Iwan M. Whiteley 38 This then leads to the anacolutha in 1:5, ἀπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός ὁ πρωτότοκος. One expects μάρτυς, πιστός and πρωτότοκος to be genitives, and Wallace provides a category known as ‘Nominative in Apposition to Oblique Cases’ in his work on Greek Grammar.28 The problem is that he only provides examples from Revelation to uphold his category. It seems more likely that this construct is a pragmatic extrapo- lation from Koine Greek, rather than an essential feature of the language. These articularized forms reflect ὁ ὢν and ὁ ἦν and ὁ ἐρχόμενος in 1:4. The interplay between 1:4 and 1:5 is interesting. Ἰησοῦς is in the genitive, obeying the rules of grammar, but then the shift to the nominative sub- stantive drives the mind of the reader back to 1:4, establishing a strong relationship between ὁ ὢν and ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός ὁ πρωτότοκος. Since the latter is in apposition to Ἰησοῦς, the result is that qualities of God are ascribed to Jesus. The pragmatic nature of the text suggests that the churches needed to realize that Jesus was God. Through this communica- tion, John implicitly informs the reader that anacolutha may drive home a significant theological principle. After this construct, John extrapolates it in many and various ways. He continues the indeclinable proper noun idea in 2:20, τὴν γυναῖκα Ἰεζάβελ ἡ λέγουσα ἑαυτὴν προφῆτιν. Beale suggests that the construct directs the reader to 1 Kings 20:25, Ἰεζάβελ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ29. It is possible that this is in John’s mind, although Jezebel in this context is nominative which diminishes its contribution into Revelation 2:20. It is probable that the previous reference to ὁ ὢν in Revelation 1:4 is more influential to 2:2. The difficulty with Beale’s explanation for 2:20 can be seen in his assess- ment of 3:12, τῆς καινῆς Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἡ καταβαίνουσα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. He struggles to pin down the exact relationship between 3:12 and the OT, suggesting that the primary association with this clause is not the OT, but ὁ ὢν. The result of these two participles in chapters 2-3 is that a rela- tionship is established between them; John is distinguishing between the kingdom of Jezebel and that which is coming down from heaven. Later in the discourse, ἐκράτησεν τὸν δράκοντα ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος, 20:2 can be compared with ἀπό Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ μάρτυς ὁ πιστός ὁ πρωτότοκος, 1:5. The dragon is being compared to Jesus. The nominative, masculine participle, ἔχων is unusual in γέμοντα ὀνόματα βλασφημίας ἔχων κεφαλὰς ἑπτὰ καὶ κέρατα δέκα, 17:3 because one would expect it to be accusative, neuter to conform with θηρίον. Aune, suggests that this is an example of ‘…John’s tendency to use the nom. of apposition when modifying an oblique case, particularly Wallace, Greek Grammar, 62. 28 G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (NIGTC; Grand Rapids 1999) 263. 29