What do you think?
Rate this book
Apocalypse: A People's Commentary on the Book of Revelation
The Book of Revelation has always been a mysterious and intriguing book, describing in symbolic terms the confrontation between the disciples of Christ and the powers - political and supernatural - that hold sway over the current age. Fundamentalists have been attracted to the book and have sought to decipher its strange symbols as coded prophecy of future events. But as Pablo Richard shows in Apocalypse, the most powerful readings of the Book of Revelation are through the eyes of the oppressed, living out their Christian faith in the context of the modern empire. It is they who identify most strongly with Revelation's ultimate message of hope and life in the midst of death and persecution.
Apocalypse first provides a general introduction to the reading of Revelation by examining three keys for its the historical, the sociological, and the literary-structural. The book then goes on to explore the whole of the Book of Revelation, following the book's own structure. Each section provides a line-by-line reading of the text, establishing the literal meaning before applying the interpretive keys already established.
Apocalypse first provides a general introduction to the reading of Revelation by examining three keys for its the historical, the sociological, and the literary-structural. The book then goes on to explore the whole of the Book of Revelation, following the book's own structure. Each section provides a line-by-line reading of the text, establishing the literal meaning before applying the interpretive keys already established.
184 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1995
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 25, 2026
I’m not sure of how I learned of this book. Probably it came across my Amazon feed of books I might be interested in because I am always looking at books about Revelation. Should I have been able to tell from the phrase "A People's Commentary" in the title that Pablo Richard was a liberation theologian? If I didn’t know that, it started to become clear as early as page 3: "I have sought to produce a work that is scholarly and exegetically well grounded, but from the standpoint of the oppressed: the poor, indigenous people, blacks, women, young people, the cosmos and nature, and all those who endure the discrimination of the oppressive and idolatrous system."
In the first chapter, "General Introduction to Revelation," Richard tells us that he will approach Revelation from three overlapping standpoints: (1) historical and theological keys (2) sociological and theological keys (3) literary and structural keys. In the brief introduction, Richard calls attention to Dei Verbum 12, the key section of which I think is, "To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to 'literary forms.' For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse." For Richard, the fact that Revelation is set in a particular time and place is a key part of his interpretation.
I was wondering whether Richard might fall in the category of an idealist interpreter of Revelation. On the one hand his interpretation of Revelation as speaking to the situation of the original audience as a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire would seem to preclude this. But on the other hand in seeing in the response of the oppressed people of Rome a model for oppressed people in every time his interpretation could be called idealist.
Richard has a special connection to Latin America and the Caribbean, especially Central America, and mentions attending several conferences there. He connects the destruction of the temple in 586 BC (which of course is connected to the 70 AD destruction) to 1492, according to him also a year of complete destruction. He sees in the legend of Tepeyac and the ministry of Fray Bartolomé de la Casas a parallel of the message of Revelation to the indigenous people of Mexico. In this Richard also reveals his deep connection to the Catholic Church (he was, among other things, a diocesan priest). But he was not completely uncritical of the Church.
According to Google, "Liberation theology is not inherently a critique of the Catholic Church itself, but its practitioners have historically been deeply critical of the institutional Church's alignment with wealthy elites and oppressive political powers." This leads Richard to reject certain interpretations of Revelation by the Church, most notably in his interpretation of the Millennium. Without naming the Catholic Church, Richard claims that Catholic spiritualized Millennium, is "characteristic of an established church that has lost its original apostolic and prophetic inspiration." Instead, the Millennium "is the hope of a community who believes in a God who does justice now in history, a God who destroys empires and gives hope to the people of the holy ones and the martyrs. In general, it is the utopia of the poor and and oppressed that *ultimately* it is possible to bring about order in this world, to restore the order of God the creator and the liberating Messiah Jesus."
Richard appears to reject hell and accept annihilationism. "Hell, according to Revelation, is total annihilation." Does Richard believe this is the teaching of all scripture, or just Revelation? To reject the existence of Hell is to reject Catholic teaching. However in "A Positive Document on the Theology of Liberation" (1984) Richard writes, "We reject, with the terms and arguments of the CDF’s Instruction, all theological output which, under the name of the 'Theology of Liberation', proposes 'a novel interpretation of both the content of faith and of Christian existence which seriously departs from the faith of the Church' (VI, 09)." Perhaps Richard feels that the rejection of Hell is not a serious departure from the faith.
Commenting on Revelation 12.7-9, 12, Richard states that the Devil does not exist as a person. This also goes against Catholic teaching, but perhaps is another departure from the faith that Richard does not feel is serious. According to an article on the U.S. Catholic website, Michelle Arnold writes that Catholics have diverse opinions about the Devil.
Throughout the book, Richard insists that Revelation is expressed through myths and symbols. Primary among these symbols is the juxtaposition between Heaven and Earth, which signify the two dimensions of history (earth: the empirical, visible dimension of history; heaven: the transcendent invisible dimension of history), and the New Jerusalem and Babylon; the New Jerusalem signifying God's dwelling place on Earth with his people in the present time and Babylon representing empire. For Richard, there is no Second Coming in Revelation because Jesus has never left.
He also claims the violence in Revelation is more figurative than real. The trumpet and bowl plagues are not natural disasters because such disasters fall not on the empire and its partisans but basically on the poor. Richard's theological concerns for the poor cause him to interpret Revelation very differently than Bart Ehrman does in his book *Armageddon*, where he writes, "For some liberal Christian scholars Revelation is a metaphorical narrative meant to offer hope to those who suffer now," a point Ehrman disagrees with. Another point of disagreement is concerning the violence of Revelation, which Ehrman, quoting Crossan, calls "the most relentlessly violent book in all canonical literature of the great religions of the world." (John Dominic Crossan, "Divine Violence in the Christian Bible," in *The Bible and the American Future* 2010, 227-28.)
In the chapter "The Ideology of Dominance," Ehrman seeks to demonstrate that, contrary to the teachings of Paul and Jesus, John thinks believers should control riches and power. To prove his point, he cites the opulence of the heavenly throne room and the New Jerusalem as well as the passages about ruling with a rod of iron. For Ehrman, "whether John meant this literally is beside the point." I’m not sure I can agree with him on this. Isn’t it appropriate to ask whether in this highly symbolic book the gemstones, pearly gates, and streets of gold are symbolic? I think here and elsewhere Ehrman overreaches.
On the other hand, I don’t agree with Richard that Revelation is a book about empire's oppression of "the poor, indigenous people, blacks, women, young people, the cosmos and nature, and all those who endure the discrimination of the oppressive and idolatrous system." Poverty is mentioned in only 2 verses, Revelation 2.9 ("I know your [the church in Smyrna] tribulation and your poverty [but you are rich]..."), and 3.17 ("For you [the church in Laodicea] say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing; not knowing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked."). This seems like a meager base to build a theology about poverty. About the oppression of women of course Revelation says nothing, but Richard opines in a brief footnote that the two witnesses of chapter 11 could represent man and woman, which I take to mean the totality of redeemed humanity.
Richard's vision of Revelation as a voice for the oppressed causes him to interpret 13.9-10 in a unique fashion. He claimed that the word Greek word hupomoné must be translated as "resistance" and not "patience" as many translation have it. Of the translations I looked at, most of them had either "patience or "endurance" or "perseverance" The Message Bible had "stand their ground" which may imply resistance, but not necessarily. Richard suggests that the image of the beast may be the images of Roman emperors on coins, and that sentenced to death means that the Roman Christians suffered economic, political, cultural, and spiritual death under Rome.
Richard makes an interesting translation choice in 20.4: "I saw alive those who were beheaded" rather than the usual "I saw the souls of those beheaded…" Richard claims that because souls cannot be seen, it is incorrect to translate τὰς ψυχάς as "souls." His translation is based on the Nueva Biblia Española:
*Vi también tronos, donde se sentaron los encargados de pronunciar sentencia; vi también con vida a los decapitados por dar testimonio de Jesús y proclamar el mensaje de Dios, los que no habían rendido homenaje a la fiera ni a su estatua y no habían llevado su marca en la frente ni en la mano. Estos volvieron a la vida y fueron reyes con el Mesías mil años.*
Although this is a translation I never would have thought of, I think it is a reasonable translation.
Although this author didn’t have me jumping up and down, he was ok. 3/5 stars seems about right. I have put Pablo Richard's*Death of Christendoms, Birth of the Church: Historical Analysis and Theological Interpretation of the Church in Latin America* on my to read list.
In the first chapter, "General Introduction to Revelation," Richard tells us that he will approach Revelation from three overlapping standpoints: (1) historical and theological keys (2) sociological and theological keys (3) literary and structural keys. In the brief introduction, Richard calls attention to Dei Verbum 12, the key section of which I think is, "To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to 'literary forms.' For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse." For Richard, the fact that Revelation is set in a particular time and place is a key part of his interpretation.
I was wondering whether Richard might fall in the category of an idealist interpreter of Revelation. On the one hand his interpretation of Revelation as speaking to the situation of the original audience as a persecuted minority in the Roman Empire would seem to preclude this. But on the other hand in seeing in the response of the oppressed people of Rome a model for oppressed people in every time his interpretation could be called idealist.
Richard has a special connection to Latin America and the Caribbean, especially Central America, and mentions attending several conferences there. He connects the destruction of the temple in 586 BC (which of course is connected to the 70 AD destruction) to 1492, according to him also a year of complete destruction. He sees in the legend of Tepeyac and the ministry of Fray Bartolomé de la Casas a parallel of the message of Revelation to the indigenous people of Mexico. In this Richard also reveals his deep connection to the Catholic Church (he was, among other things, a diocesan priest). But he was not completely uncritical of the Church.
According to Google, "Liberation theology is not inherently a critique of the Catholic Church itself, but its practitioners have historically been deeply critical of the institutional Church's alignment with wealthy elites and oppressive political powers." This leads Richard to reject certain interpretations of Revelation by the Church, most notably in his interpretation of the Millennium. Without naming the Catholic Church, Richard claims that Catholic spiritualized Millennium, is "characteristic of an established church that has lost its original apostolic and prophetic inspiration." Instead, the Millennium "is the hope of a community who believes in a God who does justice now in history, a God who destroys empires and gives hope to the people of the holy ones and the martyrs. In general, it is the utopia of the poor and and oppressed that *ultimately* it is possible to bring about order in this world, to restore the order of God the creator and the liberating Messiah Jesus."
Richard appears to reject hell and accept annihilationism. "Hell, according to Revelation, is total annihilation." Does Richard believe this is the teaching of all scripture, or just Revelation? To reject the existence of Hell is to reject Catholic teaching. However in "A Positive Document on the Theology of Liberation" (1984) Richard writes, "We reject, with the terms and arguments of the CDF’s Instruction, all theological output which, under the name of the 'Theology of Liberation', proposes 'a novel interpretation of both the content of faith and of Christian existence which seriously departs from the faith of the Church' (VI, 09)." Perhaps Richard feels that the rejection of Hell is not a serious departure from the faith.
Commenting on Revelation 12.7-9, 12, Richard states that the Devil does not exist as a person. This also goes against Catholic teaching, but perhaps is another departure from the faith that Richard does not feel is serious. According to an article on the U.S. Catholic website, Michelle Arnold writes that Catholics have diverse opinions about the Devil.
Throughout the book, Richard insists that Revelation is expressed through myths and symbols. Primary among these symbols is the juxtaposition between Heaven and Earth, which signify the two dimensions of history (earth: the empirical, visible dimension of history; heaven: the transcendent invisible dimension of history), and the New Jerusalem and Babylon; the New Jerusalem signifying God's dwelling place on Earth with his people in the present time and Babylon representing empire. For Richard, there is no Second Coming in Revelation because Jesus has never left.
He also claims the violence in Revelation is more figurative than real. The trumpet and bowl plagues are not natural disasters because such disasters fall not on the empire and its partisans but basically on the poor. Richard's theological concerns for the poor cause him to interpret Revelation very differently than Bart Ehrman does in his book *Armageddon*, where he writes, "For some liberal Christian scholars Revelation is a metaphorical narrative meant to offer hope to those who suffer now," a point Ehrman disagrees with. Another point of disagreement is concerning the violence of Revelation, which Ehrman, quoting Crossan, calls "the most relentlessly violent book in all canonical literature of the great religions of the world." (John Dominic Crossan, "Divine Violence in the Christian Bible," in *The Bible and the American Future* 2010, 227-28.)
In the chapter "The Ideology of Dominance," Ehrman seeks to demonstrate that, contrary to the teachings of Paul and Jesus, John thinks believers should control riches and power. To prove his point, he cites the opulence of the heavenly throne room and the New Jerusalem as well as the passages about ruling with a rod of iron. For Ehrman, "whether John meant this literally is beside the point." I’m not sure I can agree with him on this. Isn’t it appropriate to ask whether in this highly symbolic book the gemstones, pearly gates, and streets of gold are symbolic? I think here and elsewhere Ehrman overreaches.
On the other hand, I don’t agree with Richard that Revelation is a book about empire's oppression of "the poor, indigenous people, blacks, women, young people, the cosmos and nature, and all those who endure the discrimination of the oppressive and idolatrous system." Poverty is mentioned in only 2 verses, Revelation 2.9 ("I know your [the church in Smyrna] tribulation and your poverty [but you are rich]..."), and 3.17 ("For you [the church in Laodicea] say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing; not knowing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked."). This seems like a meager base to build a theology about poverty. About the oppression of women of course Revelation says nothing, but Richard opines in a brief footnote that the two witnesses of chapter 11 could represent man and woman, which I take to mean the totality of redeemed humanity.
Richard's vision of Revelation as a voice for the oppressed causes him to interpret 13.9-10 in a unique fashion. He claimed that the word Greek word hupomoné must be translated as "resistance" and not "patience" as many translation have it. Of the translations I looked at, most of them had either "patience or "endurance" or "perseverance" The Message Bible had "stand their ground" which may imply resistance, but not necessarily. Richard suggests that the image of the beast may be the images of Roman emperors on coins, and that sentenced to death means that the Roman Christians suffered economic, political, cultural, and spiritual death under Rome.
Richard makes an interesting translation choice in 20.4: "I saw alive those who were beheaded" rather than the usual "I saw the souls of those beheaded…" Richard claims that because souls cannot be seen, it is incorrect to translate τὰς ψυχάς as "souls." His translation is based on the Nueva Biblia Española:
*Vi también tronos, donde se sentaron los encargados de pronunciar sentencia; vi también con vida a los decapitados por dar testimonio de Jesús y proclamar el mensaje de Dios, los que no habían rendido homenaje a la fiera ni a su estatua y no habían llevado su marca en la frente ni en la mano. Estos volvieron a la vida y fueron reyes con el Mesías mil años.*
Although this is a translation I never would have thought of, I think it is a reasonable translation.
Although this author didn’t have me jumping up and down, he was ok. 3/5 stars seems about right. I have put Pablo Richard's*Death of Christendoms, Birth of the Church: Historical Analysis and Theological Interpretation of the Church in Latin America* on my to read list.
September 17, 2020
I highly recommend this book for anyone wanting to take Revelation seriously - rather than the supposed "literalism" of the "left behind" folks or as merely spiritual. I particularly appreciate how Richard structures the book around an outline of Revelation with a clear focus on how different sections interrelate and run parallel - as well as times when the images are asymetrical. Richard also offers a clear and concise look at how Revelation draws from and is related to texts like Daniel, Ezekiel and the epistles. Along with Eugene Petersen's "Reversed Thunder" and Warren Carter's "What Does Revelation Reveal?: Unlocking the Mystery" this is now one of my go-to's for sermon and class preparation.
January 27, 2015
I was pleasantly surprised by Richard's commentary on Revelation. The text immediately hit me as deeply rooted in the praxis of Latin American liberation theology. In my experience, this location either leads to quite insightful exegesis OR tortuous interpretations chock-full of inpenetrable jargon. Apocalypse comes out swinging strongly in the former category.
Richard takes as a given many of the conclusions of historical-critical scholarship that I'd wouldn't be quite as quick to assume. Fair warning to more Evangelical readers. But the scholarship he brings on apocalyptic is top notch and incredibly useful for understanding Revelation.
As I was preaching through Rev 1-3, I had Boring's volume in the Interpretation series. Boring's volume was less than useless, fighting back door wars with every breath. I'd have been at loose ends with Richard's text to hang on to.
Definitely worth consulting.
Richard takes as a given many of the conclusions of historical-critical scholarship that I'd wouldn't be quite as quick to assume. Fair warning to more Evangelical readers. But the scholarship he brings on apocalyptic is top notch and incredibly useful for understanding Revelation.
As I was preaching through Rev 1-3, I had Boring's volume in the Interpretation series. Boring's volume was less than useless, fighting back door wars with every breath. I'd have been at loose ends with Richard's text to hang on to.
Definitely worth consulting.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews