BOOK OF REVELATION: RELATION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

Recommended books:

Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy by J. Barton Payne, Harper and Row

Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament,  G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, ed., Baker Academic.

There is a very strong relationship between OT and Revelation, since the latter is filled with more OT 

language and imagery than any other book in the NT. Statistics vary from 400-1,000 OT references. As 

a matter of fact, whole chapters in Revelation appear to be loosely organized using chapters in Daniel 

or Ezekiel as models. But there is not a single direct quote and certainly no phrase such “Thus was 

(will be) fulfilled what was spoken in the prophets, etc.” So that leaves several options open to 

understanding the relationship of a given passage in Revelation to one in the OT that uses the same 

language.

A. same event described

    1. applied to nation of Israel

    2. applied to the Christ and the church

B. OT fulfillment foreshadows future events (multiple fulfillments—some elevate this to a law and feel that all prophecies have to have multiple fulfillments)

C. similar language and imagery employed

D. eclectic view

Example 1: The Rider on the White Horse

    Revelation 6:1-8 White horse/bow—“came out conquering and to conquer,” Bright red horse/sword

—slaughter; Black horse/scales—famine; Pale green horse/death followed by Hades—kill by the 

sword, famine, pestilence and wild animals.

    Revelation 19:11,14,19,21 Man on white horse is the Word of God accompanied by an army on 

white horses. He judges and makes war

    Zechariah 1:8 An angel riding a red horse. Behind him are red, sorrel and white horses. They are 

responsible for patrolling the earth. All is at peace. The rider pleads for the cause of Israel.

    Zechariah 6:1-8 Four chariots with red, black, white and gray (dappled?) horses. They are four 

winds/spirits who patrol the four points of the compass.

There are quite different understandings of the man on the white horse in Revelation 6 and many of 

these interpretations fail to make use of the possible parallels in Zechariah at all. For example, one 

professor who will remain anonymous only utilizes the immediate context in Revelation 6. Zechariah 

parallels aren't mentioned, in this case probably because they don't really help his line of reasoning at 

all. It is an interesting example because it is practically a textbook example of how not to interpret 

Scripture.

 

Prof. X's interpretation:

Step 1: He can't be Christ since Christ conquers his enemies at the end of the Tribulation, not the start.

Step 2: Therefore he is the Antichrist.

Step 3: Lack of arrow in his bow means he is not there to conquer militarily.

Step 4: Instead he is there to set up a world government.

There are a number of problems with this reasoning, as some of you may have already picked up on.

In Step 1 he makes several hidden assumptions: starts with a particular systematic theology as a given 

and interprets individual passage in terms of it (circular reasoning. He is basically saying it can't be 

Christ since that would contradict my theory), assumes that the Tribulation is being described (rather 

than the Battle of Armageddon, for example), assumes that all passages in Revelation are given in 

strictly chronological order, and assumes that it is a literal personage (even though the details such as 

the colored horses are taken as figurative and the fourth rider is specifically stated to be Death). 

 

Step 2: He only offers two choices to consider (fallacy of the excluded middle).

 

Step 3: “Literal” interpretation of the bow goes against the fact that there are over 60 references to bow 

in the OT (all in the context of war) and only 6 of them specifically mention arrows. It's like we might 

say, “I went to war with my rifle.” We don't have to bother mentioning that the rifle is loaded.

 

Step 4: He again limits options to only two choices: war or world government. (Why not through 

economic or religious means?) 

 

This is also a good example of a chain of reasoning. There are seven statements or assumptions which 

all must be correct to prove his point. If even one assumption fails, the whole chain of reasoning is 

broken. Another way to look at it is that even if each step of his reasoning has a 80% probability of 

being true, the probability that all seven steps are true is only about 20%.

Ellul—uses Rev. 19 as context. White = Word of God, Pale = Death (from Rev. 6), Red = Political 

Power, Black = Economic Power. These are the four main forces controlling all activities on earth.

 

Hodges—notes that in Zechariah 1, the man riding the red horse is an angel of the LORD who 

intercedes with God on behalf of Israel (vv. 11-12). That informs who the four horsemen are.

That borders on taking the first approach to OT texts—they portray the same events or people. The 

same four horsemen scout out the land and plead for God to strike down the enemies of Israel in 

Zechariah 1, then get into chariots to prepare themselves for war in Zechariah 6, and finally ride out to 

attack in Revelation 6. The question then becomes: are they going to attack the enemies of Israel in the 

future or those of the church? That would have to be decided by a whole separate argument.

 

Ford—By analogy with Zechariah 1, the first rider (on white horse this time) is an angel of the LORD 

and the rest are subservient to him (lesser angels/winds).

 

Beale – He notes that in both Zechariah 1 and 6, all the horsemen are of the same type so the same 

must apply to Revelation—either all evil or all godly forces. Since the OT horses cover the whole 

earth, the plagues of the Revelation horses affect the whole earth. 

 

Adamson—on Zechariah 6:8, he says that God's conquest of Babylon shown here foreshadows his 

complete victory over all his enemies in the future. Clear example of Approach B (multiple fulfillments 

of prophecy). 

 

Meyers and Meyers—symbolism of two Zechariah visions refer to, respectively, God's omniscience 

and his omnipresence (4 compass points) and omnipotence (chariots). All are in mind in the 

Revelation passage perhaps.

 

Metzger and Mounce say only the general imagery of the Zechariah vision has been adapted for use in 

Revelation—details are quite different. So we shouldn't push the parallels too far.

Finally, some see Ezekiel 14:21-22  as a much closer parallel passage and interpret Revelation in terms 

of that passage. " For thus says the Lord GOD: How much more when I send upon Jerusalem my four 

deadly acts of judgment, sword, famine, wild animals, and pestilence, to cut off humans and animals 

from it! Yet, survivors shall be left in it, sons and daughters who will be brought out; they will come 

out to you."

Note that if this is the closest reference, then a future attack on Israel is indicated. The nearest 

fulfillment oft he Ezekiel prophecy was attack on Jerusalem by Babylon in 597 BC. However, 

literalists point out that wild animals were not used as weapons by the attackers in this event. So the 

true fulfillment must be in the future (the Tribulation or Battle of Armaggedon, for example) when 

Jerusalem will be attacked. But this interpretation runs counter to the statements in Rev. 6 that the 

whole earth or a large portion of it is affected, not just Jerusalem. A more likely explanation is obtained 

from Jeremiah 15:2-3 where the same four plagues are mentioned and the role of the animals is to eat 

the unburied bodies of those killed by the other three plagues, or in several passages in Isaiah regarding 

judgment on the nations; beasts are mentioned as an indication that the cities will be totally deserted 

and only wild animals will live there. If these explanations of the wild beasts are taken into account, 

the Ezekiel prophecy has already been literally fulfilled and there is no need to look for a further 

fulfillment unless again one believes that all prophecies must have multiple fulfillments.

Or we could look at this parallel language between Ezekiel and Revelation as just the use of common 

imagery for the tools of God's judgment.

 

This demonstrates that we have to take each case of parallel language between Revelation and OT on 

its own merits.

 

Example 2:

Let's go back to the passage in Revelation 11 we looked at in another posting -- two witnesses who 

prophesy for 3 ½ years: “They have authority to shut the sky, so that no rain may fall during the days 

of their prophesying, and they have authority over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the 

earth with every kind of plague, as often as they desire.” (Revelation 11:6)

First, if we look at the Rev. 11 passage literally in its immediate context, it refers to two individuals 

who each have the combined power of Moses and Elijah. But many commentators tend to ignore this 

simple fact and separate these two powers, one to each witness, in which case one of them would have 

the characteristics of Elijah and the other of Moses. The idea of Elijah being brought back from heaven 

just in order to to be killed seems a bit strange. But we should admit that the passage is a bit too 

ambiguous to be understood on its own. so we could go to either Malachi or the Gospels for further 

clarification since the second coming of Elijah is mentioned in both.

Malachi 3:1

See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will 

suddenly come to his temple.

Malachi 4:5-6

"Lo, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. He will 

turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not 

come and strike the land with a curse."

 

There was great expectation in Israel for Elijah's return during the time of Christ-- (a) John the Baptist 

was asked why he was baptizing if he wasn't Elijah, (b) Jesus asked, “who do people say that I am?” 

And some replied that he was Elijah, (c) a bystander at the cross said, “Let us see if Elijah will come to 

save him.”

 

We can start with OT prophecies and assume that (a) they must be literally fulfilled in some future time 

since a literally reincarnated Elijah hasn't appeared yet (even John the Baptist denied that he was the 

literal reincarnation of Elijah) and (b) he must appear right before the Tribulation (no telescoping of 

prophecy). From this data we can make the logical deduction that one of the witnesses in Rev. 11 is 

probably Elijah himself who will appear at some future time.

But what if we start from the NT instead?

Luke 1:16-17

Gabriel to Zechariah: "He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. With the spirit 

and power of Elijah he will go before him to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the 

disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Matthew 11:14

"This (John the Baptist) is the one about whom it is written,

'See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.

...and if you are willing to accept it (or him), he is Elijah who is to come.'"

Matthew 17:10-13 (Mark 9:11-13)

And the disciples asked him, “Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” He replied, 

“Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and 

they did not recognize him, but they did to him whatever they pleased.” .....Then the disciples 

understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist.

When pressed concerning Jesus' words, those who opt for a future appearance of Elijah have four 

responses: (1) the principle of multiple fulfillments, which in this case comes close to denying the 

pronouncements of both Jesus and the angel Gabriel, (2) distinguish the two prophecies in Malachi 

--the first applies to John the Baptist and the second one to Elijah himself (But both prophecies are 

quoted in regard to John the Baptist's coming), (3) adopt a minority opinion regarding Jesus' words “If 

you accept it.” (“only if you accept my words, will John become Elijah,” instead of as a Hebrew idiom 

meaning “I know this may be hard to comprehend, but”), or (4) interpret Matt. 17 to mean Jesus' 

acceptance of two fulfillments, one past and one future (again, not the normal understanding. Majority 

interpretation is that He is first confirming the statement from Malachi and the scribes, and then 

correcting their understanding by switching tenses suddenly). In other words, it is similar to Christ's 

words in John's Gospel: “The time is coming and now is.” 

 

So you have your choice of beginning with the OT prophecy, the comments from the Gospels, or the 

Revelation passage and interpreting the other passages in terms of whichever verse you start with. It is 

a general principle of interpretation that one should begin with the clearest passage and interpret the 

more difficult passages in terms of it. If both the angel Gabriel and Jesus say that John the Baptist 

represents the fulfillment of Malachi, then perhaps we don't need to go to Revelation for any further 

fulfillment. 

 

Of 33 evangelical scholarly commentaries on Malachi and the Gospels that I consulted on this subject, 

only three stated that there would be a future appearance of Elijah. All three were professors at Dallas 

Theological Seminary and their comments were almost word-for-word the same as each other. This is 

interesting because even John Walvoord, past president of DTS, stated that he didn't believe a literal 

Elijah was indicated in Rev. 11. By contrast, among the first 30 Google hits on “Elijah and John the 

Baptist” there were nine (almost a third) who felt there would be a future appearance of the literal 

Elijah. So you can see that the interpretation depends heavily on the sources you consult, whether 

popular or  scholarly and on the commentator's theological training. 

 

Thus, the different theological schools of thought on the future will be our next subject to cover.