The Past Is Yet to Come: Exodus Typology in Revelation

Studies in Jewish and Christian Literature

Messiah and the Throne, Timo Eskola

Defilement and Purgation in the Book of Hebrews, William G. Johnsson

Father, Son, and Spirit in Romans 8, Ron C. Fay

Within the Veil, Félix H. Cortez

Jude’s Apocalyptic Eschatology as Theological Exclusivism, William Wilson

Intertextuality and Prophetic Exegesis in the War Scroll of Qumran, César Melgar

The Past Is Yet to Come: Exodus Typology in Revelation, Barbara A. Isbell

The Past Is Yet to Come:

Exodus Typology in Revelation

To my parents, whose challenging questions, encouraging words,

loving nudges, occasional pushes, and constant love

mean more to me than I can ever say.

And to my brother, Ben, who has taught me more

than I could ever hope to learn through academia.

The Past Is Yet to Come:

Exodus Typology in Revelation

Barbara A. Isbell

Fontes

The Past is Yet to Come:

Exodus Typology in Revelation

Copyright © 2022 by Barbara A. Isbell

ISBN-13: 978-1-948048-67-5 (paperback)

ISBN-13: 978-1-948048-68-2 (hardback)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version (ESV).

Typeset by Monolateral in Brill.

Fontes Press

Dallas, TX

www.fontespress.com

Abbreviations

Contents

Abbreviations ix

1. Introduction 1

Methodology 2

2. The Old Testament Foundation of Revelation 7

Centrality of the Old Testament to Revelation 7

Definitions and Terminology 8

Typology 15

Typology and Apocalyptic 19

Summary 21

3. The Delineation of Exodus Typology 23

The Content of Exodus Typology 24

Connection of Exodus Proper and Wilderness 26

Distinction of the Conquest 36

Summary 42

4. Expectation of an Eschatological Exodus within Jewish and

Early Christian Thought 45

The Old Testament and Ancient Judaism 46

The Prophets 48

Jeremiah 49

Ezekiel 50

Hosea 52

Micah 53

Zechariah 54

The Isaianic New Exodus 55

Apocryphal Literature and the Intertestamental Period 66

The New Testament and Early Christianity 68

Gospels and Acts 69

The Epistles 74

Summary 77

5. Exodus Imagery in Revelation: Plagues as Paradigm for Judgment 79

The Exodus Plague Judgments 80

Revelation’s Trumpet and Bowl Judgments 82

Comparison with Wisdom of Solomon 88

Lack of Exodus Plague Imagery in other Apocalyptic Literature 91

Summary 94

6. Exodus Imagery in Revelation: The Passover and Paschal Lamb 95

Inaugural Vision of the Lamb (Rev 5) 95

Was the Passover Expiatory? 100

Song of Moses and Song of the Lamb (Rev 15:1–4) 103

Sealing of the 144,000 (Rev 7:1–8) 110

An Examination of Σφραγίς Terminology 110

The Identity of the 144,000 113

The OT Background of the Sealing of the 144,000 115

The Background of Revelation’s Lamb 120

7. Exodus Imagery in Revelation: The Wilderness 125

The Woman and the Dragon: A Survey of Salvation History (Rev 12) 125

They Shall Neither Hunger nor Thirst (Rev 7:9–17) 132

The Temple of the Tabernacle of Meeting 137

The Sinai Theophany 141

The Face of God 145

The Wilderness—A Summary 147

8. Hermeneutical Significance and Analysis of Revelation’s

Exodus Typology 149

Theme and Purpose: Allegiance in a Compromising and Persecuted World 150

Motif of Imitation and Fraud 152

The Plagues and Allegiance 155

The Passover and Allegiance 158

The Wilderness and Allegiance 159

Choose This Day Whom You Will Serve 161

Is Revelation’s Exodus Typology Isaianic? 162

The Past Is Yet to Come: The Apocalypse as the Culmination of

Salvation History 169

9. Conclusion and Further Reflections 173

Summary of the Current Project 173

Areas of Further Study 174

Bibliography 177

Index 191

Chapter

Introduction

The book of Revelation is perhaps the most mystifying and misunderstood text in the Christian canon. Indeed, its history is such that its canonicity was disputed from the beginning, particularly by the Eastern church. ¹ The widespread debate and lack of consensus regarding literary, historical, and theological aspects of Revelation has led to both a plethora of interpretations among scholars and a hesitation to approach this text by lay people. Yet Revelation continues to intrigue both the casual reader and the serious scholar alike.

Without question, OT imagery, themes, concepts, types, and allusions are embedded throughout the text of Revelation, but they are often difficult to identify with any modicum of precision. Certainly there are key texts upon which John ² relied heavily within the Apocalypse; one cannot deny the marked impact of Daniel, Isaiah, Zechariah, and Ezekiel upon John’s recorded visions, and scholars have purposefully read Revelation through the lens of these particular OT texts, analyzing their prominence upon this perplexing book. As Spilsbury states in his insightful monograph, if we are not familiar with the grand themes of books like Exodus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah and Daniel, our ears will be deaf to the subtleties of John’s masterful composition, and much of the book’s message will be lost to us. ³

Spilsbury’s statement prompts the question, what illumination might be gleaned if one recognized and understood the purpose behind John’s prevalent and inventive employment of exodus typology throughout his Apocalypse? Scholars regularly identify the plagues of Egypt as the OT image underlying the trumpet and bowl judgments, suggest the paschal lamb as a possible background for the Lamb, and note various allusions within Revelation to texts or events within the exodus tradition. ⁴ Yet they seem to take these OT allusions for granted, with little or no inquiry into the purpose behind them, their hermeneutical or theological function, and the cumulative impact when they are seen as a whole. That is precisely the goal of the present study. Through a three-pronged analysis, we will seek to demonstrate the validity of the twofold thesis—namely, that in employing exodus typology as a hermeneutical axiom throughout Revelation, John was acting in harmony with his Jewish eschatological worldview and early Christian interpretation of the Christ event as a new exodus; and that John exceeds other presentations of a new exodus, fleshing out aspects of the Isaianic/prophetic hope of restoration to represent the eschaton as the culmination of salvation history and a re-creation or reinstatement of God’s initial purposes and ideals for mankind and the world.

Methodology

The face of NT studies has experienced significant change in recent decades with the rise of newer critical methodologies such as rhetorical criticism, social-scientific criticism, narrative criticism, and postcolonial and anti-imperialist readings of the texts, many of which have been applied to Revelation. ⁵ In contrast to these modern methodologies, N. T. Wright has rightly asserted that the study of the NT involves the integration of three distinct disciplines—literature, history and theology—though he recognizes that at times it will be necessary to privilege one task above the others. ⁶

This threefold analysis is the approach of the current project, seeking consistency with the historical, literary, and theological contexts at each stage of the study. Indeed, each of the main chapters corresponds primarily (though in no way exclusively) to one of these disciplines. ⁷ The study of exodus typology, however, by its very nature highlights the literary and theological disciplines, especially in exegetical discussions. The historical background of Revelation is the source of many debates, and typically raises more questions than it provides answers. Thus, historical issues such as authorship, date, and the situation of the recipients remain untreated as they are not central to the thesis itself. Whether the book was written by the apostle John or another individual, during the reign of Nero or Domitian, to recipients enduring widespread persecution or not, ⁸ the fact remains that the OT figures prominently as the primary source for Revelation’s background imagery, and Exodus in particular functions typologically to illuminate the author’s theological purposes and salvation-historical worldview. ⁹ Additionally, this study seeks to distance itself from debates over typical interpretive approaches (i.e., preterist, historicist, futurist, idealist), following an eclectic approach to the Apocalypse and presupposing benefits to each view. ¹⁰

The methodology for this project is multi-faceted, and includes three phases, each of which naturally builds upon the previous. The first phase involves examination of the intertextual conversation on two fronts. First, it requires interaction with major OT, Jewish, and early Christian texts which demonstrate exodus influence, noting the early Jewish expectation of an eschatological exodus event and the prophetic (particularly Isaianic) development of this hope through exodus typology. From this analysis emerges what may be an ancillary contribution for the project, namely a systematic delineation of what events, traditions, and literature should be included under the category of the exodus. Secondly, this study necessitates consideration of the use of the OT in the NT in general, and the use of exodus in Revelation in particular. This includes the analysis and categorization of various types of allusions and the identification of background texts based on verbal, thematic, and structural similarities.

The identification of allusions to the exodus event within the Apocalypse reveals clusters of exodus imagery within particular passages (e.g., Rev 1:10–17; 7:1–17; 12:1–17; 21:8–22:5), structural sections within Revelation which seem to be modeled after specific exodus events (e.g., Rev 8:7–9:21; 15:1–8; 16:1–21), and frequent allusions to certain prominent aspects of the exodus event (e.g., the Passover and paschal lamb, the plagues, the Sinai theophany, the wilderness experience, and the Tabernacle). Thus, the second method involved in this project simply involves exegesis of certain significant portions of Revelation, examining in detail John’s creative allusion to the most prominent aspects of the historical exodus in his utilization of exodus typology in the Apocalypse. While exegetical analysis of every occurrence of exodus imagery within Revelation is beyond the scope of this project, an overview of Revelation’s cumulative employment of exodus allusions reveals a thematic breakdown of these texts into three main categories: the plague judgments, the Passover, and the wilderness experience (including the Sinai theophany and the Tabernacle). Detailed exegesis of major passages within each category reveals how deeply ingrained and pervasive exodus imagery is within Revelation.

The third facet of this project involves what will be referred to as typological interpretation, recognizing within Revelation the author’s philosophy of salvation history which enabled him to anticipate the eschatological future in terms of the past, specifically the exodus. Thus, we explore John’s hermeneutical presuppositions and theological purposes for employing exodus typology as a unifying feature throughout Revelation. Assessing Revelation’s rhetorical and literary portrait and appreciating John’s typological perspective not only allows his theological emphases and intentions for the Apocalypse to come to the forefront, but also ties together the various occurrences of exodus imagery into a meaningful and purposeful whole.

What purpose is there in bringing to focus Revelation’s prominent use of exodus typology? To a certain extent the Apocalypse has been avoided, neglected, and feared throughout history, both on the popular and scholarly level, due to its visionary nature, perplexing symbolism, and formidable predictions. This study may help to alleviate some of the hesitancy toward Revelation by clarifying its symbolic and allusive nature in terms of the exodus, perhaps the most well-known of OT accounts ¹¹ and the pivotal experience within salvation history prior to the Christ event. Indeed, this seems to have been one of John’s goals in his abundant use of OT imagery, recording in literary and symbolic form the visions which he received from the Lord in terms of OT figures, events, and images which would have been readily recognized and interpreted within the Jewish worldview. ¹²

Most importantly, this study will reveal how one particular NT author understood the eschaton as the culmination of salvation history, in fulfillment of the OT prophecies and Jewish expectations, in continuity with God’s mighty acts of redemption on behalf of his people throughout history, and in keeping with Christ’s own messianic self-understanding. In other words, this project may help tie together salvation history from the beginning of the nation of Israel to God’s final eschatological acts on behalf of the new Israel as interpreted through the Christ event. ¹³

Thus, ultimately and intentionally, the methodology and result of this project will in many ways resemble at least one form of biblical theology. As such, it will take seriously the authority of the whole canon of Scripture and seek to understand the Bible’s cumulative witness to salvation history and God’s works of creation and redemption. It will recognize the unity of the canon as it seeks to articulate a relationship between the two Testaments that takes seriously their distinct traditions and historical contexts as well as their common witness and divine inspiration. It will endeavor to explore the theological conversation between the OT and NT and discover how the two work together to demonstrate the continuity of God’s mighty redemptive acts on behalf of his people in the past, present, and future. And it will do all this while attempting to comprehend and illuminate the profound mystery that is the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ according to John.

1 William C. Weinrich, ed., Revelation, ACCS New Testament 12 (InterVarsity, 2005), xvii–xx; Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Significance, and Development (Oxford University Press, 1987), 16; D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Zondervan, 2005), 732–735; etc.

2 The matter of authorship is just one area of considerable debate surrounding Revelation. The early church seemed almost universally to identify the author as the apostle John. Weinrich, Revelation, xvii, xix. While modern scholars assert various proofs against the apostle John, there is little consensus as to another plausible author, and thus it seems the wisest course of action is … to accept in a tentative way that the Apocalypse was written by John the apostle, son of Zebedee and disciple of Jesus. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, NICNT (Eerdmans, 1977), 31. However, authorship will not play a role in the argument or development of this study. The author of Revelation will be referred to as John in keeping with the author’s self-designation in Rev 1:1, his servant, John.

3 Paul Spilsbury, The Throne, the Lamb & the Dragon: A Reader’s Guide to the Book of Revelation (InterVarsity, 2002), 37.

4 Such scholars and their notice of these issues are discussed further in chapters 5 and 6.

5 Studies of Revelation based on these newer methods include: rhetorical—Loren L. Johns, The Lamb Christology of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force, WUNT 2nd series 167 (Mohr Siebeck, 2003); social-scientific—Ben Witherington, III, Revelation, NCBC (Cambridge University Press, 2003); narrative—J. L. Resseguie, Revelation Unsealed: A Narrative Critical Approach to John’s Apocalypse, BibInt (Brill, 1998); anti-imperial—Steven J. Friesen, Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (Oxford University Press, 2001); Leonard L. Thompson, The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire (Oxford University Press, 1990).

6 N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Fortress, 1992), 11–14, 31. Wright explicates each of these three disciplines in a separate chapter: literature, pp. 47–80; history, pp. 81–120; theology, pp. 121–144.

7 Chapters 2 and 3 attend to the literary issues surrounding the NT use of the OT, typology, and the delineation of exodus typology. Chapter 4 is historical in nature, exploring the development of the eschatological hope for a new exodus within ancient Judaism and early Christianity. Chapters 5 through 7 contain a literary study of the text of Revelation, examining the presence of specific aspects of exodus typology at key points throughout the Apocalypse. Finally, chapter 8 pulls the whole project together, delving into the hermeneutical, rhetorical, and theological implications of the prominence of exodus typology within Revelation.

8 For a brief but helpful overview of these admittedly important historical issues, see the introduction in Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Baker, 2002), 1–49.

9 The study of Revelation’s exodus typology may actually help to answer some of these difficult historical questions, as will be explained in the conclusion of this study (chapter 9).

10 At first glance, the reader may question whether the present project by its very nature precludes a preterist reading of the Apocalypse—indeed, the title itself states The Past Is Yet to Come. However, the study of typology in Revelation does not prevent a preterist reading, as it is the type itself which is predictive, not necessarily the antitype. The ancient Jews and early Christians clearly understood the exodus from Egypt to be a pattern for a greater, future deliverance. John picks up on this tradition, casting the events of the end times as the fulfillment of this new-exodus expectation, whether the reader understands these events as having taken place in the first century (preterist), throughout the various ages of church history (historicist), at a distant future time (futurist), or as merely symbolic of the age-long conflict between good and evil.

11 References to the exodus are prominent throughout the Bible; no other book surfaces elsewhere in the OT more often than Exodus, and only the Psalms and Isaiah are more frequent in the NT.

12 John’s first-century readers were well acquainted with the teachings and symbolism of the OT, as was John himself. John P. Newport, The Lion and the Lamb (Broadman, 1986), 46.

13 Scholarly speculation has resulted in a number of historical and theological debates related to issues both central to and indirectly related to Revelation (e.g., historical background/ situation, authorship, date, millennial stance, tribulational position, and methodological approach). Explicating Revelation’s use of exodus typology may shed some light on these questions, lending credence to one position over another and allowing scholars to make a more informed decision based on the evidence of the text itself. See chapter 9.

Chapter 2

The Old Testament Foundation of Revelation

Centrality of the Old Testament to Revelation

There is no denying the complexity involved in interpreting Revelation; it is a carefully woven tapestry of symbolism, themes, and images reflecting masterful sensitivity and subtle detailing, the intricacies of which are still being discovered today. While on the one hand its message of God’s sovereignty and call for allegiance are clearly recognizable by the casual reader who sees only the big picture, on the other hand unlocking the rich and sophisticated mysteries of the text requires the same care in interpretation that John exercised in its composition.

Yet the Apocalypse is also one of the most inspiring biblical writings, especially when the reader is constantly aware of and attentive to the OT imagery which saturates the text. Richard Bauckham goes so far as to claim that Revelation is designed to be read in constant intertextual relationship with the Old Testament. ¹ When one begins to listen in on this intertextual conversation, ² it becomes evident that John purposefully alludes to OT stories and evokes well-known OT images and events in order to provide a typological foreshadowing of what is to come and to convey the rhetorical purpose of his writing to his audience, both first-century and modern.

It is difficult to overstate the significance of the OT to John’s record of his eschatological visions, for the language of Revelation is arguably more dependent on the Old Testament than any other work of the New. ³ That the analysis of this matter has been rather neglected until recently is somewhat astonishing, but the tide of scholarship has turned and interest in the OT foundation which underlies Revelation is ever increasing. Clearly scholars are intrigued by the potential of unlocking the mystery of Revelation’s symbolism and visions by uncovering their underlying background.

Definitions and Terminology

Revelation is saturated with an astounding array of OT images, allusions, symbols, phrases, names, and titles, such that its OT foundation is inescapable. Jenkins notes that 278 of the more than four hundred verses in Revelation contain references to an estimated 250 different OT passages. ⁴ Yet analyzing the use of the OT in Revelation and identifying a specific OT origin for a particular image, phrase, or symbol is a daunting task with no easy place to begin. Two primary factors have contributed to this difficulty—one internal to the text itself, the other a deficiency within scholarship. First, the task is hindered by the manner in which John utilized the OT within the Apocalypse. Unlike the pattern seen in the gospels and Pauline epistles, it seems that Revelation does not contain a single formal quotation of the OT, but, rather, is replete with various degrees of allusions and echoes. ⁵ It is possible that this allusive nature is simply an indication of its genre; indeed, Paulien states that the profusion of allusive references is one of the most vexing problems in the study of apocalyptic literature in general. ⁶

Secondly, the problem is compounded by the different criteria, terminology, and definitions employed by scholars in discussing the NT use of the OT in general. To demonstrate the general bedlam that results from attempting to establish a definitive number of OT references within the Apocalypse, Paulien undertook a detailed, systematic study of ten commentators and lists of OT occurrences in the NT. ⁷ He noted proposed allusions to 288 different OT passages in Revelation, yet the only point of agreement across all ten studies was that Rev 9:5–6 was written with Job 3:21 in mind. ⁸

The majority of the present project will be intensely engaged in the study of John’s manner of using the OT in general and Exodus in particular within the Apocalypse. But given scholarly inconsistencies regarding terminology and methodology, it is crucial to establish a set of working definitions for the various forms of the NT use of the OT before delving into a detailed analysis of the text. According to Porter, the range of vocabulary used in discussing the NT use of the OT is astounding:

citation, direct quotation, formal quotation, indirect quotation, allusive quotation, allusion (whether conscious or unconscious), paraphrase, exegesis (such as inner-biblical exegesis), midrash, typology, reminiscence, echo (whether conscious or unconscious), intertextuality, influence (either direct or indirect), and even tradition, among other terms. ⁹

The task of defining and distinguishing between these terms is monumental, and thus will be limited at this time to the four primary forms: citation, quotation, allusion, and echo.

As stated above, scholars tend to agree that Revelation does not contain a single OT quotation. But how do they define quotation? Certainly, Tenney is correct that a quotation at least involve[s] the selection of significant amounts of wording from a previous passage, sufficient to make it certain that the author had the previous work in mind. ¹⁰ Trudinger narrows the definition further, stating that a quotation is always accompanied by an introductory formula (e.g., καθὼς γέγραπται, as it is written), though Tenney and others classify such as a citation. ¹¹ Porter adds to the confusion by using citation as an umbrella term which he then breaks into at least five categories … on the basis of explicit to non-explicit citation: formulaic quotation, direct quotation, paraphrase, allusion, and echo. ¹² For Porter, then, a formulaic quotation is labeled by the author as a quotation using an introductory formula, whereas a direct quotation is not introduced but contains a minimum of three words from an OT text, thereby forming a unit of determinable syntax and conceptual relation with its source. ¹³

The matter of terminology is muddied further when moving from straightforward quotations and citations to the elusive realm of allusions and echoes. In general, an allusion consists of a word, brief phrase, or idea which can be traced to a known OT text, but in vocabulary or language that is not necessarily uniform with its antecedent. ¹⁴ Beale and Fekkes speak of levels of probability when discerning allusions, with Beale identifying the lowest level of probability as echoes. ¹⁵ Porter adds a third category, paraphrase, into the mix and distinguishes based on what aspect of the OT is being brought into the NT text—paraphrases appeal to an identifiable passage, allusions to a person, place, or literary work, and echoes to a more general notion or concept. ¹⁶

Most often, however, scholars distinguish between allusion and echo based on the author’s intent to draw the reader’s mind to a particular OT text. Yet even then the dividing line is still quite obscure. Hollander, a literary critic, distinguishes between allusions as the author’s conscious attempt to expand the reader’s horizons, and echoes, which require neither cognizant authorial intention nor even awareness of the original source. ¹⁷ Echoes, it is often said, reflect an idea that was part of the common domain of the world in which the author lived; in the case of the NT, echoes indicate a mind saturated with the language and ideas of the OT, which spill over into the writer’s words with no degree of forethought. Thus, scholars tend to afford echoes minimal interpretive significance in comparison with allusions and quotations. ¹⁸ Porter, however, seems unclear where or even if the line of intentionality should be drawn, indicating that it is possible for both allusions and echoes to be consciously intentional or unintentional.

It is often difficult to determine whether NT authors were intentionally pointing their readers to a particular OT text or whether their writings simply bear the unconscious mark of the Jewish milieu in which they were situated, and this is particularly true of Revelation. As Hays astutely asserts, from this distance in time … it is difficult to distinguish between intentional and unintentional intertextual references…. Because the question of authorial intentionality is a slippery one, we should not place too much weight upon it. ¹⁹ Additionally, authorial intent does not necessarily result in intertextual accuracy. The NT authors were highly creative in their use of the OT, often interpreting the OT through a Christological lens, ²⁰ reworking the text to fit their own writing, ²¹ finding new meaning in the OT texts, ²² or combining multiple seemingly unrelated OT texts into intertextual clusters to reinforce their point. ²³ Yet, despite this creative application, scholars do not deny the intentionality of quotations within the text. The same should be true for allusions and echoes, which incorporate less of the actual OT language but are no less effective in conveying the message of the NT writer. The fact that the traditional means of distinguishing between allusions and echoes has been based on such indeterminate and potentially inaccurate attempts to determine intentionality or motivation gives more impetus for the decision not to distinguish but to associate echoes with allusions, albeit on the lower end of the probability spectrum.

In contrast to scholars who distinguish between types of NT use of the OT based on authorial intentionality, there are those who stress the importance of the audience’s recognition, indicating that intertextuality is not present if it is not accepted or identified by the reader. Hays, for example, does not seem to apply the same logic to the issue of audience recognition as he does to authorial intent. While he states that distinguishing between intentional and unintentional intertextuality is difficult from this distance in time, such that attempts should therefore be avoided, ²⁴ he seems to have no problem determining the presence of intertextual references based on the equally subjective standard of isolating what might have been