From the upcoming book ‘The Words of the Covenant: Volume Two, New Testament Continuation’
I think that one of the very first things we need to note about the book of Revelation is its decidedly Jewish tone. The book speaks of David, the throne, Jerusalem, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the twelve tribes of Israel, the two witnesses, the ark of the testimony, the commandments of Moses, and among things. References to Israel and hints at its promises abound. If Revelation is a book for the Church about the Church, why this Jewish flavor?[1] Even the language of the book, though Greek, is salted with Hebraisms. Bullinger notes that “though the language is Greek, the idiom is Hebrew.”[2] Fanning observes that “John wrote a Semitized form of Greek”[3] And everyone knows that Revelation alludes to more of the OT than any other NT book.
Some cogent explanation of this phenomenon has to be forthcoming. It is not enough to say that this way of writing just helped John make his connections to the Hebrew Bible. Without bringing up the covenantal links that exist throughout Revelation (see below), just a look at the contents of the book will underscore its decidedly Jewish appearance:
1. The “synagogue of Satan” is mentioned Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. Many commentators believe that this ungodly group were composed of Jews (hence “synagogue”) and that their claim to be true Jews was false because they rejected/subverted Christ’s truth. In my opinion these people call themselves Jews but are not descended from the twelve tribes.
2. The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David (Rev. 5:5). This recalls Genesis 49:8-10 and Jacob’s great messianic prophecy.
3. The 144,000 Jewish male virgins (Rev. 7:3-8; 14:1-5). Try as they might to turn these men (whom Bauckham and others believe to be an army in Rev. 7) into men and women of spiritual purity, the facts stand against it. These are men and they are from the twelve tribes of Israel.
4. The temple of God in “the holy city” upon earth (Rev. 11:1-2). Outside of the temple we are told is given to the Gentiles. Hence, a clear ethnic distinction is made.
5. The two witnesses who perform miracles associated with Moses and Elijah (Rev. 11:3—12). The OT tenor of these witnesses cannot be missed.
6. Earthly Jerusalem (Rev. 11:8), which is where Christ was crucified.
7. The woman clothed with the sun (Rev. 12:1-6). Despite valiant attempts to get around the obvious, the allusion to Israel is patent. Genesis 37:9-10 and Joseph’s second dream concerning his family is recorded: Joseph being the twelfth star.
8. Believers are said to “sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb” (Rev. 15:3). The song of Moses (Exod. 15:1-19) rejoices in the deliverance of Israel through the miracle of the Red Sea.
9. Gentiles are only mentioned once in the book, in Revelation 11:2.
10. The male child in Revelation. 12:5 is obviously Jesus (Psa. 2; Rev. 19:15). Who gives birth to Christ? Israel.
11. It is telling that the Jewishness of Revelation starts to become clear only after the seven churches (which represent the whole Church) are dealt with and the attention turns to what is going to happen. The Church and Israel are not spoken of in the same breath until Revelation 21. Hence, even though the seven churches of Asia Minor are prominent in the first three chapters, once the large central section launches the mood is far more Jewish.
12. Finally, as Bullinger observes, “All the imagery – the Temple, the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, the Altar, the Incense, the heads of the twenty-four courses of Priests (the pattern of which David’s was a copy, 1 Chron. xxviii. 19…), all this belongs peculiarly to Israel.”[4] Even New Jerusalem is shaped like the Holy of Holies.
[1] Written at the close of the first century it comes too late to be explained by the predominance of Jewish converts to Christianity.
[2] E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse, or “The Day of the Lord,” London, Samuel Bagster, 1972, 4-6.
[3] Buist M. Fanning, Revelation, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, ZECNT, 2020,53.
[4] E. W. Bullinger, The Apocalypse, 5-6.
11 comments On The Jewish Flavor of the Apocalypse
I can’t wait to read volume two. I love the observations and have seen them myself. As for point 10, I’ve lost count of the number of reformed who say that is the Church. It simply amazes me.
An Australia-based messianic movement teacher told me that there is no perfect (evangelical) denomination, each denomination comes with its theological baggage. The Covenantal Reformed church is good on the gospel, but not good on the Jewish background or the promises to Israel.
He in fact sat under and listened to his locally available Reformed theology holding churches (which there are a lot of following in Australia such as Sydney Anglicans, Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists) for a number of years so he knows what he is talking about.
But why would we not expect a Jewish flavor? Romans 11:24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural [branches] be grafted into their own olive tree?
Romans 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery–so that you will not be wise in your own estimation–that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; (NASB1995)
“ But why would we not expect a Jewish flavor?”
Response: because this is happening at precisely the point of the fullness of the Gentiles? 😉
Yes indeed, the Gentiles who in the path and following the the example of those who had gone before them of those saints who had in many ways made her jealous then even as those who overcome by the word of their testimony and the blood of Jesus love not their lives unto death in order to make them complete, for they are not so without us. One new man one holy nation and priesthood one bride, and indeed one Holy Father over us all. Blessings my brother in the Christ and Messiah. Blessings in the new covenant of His blood.
Bonjour Paul,
Thank you for your interesting article.
You note that Bullinger observes, “All the imagery – the Temple, the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, the Altar, the Incense, the heads of the twenty-four courses of Priests (the pattern of which David’s was a copy, 1 Chron. xxviii. 19…), all this belongs peculiarly to Israel.”[4] Even New Jerusalem is shaped like the Holy of Holies”
Bullinger is right here : when one approaches the Bible within its context and narrative, everything centers around Israel from Genesis to Revelation.
Think about it:
(1) Yahweh is the God of Israel (2 Kings 19:15; Isaiah 37:16)
(2) Yeshua is Israel’s Messiah (Mark 15:32; Acts 2:36)
(3) The new covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31)
(4) Yeshua is the King of the kingdom of Israel (John 12:13; Acts 1:6)
(5) Yeshua is the bridegroom of Israel (Jeremiah 31:32)
(6) The wedding concerns Israel (Isaiah 25:6)
And last but not least:
(7) Yeshua will reign forever over Jacob/Israel (Luke 1:33; Matthew 2:6)
The key to understand the biblical narrative is to understand that the “Chruch” is in fact Israel and is made up of believing Jews and Gentiles, washed by the blood of Jesus.
As for the orrignial langage of Revelation, I highly recommend the following:
https://www.hebrewgospels.com/revelation
Be blessed,
François-Xavier
Love what you state, as a grafted in adopted Son of Israel’s remnant.
Merci beaucoup (thank you very much!)
Have a look at the Hebrew Revelation (which could actually be called Ele Ha-Sodot, meaning ‘These are the Confidential Counsels) you’ll be amazed!
Blessings from France
I will thank you
While I do see the association between the miracles of Moses and Elijah with the two witnesses, I have trouble with the notion of Moses being one of them, because the two witnesses are said to be “killed”. And lest we misunderstand what is meant, it doubles down: “their dead bodies will lie in the street” (Rev. 11:8).
We know from Deuteronomy 34 that Moses already died. But if he can die *again*, that calls into question passages about Christ, like Romans 6:9 (“Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.”) and the implication that we also can never die in Philippians 3:21 (“Christ, who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory”) and Hebrews 9:27-28 (“And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.”).
I believe Hebrews 9:27 in particular sets a firm *upper limit* on the number of times Christ and those “in Christ” can die — once. A “second death” *only* ever happens for those who are sent to hell. If a second death can happen to one of God’s chosen ones, then that calls into question all the scriptures assuring us that Christ and those who belong to him will never die a second time.
There are only two of God’s people in scripture of whom it is recorded that they never died: Elijah and Enoch. Enoch in particular prophesied about an end-times judgment, as recorded/quoted in Jude. So although the miracles themselves are reminiscent of those of Moses, the exegetical/textual (and decidedly non-typological) evidence for Enoch seems much more clear.
I do see the obstacle, though — if they are to die then, that means they’ve survived in mortal bodies in heaven until now.
But given the infinite power of God, that seems like a small obstacle compared to the textual implications of his word.
Really appreciate your work, Dr. Henebury! I’ve been reading “The Words of the Covenant” and am finding that this framework has a way of opening the scriptures like none I’ve encountered. I grew up as a Seventh-day Adventist and found freedom decades ago through the work of Dale Ratzlaff, particularly “Sabbath in Christ” where he shows how the Old Covenant in its entirety, including its commands, are obsolete and non-binding to New Covenant believers — and that we’re under the law of Christ instead. So I found Covenant Theology to be problematic since it seemed in many ways like a return to what I had come from. Dispensationalism didn’t sit right either — the “dispensations” as the interpretive framework seemed like an unnatural fit, and I also had trouble with the notion that Christ’s commands in the Sermon on the Mount are for Jews and not Gentiles, as some teach.
But Biblical Covenantalism is the first full Biblical theological framework I’ve encountered that seems to avoid the sense of bringing a pre-conceived idea to the text. “Every framework has its problem texts, so pick your poison” doesn’t seem to apply. Thank you so much.