THE OLD TESTAMENT IN BOOK OF REVELATION

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 the 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 as “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 foreshadow 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

Rev. 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.

Rev. 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

Zech. 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.

Zech. 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 Rev. 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 at 

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: only offers two choices (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 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 7 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 (v. 11-12). That informs who the four horsemen are.

Borders on taking the first approach to OT texts—they portray the same events or people. Same four 

horsemen scout out the land and plead for God to strike down the enemies of Israel in Zech. 1, then get

into chariots to prepare themselves for war in Zech. 6, and finally ride out to attack in Rev. 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 Zech. 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 Zech. 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 in mind in Rev. 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 Ezek. 14 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. Ezekiel 14:21-22

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

of  the 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 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. 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 a passage in Revelation 11 next. 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.” (Rev. 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, and (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 Revelation 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.

Matt. 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.”

Matt. 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 3 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 9 (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.