looking back for the future

BIB402 - John’s Use of Tanakh in his Apocalypse Richardson, PM �1

!!!!!!!!!

Peter M Richardson - MSC#204

!BIB402 Heb-Rev Summer 2014

July 11, 2014

Looking Back for the Future: John’s Use of Tanakh in His Apocalypse


Is Revelation merely the psychedelic visions of a misguided and washed-up

Christian patriarch in his old age? Was the apostle John losing his mind at Patmos

when he penned his prophecy of the latter days? Many who come upon this book con-

clude such thoughts. The bizarre imagery, angry God, Greek grammatical errors, and

physical impossibilities lead some readers to dismiss the book entirely as fiction. But,

others conclude that the final book in the canon of Christian Scripture, Revelation, is

full of cross-references to earlier canonical texts. From quotations, to allusions, to the-

matic nods, John’s Apocalypse is built on the witness of the Old Testament. In this

camp, scholars seek to determine how much of John’s Apocalypse is derived from the

Tanakh and how much is unique to his book. Furthermore, different hermeneutical ap-

proaches to Old Testament references change one's interpretation of Revelation on key

issues. For instance, is it happenstance that in the opening lines, John says that “every

eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on ac-

count of him” when Zechariah 12:10 says “when they look on me, on him whom they

have pierced, they shall mourn for him…and weep bitterly over him”? If John is inten-

tionally referencing Zechariah, is he also bringing into Revelation 1:7 all the context of

Zechariah 12:10? Finally, do we use Zechariah 12 to understand Revelation 1, or use

Revelation 1 to go back to Zechariah and re-interpret his apocalypse?

For the purposes of this paper, we will only focus on theories of Old Testament

usage and disregard the issue of John’s sanity in writing this beautiful piece of biblical

literature. The spectrum ranges from a complete lack of Johanine intention in utilizing

the context of the Tanakh to complete contextual reference in any Tanakh allusion as


well as theories regarding hermeneutical principles for marrying the biblical theology of

the Tanakh and of Revelation.

Option One: John Uses Tanakh Without Regard For Original Context

The first theory assumes the least amount of Johanine intention in OT refer-

ences. This is supported by the indisputable fact that the original authors of Old Tes-

tament Scripture lacked knowledge of the future such as the existence of the church

age, the details of the coming of the Christ, and the salvific inclusion of the gentiles.

Grollenberg says that:

The first Christians were not concerned with what the authors of the ancient text had wanted to say. That is something that we moderns ask about. They inferred the meaning of the ancient text from the events brought about by God in which they themselves were involved (Unexpected Messiah, p 7). !

So, John was disinterested with the ways in which his quotations of Daniel, for exam-

ple, change the tenor of his references to Jesus as a “Son of Man” because Daniel’s

context for using the phrase was antiquated and unrelated to the Revelation context.

Lindars explains: “the place of the Old Testament in the formation of New Testament

theology is that of a servant…never acting as the master or leading the way, nor even

guiding the process of thought behind the scenes” (The Place of the Old Testament in

the Formation of New Testament Theology, p 66).

Option Two: John Uses Tanakh In Context For His Clearest References

The second theory dives into the issue of subtlety in Johanine references. John,

in certain places, clearly references an Old Testament author (verbatim), yet in other

places he strings only two or three words together from the Old Testament. So, this

theory posits that as we study Revelation, we must utilize criteria for judging whether


John was consciously quoting a specific passage or incidentally using words/ideas

that resemble Old Testament ones. Titles such as Elusive Allusions: the Problematic

Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (J Paulien, Biblical Research 33, 1988) summa-

rize the skepticism of this position regarding Johanine intention in using Tanakh.

Trudinger isolates quotations from flimsy fragments through the presence of “word

combinations in a form in which one would not have used them had it not been for a

knowledge of their occurrence in this particular form in another source” (Some Obser-

vations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament in the Book of Revelation, p 84).

When enough words or references are present to deduce that John is not incidentally

mimicking say, Isaiah, we can study both contexts for further reflection and shared

meaning. However, the reverse is also true: if insufficient evidence is available for link-

ing Revelation to an Old Testament passage, we should not seek out reflection and

shared meaning, as it would be subjective and misleading.

This approach is appealing because it seeks to eliminate ambiguity and subjec-

tivity in Johanine scholarship. However, Moyise offers a simple critique of this ap-

proach:

As with any work of art, it is often the subtle nuances that separate it from other members of the genre. After all, we would not expect a music critic to limit his or her comments to the loudest instruments in the orchestra!” (The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation, p 18). !

John may only hint at an Old Testament idea, yet to miss his subtle leading would be

overly simplistic. Revelation is a deep piece of literature, and this approach steamrolls

John’s stylistic touch in the name of scholastic objectivity.


Option Three: John Uses Tanakh In Context For All References

The third theory assumes the most amount of Johanine intention in OT refer-

ences. Here, in one way or another, John writes with all the context of Scripture pro-

pelling him to illustrate his Apocalypse. Here there are at least three subdivisions re-

garding which context takes precedence. The first subdivision would be that the OT

context is superior - that is, John brings nothing new to the table when he references

the Tanakh. This approach would be the polar opposite of Option One (Grollenberg),

since here the Tanakh’s context is everything and John’s vision is inferior. This position

may be appealing from an historical perspective, if one wants to show that Christianity

was only a continuation of Judaism. It also may be appealing because John “preserves

the Old Testament literary idioms and thought patterns in a way unparalleled in the

New Testament” (Goldsworthy, The Lamb and the Lion, p 9). However, it lacks scholarly

support due to it’s farfetched logic and practical inadequacies.

The second subdivision would be that Revelation’s context is superior - meaning

that John gives new meaning to all his OT references, and the Revelation context is

present every time one studies the older text. This hermeneutic comes from a belief in

progressive revelation. Beale says that:

In terms of the ‘cash value’ of a given prophecy, this approach argues that John ought to have the final word, since he is interpreting from a redemptive-historical stance of greater progressive revelation and ‘unpacks’ the earlier revelation (Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p 1088). !

So, John looks back on the Tanakh with new vision, having been friends with Jesus as

his beloved disciple, seeing him heal, teach, face persecution, die, rise again, ascend

to heaven; having received the Holy Spirit of promise; having lead in the early church


as they worked out issues like gentile salvation, spiritual inheritance, and so on. So,

when John references the Tanakh, he takes the role of “interpreter,” and shows us how

to understand that old passage in a new time.

This hermeneutic offers a distinct interpretation on several key issues in Revela-

tion. One, noted by Beale, is in Revelation 3:9, referring to God’s justice for his perse-

cuted people. The OT reference comes specifically from the phrase “behold, I will make

them come and bow down before your feet,” which is derived from Isaiah 45:14; 49:23;

and 60:14. Beale says that “promises given to Israel, who are prophesied to be perse-

cuted by the nations, are now ironically applied to and understood to be fulfilled in

Gentile believers persecuted by Israel” (Commentary on the New Testament Use of the

Old Testament, p 1086). This hermeneutic eventually leads to a belief in “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” (ibid.,

p 1086). These positions stem from a hermeneutic steeped in progressive revelation.

The third subdivision is called “intertexuality.” When John, the later author, cites

a prior text, he both brings its old meaning into his new text and brings new meaning to

the old text. In this way, both texts (the Tanakh and Revelation) equally deserve contex-

tual analysis. Moyise puts it this way:

Alluding to a past work sets up a link or correspondence between the two contexts. The reader is asked to follow the current text while being mindful of a previous context (or contexts)…[yet] the quoted text does not accept this ‘relocation’ without a fight (so to speak), but reminds the reader that it once belonged to a different context (The Old Testament in Revelation, pp 18-19). !

As we read John’s OT references, our minds are both drawn away from Revelation and

then back again to it after considering the text John referenced. The intertextual reader


sees John’s conversation with the Tanakh - the ways he relies on the frames of refer-

ence to inform his writing and the ways he offers a distinct interpretation of those OT

texts.

This hermeneutic offers a distinct interpretation on, for example, John’s similari-

ties with Ezekiel. Moyise says that “John has taken on the ‘persona’ of Ezekiel…that is

why he can make so many allusions to the book without ever quoting it…he does not

quote it as Scripture because he does not see it as an external source” (ibid., pp

78-79). John is not necessarily offering a new way to see what has been in Ezekiel all

along, nor is he illustrating that his apocalypse is merely a restatement of Ezekiel’s.

Rather, “he has taken on the mind of Ezekiel and writes ‘in the spirit’” (ibid., pp 78-79).

Revelation is distinct from Ezekiel, yet the two are written by typologically identical

characters.

Conclusion

The final book in the canon of Christian Scripture, Revelation, is full of cross-ref-

erences to earlier canonical texts. From quotations, to allusions, to thematic nods,

John’s Apocalypse is built on the witness of the Old Testament. While scholars have

sought to determine how much of John’s Apocalypse is derived from the Tanakh and

how much is unique to his book, it is clear that different hermeneutical approaches to

Old Testament references change one's interpretation of Revelation on key issues. The

spectrum has been shown to range from a complete lack of Johanine intention in utiliz-

ing the context of the Tanakh to complete contextual reference in any Tanakh allusion

as well as theories regarding hermeneutical principles for marrying the biblical theology

of the Tanakh and of Revelation. Option one stated that John takes command of the


Tanakh with no regard for its original context, which renders Revelation as a piece of

history from a Jewish cult called “Christianity.” Option two stated that John only refer-

ences the context of the OT when his quotation or allusion meets certain parameters,

which steamrolls John’s more subtle nods to OT ideas in Revelation. Option three stat-

ed that John had complete intentionality when referencing the Tanakh. The first subdi-

vision stated that John used the OT to bolster his credibility, and only sought to restate

ideas from the Tanakh. The second subdivision stated that John interpreted OT texts

through his references as he stood progressively superior to the Tanakh’s original au-

thors. The third subdivision stated that John engaged in an intertextual dialogue with

the Tanakh and thus brought new meaning to the old while giving old meaning to his

new text. Whichever scholarly camp one subscribes to, it is imperative to acknowledge

that different hermeneutical approaches to Old Testament references change one’s in-

terpretation of Revelation on key issues.


Works Cited:

Beale, GK & DA Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Tes-

tament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Print.

Goldsworthy, Graeme. The Lamb & the Lion: The Gospel in Revelation. Nashville, TN:

Thomas Nelson, 1985. Print.

Grollenberg, Lucas. Unexpected Messiah: or How the Bible Can Be Misleading. Lon-

don: SCM, 1988. Print.

Lindars, Barnabus. “The Place of the Old Testament in the Formation of New Testa-

ment Theology: Prolegomena.” New Testament Studies 23 (1976): 59-66.

Moyise, Steve. The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation. Journal for the Study of

the New Testament Supplement Series 115. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Acad-

emic, 1995. Print.

Trudinger, L. Paul. “Some Observations Concerning the Text of the Old Testament in

the Book of Revelation.” Journal of Theological Studies XVII 1 (1966): 82-88.

looking back for the future

Documents