The book of Revelation continues to gain a great deal of attention–for better and for worse. Back in the 1980s I paid sustained attention to this amazing piece of literature and wrote a short commentary. Here is the commentary’s discussion of chapters four and five, from Triumph of the Lamb
The book of Revelation continues to gain a great deal of attention–for better and for worse. Back in the 1980s I paid sustained attention to this amazing piece of literature and wrote a short commentary. Here is the commentary’s discussion of chapters two and three, from Triumph of the Lamb
The book of Revelation continues to gain a great deal of attention–for better and for worse. Back in the 1980s I paid sustained attention to this amazing piece of literature and wrote a short commentary. Here is the commentary’s discussion of chapter one, from Triumph of the Lamb (Herald Press, 1987; reprinted by Wipf and Stock).
The book of Revelation continues to gain a great deal of attention–for better and for worse. Back in the 1980s I paid sustained attention to this amazing piece of literature and wrote a short commentary. Here is the introduction to the commentary, which was called Triumph of the Lamb (Herald Press, 1987; reprinted by Wipf and Stock).
Jonathan Kirsch, a writer for the Los Angeles Times, takes on the Book of Revelation in A History of the End of the World: How the Most Controversial Book in the Bible Changed the Course of Western Civilization
The best contribution the book makes is to detail some of the many ways the book has been used to support extremist violence throughout the past 2,000 years. Unfortunately, though he mentions one peaceable interpreter (Jacques Ellul), he does not engage the arguments of the wide scholarly stream that interprets Revelation as a book advocating Jesus-like persevering love as the model for Christians (see elsewhere on this website).
I share Kirsch’s antipathy toward people who justify violence by citing verses and themes from Revelation. I would prefer using Revelation itself to argue against such use, though. And I share Revelation’s antipathy, over against Kirsch, toward great human empires such as the Pax Romana (and the Pax Romana). I believe this antipathy in Revelation finds expression in ways that underwrite radical nonviolence in resistance to the systemic violence of empire. Kirsch’s sanguine attitude toward Rome hinders his ability to appreciate Revelation’s truly radical politics (neither pro-establishment or pro-violent revolution).
Kirsch has done a good job of making one strand of contemporary Revelation scholarship accessible to a general audience of educated readers. For that, he deserves praise. But because he ignores other (peaceable) streams that read Revelation with a much more sympathetic spirit (while also rejecting the violent future-prophetic views), he misses a chance to enlighten his audience even more.
Christian theologies differ on the doctrine of eschatology probably more than just about any other doctrine. The approach I take in my essay, “The Doctrine of Eschatology”, focuses on ethics. I ask what would eschatology would look like that reinforces Jesus’ teaching about love of God and neighbor. Such an ethical eschatology will focus more on our “end” as in our purpose than our “end” as in our future fate.
I center my eschatological reflections on the book of Revelation, interpreting Revelation as a message about discipleship–calling on believers to follow Jesus (the “Lamb”) wherever he goes. And Revelation presents the “way Jesus goes” as the way of persevering love.
This essay is the twelfth in a series that examines core Christian doctrines, consistently asking what shape they should take if they are articulated in light of Jesus.
These are the two papers I have prepared for the Compassionate Eschatology Conference, held at San Francisco Theological Seminary, September 26 and 27, 2008.
Often, the Book of Revelation is presented as being about these weird visions of violence and vengeance–where God models retaliation and hatred for enemies.
My article, How does Revelation speak today? (published in The Mennonite, September 2, 2008), presents the book of Revelation as being a “revelation” of Jesus’ persevering love as the model for Christians–in contrast to views of Revelation that see it being about vengeance and violence.
In Revelation six, we get the first of several extended visions in the book that portray a series of plagues that wreak death and destruction on earth. Then, in Revelation seven we get another vision of the people of God (from all tribes and nations) worshiping God and the Lamb–these are the ones who trust in God instead of the Beast. I believe that these two visions portray important elements in life in the past and present, not only life in the future. John the Seer means for us to recognize that we must choose which vision more accurately presents the deepest reality. Should we worship (that is, live our lives in trust in the Lamb’s way of peace) or should we join with the forces of violence since they determine reality? In my sermon, “Trusting God in the Real World,” I juxtapose the two visions and argue that the vision of celebration should determine how we understand the world–and inspire us to practice justice- and peace-making in service to the victorious Lamb.
Biblical eschatology, I propose, is best understood if the think of “end” (eschatos) more in terms of purpose in the here and now and less in terms of the future outcome of history. If we do think of eschatology in this way, we will be more likely to find present-day peaceable ethical significance of biblical teaching than if we think this world is inevitably heading for destruction.
I argue for this view of eschatology in my article, “The end of the world: why we are here,” first published in The Mennonite, August 6, 2002.
Peace Theology 