I'm just meandering through this wonderful book, gazing at it from the perspective of the lamb (Rev. 5:5-6; see my note entitled "Jesus' Evil Twin").
Revelation 1:4 begins John's letter to the 7 churches in Asia Minor: John, to the seven churches in Asia: Grace to you and peace from the one who is and who was and who is to come...
Hmm... "The one who is and who was and who is to come."
This is an interesting phrase that we'll see over and over in this book, both as it is and as it is distorted.
- The doxology of Rev. 4:8 repeats it almost exactly, except there the order is chronological, "who was, who is, and who is to come."
- Revelation 2:8 introduces a related phrase, saying that the letter to the church in Smyrna is from "the first and the last, who was dead and came to life."
- We will also see, on four occasions, reference to God as "the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end."
- Interestingly, our phrase appears in a distorted form in Revelation 17:8, with reference to the beast, who "was and is not and is about to arise from the abyss." The beast, then, because he appeared to have died but then returned, is something of a distorted example of this way of talking about God.
I think the most obvious intertextual referent for this title comes from that very important story in Exodus 3, where God calls Moses to be his liberator of the people of Israel and when Moses asks for God's name God replies, "I AM WHOM I AM" (or, a better translation might be, "I WILL BE WHOM I WILL BE"). Whichever way we read it, this phrase is kind of a circular description that might be best understood as 'sheer being,' or- to use a term from Paul Tillich, 'the ground of all being,' or, to use a phrase that Paul the Apostle borrowed from a Greek philosopher, the one "in whom we live and breathe and have our being."
So, in a world where we like the 'up close and personal' names for God- "Abba" and so forth- what is the importance of describing God as "the one who is and who was and who is to come"?
I suspect that there are a couple of things at work here. First, I think John is describing this 'revelation' as something that is in radical continuity with the story of the Hebrew Bible. That is important. What we get in the book of Revelation is not an alternate story to the Hebrew Bible; it is a continuation of that story. It is not a new God; it is the God made known in the life and story of Israel. There is a discipline, a wealth of existing wisdom and truth that is already at hand, lurking in the background as John writes of this vision. So, while there may be some new insights- or, better yet, some timely insights- that arise out of this vision, it is a vision that is in radical continuity with what has been said before, and the God of this vision is the God we know from what has been said before.
Second, I think this title is important for John's revelation because of the important distinction between reality and pretense. We know from ancient inscriptions Roman emperors had a habit of ascribing to themselves (or maybe their fawning admirers insisted on it and they agreed) titles that made them divine. For example, Julius Caesar was declared to be divine after his death by the Roman Senate, and Caesar Augustus had himself declared Divi Filius, "Son of God." These pretenders came and went, but in contrast God's glory and majesty "was and is and was to come." John's declaration, then, is both faithful to the Hebrew tradition and a protest against the pretensions of the Roman Empire.
That is a strong beginning for this letter, but one that is sure to have to encounter more directly the Empire's pretensions.
That's it for now...
Friday, January 30, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
A Lamb's Guide to Revelation Chapter 1
The book of Revelation begins this way:
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
There are 5 actors in this verse, four of whom reveal in one way or another.
God - gave this revelation initially, which reminds us of Daniel's description, "there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries."
Jesus Christ - Since Jesus Christ seems to be the antecedent to the pronoun 'him,' this is not only a revelation 'of' ('about'?) Jesus Christ, but it was initially given 'to' Jesus Christ: "which God gave to him..." Then, following that antecedent, "He" (Jesus Christ) made it know by sending his angel to his servant John.
His Servants - These are the ones for whose sake the revelation of what must soon take place is given. Within the book of Revelation, they are the seven churches of Asia Minor, each of whom will be addressed in the next 2 chapters. They could be, more broadly, any of Christ's servants who are facing persecution at the time John is writing. If we want to suggest that they are us, then we have to reach beyond the book of Revelation to reach that conclusion.
Angel - Jesus makes the revelation known by 'sending his angel' to John. There is the possibility that Jesus' 'angel' is a way of talking about the risen Christ's presence in the world, which is really experienced, but not 'real' in the way that we are usually bodily present to one another. The Hebrew Bible narratives often speak this way about God. In Genesis 22, for example, God calls Abraham out of the heavens and later it says that the angel of God called Abraham a second time. God and God's angel seem to be two ways of saying the same thing at times.
John - More specifically "his [Jesus'] servant John." So, John identifies himself with the other servants to whom he is writing. John is 'testifying' to three things: He testifies to the word of God, he testifies to Jesus' testimony (testifying the testifying, as it were), and he testifies to all that he saw.
Verse 2 makes the line of communication a bit more complex:
Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it; for the time is near. John to the seven churches that are in Asia...
Jeepers! There's a whole lotta testifying going on here, in just one-and-a-half verses! If you add in the history of how the next generations of the church gathered and preserved the Scriptures and then how those Scriptures were eventually translated and given to us, the line of succession goes something like this:
God - Jesus - Jesus' angel - John - Jesus' servants/readers and hearer of the seven churches - the church editors - the church preservers - translators - us!
Is it just me, or ought we to be kind of humbled when we read this book? By that, I mean that we ought to be hesitant to imagine that those of us who live right now are, in fact, the primary recipients and subjects of the revelation that is given here. It does strike me that, if we take these first verses seriously, we have to respect the possibility that this book is not talking about us- at least not in the sense that those whom we consider our enemies are the bad guys in this book and that the things that we fear are the foreboding evils of this book and that the word 'soon' means 'in our lifetime' and so forth.
One of the first premises of Left Behind Theology is that we are, in fact, living in the last days. Evangelists have been pushing this assumption for years by pointing to every next catastrophe, every next rising leader, every next empire-looking nation (or, if they are writing from within the empire, every next empire-threatening nation) and saying, "See, there it is, the thing that we have been hoping/dreading for so long is here!"
My premise is that the Scriptures have a timeless quality to them, insofar as they speak truthfully about God and God's way with humanity. In that sense, the book of Revelation is indeed about us, about our nation, about other nations, about our day, about other days both before and after us- because God is the creator and sustainer of all life. But, it is not about us in the sense that we- of all times and peoples- are really the ones about whom all of this drama culminates. That, to me, is simply a theologically arrogant starting point.
This book is a revelation of God, given to Jesus, who, by this angel, gave it to John, to share with the readers and hearers of seven churches of Asia. We, who believe that the Scriptures are reliable witnesses to God and God's way with the world, can read it profitably- if we get our arrogance out of the way first.
That's all I got for now.
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
There are 5 actors in this verse, four of whom reveal in one way or another.
God - gave this revelation initially, which reminds us of Daniel's description, "there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries."
Jesus Christ - Since Jesus Christ seems to be the antecedent to the pronoun 'him,' this is not only a revelation 'of' ('about'?) Jesus Christ, but it was initially given 'to' Jesus Christ: "which God gave to him..." Then, following that antecedent, "He" (Jesus Christ) made it know by sending his angel to his servant John.
His Servants - These are the ones for whose sake the revelation of what must soon take place is given. Within the book of Revelation, they are the seven churches of Asia Minor, each of whom will be addressed in the next 2 chapters. They could be, more broadly, any of Christ's servants who are facing persecution at the time John is writing. If we want to suggest that they are us, then we have to reach beyond the book of Revelation to reach that conclusion.
Angel - Jesus makes the revelation known by 'sending his angel' to John. There is the possibility that Jesus' 'angel' is a way of talking about the risen Christ's presence in the world, which is really experienced, but not 'real' in the way that we are usually bodily present to one another. The Hebrew Bible narratives often speak this way about God. In Genesis 22, for example, God calls Abraham out of the heavens and later it says that the angel of God called Abraham a second time. God and God's angel seem to be two ways of saying the same thing at times.
John - More specifically "his [Jesus'] servant John." So, John identifies himself with the other servants to whom he is writing. John is 'testifying' to three things: He testifies to the word of God, he testifies to Jesus' testimony (testifying the testifying, as it were), and he testifies to all that he saw.
Verse 2 makes the line of communication a bit more complex:
Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it; for the time is near. John to the seven churches that are in Asia...
Jeepers! There's a whole lotta testifying going on here, in just one-and-a-half verses! If you add in the history of how the next generations of the church gathered and preserved the Scriptures and then how those Scriptures were eventually translated and given to us, the line of succession goes something like this:
God - Jesus - Jesus' angel - John - Jesus' servants/readers and hearer of the seven churches - the church editors - the church preservers - translators - us!
Is it just me, or ought we to be kind of humbled when we read this book? By that, I mean that we ought to be hesitant to imagine that those of us who live right now are, in fact, the primary recipients and subjects of the revelation that is given here. It does strike me that, if we take these first verses seriously, we have to respect the possibility that this book is not talking about us- at least not in the sense that those whom we consider our enemies are the bad guys in this book and that the things that we fear are the foreboding evils of this book and that the word 'soon' means 'in our lifetime' and so forth.
One of the first premises of Left Behind Theology is that we are, in fact, living in the last days. Evangelists have been pushing this assumption for years by pointing to every next catastrophe, every next rising leader, every next empire-looking nation (or, if they are writing from within the empire, every next empire-threatening nation) and saying, "See, there it is, the thing that we have been hoping/dreading for so long is here!"
My premise is that the Scriptures have a timeless quality to them, insofar as they speak truthfully about God and God's way with humanity. In that sense, the book of Revelation is indeed about us, about our nation, about other nations, about our day, about other days both before and after us- because God is the creator and sustainer of all life. But, it is not about us in the sense that we- of all times and peoples- are really the ones about whom all of this drama culminates. That, to me, is simply a theologically arrogant starting point.
This book is a revelation of God, given to Jesus, who, by this angel, gave it to John, to share with the readers and hearers of seven churches of Asia. We, who believe that the Scriptures are reliable witnesses to God and God's way with the world, can read it profitably- if we get our arrogance out of the way first.
That's all I got for now.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Jesus and his Evil Twin
So, in my last blog I admired how Luther critiqued the Christology (doctrine of Christ) represented in the book of Revelation by the Christology found in the gospels. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of Luther's approach here, because this is probably the place where I disagree most with how Left Behind Theology tends to read the Scriptures.
Take, for example, a comment that was made to me by a fellow Presbyterian pastor (which I have mentioned here before). He said "When Jesus came the first time, it was as a lamb; but when he comes again, it will be like a lion." (The quotations here are more literary than literal. I'm trying to remember exactly how he said it, but I know it was according to the lamb/lion contrast.)
I think this first coming/second coming, lamb/lion, Jesus1/Jesus2 dichotomy is very strong in Left Behind Theology. It breaks down something like this:
First Jesus = lamb, meek and mild, born in the stable, killed on the cross, never said a mumbahlin' word, submissive, uberhumble, 'take up your cross and follow me', 'turn the other cheek,' 'do good to those who mistreat you,' 'the Spirit of the Lord is upon me to preach the gospel to the poor,' Alan Alda-esque, etc. This is the wonderful Jesus who really gave love and forgiveness the best try possible- and we killed him and God had to raise him.
Second Jesus = really, really mad. That's the simple, short version. The longer version: lion (red in tooth and claw), flaming rider on the white horse (what Gandalf wanted to be), judgment over grace, punishment over forgiveness, no longer turning the other cheek, buckets of blood running through the streets, plague/famine/starvation/, torture, Ahnold-esque, etc. This Jesus executes all kinds of righteous vengeance over the wicked, just like an action hero should.
Now, it seems to me that Jesus is either seriously bi-polar or that the second Jesus in this picture is the first Jesus' evil twin.
Luther's biblical reason for rejecting Revelation is that the Christology of Revelation is not the same Christology of the gospels. That's the reason he said, "There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it- Christ is not taught or known in it."
Here is my take: I think Luther's critique is correct if it is directed toward Left Behind Theology- whether in the Tim LaHaye variety that tries to capitalize on fear (and succeeds) or in a milder version like my friend's comment about the lamby and liony Jesuses.
But, I disagree that Luther is correct about the book of Revelation's depiction of Jesus. I sort of disagree. I think Luther is throwing babies out with the bathwater and that John is much more nuanced than either the Left Behind Theology's caricature or Luther's critique allows. And my favorite moment when this is most evident is in Revelation 5. The scene is like this: One seated the throne has a scroll with writing on the front and back. It is sealed with 7 seals. A loud angels asks, "Who is worthy to open the scroll?" And nobody is. So John begins to cry, but an elder tells him to take heart because the LION of the tribe of Judah will open the scroll. And John looks to see the LION and, what do you think he saw? Ahnold? Mufasa? Aslan? That cross-eyed lion from some dumb show when I was a kid? Here is what he saw when he turned to see the LION of the tribe of Judah:
"Then I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a LAMB standing as if it had been slaughtered"
The LION of expectation turns out to be a LAMB. And not just any old lamb- a slaughtered lamb, which sound hideous, but all of the heavenly court in this story begin to sing praises to this slaughtered LAMB who- alone in all the earth- is worthy to open the scroll.
In Left Behind Theology, we exchange the lamby, meek, wimpy Jesus of the gospels for a liony, action-figure doll called "Second-coming Jesus." In the book of Revelation, all of our hopes for an action figure are amazingly fulfilled in the slaughtered lamb. Power is fulfilled in sacrifce; Vengeance is fulfilled in forgiveness; Payback is fulfilled in salvation.
A philosopher would call what happens to Jesus in Left Behind Theology a "transvaluation of values." I call it just plain bad theology. It is the paradox, the surprising shift in our expectation of a lion fulfilled in a slaughtered lamb that turns the whole violence motif in Revelation on its head. This paradox is the lens through which I will be reading Revelation in blogs to come.
Adios
Take, for example, a comment that was made to me by a fellow Presbyterian pastor (which I have mentioned here before). He said "When Jesus came the first time, it was as a lamb; but when he comes again, it will be like a lion." (The quotations here are more literary than literal. I'm trying to remember exactly how he said it, but I know it was according to the lamb/lion contrast.)
I think this first coming/second coming, lamb/lion, Jesus1/Jesus2 dichotomy is very strong in Left Behind Theology. It breaks down something like this:
First Jesus = lamb, meek and mild, born in the stable, killed on the cross, never said a mumbahlin' word, submissive, uberhumble, 'take up your cross and follow me', 'turn the other cheek,' 'do good to those who mistreat you,' 'the Spirit of the Lord is upon me to preach the gospel to the poor,' Alan Alda-esque, etc. This is the wonderful Jesus who really gave love and forgiveness the best try possible- and we killed him and God had to raise him.
Second Jesus = really, really mad. That's the simple, short version. The longer version: lion (red in tooth and claw), flaming rider on the white horse (what Gandalf wanted to be), judgment over grace, punishment over forgiveness, no longer turning the other cheek, buckets of blood running through the streets, plague/famine/starvation/, torture, Ahnold-esque, etc. This Jesus executes all kinds of righteous vengeance over the wicked, just like an action hero should.
Now, it seems to me that Jesus is either seriously bi-polar or that the second Jesus in this picture is the first Jesus' evil twin.
Luther's biblical reason for rejecting Revelation is that the Christology of Revelation is not the same Christology of the gospels. That's the reason he said, "There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it- Christ is not taught or known in it."
Here is my take: I think Luther's critique is correct if it is directed toward Left Behind Theology- whether in the Tim LaHaye variety that tries to capitalize on fear (and succeeds) or in a milder version like my friend's comment about the lamby and liony Jesuses.
But, I disagree that Luther is correct about the book of Revelation's depiction of Jesus. I sort of disagree. I think Luther is throwing babies out with the bathwater and that John is much more nuanced than either the Left Behind Theology's caricature or Luther's critique allows. And my favorite moment when this is most evident is in Revelation 5. The scene is like this: One seated the throne has a scroll with writing on the front and back. It is sealed with 7 seals. A loud angels asks, "Who is worthy to open the scroll?" And nobody is. So John begins to cry, but an elder tells him to take heart because the LION of the tribe of Judah will open the scroll. And John looks to see the LION and, what do you think he saw? Ahnold? Mufasa? Aslan? That cross-eyed lion from some dumb show when I was a kid? Here is what he saw when he turned to see the LION of the tribe of Judah:
"Then I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a LAMB standing as if it had been slaughtered"
The LION of expectation turns out to be a LAMB. And not just any old lamb- a slaughtered lamb, which sound hideous, but all of the heavenly court in this story begin to sing praises to this slaughtered LAMB who- alone in all the earth- is worthy to open the scroll.
In Left Behind Theology, we exchange the lamby, meek, wimpy Jesus of the gospels for a liony, action-figure doll called "Second-coming Jesus." In the book of Revelation, all of our hopes for an action figure are amazingly fulfilled in the slaughtered lamb. Power is fulfilled in sacrifce; Vengeance is fulfilled in forgiveness; Payback is fulfilled in salvation.
A philosopher would call what happens to Jesus in Left Behind Theology a "transvaluation of values." I call it just plain bad theology. It is the paradox, the surprising shift in our expectation of a lion fulfilled in a slaughtered lamb that turns the whole violence motif in Revelation on its head. This paradox is the lens through which I will be reading Revelation in blogs to come.
Adios
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Another Way of Reading the Book of Revelation
I remember sitting in a McDonald's restaurant one night, after a Sunday night worship service, and hearing outright blasphemy from one of the older teenagers in our youth group who was sitting on the other side of the table. She said, "All my life I've been hearing that Jesus is coming soon, but after all these false alarms I just don't believe it any more." I was shocked. I knew- not from personal experience, but from the witness of preachers and evangelists- that there were 'nominal Christians' out there who did not believe the Bible, but this gal was one of us! She was saved, she was sanctified, she had been filled with the Holy Ghost (that qualified her as a true Christian in our way of thinking), and yet here she was questioning the basic concept of one of our favorite songs, "Jesus is coming soon!"
I have, since that time, moved over to her side of the table- the skeptical side, if you must. And while my own move over here is insignificant in the larger picture, I've discovered that there is some very good company on this side of the table. Today, I am going to yield my own insignificant voice to the words of Martin Luther, the great Reformer of the church, as he writes in his Preface to the New Testament. I found this quote in Christopher Rowland's introduction to the Book of Revelation in The New Interpreter's Bible, v. XII, p.537. The only thing I disavow is the non-inclusive language.
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion and judgment: I say what I feel. I miss more that one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic or prophetic. First and foremost, the Apostles do not deal with visions, but prophecy in clear, plain words, as do Peter and Paul and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak of Christ and his deeds without figures and visions but there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so out and out with visions and figures. And so I think of it as I do the Fourth Book of Esdras, and I can in nothing detect that it was provided by the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, he [John] seems to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly- more than any other of the sacred books do, though they are much more important, and threaten that if anyone take away anything from it, God will deal likewise with him. Again, they are to be blessed who keep what is written therein; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. Many of the fathers rejected, too, this book of old, though St. Jerome, to be sure, praises it highly and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many myteries in it as words; though he cannot prove this at all, and his praise is at many points, too mild.
Finally, let every one think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it- Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle aove all else is bound to do, as He says in Acts 1 "Ye shall be my witnesses." Therefore, I stick to the books which give me Christ clearly and purely.
It is worth noting that virtually all of the great reformers sympathized with Luther's view of the book of Revelation. In short, Luther rejected the book of Revelation itself as being unworthy of its place in the canon (the Bible), and relegated it ito a subordinate place, as he did the book of 4th Esdras. So, I guess the other option that we could offer regarding Revelation is that it is not a book that rises to the level of canonicity- not a book that clearly and convincingly proclaims the gospel aright.
Personally, I am not ready to relegate the book of Revelation to a subordinate place- who am I to do such a thing? In fact, I feel that there is vaue in reading Revelation and that it does proclaim Christ. But, I agree wholeheartedly with Luther's way of subordinating the content of the book of Revelation to the understanding of Christ that we find in the gospels. This is the point that I think a lot of "Left Behind Theology" get backwards. I'll write more about that next time.
I have, since that time, moved over to her side of the table- the skeptical side, if you must. And while my own move over here is insignificant in the larger picture, I've discovered that there is some very good company on this side of the table. Today, I am going to yield my own insignificant voice to the words of Martin Luther, the great Reformer of the church, as he writes in his Preface to the New Testament. I found this quote in Christopher Rowland's introduction to the Book of Revelation in The New Interpreter's Bible, v. XII, p.537. The only thing I disavow is the non-inclusive language.
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion and judgment: I say what I feel. I miss more that one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic or prophetic. First and foremost, the Apostles do not deal with visions, but prophecy in clear, plain words, as do Peter and Paul and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak of Christ and his deeds without figures and visions but there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so out and out with visions and figures. And so I think of it as I do the Fourth Book of Esdras, and I can in nothing detect that it was provided by the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, he [John] seems to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly- more than any other of the sacred books do, though they are much more important, and threaten that if anyone take away anything from it, God will deal likewise with him. Again, they are to be blessed who keep what is written therein; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. Many of the fathers rejected, too, this book of old, though St. Jerome, to be sure, praises it highly and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many myteries in it as words; though he cannot prove this at all, and his praise is at many points, too mild.
Finally, let every one think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it- Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle aove all else is bound to do, as He says in Acts 1 "Ye shall be my witnesses." Therefore, I stick to the books which give me Christ clearly and purely.
It is worth noting that virtually all of the great reformers sympathized with Luther's view of the book of Revelation. In short, Luther rejected the book of Revelation itself as being unworthy of its place in the canon (the Bible), and relegated it ito a subordinate place, as he did the book of 4th Esdras. So, I guess the other option that we could offer regarding Revelation is that it is not a book that rises to the level of canonicity- not a book that clearly and convincingly proclaims the gospel aright.
Personally, I am not ready to relegate the book of Revelation to a subordinate place- who am I to do such a thing? In fact, I feel that there is vaue in reading Revelation and that it does proclaim Christ. But, I agree wholeheartedly with Luther's way of subordinating the content of the book of Revelation to the understanding of Christ that we find in the gospels. This is the point that I think a lot of "Left Behind Theology" get backwards. I'll write more about that next time.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Unpacking It a Bit
In my last post, I said several things that, perhaps, ought to be unpacked a bit. Please understand that I am trying to express my way of reading Revelation, and my way of reading Revelation is itself a work in progress. Here are some of the things I said:
- The 2 primary ways of reading Revelation are the Preterist and the Dispensationalist interpretations.
- "Preterist" describes a way of reading Revelation as addressing events in John's own lifetime, the experience of his church under Roman oppression, and the expectation of events on the immediate horizon.
- "Dispensationalist" describes a way of reading Revelation as addressing larger spatial and temporal issues of global and historical events. A 'dispensation' refers to a segment of time in history, of which our time is typically understood to be the 'last days.'
- My own way of reading Revelation is much more in line with the "Preterist" reading, but not entirely. I absolutely do not accept the dispensationalist reading with all of its accompanying dogma and certainty of finding a modern day correspondent with every symbolic representation in the book of Revelation.
I guess that what I am proposing is that how we read Revelation should be more in line with how we read the rest of the Scriptures than not. There was a time in church history where people tended to read everything in the scriptures as 'allegory.' The story of the water turning into wine (John 2), for example, would be read as a story where the water represented the law, the wine represented the gospel, the servants who were told to do whatever Jesus told them to do were the bishops, the large casks of water were the church, the swizzle sticks were offering plates, yada, yada, yada. You can see how ridiculous I made this interpretation. I did so to show something- there was little discipline to this way of reading the Scriptures. Essentially, any scholar, preacher, or teacher who was clever enough could make the text justify just about anything s/he set out to justify.
That is exactly what I think much of dispensationlism does with the book of Revelation. When someone takes an ancient text written in the Meditteranean world and assumes that it is addressing the United States and Russia (during the 70's) or the United States and terrorism (during the 00's) or the United States and Katrina (Hal Lindsey saw Katrina as the beginning of God's judgment on 'the world'), then we have to ask where is the discipline to this reading? Are there any limits to what we can wrench out of the text? Aren't we exploiting the openness of symbolic language to build some kind of justifying myth that rationalizes our way of life?
Even when dispensationalists turn their critique toward our own culture, it tends to be self-serving. I remember when, in rapid succession, Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart were caught up in scandals. A friend of mine said that God was chastening the church. Well, that was only possibly true if you were willing to let Jim and Jimmy speak on behalf of the church in the first place. It could have just as easily been the old adage, "Be sure your sins will find you out."
So, who gets to say whether the Jim and Jimmy scandals were God's act of church-wide proportions or simply their own egos coming home to roost? Who gets to say whether the water-into-wine was an event/story that the 4th gospel uses to proclaim Jesus as the Son of God, or an allegory of how the Christian church in Rome is superior to all of its rivals? Who gets to say whether the 'beast' of the book of Revelation was the tyrant of Rome's day or-- as a book my grandmother gave me while I was in college argued-- Henry Kissinger? Who is to say that we are living in the 'last days' and not another generation?
That is the interpretive question that faces us when we read the book of Revelation. In my next post, I'm going to offer how I think we can proceed with a disciplined and faithful reading of this book. Please notice that I said "a" disciplined and faithful reading, not "the" disciplined and faithful reading. That's important.
- The 2 primary ways of reading Revelation are the Preterist and the Dispensationalist interpretations.
- "Preterist" describes a way of reading Revelation as addressing events in John's own lifetime, the experience of his church under Roman oppression, and the expectation of events on the immediate horizon.
- "Dispensationalist" describes a way of reading Revelation as addressing larger spatial and temporal issues of global and historical events. A 'dispensation' refers to a segment of time in history, of which our time is typically understood to be the 'last days.'
- My own way of reading Revelation is much more in line with the "Preterist" reading, but not entirely. I absolutely do not accept the dispensationalist reading with all of its accompanying dogma and certainty of finding a modern day correspondent with every symbolic representation in the book of Revelation.
I guess that what I am proposing is that how we read Revelation should be more in line with how we read the rest of the Scriptures than not. There was a time in church history where people tended to read everything in the scriptures as 'allegory.' The story of the water turning into wine (John 2), for example, would be read as a story where the water represented the law, the wine represented the gospel, the servants who were told to do whatever Jesus told them to do were the bishops, the large casks of water were the church, the swizzle sticks were offering plates, yada, yada, yada. You can see how ridiculous I made this interpretation. I did so to show something- there was little discipline to this way of reading the Scriptures. Essentially, any scholar, preacher, or teacher who was clever enough could make the text justify just about anything s/he set out to justify.
That is exactly what I think much of dispensationlism does with the book of Revelation. When someone takes an ancient text written in the Meditteranean world and assumes that it is addressing the United States and Russia (during the 70's) or the United States and terrorism (during the 00's) or the United States and Katrina (Hal Lindsey saw Katrina as the beginning of God's judgment on 'the world'), then we have to ask where is the discipline to this reading? Are there any limits to what we can wrench out of the text? Aren't we exploiting the openness of symbolic language to build some kind of justifying myth that rationalizes our way of life?
Even when dispensationalists turn their critique toward our own culture, it tends to be self-serving. I remember when, in rapid succession, Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart were caught up in scandals. A friend of mine said that God was chastening the church. Well, that was only possibly true if you were willing to let Jim and Jimmy speak on behalf of the church in the first place. It could have just as easily been the old adage, "Be sure your sins will find you out."
So, who gets to say whether the Jim and Jimmy scandals were God's act of church-wide proportions or simply their own egos coming home to roost? Who gets to say whether the water-into-wine was an event/story that the 4th gospel uses to proclaim Jesus as the Son of God, or an allegory of how the Christian church in Rome is superior to all of its rivals? Who gets to say whether the 'beast' of the book of Revelation was the tyrant of Rome's day or-- as a book my grandmother gave me while I was in college argued-- Henry Kissinger? Who is to say that we are living in the 'last days' and not another generation?
That is the interpretive question that faces us when we read the book of Revelation. In my next post, I'm going to offer how I think we can proceed with a disciplined and faithful reading of this book. Please notice that I said "a" disciplined and faithful reading, not "the" disciplined and faithful reading. That's important.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The 5th W: Why?
I had a 3rd grade teacher named Mrs. Violet and a 5th grade teacher named Mrs. Brown. It must have been the Hampton School System's way of teaching colors or something. I wish Mr. Sexton's name had been Roy G. Biv. Anyway, besides their colorful names, these two teachers would often say the same thing- with a straight face: "The 5 W's are Who? What? When? Where? and How?" At this later stage in my life, I suspect they were yanking our alphabetical chain just to get us to remember the 5 W's (or, the 4 W's and an H). But, the 'How?' question might have been a bit more manageable when studying things like rocket fuel and the Continental Congress than answering the 'Why?' question. When you start with the 'Why?' question- as any parent who has ever taken a road trip with a 3 year old knows- the spiral never ends.
The question 'Why?' is tricky, no doubt- especially when we are talking about people or events from history. Even when we ask ourselves the question 'Why?' we can, at best, answer with the most immediate of motivations, but we will probably never be able to name the whole complex of motivations that cause us to act the way we do. However, with all due respect to Mrs. Violet and Mrs. Brown, I believe that the 5th W is really 'Why?' and I believe that this question- as it pertains to the book of Revelation- is where all the controversy lies.
When we begin to speak of 'Why' John wrote the book of Revelation, two primary trajectories seem to emerge as answers. The first is the that John was foreseeing the unfolding events of the world as it goes through history and eventually comes to the final drama of "the last days." This is the trajectory of Tim LaHaye has repopularized with his series of "Left Behind" novels, just as Hal Lindsey popularized it a few decades ago with his book "The Late, Great Planet Earth." While there is lots of diversity among this way of reading the book of Revelation (and the rest of Scripture with it), I will refer to this way of reading generally as 'dispensationalist,' without worrying about the finer distinctions between 'pre-tribulation' or 'post-tribulation' interpretations and so forth. In general, dispensationalists read the book of Revelation as naming specific, divinely ordered periods of time in history during which different events will take place. So, for example, the seven letters to the seven churches- which describe their faith or lack thereof- are read as descriptions of different 'ages' in the church. Typically, in dispensationalist thinking, we are always in the latest stage, which would make us now living among the church of Laodicea, known for its 'lukewarm' faith (Rev. 3:14-22).
The second trajectory is often called the 'Preterist' reading of the book of Revelation. Simply put, this trajectory reads the book of Revelation as something that addresses John's time and place, with words like 'things to come' meaning things that were immediate to John's community and the churches in Asia Minor at the end of the 1st century- not things that were to come 2,000 years later. So, in this reading, the letter to the church of Laodicea actually refers to the church in Laodicea and its spiritual condition, not a 'Laodicean age' in history.
While there is a lot of diversity within the 'dispensationalist' and 'preterist' views of the book of Revelation, one often gets the impression that these are the only two options out there for how to intepret the 5th W, 'Why did John write this book?' The dispensationalist would say that John wrote the book of Revelation in order to show the church what was to come and that no age of the church has more vested interest in that revelation than ours since we are in the final days. The preterist would say that John wrote the book of Revelation in order for his own suffering churches to see how God was working redemptively in their suffering.
There is a lot that could be said for the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges and questions that face each of these positions. Already, since posting my first 2 blogs on my facebook page, I had one response that was from the preterist position and one that was from the dispensationalist position.
Here's where I sit on this issue and how it affects my approach to the 5th W. First of all, I disagree strongly with the dispensationalist position, although that is the way I was taught to read the book of Revelation, apocalyptic writings, prophetic writings, and most of the Bible in general. I have addressed that disagreement over and over throughout this blog- without deluding myself that I have changed any dispensationalist's way of thinking. I'm not out to change anyone's way of thinking, but to express my own view on the topic.
So, here is my take, with which you are welcomed to agree or disagree. With the Preterists, I believe that John was intending to speak the Word of God faithfully for his own time and people. We cannot underestimate the absolute shadow that the Roman Empire cast over Jews and early Christians during the first few centuries of the common era. While Rome was generally 'tolerant' of Judaism- the Roman appointee Herod the Great built up the temple into one of the most impressive structures of the empire- it was a 'toleration' that came at a severe cost of subservience- as the Roman army's destruction of the temple demonstrated. The language of the empire- first and foremost- was violent subjugation, and that is the language that makes the book of Revelation such a fascination. When Augustus Caesar declared himself the "Lord and Savior" of all the peoples within the empire, it is obvious that the simple statement "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior" is no longer simply a statement of religious belief, but a declaration that struck at the very heart of the empire's arrogance.
I believe that the most profitable way of reading the book of Revelation is to read it in light of how the Christian faith was a counter-imperial movement that was born and grew within the heart of the empire itself. Marcus Borg and Jon Dominic Crossan, in a fascinating book entitled The Last Week, demonstrate how to read the gospel of Mark as a counter-narrative to Roman imperial ideology and their insights are the kind of readings that I believe are more faithful to the book of Revelation than all of the superstructures of prophecy-fulfillment that dispensationalists offer.
However, there is a degree to which I differ from what I understand to be the typical preterist reading of Revelation. I do believe that John was writing in response to the violence-laden imperialistic arrogance of Rome in his day and time. But, I also believe that there is an intentional timeless quality to the book of Revelation. (I think this is part of the original intention of dispensationalism, but it is an intent that gets lost in the prophecy-fulfillment matrix). What I am saying is that John is writing about how God acts in human history. And, even if the empire of Rome is dead and gone, empires themselves continue to arise, humans continue to arrogate prestige beyond their due, nations continue to imagine that power and violence are the means of attaining security, and God continues to call the oppressor to repentance while offering hope to the oppressed. In short- to borrow phrases from Walter Wink- the book of Revelation continues to have a 'current' voice because the gospel still opposes the 'myth of redemptive violence' with the 'myth of redemptive suffering.' The timelessness of this counter-story is why 'Babylon' is 'Rome' in John's writing. Just as Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, and the other empires operated, so does Rome- imperial rule is the way of the anti-Christ.
This blog entry is getting kind of long, so I'll pick it up here later.
The question 'Why?' is tricky, no doubt- especially when we are talking about people or events from history. Even when we ask ourselves the question 'Why?' we can, at best, answer with the most immediate of motivations, but we will probably never be able to name the whole complex of motivations that cause us to act the way we do. However, with all due respect to Mrs. Violet and Mrs. Brown, I believe that the 5th W is really 'Why?' and I believe that this question- as it pertains to the book of Revelation- is where all the controversy lies.
When we begin to speak of 'Why' John wrote the book of Revelation, two primary trajectories seem to emerge as answers. The first is the that John was foreseeing the unfolding events of the world as it goes through history and eventually comes to the final drama of "the last days." This is the trajectory of Tim LaHaye has repopularized with his series of "Left Behind" novels, just as Hal Lindsey popularized it a few decades ago with his book "The Late, Great Planet Earth." While there is lots of diversity among this way of reading the book of Revelation (and the rest of Scripture with it), I will refer to this way of reading generally as 'dispensationalist,' without worrying about the finer distinctions between 'pre-tribulation' or 'post-tribulation' interpretations and so forth. In general, dispensationalists read the book of Revelation as naming specific, divinely ordered periods of time in history during which different events will take place. So, for example, the seven letters to the seven churches- which describe their faith or lack thereof- are read as descriptions of different 'ages' in the church. Typically, in dispensationalist thinking, we are always in the latest stage, which would make us now living among the church of Laodicea, known for its 'lukewarm' faith (Rev. 3:14-22).
The second trajectory is often called the 'Preterist' reading of the book of Revelation. Simply put, this trajectory reads the book of Revelation as something that addresses John's time and place, with words like 'things to come' meaning things that were immediate to John's community and the churches in Asia Minor at the end of the 1st century- not things that were to come 2,000 years later. So, in this reading, the letter to the church of Laodicea actually refers to the church in Laodicea and its spiritual condition, not a 'Laodicean age' in history.
While there is a lot of diversity within the 'dispensationalist' and 'preterist' views of the book of Revelation, one often gets the impression that these are the only two options out there for how to intepret the 5th W, 'Why did John write this book?' The dispensationalist would say that John wrote the book of Revelation in order to show the church what was to come and that no age of the church has more vested interest in that revelation than ours since we are in the final days. The preterist would say that John wrote the book of Revelation in order for his own suffering churches to see how God was working redemptively in their suffering.
There is a lot that could be said for the strengths, weaknesses, and challenges and questions that face each of these positions. Already, since posting my first 2 blogs on my facebook page, I had one response that was from the preterist position and one that was from the dispensationalist position.
Here's where I sit on this issue and how it affects my approach to the 5th W. First of all, I disagree strongly with the dispensationalist position, although that is the way I was taught to read the book of Revelation, apocalyptic writings, prophetic writings, and most of the Bible in general. I have addressed that disagreement over and over throughout this blog- without deluding myself that I have changed any dispensationalist's way of thinking. I'm not out to change anyone's way of thinking, but to express my own view on the topic.
So, here is my take, with which you are welcomed to agree or disagree. With the Preterists, I believe that John was intending to speak the Word of God faithfully for his own time and people. We cannot underestimate the absolute shadow that the Roman Empire cast over Jews and early Christians during the first few centuries of the common era. While Rome was generally 'tolerant' of Judaism- the Roman appointee Herod the Great built up the temple into one of the most impressive structures of the empire- it was a 'toleration' that came at a severe cost of subservience- as the Roman army's destruction of the temple demonstrated. The language of the empire- first and foremost- was violent subjugation, and that is the language that makes the book of Revelation such a fascination. When Augustus Caesar declared himself the "Lord and Savior" of all the peoples within the empire, it is obvious that the simple statement "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior" is no longer simply a statement of religious belief, but a declaration that struck at the very heart of the empire's arrogance.
I believe that the most profitable way of reading the book of Revelation is to read it in light of how the Christian faith was a counter-imperial movement that was born and grew within the heart of the empire itself. Marcus Borg and Jon Dominic Crossan, in a fascinating book entitled The Last Week, demonstrate how to read the gospel of Mark as a counter-narrative to Roman imperial ideology and their insights are the kind of readings that I believe are more faithful to the book of Revelation than all of the superstructures of prophecy-fulfillment that dispensationalists offer.
However, there is a degree to which I differ from what I understand to be the typical preterist reading of Revelation. I do believe that John was writing in response to the violence-laden imperialistic arrogance of Rome in his day and time. But, I also believe that there is an intentional timeless quality to the book of Revelation. (I think this is part of the original intention of dispensationalism, but it is an intent that gets lost in the prophecy-fulfillment matrix). What I am saying is that John is writing about how God acts in human history. And, even if the empire of Rome is dead and gone, empires themselves continue to arise, humans continue to arrogate prestige beyond their due, nations continue to imagine that power and violence are the means of attaining security, and God continues to call the oppressor to repentance while offering hope to the oppressed. In short- to borrow phrases from Walter Wink- the book of Revelation continues to have a 'current' voice because the gospel still opposes the 'myth of redemptive violence' with the 'myth of redemptive suffering.' The timelessness of this counter-story is why 'Babylon' is 'Rome' in John's writing. Just as Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, and the other empires operated, so does Rome- imperial rule is the way of the anti-Christ.
This blog entry is getting kind of long, so I'll pick it up here later.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The 4th W: When?
We can ask/answer this question quickly and we can answer this question in a more informative way. The quick question is: Where was the book of Revelation written? The quick answer is: On the Island of Patmos.
If you do a google search of Patmos, you’ll discover that it is a small Greek island that is part of a chain of islands in the Aegean Sea. The writer, John, locates himself there in the first chapter of the book of Revelation (vv.9-11), as well as the churches to whom he is writing:
If you do a google search of Patmos, you’ll discover that it is a small Greek island that is part of a chain of islands in the Aegean Sea. The writer, John, locates himself there in the first chapter of the book of Revelation (vv.9-11), as well as the churches to whom he is writing:
I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, ‘Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.’
Because John identifies himself with the persecution of churches that he is addressing, readers of Revelation have long assumed that John’s presence on the island of Patmos is the result of a political exile.
So, the quick answer to the quick question is, John was on the island of Patmos, writing to seven churches on the western mainland.
Now, if you are the kind that likes quick answers, then STOP!
If you like paths that twist and turn and take you into places normally reserved for episodes of “The Twilight Zone,” then let’s keep going.
Oh, so you’re still with me, eh? You must be the curious, adventurous type. That’s fine, but don’t say that I didn’t warn you.
The question arises (see one of the possibilities under ‘when’) of whether John had the vision on the island and then wrote the book of Revelation later, perhaps even somewhere else, when his exile was over and he had better access to writing implements and so forth.
Why would I ask such a thing? Because there is a curious element to this book that is worth thinking about. Let me illustrate: Imagine my older brother Chris, coming to me and saying the following: “Hey, Mom said that we can’t say ‘Shut up’ any more, because ‘Shut up’ is mean and it hurts people’s feelings when you say ‘Shut up’, so if you say ‘Shut up’ again you’re going to be on restriction for a week.”
Question: Did my brother say ‘Shut up’ four times, thus warranting four weeks worth of restriction? Or, was he simply informing me about the new prohibition, its rationale, and the consequences? If you were my mother, would he be in trouble?
Likewise, when John says that he heard a voice saying, “Write in a book what you see and send it to these churches” and then he writes what he heard and describes what he saw- is he simply telling about his experience of the vision and voices? Or, is he actually writing the book like he was told? When John says (v.12) “Then I turned to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man…” was that description part of the vision that he was supposed to write to the churches? Or, is the part that John was to address to the seven churches only the letters that begin, “To the church in Sardis, write …” (all of which are in chapters 2 and 3). And when the letters are done (beginning of chapter 4), is John finished doing what the first voice commanded him, so that when he says “After this I looked, and there in heaven a door stood open!” was he no longer obeying the first command but was not getting some bonus time?
These are not simple or even a smart-alecky questions. The same litany of questions could be raised with regard to John’s phrase “I was in the spirit…” which happens in 1:10, but then, in 4:2 he says, “At once I was in the spirit….” Is the implication that somewhere between 1:10 and 4:2 John ceased to be ‘in the spirit’ and was just hanging around in the flesh like the rest of us?
I guess what I am saying is that even the simple question, “When?” is not simple when we are reading apocalyptic literature. We approach such questions with the kind of certainty that we learned in history classes in school, where dates and places seemed to be fixed in time. But, when reading poetic, symbolic, apocalyptic literature like the book of Revelation, we have to be willing to let “a” be “a” and “not-a” all at the same time. Things are what they are, and they are what they are not. Words are literal and not-literal, all at the same time. I guess my only advice would be that we need to “surrender to the text” and leave our assumptions behind.
Next post: the 5th W!
Oh, so you’re still with me, eh? You must be the curious, adventurous type. That’s fine, but don’t say that I didn’t warn you.
The question arises (see one of the possibilities under ‘when’) of whether John had the vision on the island and then wrote the book of Revelation later, perhaps even somewhere else, when his exile was over and he had better access to writing implements and so forth.
Why would I ask such a thing? Because there is a curious element to this book that is worth thinking about. Let me illustrate: Imagine my older brother Chris, coming to me and saying the following: “Hey, Mom said that we can’t say ‘Shut up’ any more, because ‘Shut up’ is mean and it hurts people’s feelings when you say ‘Shut up’, so if you say ‘Shut up’ again you’re going to be on restriction for a week.”
Question: Did my brother say ‘Shut up’ four times, thus warranting four weeks worth of restriction? Or, was he simply informing me about the new prohibition, its rationale, and the consequences? If you were my mother, would he be in trouble?
Likewise, when John says that he heard a voice saying, “Write in a book what you see and send it to these churches” and then he writes what he heard and describes what he saw- is he simply telling about his experience of the vision and voices? Or, is he actually writing the book like he was told? When John says (v.12) “Then I turned to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man…” was that description part of the vision that he was supposed to write to the churches? Or, is the part that John was to address to the seven churches only the letters that begin, “To the church in Sardis, write …” (all of which are in chapters 2 and 3). And when the letters are done (beginning of chapter 4), is John finished doing what the first voice commanded him, so that when he says “After this I looked, and there in heaven a door stood open!” was he no longer obeying the first command but was not getting some bonus time?
These are not simple or even a smart-alecky questions. The same litany of questions could be raised with regard to John’s phrase “I was in the spirit…” which happens in 1:10, but then, in 4:2 he says, “At once I was in the spirit….” Is the implication that somewhere between 1:10 and 4:2 John ceased to be ‘in the spirit’ and was just hanging around in the flesh like the rest of us?
I guess what I am saying is that even the simple question, “When?” is not simple when we are reading apocalyptic literature. We approach such questions with the kind of certainty that we learned in history classes in school, where dates and places seemed to be fixed in time. But, when reading poetic, symbolic, apocalyptic literature like the book of Revelation, we have to be willing to let “a” be “a” and “not-a” all at the same time. Things are what they are, and they are what they are not. Words are literal and not-literal, all at the same time. I guess my only advice would be that we need to “surrender to the text” and leave our assumptions behind.
Next post: the 5th W!
Monday, January 5, 2009
3rd W: When
When was the book of Revelation written?
It is always hard to date biblical books precisely. Those darned writers simply never learned to put their name and date on the top corner of their title page when they were in school. So, all we have are educated guesses. Even if the guess is coming from a very well-regarded biblical scholar, it is still a very well-educated guess. So, among the educated guesses out there, two possibilities stand out as to when John wrote the book of Revelation. Because of the numerous references to bloodshed among Christians in the book of Revelation, the basis for these guesses is related to the Roman emperors and their treatment of Christians. The differences between them reflect a choice between the times of the Emperor Nero (54-68) and the Emperor Domitian (81-96). Specifically, commentators try to date Revelation according to the emperors and how they relate to this text from Revelation 17:9-10,
This calls for a mind that has wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; also, they are seven kings, of whom five have fallen, one is living, and the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain for only a little while.
There is a lot to these two verses, beginning with the phrase "this calls for a mind that has wisdom." That phrase appears one other time in Revelation and it seems to be John's way of saying to the reader that s/he needs to pay attention to how this part of the vision is playing itself out in their world. So, commentators on Revelation turn to the annals of the emperors and try to figure out which ones were the 5 who had fallen (or died), which one is now living and what it means to point to another one who is to come. That's the kind of study that lies behind the two primary possibilities of dating of the book of Revelation.
Possibility One: 96ish
The 'traditional' dating of the book of Revelation is some time toward the end of the reign of the emperor Domitian, which would be around the mid-90's of the Common Era. Virtually all of the 2nd and 3rd century church fathers who chimed in on Revelation's dating ascribed to this timing. The reason for this dating seems to be that Domitian took action against members of the imperial household for being 'athiest'- which could be a reference to someone ascribing to Judaism or Christianity, since the official religion was Roman polytheism. He had a nephew killed and a niece exiled and early interpreters saw this as an indication of a wider persecution. It is not clear from historical records that Domitian actually carried out a widespread persecution, but it is clear that he tried hard to establish an 'imperial cult,' to declare himself a Lord and God. To be sure, Jews and Christians would have resisted any effort to offer such terms of worship to a human being and that resistance would have brought back memories of Daniel's great heroics in the face of King Nebuchadnezzar's attempt to make Jews worship his image. For Jews and Christians who had been trained in the Daniel stories, whenever an emperor plays the 'worship me' card, it is a call to resistance, often followed by bloodshed.
Possibility Two: 68ish
Some scholars argue for an earlier dating of the book of Revelation, based on their argument that Nero is the great persecutor and looming danger for the early Christians. Nero was a crazy tyrant- that's for sure. And his persecution of Christians after falsly blaming them for the burning of Rome made him a terrible memory for Christians. After Nero died, there was a fear that he had not truly died but had actually faked his suicide and was in hiding among the Parthian kingdoms until he could plan a come back. (This whole legend reminds me of some of the legends regarding Adolph Hitler and the fears that he might have staged his suicide in order to regroup and return.) That is what some scholars think John is referring to by the his 'beast' who is described as one who 'was, and is not, and is to come' (17:8) The fear over Nero is that he 'was', in his (assumed) death he 'is not,' and when he returns he 'is to come.' After Nero's death there were three emperors in quick succession who all came and went within the year 68. Because of that instability among the empire, it would have been conceivable for someone like Nero to return as a stabilizing hero from his self-imposed exile. So, scholars who assume that the persecution of Christians (especially among the churches in Asia Minor) was Nero's persecution date the book of Revelation around 68.
In the end, with apologies to my friend Karen who always says, "Is it too much to ask for a simple black and white answer to a straightforward question?" we have to say- "Yes, it's too much in this case." But these two possbilities are the best guesses out there as attempts to take the book of Revelation seriously insofar as it addresses the current distress of the churches under persecution.
More on Thursday: the 4th W is "where"
It is always hard to date biblical books precisely. Those darned writers simply never learned to put their name and date on the top corner of their title page when they were in school. So, all we have are educated guesses. Even if the guess is coming from a very well-regarded biblical scholar, it is still a very well-educated guess. So, among the educated guesses out there, two possibilities stand out as to when John wrote the book of Revelation. Because of the numerous references to bloodshed among Christians in the book of Revelation, the basis for these guesses is related to the Roman emperors and their treatment of Christians. The differences between them reflect a choice between the times of the Emperor Nero (54-68) and the Emperor Domitian (81-96). Specifically, commentators try to date Revelation according to the emperors and how they relate to this text from Revelation 17:9-10,
This calls for a mind that has wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; also, they are seven kings, of whom five have fallen, one is living, and the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain for only a little while.
There is a lot to these two verses, beginning with the phrase "this calls for a mind that has wisdom." That phrase appears one other time in Revelation and it seems to be John's way of saying to the reader that s/he needs to pay attention to how this part of the vision is playing itself out in their world. So, commentators on Revelation turn to the annals of the emperors and try to figure out which ones were the 5 who had fallen (or died), which one is now living and what it means to point to another one who is to come. That's the kind of study that lies behind the two primary possibilities of dating of the book of Revelation.
Possibility One: 96ish
The 'traditional' dating of the book of Revelation is some time toward the end of the reign of the emperor Domitian, which would be around the mid-90's of the Common Era. Virtually all of the 2nd and 3rd century church fathers who chimed in on Revelation's dating ascribed to this timing. The reason for this dating seems to be that Domitian took action against members of the imperial household for being 'athiest'- which could be a reference to someone ascribing to Judaism or Christianity, since the official religion was Roman polytheism. He had a nephew killed and a niece exiled and early interpreters saw this as an indication of a wider persecution. It is not clear from historical records that Domitian actually carried out a widespread persecution, but it is clear that he tried hard to establish an 'imperial cult,' to declare himself a Lord and God. To be sure, Jews and Christians would have resisted any effort to offer such terms of worship to a human being and that resistance would have brought back memories of Daniel's great heroics in the face of King Nebuchadnezzar's attempt to make Jews worship his image. For Jews and Christians who had been trained in the Daniel stories, whenever an emperor plays the 'worship me' card, it is a call to resistance, often followed by bloodshed.
Possibility Two: 68ish
Some scholars argue for an earlier dating of the book of Revelation, based on their argument that Nero is the great persecutor and looming danger for the early Christians. Nero was a crazy tyrant- that's for sure. And his persecution of Christians after falsly blaming them for the burning of Rome made him a terrible memory for Christians. After Nero died, there was a fear that he had not truly died but had actually faked his suicide and was in hiding among the Parthian kingdoms until he could plan a come back. (This whole legend reminds me of some of the legends regarding Adolph Hitler and the fears that he might have staged his suicide in order to regroup and return.) That is what some scholars think John is referring to by the his 'beast' who is described as one who 'was, and is not, and is to come' (17:8) The fear over Nero is that he 'was', in his (assumed) death he 'is not,' and when he returns he 'is to come.' After Nero's death there were three emperors in quick succession who all came and went within the year 68. Because of that instability among the empire, it would have been conceivable for someone like Nero to return as a stabilizing hero from his self-imposed exile. So, scholars who assume that the persecution of Christians (especially among the churches in Asia Minor) was Nero's persecution date the book of Revelation around 68.
In the end, with apologies to my friend Karen who always says, "Is it too much to ask for a simple black and white answer to a straightforward question?" we have to say- "Yes, it's too much in this case." But these two possbilities are the best guesses out there as attempts to take the book of Revelation seriously insofar as it addresses the current distress of the churches under persecution.
More on Thursday: the 4th W is "where"
Friday, January 2, 2009
2nd W: What?
So ... what, exactly is the book of Revelation, anyway?
That may seem like a simple question, with a simple answer: It's a revelation. But, of course, the book of Revelation is not the revelation itself. It is a recording, a writing, of the revelation, which John heard and saw. And that has several implications for us, the readers.
First, this genre of writing is often simply called apocalypse, which is the Greek word for 'revelation' taken from the first word in the book of Revelation. Remember, none of our biblical books came with titles; most of their titles were added later reflecting the first word (e.g. Genesis, Revelation), the assumed author (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the primary characters (Samuel, Kings) or some kind of description (Deuteronomy [the reiterated law], Psalms, Acts of the Apostles).
Apocalypse, as a genre of writing, is very hard to nail down- as it ought to be. John is writing about things he has seen and heard. But, what John has seen and heard are things that are too wonderful for literal description. So, the continuity between the revelation itself and the book of Revelation is met with a discontinuity: he is writing to faithfully describe things which are indescribable. Therefore, what we encounter in the book of Revelation is an attempt to use words, language, descriptions, etc. that point beyond themselves to a reality that is greater than any words, language, descriptions, etc. can possibly proclaim.
In short, apocalyptic writings are necessarily written in symbolic language, because literal language is impossible for this task. So, they reveal, but- in a way- they also conceal, because the words themselves are taken from language that we often use literally and are put to non-literal use.
Second, even if John were somehow able to fully describe his vision, there is an inability on our part to comprehend the kind of wonder-filled glory- either beautiful or tragic- that is revealed to John. The symbolic language of apocalyptic writings is as much a sign of our finitude (the readers) as it is sign of John's finitude (the seer/writer). The language of the 139th Psalm is appropriate any time we read descriptions of God's glory: "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is so high that I cannot attain it."
I think my greatest fear of even broaching the book of Revelation (and other apocalyptic writings) is that too many of us just blunder right into it with a sense of confidence that is undeserved. Whether we are biblical scholars who speak from the perspective of informed scientific critical skills, a preacher declaring that this or that verse is exactly what this or that nation needs to hear, or a deconstructionist pulling and twisting the literary structure at will- all of us ought to approach any work of apocalypse with a modicum of fear and trembling.
It may be that the very word, verse, concept, or idea that we are addressing is simply too deep for us to understand- much less to explain! That does not mean that we have to shut up. It only means that when we talk, we have to do so with an appropriate sense of humility.
So, back to the originating question: WHAT IS the book of Revelation? It is a book, a writing, using the limited and finite human means of language to describe what is ultimately indescribable. The revelation itself was probably too much for John to handle in the first place. Then, that incomprehensible revelation became what John witnessed, which was then written down.
Do we have a choice but to be humble about this reading?
That may seem like a simple question, with a simple answer: It's a revelation. But, of course, the book of Revelation is not the revelation itself. It is a recording, a writing, of the revelation, which John heard and saw. And that has several implications for us, the readers.
First, this genre of writing is often simply called apocalypse, which is the Greek word for 'revelation' taken from the first word in the book of Revelation. Remember, none of our biblical books came with titles; most of their titles were added later reflecting the first word (e.g. Genesis, Revelation), the assumed author (Matthew, Mark, Luke), the primary characters (Samuel, Kings) or some kind of description (Deuteronomy [the reiterated law], Psalms, Acts of the Apostles).
Apocalypse, as a genre of writing, is very hard to nail down- as it ought to be. John is writing about things he has seen and heard. But, what John has seen and heard are things that are too wonderful for literal description. So, the continuity between the revelation itself and the book of Revelation is met with a discontinuity: he is writing to faithfully describe things which are indescribable. Therefore, what we encounter in the book of Revelation is an attempt to use words, language, descriptions, etc. that point beyond themselves to a reality that is greater than any words, language, descriptions, etc. can possibly proclaim.
In short, apocalyptic writings are necessarily written in symbolic language, because literal language is impossible for this task. So, they reveal, but- in a way- they also conceal, because the words themselves are taken from language that we often use literally and are put to non-literal use.
Second, even if John were somehow able to fully describe his vision, there is an inability on our part to comprehend the kind of wonder-filled glory- either beautiful or tragic- that is revealed to John. The symbolic language of apocalyptic writings is as much a sign of our finitude (the readers) as it is sign of John's finitude (the seer/writer). The language of the 139th Psalm is appropriate any time we read descriptions of God's glory: "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is so high that I cannot attain it."
I think my greatest fear of even broaching the book of Revelation (and other apocalyptic writings) is that too many of us just blunder right into it with a sense of confidence that is undeserved. Whether we are biblical scholars who speak from the perspective of informed scientific critical skills, a preacher declaring that this or that verse is exactly what this or that nation needs to hear, or a deconstructionist pulling and twisting the literary structure at will- all of us ought to approach any work of apocalypse with a modicum of fear and trembling.
It may be that the very word, verse, concept, or idea that we are addressing is simply too deep for us to understand- much less to explain! That does not mean that we have to shut up. It only means that when we talk, we have to do so with an appropriate sense of humility.
So, back to the originating question: WHAT IS the book of Revelation? It is a book, a writing, using the limited and finite human means of language to describe what is ultimately indescribable. The revelation itself was probably too much for John to handle in the first place. Then, that incomprehensible revelation became what John witnessed, which was then written down.
Do we have a choice but to be humble about this reading?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
