degree, Delling,

Comblin,

Farrer,

and Holtz.

Since

the early 1980s, however, six signicant books have been written on the

topic: Beale’s e Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the

Revelation of St. John (1984; based on a 1980 Cambridge dissertation), J. M.

Vogelgesang’s “Interpretation of Ezekiel in Revelation” (unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, Harvard University, 1985), J. Paulien’s Decoding Revelation’s

Trumpets (1988),

Ruiz’s (1989), Fekkes’s (1994), and Moyise’s (1995).

Since the same period, a number of articles on the same subject have

appeared.

Since 2000, there have been a spate of books and articles on

Revelation’s use of the OT.

I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

1. ere is general acknowledgment that the Apocalypse contains more

OT references than any other NT book, although past attempts to tally

the total number have varied

because of the dierent criteria employed

to determine the validity of an OT reference and the inclusion by some

authors of “echoes” and parallels of a very general nature.

e range of

Gerhard Delling, “Zum Gottesdienstlichen Stil der Johannes-Apokalypse” NovT 3, no. 1–2

(1959): 107–37.

José Com bli n, Le Christ dans l’Apocalypse, Bibliothèque de théologie; Serie 3: eologie Biblique

V. 6 (Paris: Desclee, 1965).

Au st in Fa rrer, e Revelation of St. John the Divine (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964).

Tr au got t Holtz , Die Christologie der Apokalypse des Johannes, TUGAL 85 (Berlin: Akademie

Verlag, 1962).

For a summary and evaluation of Paulien see G. K. Beale, review of Decoding Revelation’s

Trumpets, by Jon Paulien, JBL 111, no. 2 (1992): 358–61.

Reference to and evaluation of these six books, as well as the articles, can be found to vary-

ing degrees throughout the commentary and in the discussion that follows here, as well as in

Gregory K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (Sheeld, England: Sheeld

Academic, 1998), Chapter 1. Likewise, see also the discussion of recent literature in F. J. Murphy,

“e Book of Revelation,” CBR 2 (1994): 200–201. Among recent articles see G. K. Beale, “e

Use of the Old Testament in Revelation” in It Is Written, eds. D. A. Carson and H. G. M.

Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 318–36; A. S. Bøe, “Bruken av det

Gamle Testament i Johannes’Åpenbaring,” TTKi 63 (1992): 253–69; omas E. McComiskey,

“Alteration of OT Imagery in the Book of Revelation,” JETS 36, no. 3 (1993): 307–16. e pres-

ent section is a minor revision of my “Use of the Old Testament in Revelation.”

UBS3, 901–11 = 394; NA26, 739–74 = 635; G. D. Kilpatrick, ed., (London: British and Foreign

Bible Society, 1958), 734–87 = 493; Eugen Hühn, (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck],

1900), 269. = 455; Wilhelm Dittmar, (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1899), 263–79

= 195; Swete, xcl = 278; Charles, lxv–lxxxii = 226; van der Waal, 174–241 = 1000 (approx-

imately). For statistics from other commentators see Jan Fekkes III, (Sheeld: JSOT Press,

1994),62. See Jon Paulien, “Elusive Allusions: e Problematic Use of the Old Testament in

Revelation,” 33 (1988): 37–53., for an example of the varying lists of allusions in a particular

segment of Revelation (8:7–9:21 and 11:15–18). One reason for the varying statistics is that some

of these lists include parallels together with allusions and citations.

Cf. the survey and evaluation in Vos, Synoptic Traditions, 17–19; and Vanhoye, “Utilisation du

GREGORY K. BEALE 129

OT usage includes the Pentateuch, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, Psalms,

Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Job, and the Major and the Minor Prophets.

Roughly more than half the references are from the Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel,

and Daniel, and in proportion to its length Daniel yields the most.

e evaluation of Daniel as very inuential is supported by focused

study.

Among the allusions to Daniel, the greatest number are from

Daniel 7. In terms of actual number of allusions, Isaiah is rst, followed

by Ezekiel, Daniel, and Psalms, though statistics dier.

ere is more

agreement that Ezekiel exerts greater inuence in Revelation than Daniel.

e OT in general plays such a major role that a proper understanding

of its use is necessary for an adequate view of the Apocalypse as a whole.

e text form of OT references in Revelation needs in-depth discussion

since there are no formal quotations and most are allusions, a phenomenon

often making identication of such references more dicult. e com-

plex relationship of the Hebrew text to early Greek versions, the history

of which is largely unknown to us, makes it dicult to know whether

John depends on the Hebrew or the Greek.

Unfortunately, however,

the scope of the present discussion precludes thorough analysis of this

important subject.

e majority of commentators have not followed

Swete’s assessment that John depended mainly on the LXX

and have

apparently followed Charles’s conclusion that John was inuenced more by

the Hebrew rather than the Greek OT,

a conclusion based mainly on the

observation that John’s allusions depart from the wording of the LXX.

Livre d’Ezéchiel,” 438–40.

So Swete, Apocalypse, cliii, where numerical statistics are also given for many of the OT books

used.

Cf. G. K. Beale, e Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John

(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984).

E.g., Swete lists forty-six from Isaiah, while the more trenchant analysis of Fekkes, Isaiah in

Revelation, 280–81, nds fty “certain and probable” allusions to Isaiah. Swete also lists thir-

ty-one from Daniel, twenty-nine from Ezekiel, and twenty-seven from the Psalms.

So J. M. Vogelgesang, “e Interpretation of Ezekiel in the Book of Revelation” (PhD diss.,

Harvard University, 1985), 19–22.

But see further Trudinger, “Observations concerning the Text of the Old Testament”; Beale, Use

of Daniel, 154–259; 306–13; G. K. Beale, “e Origin of the Title ‘King of Kings and Lord of

Lords’ in Revelation 17:4,” NTS 31, no. 4 (1985): 618–20; G. K. Beale, “A Reconsideration of the

Text of Daniel in the Apocalypse,” Biblica 67, no. 4 (1986): 539–43.

Swe te , Apocalypse, clv–clvi.

Ch ar les , Revelation, 1:lxvi–lxvii, as well as lxviii–lxxxii; C G. Ozanne, “e Language of the

Apocalypse,” TynBul 16 (1965): 3–9; Trudinger, “Observations concerning the Text of the Old

Testament”; Steven ompson, Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1985), 1–2, 102–8.

Ch ar les , Revelation, 1:lxvi.

130 THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOCALYPSE

But the wording also departs from the Hebrew at signicant points.

e

likelihood is that John draws from both Semitic and Greek biblical sources

and often modies both.

Charles himself acknowledged that although

John’s pattern was to translate the Hebrew text and not to quote from the

Greek version, nevertheless “he was often inuenced in his renderings by

the LXX and another Greek version,” namely proto-eodotion.

e following criteria can be used to identify OT allusions in Revelation:

Clear allusion: the wording is almost identical to the OT source,

shares some common core meaning, and could not likely have

come from anywhere else.

Probable allusion: though the wording is not as close, it still

contains an idea or wording that is uniquely traceable to the

OT text or exhibits a structure of ideas uniquely traceable to

the OT passage.

Possible allusion: the language is only generally similar to the

purported source, echoing either its wording or concepts.

Furthermore, a reasonable explanation of authorial motive should be

given if a proposed OT allusion is to be accepted as clear or probable. For

example, John appears to allude to the OT to show how prophecy has been

and is being fullled in Christ’s coming, Pentecost, and the creation of

the church.

ese criteria for allusions are also applicable in recognizing

the presence of allusions to sources other than the OT, whether Jewish

or Greco-Roman. One must be circumspect in the search for dependence

See further Steve Moyise, e Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (Sheeld: Sheeld

Academic Press, 1995), 17.

So Moyis e, Old Testament in Revelation, 17, though this is a conclusion reached already by the

mid-nineteenth-century commentator Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (Andover:

Allen, Morrill, and Wardwell, 1845), 1:231–32; and by T. C. Laughlin, e Solecisms of the

Apocalypse (Princeton: C. S. Robinson & Co., 1902), 21; cf. likewise W. F. Howard, A Grammar

of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1929), 2:480; for LXX inuence cf. also Beale,

“‘Kings of Kings and Lord of Lords’ in Rev. 17:14”; Beale, “Text of Daniel in the Apocalypse.”

Ch ar les , Revelation, 1:lxvii.

Beale, Use of Daniel, 308. See also Paulien, “Elusive Allusions,” for additional discussion of

criteria and validity of allusions.

See, e.g., Harold M. Parker, “e Scriptures of the Author of the Revelation of John,” Iliﬀ Review

37, no. 1 (1980): 35–51, who contends that John was saturated with noncanonical apocalyp-

tic Jewish tradition, though direct dependence on this material is small in comparison with

direct OT references. For further evaluation see Frederick D. Mazzaferri, e Genre of the Book of

Revelation from a Source-Critical Perspective (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989), 47–49; in fact, Parker’s

references to this material fall into the category of broad conceptual parallels and not verbal

literary dependence.

GREGORY K. BEALE 131

on such other literary sources and resist the temptation to nd parallels

where there are none.

2. Contextual and noncontextual use. It is important to ask whether

or not John uses OT texts in harmony with their broader contextual

meanings. ere is unanimous consensus that John uses the OT with a

high degree of liberty and creativity. As a result, many conclude that he

handles numerous OT passages without consideration of their original

contextual meanings, even assigning quite contradictory meanings. e

reasons for this conclusion are numerous but cannot be elaborated here

because of space considerations.

However, we may viably speak of changes of application, but need

not conclude that this means a disregard for OT context. e passages

we discuss below are test cases and our conclusions in regard to them

are applicable to other OT references: it is probable that John is making

intentional allusions and demonstrates varying degrees of respect for the

OT contexts.

e full exposition of the text of Revelation in my com-

mentary includes numerous other case studies in which it is concluded

that varying degrees of contextual usage of OT passages have occurred.

Admittedly, it is sometimes dicult to know whether there has been

conscious or unconscious activity. Noncontextual use of the OT can be

expected to occur where there is unconscious allusion. No doubt the apoc-

alyptist’s mind was so saturated with OT language from the tradition he

had learned that when he described his vision he sometimes spontaneously

used this language without much forethought.

To clarify what is meant by “context” is important. What is usually

meant is literary context: how a passage functions in the logical ow of

a book’s argument. But there is also historical context. For example, the

historical context of Hos 11:1 is the exodus and not the argument of the

book of Hosea. In addition, there is also the thematic OT context: a NT

writer might focus rst on a general OT theme (e.g., judgment or resto-

ration) and then appeal to a number of specic passages from dierent

OT books that pertain to that theme.

An author might reect on only

In this respect, note the warnings of Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81, no. 1 (1962):

1–13; and Terence L. Donaldson, “Parallels: Use, Misuse and Limitations,” EvQ 55 (1983):

193–210.

An assessment corroborated by Fekkes, Isaiah in Revelation, e.g., 70–103 and generally by Jon

Paulien, Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets: Literary Allusions and Interpretations of Revelation 8:7–12

(Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1988).

For development of the thematic OT context see Fekkes, Isaiah in Revelation, 70–103.

132 THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOCALYPSE

one of these three contexts, or on all three, or entirely disregard them. In

the light of the passages discussed above, John appears to display varying

degrees of awareness of literary context and thematic context and perhaps

historical context, although appeal to literary and thematic contexts is

predominant. Interest in thematic context is really an explanation for

why particular literary contexts are focused on. ose texts with a low

degree of correspondence with the OT literary context can be referred to

as semicontextual since they seem to fall between the opposite poles of

what we ordinarily call “contextual” and “noncontextual” usages.

e

categories of use to be considered below should further clarify and illustrate

these initial conclusions.

II. VARIOUS USES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

IN THE APOCALYPSE

1. Old Testament segments as literary prototypes. Sometimes John takes

over OT contexts or sequences as models after which to pattern his creative

compositions.

Such modeling can be apparent from a thematic structure

that is traceable to only one OT context or from a cluster of clear allusions

to the same OT context. Sometimes both are observable, thus enhanc-

ing the clarity of the OT prototype. It has been argued in some depth

that broad patterns from Daniel (esp. chs. 2 and 7) have been followed

in Revelation 1, 4–5, 13, and 17, chs. 1 and 4–5 especially exhibiting

both allusive clusters and structural outlines from segments of Daniel.

Incidentally, this would show further design in these chapters and point

See McComiskey, “Alteration of OT” for an attempt to perceive degrees of OT contextual

awareness based on the determinative intention of John in the light of his own contextual usage

in Revelation, though McComiskey deemphasizes the role of the OT too much.

In addition to the following uses, see further subcategories of usage in Fekkes, Isaiah in

Revelation, 70–103. For amplication of examples of uses of the OT in this section, see Beale,

John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (ch. 2).

Cf. Elisabeth S. Fiorenza, “Apokalypsis and Propheteia: e Book of Revelation in the Context

of Early Christian Prophecy,” in L’ Apocalypse johannique et l’apocalyptique dans le Nouveau

Testament (Gembloux, Belguim: Editions J Duculot University Press, 1980), 108.

Beale, Use of Daniel, 154–305, 313–20. See Jean-Pierre Ruiz, Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: e

Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16,17 – 19,10 (Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang,

1989), 123–28, who is unconvinced by this evidence, esp. the notion that Daniel 7 rather than

Ezekiel is the model for Revelation 4–5. But his evaluation does not take into sucient account

the inductive evidence of specic verbal allusions to Daniel throughout Revelation 4–5 (see

Beale, Use of Daniel, 185–222), the broad outline of Daniel 7 in comparison with that of Ezekiel

1 or Isaiah 6 (cf. Beale, 181–228), or the qualications made about Daniel 7 as a model (Beale,

224–27). For fuller response to skepticism about my proposal here, see Beale, John’s Use of the

Old Testament in Revelation (ch. 2, Excursus: “Rejoinder to Critical Evaluations of the Use of

Segments of Daniel as Midrashic Prototypes for Various Chapters in Revelation”).

GREGORY K. BEALE 133

further away from an unconscious use of the OT. e same use of Daniel as

a midrashic model is also observable in Jewish apocalyptic works, indicat-

ing that this kind of use of the OT was not uncommon (e.g., 1QM 1; 1 En.

69:26–71:17; 90:9–19; 4 Ezra 11–13; 2 Baruch 36–40).

e suggestion is

also made that this inuence of Daniel may even extend to the structure

of the whole Apocalypse, since allusions to Dan 2:28–29 punctuate the

book at major divisional transitions (1:1; 1:19; 4:1; 22:6). Furthermore,

the ve apocalyptic visions in Daniel (chs. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10–12) cover the

same time of the eschatological future, which may be the prototypical

structure followed by Revelation in some of its purported synchronously

parallel sections.

In a somewhat similar vein, Goulder has argued that broad portions of

Ezekiel have been the dominant inuence on at least eleven major sections

of the Apocalypse (Rev 4; 5; 6:1–8; 6:12–7:1; 7:2–8; 8:1–5; 14:6–12;

17:1–6; 18:9–24; 20:7–10; 21:22).

Goulder observes that these uses of

Ezekiel are a dominant inuence on the structure of Revelation since

they are placed to a marked extent in the same order as they are found

in Ezekiel.

However, Goulder proposes that a liturgical rather than

a literary explanation accounts better for the parallel order of Ezekiel

and Revelation. He attempts to demonstrate this by speculating that the

Apocalypse is generally aligned with the Jewish calendar, especially its

festivals and holy days, and that this liturgical-calendrical pattern is even

more formative on the structure of Revelation than Ezekiel.

Although

he does not follow Goulder’s liturgical theory, S. Moyise has also con-

cluded that Ezekiel has provided more of the model for Revelation than

Daniel.

Virtually identical to Goulder’s view, though also not positing

a liturgical background, is that of J. M. Vogelgesang, who has gone so far

as to conclude that John used Ezekiel as the model for the book’s over-

all structure, so that it is “the key to understanding the message of the

book altogether.”

Others have also recognized Ezekiel’s broad inuence,

especially in Revelation 20–22, where the order of events appears to have

Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament, 67–153.

Beale, Use of Daniel, 271–85; G. K. Beale, “e Inuence of Daniel upon the Structure and

eology of John’s Apocalypse,” JETS 27, no. 4 (1984): 413–23.

Cf. Goulder, “Apocalypse as Annual Cycle of Prophecies,” 343–49.

Goulder, “Apocalypse as Annual Cycle of Prophecies,” 353–54.

Goulder, “Apocalypse as Annual Cycle of Prophecies,” 349–64.

Moyi se , Old Testament in Revelation, 74–83; similarly, Mazzaferri, Genre of Revelation, 365.

Vogelgesang, “Interpretation of Ezekiel in Revelation,” 394, as well as 16, 66–71.

134 THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOCALYPSE

been taken from Ezekiel 37–48.

Many commentators see Ezekiel as the

paradigm either for Revelation 4

or 4:1–5:1 (e.g., Caird, Sweet). And

other liturgical paradigms for the book have been proposed, from either

early Jewish or Christian liturgical traditions.

ere is a consensus that the plagues of the “trumpets” in Rev 8:6–12

and those of the bowls in 16:1–9 follow the paradigm of the Exodus

plagues and trials (Exod 7–14), though they are creatively reworked and

applied (e.g., Beasley-Murray, Caird, Sweet). Already this Exodus model

had been used in Amos 8–9 and creatively applied in Wisdom 11–19, the

latter perhaps inuencing John’s application.

J. S. Casey has argued for

a signicant inuence of an Exodus typology in the trumpets and bowls,

as well as in other segments of Revelation.

Draper proposes that the

eschatological scheme in Zechariah 14 “provides the basis for a midrashic

development in Revelation 7,”

while Sweet more tentatively suggests the

same thing for Revelation 20–22.

All of the above proposed OT models have woven within them allusions

from other parts of the same OT book and from elsewhere in the OT

corpus, and many of these are based on common themes, pictures, catch

phrases, and the like. Often these other references serve as interpretative

expansions of an OT prototype. On the reasonable assumption that these

models were followed intentionally, two primary uses of them can be dis-

cerned. First, the OT patterns appear to be used as forms through which

future (sometimes imminent) eschatological fulllment is understood

E. C. Selwyn, “Dialogues on the Christian Prophets,” Expositor 6, no. 5 (1902): 332–34; Alfred

Wikenhauser, “Das Problem des tausendjährigen Reiches in der Johannes-Apokalypse,” ZKT 57,

no. 2 (1933): 13–25; Karl G. Kuhn, “Gog-Magog,” in TWNT (Stuttgart, 1933); J. Lust, “e

Order of the Final Events in Revelation and in Ezekiel,” in L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyp-

tique dans le Nouveau Testament, ed. J. Lambrecht, BETL 53 (Leuven: Leuven University Press,

1980): 179–83.

As does Goulder, “Interpretation of Ezekiel in Revelation,” 43–51.

Cf. David R. Carnegie, “Hymns in Revelation” (PhD diss., London School of eology, 1978);

Samuel Läuchli, “Eine Gottesdienststruktur in der Johannesoenbarung,” Z 16 (1960): 359–

78; see also Carnegie’s evaluation in “Worthy Is the Lamb: the Hymns in Revelation,” in Christ

the Lord: Studies in Christology Presented to Donald Guthrie, ed H. H. Rowden (Downers Grove,

IVP, 1982), 245; Pierre Prigent, Apocalypse et Liturgie, CahT 52 (Paris: Delachaux et Niestle,

1964) (see Beale’s evaluation in Use of Daniel, 184).

Swe et , Revelation, 161–62.

Jay Smith Casey, “Exodus Typology in the Book of Revelation” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist

eological Seminary, 1981). For a convenient summary of Casey’s dissertation see Mazzaferri,

Genre of Revelation, 367–73.

J. A. Draper, “e Heavenly Feast of Tabernacles: Revelation 7.1–17,” JSNT 6 (1983): 133–47.

J. P. M. Sweet, Maintaining the Testimony of Jesus: the Suering of Christians in the Revelation

of John (London: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 112.

GREGORY K. BEALE 135

and predicted (cf. chs. 13 and 17).

Second, the prototypes are utilized

as lenses through which past and present eschatological fulllment is

understood (cf. chs. 1 and 4–5). It is not always clear whether these OT

prototypes are the means or the object of interpretation, and perhaps

there is an oscillation between the two: e OT interprets the NT, and

the NT interprets the OT.

2. ematic uses. In addition to alluding to specic OT texts, the author

of Revelation develops important OT themes. Many of these themes are

delineated throughout the major commentaries. J. Fekkes has shown

that, among other themes, John develops extensively such OT themes

as end-time judgment and salvation, each of which has thematic sub-

categories.

Some special studies of note are Ford’s tracing of Daniel’s

“abomination of desolation” theme,

Longman’s study of the OT divine

warrior concept,

Bauckham’s articles on the OT earthquake idea

and

John’s reinterpretation of the OT “holy war” theme,

recent articles on the

employment of the ancient Near Eastern/OT covenant form in Revelation

2–3 and throughout the book,

and the OT concept of the “day of the

Lord.”

Of particular note is C. H. Giblin’s further development of the

“holy war” theme, in which he makes a case that this OT notion “in all

its essential [eightfold] institutional features structures the entire course

of events” in Revelation 4–22

and is formative for the overall thought

of chs. 1–3 as well.

Carnegie has oered a most interesting study on the function of hymns

in the OT and their reuse in Revelation. He shows that the various songs

Also see the same employment of the Daniel models in 1QM 1; 1 Enoch 46–47; 69:26–71:17;

90; 4 Ezra 11–13; 2 Baruch 36:1–42:2.

Fekkes, Isaiah in Revelation, 70–103.

De smond Ford, Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology (Washington: University Press

of America, 1979), 243–314.

Tremper Longman III, “e Divine Warrior: e New Testament use of an Old Testament

Motif,” WTJ 44 (1982): 291–302.

Richard Bauckham, “e Eschatological Earthquake in the Apocalypse of John,” NovT, vol. 19

(1977).

R ichard Bauckham, e Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1993), 210–37.

William H. Shea, “e Covenantal Form of the Letters to the Seven Churches,” AUSS, vol. 21,

no. 1 (1983): 71–84; Kenneth A. Strand, “A Further Note on the Covenantal Form in the Book

of Revelation,” AUSS, vol. 21, no. 3 (1983): 251–64.

Donald A. Gray, “e Day of the Lord and its Culmination in the Book of Revelation related to

the eology of Hope” (PhD diss., University of Manchester, 1974).

Charles H. Giblin, e Book of Revelation: e Open Book of Prophecy (Collegeville, MN:

Liturgical Press, 1991), 29, as well as 25–34, 224–31.

Gibl in, Revelation, 25–36, 224–31.

136 THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOCALYPSE

in Isaiah 40–55 come at the ends of subsections and round them o,

not only by oering a concluding thanksgiving, but also by giving an

interpretative summary of the theme of the whole previous section (cf.

Isa 48:20.; 52:9, etc.). e series of hymns in Revelation are seen to have

the same function under the inspiration of the Isaianic songs (Rev 4:11;

5:13.; 7:9–12; 11:15–18; 19:1–8).

3. Analogical uses. Analogy can be considered the most general descrip-

tion of OT usage in the Apocalypse, since the very act of referring to an

OT text is to place it in some comparative relationship to something in

the NT. But we are concerned here with specic well-known persons,

places, and events. e pictures undergo creative changes (expansions,

condensations, supplemental imagery, etc.) and are, of course, applied

to dierent historical situations.

Nevertheless, a key idea in the OT

context is usually carried over as the main characteristic or principle to

be applied in the NT situation.

erefore, even though John handles

these OT gures with creative freedom, they almost always broadly retain

an essential OT association and convey principles of continuity between

the OT and NT.

For example, the image of the deceiving “serpent of old” in Rev 12:9 (cf.

20:2) evokes an episode of primitive religious history, which maintains the

same meaning for the nal, eschatological phase of theological history.

e author’s theological basis for maintaining such continuities lies in his

conviction that OT and NT history is but the working out of God’s unied

design of salvation and deals throughout with the unchanging principles

of faith in God, God’s faithfulness in fullling his salvic promises, the

antitheocratic forces attempting to thwart such promises, and the victory

of God’s kingdom over that of Satan.

e following is a sampling of these analogies with a brief description

of the primary point of continuity:

Carnegie, “Worthy Is the Lamb,” 250–52.

For a superb example of such alteration see Vos’s discussion of the Exodus plague imagery in Rev

8:6–12; 16:2–13 in Synoptic Traditions, 45 – 47.

Vos, Synoptic Traditions, 47–48.

So Cambier, “Images de l’Ancien Testament,” 116–20; cf. Gangemi, “Utilizzazoine del deute-

ro-Isaia nell’Apocalisse,” 322–39.

So Cambier, “Images de l’Ancien Testament,” 118–19.

Ca mbi er, “Images de l’Ancien Testament,” 119–20.

GREGORY K. BEALE 137

Judgment

•

theophanies introducing judgment (Isaiah 6, Ezekiel

1, Daniel 7/Revelation 4–5)

•

books of judgment (Ezekiel 2, Daniel 7, Daniel 12/

Rev 5:1–5 and Ezekiel 2/Revelation 10)

•

the lion from Judah exercising judgment (Gen 49:9/

Rev 5:5)

• “the Lord of lords and King of kings” exercising judg-

ment (Dan 4:37 [LXX]/Rev 17:14; 19:16)

•

horsemen as divine agents of judgment (Zechariah 1

and 6/Rev 6:1–8)

•

Exodus plagues inicting judgment (Exod 7:14–12:57/

Rev 8:6–12; 16:1–14

• locusts as agents of judgment (Joel 1–2/Rev 9:7–10),

•

prophets giving testimony through judgment (Exod

7:17; 1 Kgs 17:1/Rev 11:6)

•

“Babylon” judged by God in “one hour” (Dan 4:17a

[LXX]/Rev 18:10, 17, 19)

Tribulation and persecution of God’s people

• ten days of tribulation (Dan 1:12/Rev 2:10)

• three-and-a-half years of tribulation (Dan 7:25; 12:7/

Rev 11:2; 12:14; 13:5)

•

Sodom, Egypt, and Jerusalem as infamous places where

persecution occurs (Rev 11:8)

•

persecuting rulers symbolized as beasts (Daniel 7/

Revelation 11–13, 17)

• “Babylon the Great” (Dan 4:30, etc./Rev 14:8; 16:19;

17:5; 18:2)

Seductive, idolatrous teaching

• Balaam (Numbers 25; 31:16/Rev 2:14)

• Jezebel (1 Kgs 16:31; 2 Kgs 9:22/Rev 2:20–23)

Divine protection

• the tree of life (Gen 2:9/Rev 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19)

• the “sealed” Israelites (Ezekiel 9/Rev 7:2–8)

•

the wings of the eagle (Exod 19:4; Deut 32:11/Rev 12:14)

138 THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOCALYPSE

Victorious battle of God’s people over the enemy

•

Armageddon (Zech 12:11/Rev 16:16 [19:19]; cf. Gog

and Magog in Ezek 38–39:16/Rev 20:8)

Apostasy

• the harlot (Ezek 16:15, etc./Revelation 17)

Divine Spirit as the power for God’s people

• (Zech 4:1–6/Rev 1:12–20; 11:4)

Some analogies are repeated and creatively developed in dierent ways,

though usually to some degree within the parameters of their OT contexts.

4. Universalization. Vanhoye has apparently been the only author to

discuss this as a formal category of OT usage. e apocalyptist has a

tendency to apply to the world what the OT applied only to Israel or to

other entities.

ere are several examples of this phenomenon. e title

that Yahweh gave Israel in Exod 19:6 (“kingdom of priests”) is applied

in Rev 1:6 and 5:10 to the church, which is composed of kingly priests

“from every tribe, people, and nation” (Rev 5:9). Indeed, this very phrase

of universality in Rev 5:9 is most likely taken from Dan 7:14, where it

refers to the nations of the world subjugated to Israel’s rule, which is now

extended to the rule by all these very nations (cf. Rev 5:10).

In Rev 1:7,

“and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the

tribes of the earth will mourn over him,” refers to peoples throughout

the earth, although in Zech 12:10 it is limited to the Israelite tribes. e

same widening application of Zech 12:10 is also seen in John 19:31–37,

where the action of a Roman soldier is viewed as a beginning fulllment

of this prophecy.

Another classic example of this tendency is the extension of the Exodus

plague imagery from the land of Egypt to the whole “earth” in Rev 8:6–12

and 16:1–14. For example, in 8:9 a third of the sea, including sh and

ships, is aected, instead of merely a river and its sh; in 16:10 rather

than the sun being darkened, the kingdom of the satanic beast becomes

darkened. e “ten days of tribulation” experienced by Daniel and his

friends (Dan 1:12) and the three-and-a-half years of Israel’s tribulation

Cf. Vanhoye with reference to Ezekiel, “Utilisation du Livre d’Ezéchiel,” 446–67.

Beale, Use of Daniel, 214–29.

So J. R. Michaels, “e Centurion’s Confession and the Spear rust,” CBQ 29, no. 1 (1967):

102–29; Sweet, Maintaining the Testimony of Jesus, 112.

GREGORY K. BEALE 139

(Dan 7:25; 12:7) are both extended to the tribulation of the church — the

eschatological, true Israel — throughout the world. Part of this tribula-

tion is instigated by the latter-day “Babylon the Great” (Dan 4:30), who

persecutes not merely ethnic Israelite believers, but also saints throughout

the earth (Rev 17:5–8; 18:24), and harmfully aects “nations,” “kings of

the earth,” and the world’s economy (18:1–23). erefore, when “Babylon

the Great” falls, rather than the eect being provincial, “the cities of the

nations” also fall (16:19). Likewise, the former persecutors of God’s people

in the OT (Sodom, Egypt, and Jerusalem) are now dened as “peoples,

tribes, tongues, and nations” (Rev 11:8–10).

e Apocalypse concludes with references from the predicted end-time

temple reserved for Israel, although now its cultic benets are extended

to the Gentiles (cf. Ezek 37:27; 44:9; and 48:35 in Rev 21:3). In Rev 22:2

the “leaves of healing” foretold in Ezek 47:12 as an aid to the Israelites

become “leaves… for the healing of the nations.”

Sometimes the rationale for universalization is found already in the

OT contexts (cf. Ezek 14:12–21 in Rev 6:8), although the inspiration can

also arise from the combination of a narrower OT reference to Israel with

a similar OT text that is, however, universal. For example, the Israelite-

oriented book of judgment from Ezek 2:9–10 is given cosmic dimensions

in Rev 5:1 and 10:8–11 because it has been attracted to other OT judgment

book allusions that have wider cosmic applications (cf. Dan 7:10; 12:4, 9

in Rev 5:1–5 and Dan 12:4–9 in Rev 10:1–6). Nevertheless, the primary

reason for the extended applications is the NT’s and John’s assumption

concerning the cosmic dimensions of Christ’s lordship and death (cf.

Rev 1:5; 5:9–10; for other examples of universalization see 1:12–13, 20

[lampstands]; 2:17 [manna]; 7:9, 15 [Ezek 37:26]; 17:1. [harlot]; 18:9

[Ezek 26:16.; 27:29–35]; 19:7 [the bride]; 3:12 and 21:2 [Jerusalem]).

It is tempting to conclude that John does not handle the OT accord-

ing to its original contextual meaning when he universalizes. Vanhoye’s

evaluation, however, is plausible. He says that while the universalization

is motivated by the Christian spirit to explain redemptive fulllment, it

is not contrary to the OT sense. Although the author certainly makes

dierent applications and executes developments beyond those of his OT

predecessors, he stays within the same interpretative framework and is

conscious of being profoundly faithful to the overall parameters of their

message.

is is a viable analysis since all of these universalizations can

Vanhoye, “Utilisation du Livre d’Ezéchiel,” 467.

140 THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOCALYPSE

be considered subcategories of the analogical use of the OT, with regard

to which we have proposed that, although John creatively reworks the

OT and changes its application, his pictures retain signicant points

of correspondence with the OT context and express salvation-historical

principles of continuity. All the examples of universalization that we have

cited appear to be harmonious developments of these principles, as is the

case with the OT texts pertaining to ethnic Israel’s redemption and applied

in Revelation to the world’s redemption on the basis of dening the true

people of God according to their faith in Christ and their corporate rep-

resentation in Christ, the one who sums up true Israel in himself. us,

the church comes to be viewed as the true Israel.

5. Possible indirect fulﬁllment uses. Although Revelation contains no

formal OT quotations (with introductory formulas) used as prooftexts to

indicate prophetic fulllment, it is still probable that some OT texts are

informally referred to in order to designate present or future fulllment of

OT verbal prophecy. e determination of whether a text refers to future

or present fulllment often depends on one’s overall view of the book (e.g.,

preterist, historicist, idealist, futurist).

Of special note is the introduction to the book, which alludes to Dan

2:28–29, 45: deixai… ha dei genesthai (“to show… what must take place”),

followed directly by en tachei (“quickly”), with Dan 2:28 (LXX), edēlōse…

ha dei genesthai ep’ eschatōn tōn hēmerōn (“he showed… what must take

place in the latter days,” Rev 1:1). John’s “quickly” is substituted for Daniel’s

“in the latter days” so that what Daniel expected to occur in the distant

future, the defeat of cosmic evil and ushering in of the kingdom, John

expects to begin in his own generation, and perhaps it has already been

inaugurated. Such imminence and even incipient inauguration, is cor-

roborated by the phrase ho gar kairos engus (“for the time is near”) in 1:3,

which elsewhere includes both the “already” and “not yet” element (so

Mark 1:15; Matt 26:45; Lam 4:18; cf. Matt 3:2 with 4:17).

Daniel 12:4, 9 is used likewise in 22:10: whereas Daniel is commanded

to “conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time” (12:4),

John is given the consummatory command not to “seal up the words of

the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” is use of Daniel in

Rev 22:10 intensies that of 1:1–3 since it is directly linked to a verbatim

repetition of 1:1 in 22:6.

e reference to the Son of Man (1:13–14) probably indicates John’s

Cf. Beale, “Inuence of Daniel,” 415–20.

GREGORY K. BEALE 141

belief that Jesus had begun to fulll the Dan 7:13 prophecy of the Son of

Man’s exaltation, although the similar reference in 1:7 may also refer to a

further phase of the same prophecy that still awaits realization. e same

kind of “already and not yet” idea is found in 2:26–27, where Jesus says

that he has started to fulll the Ps 2:7 prediction and that his followers

will also take part in the fulllment at a future time (probably at death).

If the argument that Revelation 1 and 4–5 are both modeled on Daniel

7 can be sustained,

then John’s intention may be to indicate that Jesus’s

death, resurrection, and gathered church is the inaugurated fulllment

of Daniel. ere is also evidence of expectations of exclusive future ful-

llment, of which the clearest examples are Ps 2:1/Rev 11:18; Ps 2:8/Rev

12:5 and 19:15; Isa 25:8/Rev 21:4; Isa 65:17 and 66:22/Rev 21:1; Ezek

47:1, 12/Rev 22:1–2.

All these passages concern fulllments of OT texts that are clearly direct

verbal prophecies. ere may also be texts appearing in OT historical

narratives that John understands as indirect typological prophecies. Many of

the passages listed in our discussion above of analogical uses are potential

candidates for this category. at is, are they all merely analogies? We have

already found that the essence of the analogies is a basic correspondence

of meaning between OT prophecy or historical narrative and something

in the NT. Some of these OT historical elements have also undergone an

escalation, even a universalization, under John’s hand. Perhaps there was

a prophetic rationale in escalating these historical texts. At any rate, such

uses are worth further inquiry in this regard, especially against the back-

ground of John’s and the NT’s awareness that the “latter days” had been

inaugurated, that the church was the latter-day Israel, and that the whole

OT pointed toward this climax of salvation history.

e precedent of

overt typological-prophetic uses in Matthew and Hebrews and elsewhere

in the NT should leave open the same possibility in Revelation.

6. Inverted uses. Some allusions to the OT are on the surface distinctly

contradictory to their OT contextual meanings. Further study again, how-

ever, reveals the imprecise nature of such categories. e clearest example

of this is Rev 3:9, which refers to Isaianic prophecies that the Gentiles will

Cf. B ea l e, Use of Daniel, 154–228.

For inaugurated eschatological language cf. Mark 1:15; Acts 2:17; 1 Cor 10:11; 2 Cor 6:2; Gal

4:4; 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 3:1; Heb 1:2; 9:26; Jas 5:3; 1 Pet 1:20; 1 John 2:18; Jude 18; Rev 1:1; 1:19;

4:1; 22:6, 10; cf. Beale, “Inuence of Daniel,” 415–20. On the “already and not yet” nature of NT

eschatology, see G. K. Beale, “Eschatology,” DLNT 330–45; G. K. Beale, “e Eschatological

Conception of New Testament eology,” Doon eological Journal 10, no. 2 (2013).

142 THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOCALYPSE

come and bow down before Israel and recognize Israel as God’s chosen

people (Isa 45:14; 49:23; 60:14). is Jewish hope has been turned upside

down. Now it is Jewish persecutors of Christians whom God will make

to submit to the church. is reversal of Isaiah’s language is probably a

conscious attempt to express the irony that the submission that unbeliev-

ing ethnic Jews hoped to receive from Gentiles, they themselves will be

forced to render to the church.

John concludes that ethnic Jews have

become like unbelieving Gentiles because of their rejection of Christ and

persecution of Christians. In fact, this ironic element is intensied at the

end of v. 9 through John’s reference to the predominantly Gentile church

as being in the position of true Israel. is he accomplishes with a reverse

application of Isa 43:4, which originally spoke of God’s love and honor

for Israel above the nations. Vos is therefore inconsistent in recognizing

an irony in the rst part of v. 9 but concluding with respect to the Isa

43:4 citation that “the context of the alleged quotation has been totally

disregarded.”

John shows, rather, a consistent ironic understanding of

some of the major themes in Isaiah 40–66. And while such a view arises

out of a contextual awareness of the OT, the NT use is so diametrically

opposite that it is best to categorize this as an inverted or ironic use.

e terminology of cosmic universality from Dan 7:14 in Rev 5:9 also

reveals an intended inversion. Whereas in Daniel the phrase refers to the

nations subjugated to Israel’s rule, now these very nations rule together

with the Messiah.

A sampling of other such uses is noteworthy. Daniel 7:21 refers to an

oppressive “horn” that “was waging war with the saints and overpowering

them.” is is applied in reverse fashion in Rev 12:7–8 to describe the

overthrow of Satan by Michael and his angels. Such reverse application

probably does not reect unconscious activity or an atomistic exegesis

but polemical irony expressed by portraying the theocratic forces’ defeat

of the cosmic enemy through the same imagery that was used in Daniel

7 to describe how this enemy began to defeat God’s forces. is may be

a gurative expression of a lex talionis irony: God will subdue the enemy

by the same method that the enemy has used to try to subdue God. at

this language is intentionally drawn in reverse manner from Dan 7:21 is

evident not only from the verbal likeness (cf. eod.) but also from the

So Vos , Synoptic Traditions, 25; Robert H. Mounce, e Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1977), 118.

Vos, Synoptic Traditions, 26.

GREGORY K. BEALE 143

allusion to Dan 2:35 (Rev 12:8b) that immediately follows and from the

same Dan 7:21 reversal in Rev 17:14, where the Danielic “Lord of lords

and King of kings” (= Dan 4:37 [LXX]) is the one who carries out the

polemical overthrow.

e same kind of retributive ironies can be observed elsewhere in the

Apocalypse: Dan 8:10 in Rev 12:4, 9, 10; Dan 7:7. in Rev 5:6–7 (so

also 1 En. 90:9–13, 16; T.Jos. 19:6–8; 4 Ezra 13:1.; cf. Midr. Rab. Gen.

99.2);

Dan 7:14 in Rev 13:7–8; Exod 8:10 and 15:11, etc., in Rev 13:4;

Exod 3:14 (esp. Midr. Rab. Exod. 3:14) in Rev 17:8 (cf. 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17;

16:5; cf. also Ezra 9:14b in 1QM 1.6b and Dan 11:40, 44–5 in 1QM

1.4). e point of these kinds of ironic uses is to mock the enemy’s proud

attempt to overcome God and his people and to underscore the tting

justice of the punishment.

ere may be other examples of this reversal phenomenon, but the ones

discussed should alert us to caution in making facile statements about

noncontextual, atomistic, or straightforward contextual use, since the

apocalyptic style is not always susceptible to such categories. Furthermore,

every OT reference we have mentioned can be categorized as at least broadly

contextual. Vanhoye has noted that John always employs OT references

with a view to having them contribute to the unied argument of his work

and that every page “witnesses to a penetrating intelligence of the ancient

prophecies and of a perfect familiarity with their mode of expression.”

Gangemi observes that John does not choose OT allusions at random but

in accord with the main themes of the Apocalypse: divine transcendence,

redemption, Yahweh’s servant, Babylon’s judgment, and the new creation

of the heavenly Jerusalem.

And it is clear that John drew these unifying

themes of his work from the OT and is, indeed, continuing the develop-

ment of fundamental lines of OT salvation history.

7. Stylistic use of Old Testament language. is use represents the most

general category so far discussed. It has long been recognized that the

Apocalypse contains a multitude of grammatical solecisms. Charles claimed

it contained more grammatical irregularities than any other Greek docu-

ment of the ancient world. He accounted for this with his famous dictum

Cf. G. K. Beale, “e Problem of the Man from the Sea in IV Ezra 13 and Its Relation to the

Messianic Concept in John’s Apocalypse,” NovT 25 (1983): 182–88.

Vanhoye, “Utilisation du Livre d’Ezéchiel,” 462–64.

Gangemi, “Deutero-Isaia nell’Apocalisse,” 322–38.

Cambier, “Images de l’Ancien Testament,” 118–21; Gangemi, “Deutero-Isaia nell’Apocalisse,”

332–39.

144 THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE APOCALYPSE

that “while [John] writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew, and the thought

has naturally aected the vehicle of expression,” a judgment that has met

with subsequent agreement, especially recently.

But was this intentional on John’s part or an unconscious by-product

of his Semitic mind? It seems that his grammatical “howlers” are delib-

erate attempts to express Semitisms and Septuagintalisms in his Greek,

the closest analogy being that of the Greek translations, especially that

of Aquila.

e fact that most of the time the author does keep the rules

further points to the solecisms being intentional.

Why did John write this way? His purpose was deliberately to create

a “biblical” eect in the hearer and thus to demonstrate the solidarity of

his work with that of the divinely inspired OT Scriptures.

A polemical

purpose may also have been at work. John may have been expressing the

idea that OT truth via the church as the new Israel was uncompromis-

ingly penetrating the Gentile world and would continue to do so until

the parousia.

III. CONCLUSION

Perhaps one reason for the high degree of OT inuence in the Apocalypse

is that the author could think of no better way to describe some of his

visions than with language used by the OT prophets to describe similar

visions. Our examination of the use of the OT in the Apocalypse, particu-

larly of its categories of usage, favors Fransen’s evaluation: “e familiarity

with the Old Testament, with the spirit which lives in the Old Testament,

is a most essential condition for a fruitful reading of the Apocalypse.”

is conclusion runs counter to the conclusion of many scholars.

However, the analysis throughout my commentary on Revelation pro

vides further evidence pointing in the direction of a consistent contextual

use of the OT.

erefore, the conclusion of this brief overview is that the place of the

Ch ar les , Revelation, 1:cxliii. Cf. Sweet, Revelation, 16–17; Adela Y. Collins, Crisis and Catharsis:

the Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 47; and above all ompson,

Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax; though Porter is a dissenting voice, arguing that what some have

called Semitisms fall “within the range of possible registers of Greek usage in the 1st century”

(S. E. Porter, “e Language of the Apocalypse in Recent Discussion,” NTS 35 [1989]: 582–603).

Swe et , Revelation, 16; see esp. ompson, Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax, 108.

Swe et , Revelation, 16.

Cf. somewhat similarly Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 47; ompson, Apocalypse and Semitic

Syntax, 108.

I. Fransen, “Cahier de Bible. Jesus, le Témoin Fidèle,” BVC 16 (1956–57): 67; likewise Sweet,

Maintaining the Testimony of Jesus, 111.

GREGORY K. BEALE 145

OT in the formation of thought in the Apocalypse is that of both a servant

and a guide: for John the Christ-event is the key to understanding the OT,

and yet reection on the OT context leads the way to further compre-

hension of this event and provides the redemptive-historical background

against which the apocalyptic visions are better understood; the New

Testament interprets the Old and the Old interprets the New.

Ru iz , Ezekiel in the Apocalypse, 120–21, holds, unconvincingly in my view, the one-sided view

that the OT was not an object of interpretation by John but only the means of his own creative

interpretation. For further discussion of the OT as an object and means of interpretation and

the problems associated with this, see Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (ch. 2),

“Excursus: Rejoinder to Evaluations of Daniel as Midrashic.”