Abstract
This article argues that Satan’s plot in Revelation 20 draws from the Asael/Azazel myth in 1 Enoch 10.4–8 and 54–57. The former Enochic passage, like Rev. 20, tells of an angel who is commissioned to imprison a rebellious angel for the moral corruption of humanity. Both are sealed in the pit until judgment day, when they are to be thrown into a great fire. The latter Enochic passage describes Asael’s preparation for war against the holy city and subsequent judgment, which resonates with Rev. 20’s battle against the city and judgment. This article argues that these allusions to Asael were specifically made to allude to the Azazel ritual of the Day of Atonement, which is the background to Asael’s imprisonment in 1 En. 10, and the idea finds affirmation in similar literature, Jewish traditions, and festal patterns in Revelation. This article lastly and briefly considers what typological and soteriological implications this allusion to the Day of Atonement may have.
Keywords
Introduction
In the past century, no pseudepigraphic work has drawn more attention than 1 Enoch. As R. H. Charles said, ‘For the history of theological development, [it is] the most important pseudepigraph of the first two centuries B.C’ (Charles 1913: 2.163). The NT appears to allude to narratives from this book several times (1 Pet. 3.19–20; 2 Pet. 2.4; Jude 6, 14–15), and many studies have suggested other links are hiding under the surface of the text. For example, in the closing essay of The Myth of Rebellious Angels (Stuckenbruck and Matthews 2014), Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Mark D. Mathews outline 54 possible links between 1 Enoch and Revelation. There is, however, one noteworthy connection that these authors have overlooked: the link of 1 En. 10 to Rev. 20. In both chapters, an angel is commissioned to imprison a fallen angel inside a pit (Rev. 20.1–3; 1 En. 10.4–5). The fallen angel is to be sealed in the pit for a long time until judgment day, when he is to be thrown into a great fire (Rev. 20.7–10; 1 En. 10.6).
This allusion has received attention only in the past 50 years (see Reis 2022: 177–84; Aune 1998c: 1078; Grabbe 1987: 160–61; Shea 2002: 1–9; Mathewson 2001: 249; Ford 1975: 330), but there has only been one article dedicated to the topic (Shively 2019: 161–66), one that was unable to provide much depth over its brief six pages. There is an evident need to further investigate this allusion, which will be the first focus of this article. In addition to 1 En. 10, other Enochic allusions might also be present in Rev. 20. A couple of scholars have suggested that 1 En. 54–57’s war prophecy is envisioned (Reis 2022: 180–81; Charles 1920: 188; Aune 1998c: 1080, 1097), and I find this to be likely. Others have suggested that Satan’s imprisonment more generally alludes to both the prison narratives of Asael and Shemihazah (adding 1 En. 10.11–13 to vv. 4–8; see Aune 1998c: 1078; Shively 2019: 165), but I argue against this, instead suggesting that John specifically draws upon 1 Enoch’s Asael myth, which is found in the other aforementioned texts. After considering these allusions, I will reflect on their motivation. I argue that these allusions to Asael are used to portray an eschatological heightening of the Azazel ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16.20–22), which is also the background to Asael’s imprisonment in 1 En. 10. This is supported by the tendency of literature that draws on the Asael myth to incorporate themes evocative of the ritual, Jewish traditions that understand Satan to cease his accusations on the Day of Atonement, and festal patterns in Revelation that fit with an allusion to the Azazel ritual. Such an allusion may have implications for understanding NT theology on the Day of Atonement’s fulfillment, so this will be addressed in the conclusion.
Parallels Between Rev. 20 and 1 En. 10.4–8
What parallels are there between Rev. 20 and 1 En. 10? Patterns in the subjects, actions, themes, and structure of the narratives will be used as criteria to evaluate each allusion, and these parallels will be presented in order of their sequential appearance in each passage.
(1) The first point of contact between the passages is the subject. In both accounts, there is a commissioned angel. In 1 Enoch, this angel is identified as Raphael, one of the seven archangels (cf. 1 En. 20.3). In Rev. 20, this angel is not named.
(2) Rev. 20 focuses on the punishment of the fallen angel Satan, 1 En. 10.4–8 focuses on the punishment of the fallen watcher Asael, and both share a similar background. Both the biblical and Enochic narratives identify their respective figure as the source of knowledge-based evil from the antediluvian era, albeit focusing on different events from the time (Reis 2022: 180). 1 En. 8 identifies Asael as the source of lawlessness and the revealer of forbidden heavenly knowledge. Similarly, Rev. 20.2 identifies Satan as the Serpent of Old. This serpent is well understood to be a reference to the serpent depicted in Gen. 3, where the deceptive serpent tempts Adam and Eve to commit the first sin by consuming the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil (e.g., Aune 1998c: 696–97). In the Apocalypse of Abraham, the garden’s serpent is explicitly named Azazel (23.4–11; see Orlov 2012: 34–35), so John was likely familiar with and capable of connecting Azazel to the serpent.
(3–6) In 1 En. 10.4–5 and Rev. 20.2–3, there are four parallel actions performed on the fallen angels. (3) Both targets are bound by the angel. 1 (4) The binding is followed by being thrown into prison. Moreover, this is a verbal parallel, for Rev. 20.1 uses threw (ἔβαλεν), and Greek copies of 1 En. 10.5 use throw (βάλε; see Bhayro 2005: 95), both of which share the lemma βάλλω. (5) Both fallen angels are specifically imprisoned in the abyss. In 1 En. 10.4, this is an ‘opening’ in the wilderness, and in Rev. 20, this is the abyss, the bottomless pit. While the abyss is not attested in 1 En. 10, Judaism commonly associated the abyss with a hole in the wilderness (see Milgrom 1991: 1070–79). (6) The abyss is sealed over the fallen beings. While 1 Enoch elaborates using wilderness language, saying that he shall be covered with darkness and stones, Rev. 20 simply states that it is shut and sealed over Satan. Adding darkness context to Rev. 20, Rev. 9.2 describes a smoke rising from the abyss that darkens the earth, and both Revelation and 1 Enoch’s darkness share the lemma σκότος.
(7) Both serve an exceedingly long imprisonment. In 1 Enoch, the precise span of Asael’s imprisonment is an ‘exceedingly long time’ but not clarified, whereas Rev. 20 identifies this as a thousand years. Caution must be given to using 1 Enoch to answer the ever-debated question of whether the millennium is a literal or figurative amount of time. While one could argue that it is figurative since 1 En. 10.5 generalizes the number, it could conversely be argued that John was clarifying that this ‘exceedingly long time’ was specifically 1,000 years, against other sources which record various lengths (cf. 1 En. 21.6; 4 Esdr. 7.28; Jub. 23.27–28).
(8) Some have suggested that the punishments imposed on both angels were performed with the intent of resolving knowledge-based corruption that might persist if each fallen angel remained among the people (Reis 2022: 182; Mathewson 2001: 249). First Enoch associates this with the progenitive role Asael played in corrupting mankind, and Revelation associates this with his deception of the nations. Although I suggest below that Rev. 20.3’s comment of proclamatory cessation comes from a separate Jewish tradition about Satan on the Day of Atonement, John’s allusions often merge sources (see Beale 1998: 65), so it may be that this Enochic healing motif, which parallels Rev. 20 but not as strongly as other Enochic parallels, was conflated with the later Day of Atonement tradition when writing Rev. 20.3.
(9) Both texts anticipate that a judgment day will eventually come when the fallen angel will be incinerated. Although Rev. 20.9 does talk about fire consuming the army following Satan, it is noteworthy that Satan’s casting into the lake of fire is not associated with an angelic cohort, for 1 En. 10.4–8 singles out Asael for judgment, whereas the fiery judgment of other demonic groups is treated separately from Asael (1 En. 10.4–14; 18.11–16; 21.1–10; 54.3–6; 88.1–3; 90.24–27). There is also a verbal parallel in the mention of fire (root: πυρ; Rev.: πυρὸς; 1 En.: ἐνπυρισμον).
(10) The structure of the passages should also be mentioned, for the passages follow each other quite closely (see Shively 2019: 164–65). Aside from the transposition of points 6 and 7 (the healing motif and fiery judgment), both passages are nearly identical in their ordering:
To summarize these parallels, Satan’s imprisonment in Rev. 20 shares with 1 En. 10 at least ten points of contact involving subjects, actions, and structure. The extent of textual similarities strongly suggests that Rev. 20 is an allusion to the myth of Asael’s imprisonment described in 1 En. 10.
Parallels Between Rev. 20 and 1 En. 54–57
As mentioned, Asael is also the focus in 1 En. 54–57 (here named Azazel), 2 a section that draws imagery from the Book of Watchers’ Asael tradition and describes the preparation for war against the host/army of Azazel. Although less represented than 1 En. 10, a few scholars have suggested that, in addition to 1 En. 10, this section also played a role in forming Rev. 20’s imagery (Reis 2022: 180–81; Charles 1920: 188; Aune 1998c: 1080, 1097). The several parallels that show this consequently bring greater affirmation that Rev. 20 intends to allude to the watcher Asael.
(1) While Satan and Asael are not jointly identified in the Book of Watchers (1 En. 1–36), they are in the Book of Parables (1 En. 37–71). In 1 En. 54.6, the text uses parallelism to say that Azazel’s army subjected themselves to Satan, implying, at least in this section, a joint identification between Azazel and Satan (see Nickelsburg and VanderKam 2012: 203). Because there was at least a century between the Book of Parables and Revelation, 3 comparisons between the two figures would not be improbable, especially considering that Azazel is identified as the Garden of Eden’s serpent in Apoc. Ab. 23.4–11 (see above), and similarly 2 Enoch, where the rebellions attributed to Asael and Shemihazah are instead attributed to Satan (18.1–3; 29.1–5).
(2) What is being prepared for the hosts of Azazel? Chains. Revelation 20’s chain imagery, which is lacking in 1 En. 10, is accounted for in the parables of Enoch, specifically 1 En. 54.3–4 (see also 53.3–4; 69.28; cf. 56.1–2; 103.7). 4
(3) Why are these chains being prepared against Azazel’s army? Because the army is going off to war, just as Satan goes off to war. The proceedings and consequences of this event are quite similar to the eschatological battle described in Rev. 20.
(4) First Enoch’s end-time event is prophesied to start with a riling up of the kings. Paralleling this, Revelation says Satan riles up the nations for war (see Reis 2022: 181).
(5) Both passages specifically say that this incitement reaches the ends of the known Earth. In 1 En. 56, this is the land of the Parthians and Medes, 1 En. 57 expands this to the winds of the East and West, and Rev. 20 draws on Ezek. 38–39 by referencing Gog and Magog (see Aune 1998c: 1097).
(6) In 1 En. 56, Azazel’s army is led to attack the land of God and his people, specifically his city. As first noted by Charles (1920: 188), this closely parallels Satan bringing his army to attack God’s beloved city in Rev. 20. 5 Both passages use the same idiom of ‘going up’ to Jerusalem for this battle (see Aune 1998c: 1096).
(7–8) Furthermore, Azazel’s army loses the battle and is thrown into the fiery valley of Sheol (v. 8; cf. 54.1). If an allusion to 1 En. 54–57 is being made, this fills two more gaps in Rev. 20’s allusion: (7) The valley of fire in 1 En. 54 parallels more closely Revelation’s lake of fire than the geographically ambiguous ‘burning conflagration’ of 1 En. 10, and (8) the fact that armies are destroyed by fire in both accounts (Rev. 20.9; 1 En. 56.8) supplements the fact that, although Satan is singled out for imprisonment during the millennium, he will be incinerated alongside his followers.
(9) Also notable is the identification of the location. In Revelation, this is the abyss (ἄβυσσον). 1 En. 10 may parallel Rev. 20’s abyss by describing an ‘opening’ in the wilderness, but 1 En. 54 takes this imagery a step closer. In describing the prison where the army of Azazel is to be thrown, 1 En. 54.5, although only available from Ethiopic manuscripts, uses the Ge’ez term equivalent to abyss (መትሕት; see Knibb 1978: 147).
With nine identified parallels between Rev. 20 and 1 En. 54–57, a conclusion like that of 1 En. 10.4–8 is reached—Revelation has likely drawn from the passage. With regard to the chain and abyss language, it appears that 1 En. 54 is used to supplement the imprisonment of Satan in Rev. 20.1–3. Conversely, the latter half of Satan’s plot in the chapter shows influence from 1 En. 54–57, but the background of Asael also being judged and incinerated seems to play a supplemental role in the narrative. 6 These relationships are tabulated below.
Parallels Between Rev. 20 and 1 En. 10.11–13
In addition to 1 En. 10.4–8 and 1 En. 54–57, some have suggested that Rev. 20.1–3 could parallel 1 En. 10.11–13, where the imprisonment of Shemihazah and his compatriots is commanded (Aune 1998c: 1078; Shively 2019: 165). This imprisonment represents part of a myth known in Enochic literature as the Shemihazah narrative. It should be noted that although 1 Enoch tells of the rebellions of Shemihazah and Asael in an interwoven form, most scholars understand that these rebellions are independent myths. 7 Whereas Asael is attributed to teaching heavenly secrets and being the progenitor of the earth’s moral corruption, Shemihazah’s group is attributed to the immoral sexual activities of the ‘sons of God’ in Gen. 6. Because Shemihazah’s rebellion led to the offspring of giants, they are also condemned like Asael, which leads to 1 En. 10.11–13 sharing the following similarities with Rev. 20: (1) The angels are bound. (2) The binding lasts a long time (70 generations). (3) The binding will be located in the ‘valleys of the earth’ (i.e., the abyss). (4) Their final judgment also includes being led away into the fire.
‘It is not typical for John to use Old Testament allusions in isolation but to fuse them together on the basis of their affinity with one another’ (Beale 1998: 65). This pattern of combining scripture for the purpose of composing Revelation has already been seen in 1 En. 10.4–8’s allusion having apparent supplements in 1 En. 54–57. With Rev. 20 sharing affinities with 1 En. 10.11–13, even if the parallels are not as ample as 1 En. 10.4–8 and 1 En. 54–57, the plausibility of this additional allusion requires investigation. This will be evaluated on three grounds: the identification of the rebel, determining if the imagery of Rev. 20 need be dependent on Shemihazah’s imprisonment narrative, and considering the contextual compatibility for such an allusion.
First, there are a few challenges with identifying Satan with Shemihazah. The greatest issue with this is that there is an apparent, specific emphasis on the Asael/Azazel myth. Both 1 En. 10 and 54 share an emphatic focus on the figure Asael, the former section of 1 Enoch being the clear influence on the latter section (see Nickelsburg and VanderKam 2012: 201), so to find allusions to both passages in Rev. 20 suggests that John specifically has this myth in mind. Furthermore, we have no literature comparing Shemihazah to Satan; only Asael is compared to Satan (1 En. 54.5), so it is unclear whether John would want to compare Satan’s imprisonment to Shemihazah’s imprisonment. As noted above, Asael’s and Satan’s imprisonments are unique in singling out a fallen angel for imprisonment, which contrasts with Shemihazah’s cohort.
Second, while 1 En. 10.11–13 does account for some of the imagery employed in Satan’s imprisonment, all examples are already available through Asael in 10.4–8 and 54–57, and the extent of 10.11–13’s parallels does not match those between 10.4–8 and 54–57. Shemihazah’s punishment does not focus on being sealed away (cf. Rev. 20.3; 1 En. 10.5–6; 54.5), nor is there mention of chains (cf. Rev. 20.1; 1 En. 54.3–4). Additionally, Rev. 20’s abyss is already accounted for in 1 En. 54.5, and in 1 En. 10, slight favor to is lent to the imagery of Asael’s ‘opening in the wilderness’ rather than Shemihazah’s ‘valleys of the earth’ since Rev. 9 identifies this location as a shaft (ϕρέατος), and as noted above, Judaism tended to picture the abyss as a hole in the desert. Moreover, Rev. 9.2 uses the shared language of opening (ἤνοιξεν) the abyss (cf. ἄνοιξον in 1 En. 10.4).
The last consideration for the likelihood of an allusion to Shemihazah’s imprisonment is contextual compatibility. Can we elicit a reason, in line with the other allusions, that John would also have 1 En. 10.11–13 in mind? To answer this question, it seems best to consider the Shemihazah narrative within the NT’s interpretive context. Reference to this may be found in 1 Pet. 3.19–20, which says Christ went to imprisoned spirits who did not obey in Noah’s time (see, e.g., Jobes 2005: 243–45). There are similar cases in 2 Pet. 2.4–10 and Jude 6–7, which tell of a group of angels imprisoned for their rebellions during the time of Noah (2 Pet. 2.5) whose actions are compared to sexual immorality (Jude 7; 2 Pet. 2.10). The consistent identification with Noah’s era and sexual immorality suggests a belief that Shemihazah’s group was imprisoned before the NT era. This contrasts with Asael’s narrative, which, although vaguely identified to be antediluvian (cf. 1 En. 8.1–2 and Gen. 4.20–22), is not grouped with the other rebels.
Revelation may show cognizance of Shemihazah’s pre-imprisoned group, for in Rev. 9.2–3, numerous locusts are freed from the abyss, which most understand to be demons/fallen angels, for their king is an angel (Rev. 9.11; see, e.g., Beale 1999: 494; Aune 1998b: 527). The implied idea that these demons were imprisoned until this point comes with the assumption that the ancient reader might know why these demons are imprisoned. The Enochic background and common NT understanding regarding Shemihazah’s group would be known to ancient readers of Revelation, and this may have been assumed when reading Rev. 9. Virtually all interpretations of Rev. 20 understand Satan’s casting to come because of Christ’s work in either his first or second coming, long after the time of Noah. Thus, unless used to mirror the context of Rev. 9, it would seem unusual to re-envision the Shemihazah imprisonment, for it is assumed to have already happened, and there is a wide temporal divide between the antediluvian and Christian eras.
Based on these considerations, whether the identification of the figure, the need to depend on imagery from Shemihazah’s imprisonment, or the temporal context of said imprisonment, there is no strong reason to believe that Satan’s imprisonment and release is designed to allude to both Shemihazah’s and Asael’s. Instead, the evident allusions to 1 En. 10.4–8 and 54–57 suggest a focus specifically on Asael’s narrative.
The Motivation Behind Revelation’s Allusion to the Asael Myth
In comparison to other ancient documents that show influence from 1 Enoch’s Asael myth (4Q203 7A; 4Q180; Apoc. Ab. 13.6–14; Jub. 5.6–11; 10.6–13; b. Yoma 67b.7), Rev. 20 arguably has the greatest number of parallels with the figure’s myths. With such similarities between the two narratives, might John have had a specific motivation behind making the allusion? Why would John have an interest in alluding to Asael?
To make suggestions, it is first worth noting the background behind Asael’s narrative. It has often been suggested that the imprisonment of Asael in 1 En. 10 is an apocalyptic elaboration on the Azazel ritual, traditionally (though inaccurately) known as the ‘scapegoat’ ritual. 8 This was the closing ritual of the Day of Atonement that used a sin-laden goat to send moral faults to a demon in the wilderness named Azazel (Lev. 16.10, 20–22). 9 Among several signs of this allusion, four should be noted: (1) the phonetics of Asael (עסאל) is fairly similar to Azazel (עזאזל); (2) the location where Asael is imprisoned (Doudael; 1 En. 10.4) is a later form of the name Beit Hiddudo, the location where the goat was sent (m. Yoma 6.8; see Milik 1961: 111–12); (3) Asael is to be sealed in the wilderness by rough and jagged stones, just as Azazel is in the wilderness (1 En. 10.5; Lev. 16.10). (4) Both narratives focus on returning moral faults to the demon and healing people from the corruption and iniquity that filled the earth by each demon’s deeds. Based on this context, the narrative’s original intention may have been to mythologically contextualize why sins are sent to a similarly named, wilderness-bound demon each year on the Day of Atonement. Although less extant, 1 En. 54’s adaptation of 1 En. 10 draws upon some of the same wilderness imagery of sealing over Azazel’s army with jagged rocks, suggesting that it also has the ritual background in mind (see Nickelsburg and VanderKam 2012: 201).
Notably, the materials mentioned above that adapted 1 Enoch’s Asael myth consistently use the name ‘Azazel’ to describe the adversarial progenitor of sin instead of ‘Asael’, which shows that 1 En. 10 was incorporated into later traditions under the assumption that it was connected to the Azazel ritual (see Stuckenbruck 1997: 79; Wright 2005: 120). This is also seen in Ethiopic translations of 1 Enoch, which use the name ‘Azazel’ instead of ‘Asael’. The Apocalypse of Abraham also makes this conflation quite evident when the demon Azazel is described as taking on the corruption of Abraham (Apoc. Ab. 13.14), just as Azazel took on Israel’s corruption on the Day of Atonement (see Orlov 2012; Grabbe 1987: 157). With the parallels of Rev. 20 to multiple passages from 1 Enoch’s Asael myth that allude to the Azazel ritual, it seems plausible that John’s allusion to Asael could be designed, like other literature that alludes to 1 Enoch’s Asael as Azazel, to draw focus to the Azazel ritual of the Day of Atonement.
The Tradition of Demonic Cessation on the Day of Atonement
It is evident that in Revelation, John has placed Asael’s protological prison sentence into the context of an eschatological imprisonment. Such an ‘eschatologicization’ of 1 En. 10 does not seem out of reach for John, for 1 En. 54–57’s war preparation narrative is also framed eschatologically.
10
The idea of an eschatological heightening of the Day of Atonement, where, like Rev. 20, humanity is liberated from demonic forces and said demons receive judgment, would not be foreign to John’s setting, for this is also seen in 11QMelchizedek (11Q13). Column II starts by introducing Lev. 25.13 and Deut. 15.2, two passages addressing the jubilee cycle, and lines 4–8 move into an eschatological pesher of these passages: Pesher of the words concerning the end of days about the captives who [were in mourning all the days of the dominion of Belial
11
] which / was expelled from the path of the torah and from the stream of Melchizedek [ … Melchize]dek who / will restore them, and proclaim liberty to them, and free them [of] all their iniquities. And this [will take pla]ce / at the beginning of the first Jubilee after [the] te[n ]Jubilees. And [the] D[ay of Atone]ment i[s] the e[nd of] the tenth [Ju]bilee, / in which atonement shall be made for all the sons of [light and for] the men [of] the lot of Mel[chi]zedek[
12
In this passage, captives are promised release from the dominion of Belial upon the day marking the Jubilee year, the Day of Atonement. Melchizedek will relieve them from their iniquities, and they will receive atonement. This passage is continued by a pesher of Ps. 82’s heavenly judgment of the Elohim, saying that Belial and the spirits that followed him into rebellion will be judged by Elohim and will receive the vengeance of judgment from Melchizedek. Although Belial’s origins were likely independent from Satan, the figures appear to be understood synonymously by the first century. 13 In other words, by John’s time, associating the Day of Atonement with liberation from Satan was a likely scenario.
Later Jewish tradition suggests that this possibility did indeed happen, and in a way that is quite comparable to what is seen in Rev. 20. Similar to Satan being withheld from his deceptive role during the millennium, b. Yoma 20a.1 says that the Day of Atonement was the only day that Satan could not prosecute the camp of Israel:
14
And what did Satan the prosecutor say about their sinning? Elijah said to him (Rav Yehuda): Satan, on Yom Kippur, has no license to prosecute. From where is that idea derived? Rami bar Ḥama said: The numerological value of the letters that constitute the word HaSatan is three hundred and sixty-four: Heh has a value of five, sin has a value of three hundred, tet has a value of nine, and nun has a value of fifty. Three hundred and sixty-four days of the solar year, which is three hundred and sixty-five days long, Satan has license to prosecute. On the remaining day, Yom Kippur, he has no license to prosecute. Since that day is exalted above all others, there is no room for the accusations of Satan. (see also Lev. Rab. 21.4)
Kristen Lindbeck (2010) has shown that the attribution of statements to Elijah was a practice done to give older Rabbinic folklore authority in the composition of the Babylonian Talmud. In other words, when Rav Yehuda claims that Elijah said Satan ceased his prosecution on the Day of Atonement, the quote was orally transmitted, not from Elijah the Prophet himself, but rather from Jewish traditions circulating before Rav Yehuda. 15
Although there are times when Satan’s accusations are meddled with (b. Roš Haš. 16b.1–2), the idea that Satan is fully withheld from his proclamatory duties due to a consummative period of judgment is only represented in Rev. 20 and the prior Day-of-Atonement-tied passages. The sole exception to this may be Zech. 3, where God rebukes Satan for his accusations against Joshua the high priest. Yet even here, some have suggested that the Day of Atonement is in picture (Tiemeyer 2003; Blocher 1979). Although tracing this idea to its origin may not be simple because possible early sources (esp. Zech. 3; 1 En. 10) have their own unique affinities, there appears to be enough evidence to argue that the cessation of Satan’s proclamatory activities was a tradition that developed during the second temple period. Considering how 11Q13 shares the similar motif of Belial/Satan ceasing opposition on the Day of Atonement, it is possible that 11Q13’s older eschatological motif (ca. mid-1st cent. BC) evolved into a narrower judicial context for the yearly Day of Atonement holiday, which circulated in Rabbinic circles before Talmudic adoption by Rav Yehuda (3rd cent. AD) and subsequent gematrical rationale introduced by Rami bar Ḥama (4th cent. AD). 16
Because John maintains this unique motif of Satan ceasing his proclamatory/accusatory oppression because of the key eschatological judgment, it seems reasonable to infer that he drew upon an intermediate form of this Day of Atonement tradition. Reflecting on similarities between Revelation’s cultic imagery and Qumran literature/Jewish tradition and building on David Aune’s suggestion that John was a Palestinian Jew (1998a: xlix–lxx, cxx–cxxxii), Torleif Elgvin (2009) has suggested that John could have held a position equivalent to a priest before becoming a Christian. This background of familiarity with priestly literature and traditions would place John in a setting where he would be aware of this Day of Atonement tradition.
A Possible Structural Integration of the Day of Atonement
The structure in Revelation might also affirm an allusion to the Day of Atonement. In David Moffitt’s recent typology of Christ’s priestly ministry in heaven, he argues that we should approach each event with the understanding that rituals are an irreducible process composed of actions such as confession, sprinkling, and slaughter (e.g., 2022: 142–45; drawing on Gane 2005: esp. 3–24). This is especially true for the Day of Atonement in Lev. 16, for its process of removing ritual corruption from the tabernacle included a step-by-step process of blood manipulation in the tabernacle’s several sancta, and only after this could moral faults be transferred to the goat that was sent to Azazel. In a similar manner to the study of Hebrews, might we expect Revelation to have other Day of Atonement allusions if the Azazel ritual is present? Cultic studies of the book of Revelation have made this idea quite entertainable, albeit requiring a couple of presuppositions. First, the dominant influence on Revelation’s cultic allusions must be understood to come from Judaism rather than Greco-Roman religion. 17 Second, major portions of the book of Revelation must be understood sequentially, the most necessary of these being that the millennium occurs after the seven bowls. 18 With these presuppositions established, models of ceremonial structure in Revelation in which an allusion to the Azazel ritual makes a considerable amount of sense are briefly considered. Although this author’s preferred structure is presented last, three models have been presented to show that structural suitability for an allusion to the Azazel ritual is not limited to the author’s view:
(1) Peter Leithart’s recent pair of ITC commentaries (2018) identifies patterns in Revelation that suggest that Jewish feasts are integrated into the book of Revelation. He identifies the seven trumpets with the feast of trumpets, and he sees the Day of Atonement heralded in at the end of the seventh trumpet in Rev. 11.19 with the mention of the ark of the covenant. He argues that Revelation’s focus on the Day of Atonement continues with the seven bowls as the angels wear what seems to be priestly apparel and perform a simplified form of the Day of Atonement’s rituals (2018b: 132–33). In this framework, the atonement of the sanctuary ends in the seven bowls, so an Azazel ritual during the millennium would pick up right where the bowls left off.
(2) In André Reis’s recent dissertation dealing with the Day of Atonement in Revelation, he argues that Rev. 17’s imagery of Babylon assuming sin before turning into a wilderness where demons dwell is also evocative of the Azazel ritual’s assumption of sin and travel to the wilderness-bound demon (2022: 169–70). Reis does not give a clear structure to allusions to the Day of Atonement in Revelation. 19 However, if he is correct about the presence of another Azazel ritual allusion right before Rev. 20, this would be a strong indicator that the ritual is in focus in Rev. 20.
(3) This author finds the most coherence in Jon Paulien’s festal structure (1995), albeit with modifications to the latter half of his model, so these reflections will be outlined here. 20 This discussion also aims to elaborate in ways that may be true also of the previous models (esp. Leithart), which would otherwise become redundant if repeatedly stated. Paulien associates the seven trumpets with the trumpets blown at each new moon festival (Num. 10.10; see Paulien 1995: 259; also Davidson 2022: 653; Leithart 2018a: 356, 383, 483; Stefanovic 2002: 36). The seventh-month feast was the feast of trumpets, which served as the climax of the preceding six months ‘of mini-Feasts of Trumpets’ (Paulien 1995: 259). ‘In Jewish thought, the seventh-month Feast of Trumpets ushered in the time of judgment that led up to the Day of Atonement’ (Paulien 1995: 259). This is first suggested in Lev. 23, where failure to uphold the Day of Atonement’s requirement of abstinence from work and denial of self-gratification leads to banishment from the camp or even death. As Roy Gane says, ‘we find that, within the Israelite cultic year, the Day of Atonement completes the determination of destinies on the national level and in this sense can be regarded as Israel’s judgment day’ (2005: 306). This idea was expanded in later Jewish tradition, which came to maintain that, in the month of Tishrei, ‘all will be judged on Rosh Hashanah, and their sentence will be sealed on the Day of Atonement’ (t. Roš Haš. 1.13; cf. b. Roš Haš. 16a.6). Today, this period is known as the Ten Days of Repentance. Other passages elaborate that this judgment is carried out in the books of Heaven:
R. Kruspedai said in the name of R. Johanan: Three books are opened [in heaven] on New Year, one for the thoroughly wicked, one for the thoroughly righteous, and one for the intermediate. The thoroughly righteous are forthwith inscribed definitively in the book of life; the thoroughly wicked are forthwith inscribed definitively in the book of death; the doom of the intermediate is suspended from New Year till the Day of Atonement; if they deserve well, they are inscribed in the book of life; if they do not deserve well, they are inscribed in the book of death. (b. Roš Haš. 16b.12; see also y. Roš Haš.1.3; Lev. Rab. 30.4)
In these heavenly proceedings, the fates of people are divided into two groups: those whose names are written in the book of life, and those in the book of death. This is likewise a theme in the book of Revelation. Those whose names are not listed in the book of life and instead follow the beast and receive his mark are subject to wrath and eventual destruction (Rev. 13.8; 14.9–10).
During the seventh trumpet (Rev. 11.14–19), there is such an ushering in of judgment alongside what may be Day of Atonement imagery. Rev. 11.19 says, ‘The temple of God in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple’. Several scholars have suggested that the Ark of the Covenant’s appearance could focus attention on the first step of the Day of Atonement, when atonement was made within the Most Holy on the ark. 21 Additionally, Rev. 11.18’s mention that ‘the time for the dead to be judged (κριθῆναι) [came]’ is the first time active judgment is mentioned, which could parallel the fact that the Ten Days of Repentance were the specific time in the Jewish calendar when judgment took place. Hence, ‘the fact that this scene appears in the context of judgment (11.18), after the multiple blowing of trumpets is strongly supportive of an association with the cultic activities of Yom Kippur’ (Paulien 1995: 253).
The next step of this sequence is found in the seven bowls. Paralleling Rev. 11.19, Rev. 15.5 states, ‘The temple of the tent of testimony in heaven was opened’. However, this time, angels come out of the sanctuary wearing garments characteristic of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. 22 They go to the earth, which, for the heavenly sanctuary, is likely the antitypical courtyard, 23 to pour out blood from cultic vessels. 24 While doing so, the martyred souls receive blood-for-blood justice (16.6), which is a signal for atonement (cf. Num. 35.33), which is then associated with the altar in Rev. 16.7 (cf. 6.10). On the Day of Atonement, blood was sprinkled and poured on the altar to make atonement for it (Lev. 16.18–19), and by Revelation’s link between the outpouring of blood and the altar, this appears pictured here in the seven bowls. The fact that the seven plagues are treated as Revelation’s final judgment phase (Rev. 15.1; 21.9) may also parallel the Jewish tradition that judgment was brought to completion on the Day of Atonement. Based on these parallels, the cultic imagery in the seven bowls is likely an allusion to the step in the Day of Atonement when the high priest exited the sanctuary and sprinkled blood on the altar of burnt offerings. 25
Fourth, following the atonement of the altar of burnt offerings, the next step of the Day of Atonement was the Azazel ritual (Lev. 16.20). Since John has already integrated the new moon feasts and multiple steps of the Day of Atonement into Revelation’s structure, might he also represent the last key step of the Day of Atonement? If the event following the seven bowls is the Millennium, one might expect an allusion to the Azazel ritual during this time. 26 The allusion to 1 En. 10.4–8 in Rev. 20.1–3, with its undertones already evocative of the Azazel ritual, would strongly qualify as a continuation of this festal structure.
Fifth, Rev. 21–22 may allude to the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), the feast following the Day of Atonement, and the last of the Jewish ceremonial year. Through Zech. 14 and later rabbinic writings (esp. m. Sukkah 4.9; 5.2–4), the holiday became closely associated with the imagery of water and light (see Rubenstein 1996). In Revelation, God now tabernacles with man (Rev. 21.3), and ‘the primary images of the feast, water and light, find their ultimate fulfillment in Rev. 22.1, 5’ through the river of life and God becoming the ultimate source of light (Paulien 1995: 260).
Using a modified form of Paulien’s model, Revelation finds a festal structure that incorporates the Feast of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. This forms a frame around the Day of Atonement’s services, including the Azazel ritual. The resulting structure is charted below:
Although I have primarily highlighted a modified version of Paulien’s festal structure, it seems evident that, even within the other reviewed models of Jewish ceremonies in Revelation, an allusion to the Azazel ritual would be coherent. The precise way in which John structures this is open for further discussion, but the parallels in Jewish tradition regarding the Day of Atonement, whether adversarial cessation (as mentioned earlier) or the judicial opening of heavenly books (mentioned here), strongly suggest correspondence between Revelation’s latter portions and the Day of Atonement. Hence, using 1 Enoch’s Asael myth to illuminate the Azazel ritual finds contextual suitability.
The Azazel Ritual and Typology
Whereas 1 Enoch gives a protological background to the Azazel ritual, explaining how Azazel became confined to the wilderness and became the receiver of sins, Revelation’s allusion to the Azazel ritual heightens the ritual into an eschatological context. No longer is it explaining the imprisonment of a demon in the literal desert to whom a literal goat is being sent. Revelation instead brings the ritual’s fulfillment to a grander, eschatological scale that will deal with the progenitor of wickedness once and for all, not like the Hebrew ritual system that required the removal of moral faults to Azazel every year.
If Satan’s imprisonment is a typological fulfillment of the Azazel ritual, one might expect other elements of the ritual portrayed in Lev. 16 to find parallels. In particular, the main part of the ritual, the act of sending the goat into the wilderness to Azazel, is unlikely to parallel the act of imprisoning Satan, for Azazel is a figure separate from the goat, meaning that the goat’s banishment would not represent Satan’s (see Nickelsburg 1977: 402; Gladson 1973: 63). The fundamental role of the goat in the ritual was to send sins back to the demon, so identifying a way in which sins are delivered to Satan may explain that aspect of the ritual. Noting that ‘the wages of sin is death’ (Rom. 6.23), there may be correspondence between Satan being thrown into the lake of fire and the point at which Azazel received Israel’s moral faults after the ritual’s live goat was released in the desert. This coheres well with 1 En. 10.8, which says all sins shall be ascribed to Asael right after saying he shall be thrown into the great fire on judgment day. During the millennium, the saints are to reign with Christ (Rev. 20.4) and, in this context, ‘are to judge angels’ (1 Cor. 6.2–3), and Satan would be part of this group. Since the judicial process of the millennium concludes with Satan being punished for his actions, this judgment may be seen as the process in which the blame of evil is transferred to the progenitor of evil. In other words, the act of sending the goat to Azazel may parallel the millennium’s judgment, and the final delivery of sins to Azazel would parallel Satan receiving the wages of his sins at the end of the judgment. The idea that this is a judgment performed by humanity may also parallel the fact that, during the Day of Atonement, sins were brought into the wilderness by a normal member of the camp rather than the high priest. Hence, if John were using Satan’s imprisonment to convey the Azazel ritual’s fulfillment, there would be considerable typological compatibility.
Concluding Implications
This article has established a chain of allusions in Rev. 20’s imprisonment of Satan. First, Satan’s imprisonment in Rev. 20.1–3 is an allusion to 1 En. 10.4–8, for in both narratives, an angel is commissioned to imprison a fallen angel by binding and throwing him into the abyss, where he is to stay a long time before being sent into a great fire on the day of judgment. This appears to be supplemented by allusions to Asael’s war in 1 En. 54–57. The number of similarities between 1 Enoch’s Asael myth and Rev. 20 can be divided into at least ten points of contact with 1 En. 10 and nine with 1 En. 54–57, so it is highly likely that John interpolated the Asael myth for his millennium narrative.
Underlying the contents of 1 En. 10.4–8 are allusions to the Azazel ritual from the Day of Atonement, and it appears, based on patterns in other literature that also allude to the ritual when drawing on the figure Asael, the tradition that Satan’s accusations ceased on the Day of Atonement, and with festal patterns in Revelation, that Satan’s imprisonment is meant to allude to this ritual. As Grabbe poignantly says, Whatever the original significance of the Azazel goat, it became a demonological figure in Judaism. To many Jews in the last century or so before the fall of the Second Temple, the mention of the name Azazel was likely to evoke this entire developed demonic tradition. A reference to Satan did not necessarily suggest the Day of Atonement ceremony, yet it was always available in the background and its symbolism could be called on when needed. This seems to be precisely what happens in Revelation 20. (1987: 166)
In Rev. 20’s allusion to Azazel, this takes on a typological form. The steps of the Azazel ritual, consisting of sending a sin-laden goat out into the wilderness to Azazel, can be readily discerned from Satan’s judgment. The act of imprisoning Satan mirrors the wilderness-bound containment of Azazel, and the act of sending the goat to Azazel is mirrored in the act of the millennium’s judgment, which eventually delivers Satan the wages of his sins (his judgment of being cast into the lake of fire).
Given that the typology of the Azazel ritual is heightened into an eschatological context in Satan’s imprisonment, one might wonder if this allusion is merely for thematic purposes or serves as the antitypical fulfillment of the ritual services. In other words, do these fulfillments of the Day of Atonement complement Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary as presented in the book of Hebrews? There is certainly reason to believe this. Recently, Moffitt (2022: esp. 147–54) has influentially argued that ‘it is not finished’ in the 1st century, for the fact that Christ’s intercessory ministry serves a role in the heavenly temple suggests that the full extent of the cultic system has yet to be fulfilled. This particularly means that the Day of Atonement, which is the closing service required for the complete removal of sins within one cultic cycle, should not expect completion until the end of time, when Christ’s intercessory ministry ends. While I am not in complete agreement with all of Moffitt’s typological connections, it at least seems logical, based on Moffitt’s observations, that the Day of Atonement, especially the closing Azazel Ritual, should expect completion at the end of time. If the millennium consummatively occurs at the end of this era, Rev. 20’s allusion to Azazel fits excellently within this context, where one would expect an antitype. Hence, from a typological perspective, Satan’s imprisonment has excellent potential to antitypically fulfill the Azazel ritual.
However, this must be treated, to a certain extent, as a tentative hypothesis. The question that remains to be confirmed in recent scholarship is whether Revelation makes cultic allusions to portray the New Covenant’s salvific antitype of the respective Old Testament counterparts. In other words, when Revelation makes cultic allusions that draw from Old Testament rituals/ceremonies, is the book using them as mere plot devices to portray salvation, or, like the book of Hebrews, do the rituals portray the heavenly counterparts to the Old Testament system? I think the latter case is probable based on several scenes in Revelation. When, in Rev. 5, the Christ-lamb approaches the Father and is enthroned before receiving intercessory incense, it is apparent that we have pictured a cultic scene akin to Christ’s inauguration as king-priest, comparable to the allusions to Ps. 110 throughout Hebrews (esp. 1.13; see Gulley 1997: 72, 75–76), so the cultic activities in Revelation do, to a certain extent, appear to find connections to Christ’s ministry in the heavenly priesthood. Recently, Christian Sanchez (2023) has argued that Rev. 15–16’s seven bowls scene portrays a purification of the heavenly temple, which early readers would have seen as the remedy to the crisis of a polluted earth and lack of divine presence on earth. Again, in this case, we see cultic activities having a direct connection to the plot of salvation, hence tying Revelation’s cultus back to Christ’s heavenly ministry.
However, divergences in interpretation have limited further investigation into this idea. Amidst several publications that have considered Greco-Roman religion valuable for understanding the temple in Revelation (e.g., Stevenson 2001; Aune 1983; Sanchez 2023), the idea that Revelation is portraying the antitypical fulfillment of the Old Testament’s salvific system has found little consideration. This contrasts with studies in Hebrews, which have been quite concerned with how Christ is fulfilling the old. It needs to be recognized, however, that several studies have shown the temple imagery in Revelation has a deep dependence on Jewish backgrounds: (1) Robert Briggs’s (1999) background study of the temple in Revelation concluded, in comparison to second-temple literature, that the imagery dominantly originates from the Old Testament. (2) Håkan Ulfgard (2009) has shown that the liturgical aspect of Revelation’s heavenly cultus is dominated by ideas of heavenly worship also present in Qumran’s Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. (3) As noted above, Elgvin (2009) argues that John’s level of familiarity with the Hebrew cultus suggests he had a role with knowledge equivalent to a priest. With this foundation, there is reason to believe the cultic allusions in Revelation could be embedded to show the antitypical fulfillment of their Old Testament counterparts. However, this avenue has received little scholarly attention, so a definite case is not yet available. Hence, this article hopes to invite further investigation of the cultic relationship of Revelation to broader NT theology of Christ’s heavenly ministry.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I want to share my appreciation for the support of Hyunsok Doh and Esteban Hidalgo in writing this article, along with the feedback from two anonymous reviewers of this journal.
1.
2.
3.
4.
See Grabbe 1987: 160; Reis 2022: 181. 
: 264) concurs but additionally suggests that the imagery of chains may have developed from the ‘colorless Hebrew metaphor’ of the cord from Sheol mentioned in the parallel passages 2 Sam. 22.4 and Ps. 18.5 (and repeated in 1QH 3.9). Chains became a fairly common image associated with demonic imprisonment: Sib. Or. 2.292–310; 2 Pet. 2.4; Jude 6; cf. 2 Bar. 56.13.
5.
A couple of articles have dismissed Charles (see Stuckenbruck and Matthews 2014: 316–17; : 235–36), but their rationale of rejection is primarily a concern that Charles posited this idea with little additional proof. There has not been consideration that other parallels are present, so their concerns are dismissible.
6.
One idea not present in 1 En. 10 or 54–57, nor anywhere else in the book, is that Satan will be released for an intermediate period between his imprisonment and fiery fate. The text is not explicit enough to claim any parallels here, but it may be implied in the text. The fact that the army of Azazel is the one who makes war with God’s people, in addition to the fact that God will, as a result of the victory against the army, ‘sit on the throne of glory and judge Azazel and all his associates and all his host in the name of the Lord of Spirits’ (55.2), may be indicators that Azazel was present during the eschatological battle. Because Satan is fated to join his rebellious army in judgment and be thrown into the fire (1 En. 10.6), the conflation of the two narratives may assume that Satan will be present with his army. Harriss (2014) suggests that release is a logical necessity for bringing the final judgment of the unrighteous, and suggests that the chapter is structured around the exodus narrative, and while I think the weight of Enochic allusions might impinge on this suggestion, he makes an interesting observation that in Jub. 48.9–19, the demon-prince Mastema is released from confinement during the Egyptian pursuit of Israel.
7.
See, e.g., Nickelsburg 2001: 165, 171–72; Wright 2005: 116–28; : 106.
8.
The inaccuracy of this phrase comes from the fact that ‘scapegoat’ is a translation of Azazel, and this phraseology easily confuses the demon Azazel for the goat used in the ritual. These are separate figures (Lev. 16.8, 10).
9.
See Ben Ezra 2003: 85–90; Kosior 2021: 315–17; Hanson 1977: 220–26; : 1–6.
10.
Thompson (1999: 260) is the only person I am aware shares doubts that Rev. 20 alludes to 1 En. 10. He has four concerns with 1 Enoch, not over its content but its eschatological nature: (1) the final judgment is only a peripheral concern, (2) the account and resolution are contained in an antediluvian setting, (3) eschatological events are not central to the author’s concerns, and (4) there is no end-time timetable evident. As Thompson concludes, ‘the passage is concerned with the problem of evil in the present world, not its elimination prior to the inauguration of the next’ (p. 260). The extent of verbal, thematic, and structural parallels to 1 En. 10 make Thompson’s concerns about the passage’s temporal framing wholly inadequate to dismiss the connection between the two. Thompson only references : 1078), which only outlines five principal parallels of Rev. 20 to 1 En. 10, so he may not have recognized the full extent of parallels. His primary concern that there is no eschatological context in which the narrative may be picked up seems dismissible since, as just noted, Rev. 20’s other Asael-tied allusion, the preparation for war in 1 En. 54–57 has strong eschatological tones. Moreover, Asael is never explicitly stated to incur imprisonment; he only hears of the sentence in 1 En. 13.1–3.
11.
Insertion suggested by Kobelski 1981: 8. Cf. lines 11–13, where Belial is judged for his oppression. : 17–21) affirms this in discussion of the passage’s logic and comparison to the Damascus Document (CD A, col. D, ll. 14–19), where Belial and his companions entrap the righteous in strongholds and subsequently leading the captives into unrighteousness.
12.
13.
See : 158. Examples of characteristics shared before/during the 1st century include the ruler of darkness (Belial: 1QS 3.20–25; 1QS 4.9–14; 1QM 1.1–7; 1QM 13.2–6; Asc. Isa. 4.2–4; Satan: Jn 12.31; 14.30; 16.11; Eph. 2.2; Col. 1.13; Rev. 12.7–9), the leader of a rebellious angelic army (Belial: 1QM 1.1–7; 1QM 13.11–12; Asc. Isa. 10.29; Satan: Rev. 12.3–4, 7–9; Mt. 25.41; Lk. 8.30; Eph. 6.12), the adversary/accuser of God’s people (Belial: Jub. 1.20; CD 4.12–19; T. Dan 4.6–7; 2 Cor. 6.15; Satan: Job 1–2; Zech. 3.1–2; Rev. 12.10; 1 Pet. 5.8), and the deceiver of the world (Belial: Asc. Isa. 10.29; Sib. Or. 3.63–74; Jub. 23.29; Satan: Gen. 3.1–6; Jn 8.44; 2 Cor. 11.3; Rev. 12.9; 20.3, 8, 10).
15.
16.
For the dates of Rav Yehuda and Rami bar Ḥama, see Steinsaltz 1989: 32–33. Milik (1972: 97) suggested that the style of 11Q13 dates the manuscript to ca. 75–50 BC, but Kobelski (1981: 3) notes that certain letters have ‘well-defined Herodian characteristics’, leading to him dating the manuscript to ca. 50–25. More recently, : 223) have followed Milik in dating 11Q13 to 75–50 BC, so for simplicity, this article has preferred to generally identify the manuscript’s composition to the middle of the first century BC.
17.
Although some have suggested that the cultic imagery originates and/or needs to be considered from a Greco-Roman setting (Stevenson 2001; Aune 1983; Sanchez 1983), several studies have made the weaknesses of their view apparent, for the imagery signals a high dependence on Jewish sources (Briggs 1999; Ulfgard 2009; ). See the closing paragraph of this article for further critique.
18.
For the Revelation being generally structural rather than recapitulative, see Tavo 2005; Mueller 2015. For specific studies affirming a consummative millennium see Waymeyer 2015: 19–46; Neall 1999; .
19.
Reis does list out his proposed Day of Atonement allusions (2022: 196), but he does not argue for any patterns to their presence in Revelation. Although I think Reis’s dissertation has merits and adds further discussion to scholarship in several areas, and consequently his observations require recognition, the methodology of searching for the Day of Atonement in every part of Revelation has its dangers since it risks overzealous readings, and his theory about Rev. 17 may suffer from this.
20.
Stevenson critiques Paulien’s model because, as he claims, it ‘suffers from the ubiquitous bias towards solely a Jewish context for the work’ and it would be ‘wholly incomprehensible to virtually any Gentile Christian who dared try to make sense of the book’ (2001: 31). This is unconvincing. Stevenson fails to recognize that the book originated from a source extremely familiar with the Hebrew cultus (see the conclusion). Bearing that the book is not devoid of other intricacies (e.g., portraying real-world events using metaphorical language makes it challenging to determine the intended fulfillment), it seems fully reasonable that John could write the book with theological intricacies of which he was more familiar than the letter’s primary audience. Moreover, the presence of such imagery would not detract from a normal reading of the text; it is not incomprehensible as Stevenson frames such a reading to be. Further concerns with Stevenson should be added. He operates under the idea that the temple is a literary device used because it communicated powerfully to both Jews and Gentiles alike, and since, according to this view, Revelation’s temple is more of a mechanism for cultural ideation than a real location, the temple should be understood using information known about earthly temples in all forms that his audience would be familiar (Greek temples inasmuch as Jewish). This leads to a problematically strong bias that Greek temples can be used to understand Revelation’s temple passages. In strong refutation of this, Moore (2024) has recently shown that Judaism and Christianity were extremely familiar with the concept of a heavenly temple from which God rules, which highly dissuades one from understanding Revelation’s description of a heavenly temple as a mere literary device; it should be understood as a real location (see also de Souza 2001; ). For Revelation, this would demand a theology of the heavenly sanctuary that aligns much more with its conceptual source—Judaism.
21.
See Paulien 1995: 253; also Reis 2022: 163; Leithart 2018a: 383, 437–38; Davidson 2022: 647, 652–54; Stefanovic 2002: 36; Treiyer 1992: 646, 659; : 448.
22.
Winkle’s dissertation (2012) shows that Jesus’s apparel in Rev. 1, the white dress and golden girdings, is high priestly in origin. The angels in Revelation similarly wear bright, pure linen and a golden belt and attribute their judgments to God (Rev. 16.5–7), so there is reason to believe that the seven angels are modeled after Jesus’s apparel and play a Day-of-Atonement-tied, high priestly roles in his place, as has been suggested by a number of scholars (e.g., Keener 2000: 387; Reis 2022: 165; Leithart 2018a: 134; : 291–92).
23.
Most commentators understand the courtyard to typologically parallel the earth (see, e.g., Beale 2004: 31–34, 54–55, 314, 389; Sanchez 2023: 250–51; Davidson 2022: 11, 41; Young 2002: 248; : 269–72). The fact that Christ, who assumes the role of a sacrificial animal, dies on the earth, has greatly inclined scholars to associate the earth with the place where animals died (the courtyard). Ancient Jewish sources also attest to this typology: Wis. of Sol. 9.8; Josephus, Ant. 3.123, 181.
24.
The Hebrew equivalent to bowl (Gk./LXX ϕιαλη = Heb. מזרק) in Rev. 15–16 is explicitly given the sole function of holding blood (m. Yoma 5.4; b. Menachot 82b.12; Zevachim 53a.4). In a cultic setting, pour (ἐκχέω) is only used in the context of pouring blood at the base of the altar, and Rev. 16.6 mentions such pouring of blood, so it appears these bowls hold blood.
25.
Here I disagree with Paulien’s (1995: 253) theory of ritual cessation; I instead believe the Day of Atonement’s altar-atonement rite is present, as first suggested in Carrington 1931: 262. See also Ford 1975: 264; Ford 1980: 294; cf. Sanchez 2023; Reis 2022: 165–67; : 132–33.
26.
Most commentators see Rev. 17–19 as an extension of the seventh bowl (Rev. 16.19; 17.1) and maybe the sixth (e.g., Koester 2014: 681; : 843, 847; Osborne 2001: 607), so the jump in chapters is not consequential.