Isaiah 14:15 the fallen ruler is even brought down to the ‘extreme parts of the pit,’ corresponding well to the translation "bottomless pit” in Revelation. In Isaiah 24:21- 22 the theme is God calling “the host of heaven and the kings of the earth” to account, gathering them together “like prisoners in a pit; they will be shut up in a prison, and after many days they will be punished.” The parallel to the thousand-year
confinement of Satan in Revelation is remarkable for the notion of imprisonment culminating in a final day of accountability.
But the difference is equally noteworthy. In Isaiah 24:21-22 “the host of heaven and the kings of the earth” are treated on equal terms. In Revelation Satan is pointedly set apart; he alone is seized, bound and locked up. On this point Isaiah
14:15 offers background that corresponds better with the narrative in Revelation. The main subject in Isaiah’s description comes to naught in the extreme parts of the abyss, but the author goes out of his way to emphasise that his demise stands apart from that of everyone else (Isa 14:15-20). A second argument for seeing a predominant influence of the passage describing the fall of the “Day Star, Son of Dawn” or hêlël ben sahar, derives from the identity of the main subject in the passage (Isa 14:12). As will be argued later in gi eater detail. Revelation takes the story of the fall of the brightest star in Isaiah as its Old Testament background for the fallen star that was given the key to the abyss at the blowing of the fifth tmmpet (9: l).'*^ At the end of Revelation’s retelling of this drama, corresponding with the begiiming of the thousand-year period, the key to the abyss has shifted hands, and the illustrious
In a helpful essay on the various nanative strands in Revelation, M, Eugene Boring (“Narrative Christology in the Apocalypse,” CBQ 54 [1992], 720, note 20) objects to the notion of the fall, prehistorical or otherwise, on the grounds that it is not “spelled out” and is not “an explicit event” m Revelation’s presupposed story. But these are exceedingly weak criticisms given that it is not the author’s style to spell things out or to make things explicit in the sense that this criticism expects. Revelation tells its story allusively in the framework of the New Testament worldview - within which less needs to be said about the origin and reality of personal evil than the modern interpreter requhes.
prisoner within its walls can be none other than “Lucifer, son of the morning” (Isa 14:12, NKJV). Venturing a preliminary conjecture as to why Revelation sets this character on a different track, the reason is in part that his Old Testament sources already had done it, and more significantly, because Satan is a character of a different order.
Returning to the more modest aim for pointing out this feature in the naiTative, however, is the observation that in the end, when the two other members of the false trinity have vanished from view, Satan is left on stage alone. This feature warrants the conclusion that the story accords to him exceptional significance and therefore special treatment. The picture emerging of the losing protagonist in the cosmic battle corresponds to another of the conceptual models mentioned in the introduction. Satan has his story, too. He was once known under another name. If black is his colour and darkness his element in Revelation, there was a time when he was not dressed in black.
3. Satan s chief characteristic is that o f being a deceiver, and the essence o f his role in the plot is missed unless it is recognized that he has something to say. Part of the evidence for this assertion lies on the surface and is readily seen. Satan is imprisoned “so that he would deceive the nations no more” (20:3), and when he is released, he “will come out to deceive the nations” (20:8). When Satan at last is destroyed. Revelation identifies him as “the devil who had deceived them” (20:10).
But this recognition is only the tip of the iceberg. More important evidence for the assertion that Satan has something to say needs the allusion to the story of the temptation and fall in Genesis in order for its full impact in the narrative of Revelation to be felt. The occasion in the Garden of Eden is recalled by the designation of Satan
as 6 ô (j)L (; 6 àpxaîoç (20:2)?^ and the essential nature of what transpired is brought to the fore in the ensuing confrontation in Genesis.
And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Gen 3:13; NKJV). The sticking point is evident in the sparse Hebrew text, Wnsn, and the initial characterization of deceitful activity canies over into Revelation to make “the ancient serpent,” Satan, and ‘deceiver’ preferred descriptions of the same persona. Moreover, given the author’s predilection to let the Old Testament provide the substrate of his terminology and message, there need be no hesitation to assume that Revelation’s crowning piece of evidence for Satan’s deceptive activity derives from the story in the Garden of Eden.'*’’
On this issue the present interpretation sees a fork in the road, but it is a fork that can only be imagined since most inteipreters proceed as though the road does not divide and therefore as if there is no more than one option available to the
inteipreter.^” Interpreters uniformly see Satan as a deceiver, but the nature of his deceit is generally sought on the surface of Roman imperial society rather than in the deeper layers of the biblical narrative. Pursuit of the scriptural substratum behind Revelation is prematurely called to a halt in the belief that all that is useful for interpretation has already been extracted from the Old Testament background. The defining deception in Revelation is therefore to be sought primarily by reading it as a
Thus Kiddle {Revelation, 399), “the serpent is so called, not - at any rate primarily - because he represents the ancient Chaos, but because he is the seducer (cf. xii.9).”
To Abh’ {Cosmic Conflict, 108), the designation of the opponent as 6 -rrXavcSu “clearly refers to the serpent in Genesis 3, where he deceived Eve, the mother of all living.”
Vogtle (“Der Gott der Apocalypse,” 383), as noted, points out that in Revelation God is not the only one at work in this world, but the implication of this insight is not pursued.
political allegory or as political satire featuring the excesses of Roman emperors^* and the allure of the Roman priesthood?^
If, on the other hand, Faner’s perception of Jolm’s inspiration is called to mind, seeing as he does a man bent over his task by “intense and systematic
meditation on the whole prophetic tradition,the defining deception in the cosmic battle in Revelation may instead be found in the Old Testament and only secondarily in later historical manifestations. Within this revised frame of reference the deception brought to view is of a different order. The prophetic meditation begins in Genesis and the Garden of Eden, perhaps even earlier. If it includes the Roman Empire of John’s day, it does not begin there, and the tlu'eat of imperial persecution is not the outer limit of the prophetic vision.^'* The meditation is sensitive to content and is intent on making the reader a partner and participant in the reflection. The ancient serpent in this scenario is described as “more subtle” (KJV), “more crafty” (NRSV),
Discussing the seven heads of the beast in Rev 13:1-3 and 17:3, 9,10. A. J. P. Garrow
{Revelation [London: Routledge, 1997], 87) concludes that “Nero’s head is the definitive locus of the beast,” a view shared with minor variations by most interpreters that tends to make Nero into the
defining deception of Revelation. Resseguie {Revelation Unsealed, 56), on the other hand, sees Nero
as a woefully inadequate opponent on the terms of Revelation’s imagery.
Cf. Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation, 75; Yarbro Collins, Crisis & Catharsis, 121. Whether the Roman cult and priesthood could have the status and function ascribed to the lamb-like beast in
Revelation (13:1 Iff.) in historical terms seems questionable even when granting the documented symbiotic relationship between the imperial power and the imperial cult in Asia minor (see Appendix
I).
Farrer, Revelation, 4. Bauckham’s claim {Revelation, 146) that “no other biblical book gathers up so comprehensively the whole biblical tradition in its direction towards the eschatological future” does not stand far from Farrer’s view on this point. On the other hand, Schüssler Fiorenza
{Revelation, 136) takes the position that “the author of Rev. is not bent on the exposition and
explication of the OT as authoritative Scripture. It is not the OT prophets, but his own historical- theological situation, which is the locus of revelation.” These views represent distinct ‘camps’ among scholars as to John’s use of the Old Testament with far-reaching consequences for interpretation. Giving primacy to the Old Testament background loses nothing in terms of shedding light on the author’s situation, in fact, it merely casts a wider net in order to put historical realities in the proper perspective. The view that prioritizes contemporary realities over the scriptural background lacks the wider fiame of reference and the corresponding depth of field. Its main flaw, however, lies in the handling of the textual evidence. Ultimately, John’s extensive and complex use of the Old Testament mandates tire conclusion that the biblical narrative profoundly conditions his story.
Baucklram {Revelation, 152), who affirms the application of the message of Revelation to the situation of its first readers, nevertheless notes that the message transcends the immediate situation.
or “more cumiing” (NKJV) than any other creature (Gen 3:1). Something subversive is said on this occasion that answers to the billing of this creature’s designation. What is said is believed and acted upon. In the present interpretation the charge brought against God in the Garden of Eden lies within the puiwiew of the story line that foims the ending of Revelation. Here the third conceptual analogy mentioned in the
introduction comes into view. Satan should not be seen as a banal character, and Revelation’s notion of evil does not lie on the level of banality as if the character representing evil goes tlrrough the prescribed motions on the basis of a shallow and predictable script, hi fact, the mystifying binding and release of Satan in Revelation 20 may yet become comprehensible in the light of the character described as “the ancient serpent” and a plot reconstructed to give him a role that conesponds to his subtlety.
Conclusion
Characteristic elements in the story line that is picked up toward the end of
Revelation, then, contends for the significance of Satan above other characters on the losing side of the drama. It sees Satan as a being set apart from the human order, and it defines him more in terms of the subtle insinuation attributed to him in Genesis (3:1) than in temis of obvious evil deeds, including the evil deeds of the Roman Empire. These thi'ee elements are constituted here as the strands with which Revelation weaves a compelling theodicy. The suggestion that “Revelation is
overwhelmingly concerned with the truth of God”^^ is not diminished by allowing the charges that were brought against God at the beginning of the biblical naiTative to
delineate the tmth with which Revelation is concerned, especially when the author introduces this account into his plot and larger story line.
The perspective outlined above must be seen as preliminary. It is next to be explored and developed more fully by moving upstream in the narrative to Revelation
12, the structural pivot point, and narrativally at the very least ‘the begiiming of the ending’ of Revelation.