Andrew Meredith’s Reviews > Reading Revelation Responsibly: Uncivil Worship and Witness: Followingthe Lamb into the New Creation > Status Update

Chapter 2 Questions:

"1. Which of the titles or subtitles of Revelation mentioned in this chapter strike you as good summaries of Revelation’s content?"

"Following the Lamb into the New Creation" seems more or less the best one listed. I personally prefer Kenneth Gentry's title "The Divorce of Israel" as I think this best captures the main point of the book. God divorces Israel as a nation and marries the Church.

"2. Do you think it is necessary to identify the genre(s) of Revelation to interpret it responsibly? Why or why not?"

Yes. If you read Revelation like a newspaper, for instance, you are going to interpret it wrongly.

"3. How might understanding Revelation as apocalypse, prophecy, and letter—and as a hybrid of the three—affect our interpretation of it?"

Full disclosure, I don't believe Revelation is an instantiation of a "genre" categorization known as an "apocalypse." It is an apocalypse, an unveiling (says that right at the start; 1:1), but it is not self-conciously a part of anything the Qumran community (for instance) was doing and should not be interpreted as such or in light of such. It definitely draws on all parts of the Bible (it was written by the same divine Author, after all), more than any other book in the New Testament even, but one cannot understand it better by ascertaining what The Book of Enoch (another "apocalypse" ostensibly) was trying to do. One understands Revelation exclusively by understanding and connecting the symbology and typology present in the rest of the Bible, especially the OT prophets.

I have no issue with viewing it as both prophecy and letter. Perhaps best understood as a dramatic expansion of/companion to Matthew 24.

While on the subject of interpretation, it very much matters when it was written and who wrote it. The Apostle John wrote it before AD 70. It bears a whole lot of internal witness to these two facts, and the one (and only one) external witness for a later date (Irenaeus) is both disputed (the passage where he says it is grammatically unclear) and unreliable (he got other historical data points wrong, like Jesus’s age), (see, Ken Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell"). The dating of the book only "isn't significant" if one wishes to detach Revelation from specific events to make it apply symbolically (Idealistically) to the Church throughout history, which is what I think Gorman wants to do.

4. Had you previously thought of Revelation as similar to political cartoons? As poetry? What do you think of these descriptions and their possible implications for interpreting Revelation?

Poetry, yes. The political cartoons makes a lot of sense if Revelation was written before AD 70 (666 = Emperor Nero, the whore of Babylon = the nation of Israel)

Chapter 3 Questions:

Before getting into these, the hypothetical "when and why it was written" story at the beginning of this chapter ignores obvious contextual clues within the text itself. John says explicitly that he is a fellow partaker with his audience "in The Tribulation" (Rev 1:9; cf. Matt 24:21-22; Mark 13), and the Temple in Jerusalem is still standing (11:1-2; it was destroyed in 70 AD). Gorman even briefly acknowledges Emperor Nero's presence in the text (who died in AD 68), but waves the fact away by saying, "These various sorts of localized persecution instilled fear in the Christian assemblies, resurrecting memories of the emperor Nero’s persecutions of the 60s."

Jesus predicted The Tribulation (Matt 24; Mark 13), and said it would occur to "this generation" (Matt 24:34). A while later Paul told the church in Thessalonica that, despite some claims, the foretold judgment had not occurred yet (1 Thess 5; 2 Thess 2). Hebrews says it's coming soon (throughout; but cf. Heb 2:3; 8:13; 12:25-29). Now John says, "It's here. We're in it."

Along these lines, Babylon is NOT Rome (or some symbol of generic civic power). Babylon is Jerusalem/the nation of Israel. She does have a dark alliance with Rome (the beast/666; she rides on him at one point) against Christ and His faithful, but the whore is Israel. The "Synagogue of Satan" that dogs some of the seven churches is the Jews, but now "wrath has come upon them to the utmost" (1 Thess 2:14-16). This observation alone brings into question much of this chapter's later commentary.

Furthermore, the statement (not really an argument, since he doesn't bother backing it up) that John is not writing in response to or preparing the churches for any specific persecution is pointedly absurd. "To show His slaves what must SOON happen" (1:1). "The time is NEAR" (1:3). "Do not fear what you are ABOUT TO suffer" (2:10). "Hold fast [under the persecution] until I come" (2:25; cf. 3:11). "He who overcomes..." (throughout). "Overcomes" what? The Tribulation. It has begun with the house of God, but it is about to turn on Jerusalem.

Gorman: "For now we must simply preview those [later] chapters with this summary: the allegedly violent scenes in Revelation are understood properly as symbols or metaphors, not as examples of literal military violence carried out by God and the Lamb."

We have the Old Testament. Why are we so afraid of scenes depicting God being violent? To the contrary of Gorman, the violent scenes of Revelation are depicting God pouring out His wrath on covenant-breaking Israel and bringing a final end to the Old Covenant. These prophecies refer to actual violent, bloody massacres as the Deut 28 curses that were mercifully held back for so long are finally unleashed.

Gorman then leaves Revelation behind entirely to go on a multi-page discourse about how America bears a striking resemblance to the dreaded "Empire," Rome, which is for sure the Babylon of Revelation because "most scholars agree" except for all those outside his preselected interpretive camp (Futurist, Historicist, Preterist), of course. He's even quoting How is this sidebar diatribe related to reading Revelation responsibly, again?

(On that note: Isn't it nice that with "Empire," being such an unpopular, outright hated idea these days among the Western populace at large (and especially in more intellectually refined circles), we have discovered that, low and behold, a book of the Bible was really written as a coded warning against the very concept and practice all along? What a happy convenient happenstance when we discover that the Bible most winsomely lines up with what our pagan neighbors already believe and want to hear. ("Is America *gasp* an Empire!? Are we the baddies?!") See? We care about what you care about, world! Will you please accept us and come to our church now?)

Good gracious me, now comes an even more pointed discourse against "nationalism." Thinking your country is the best country is wrong, apparently. Look, I think America is the best country in the world, just like I think my mom is the best mother in the world. If I go to the store to buy my mother a "World's Best Mom" mug and some dude next to me grabs an identical one, we aren't going to throw hands about it. In fact, I would find it rather strange if he was buying the mug for my mom, too. Similarly, if some Italian guy thinks Italy is the best country in the world, he's objectively wrong, but I understand him and am not going to fight him or think less of him for it. Really, I would find it weird if he thought America was the best.

"1. In what sense is Revelation a liturgical text? How might identifying it as such affect our interpretation of it? In what sense is Revelation a political, or theopolitical, text? How might identifying it as such affect our interpretation of it?"

Revelation constantly reveals a call-and-response liturgy going on before the Throne. The narrative is driven by these songs as the saints pray and ask for judgment upon their enemies, and God responds by enacting the just judgment, and then the saints praise Him for doing so.

Revelation is political. The Gospel is political. Christ is Lord, Christ is King, He rules the earth (1:5), and the all the rulers of the earth must bow the knee to Him. Violent judgment (in this life and the next) and an eternal lake of fire await all who will not swear allegiance to the King, the Lord's anointed, whereas rewards, feasting, and life are awaiting all who will.

"2. What do you think of the claim that civil religion, as an aberration of Christianity, is prevalent in the West, especially the U.S.? What do you think of the claim that Revelation is a manifesto against civil religion, whether in the first century or the twenty-first? How might identifying it as such affect our interpretation of it?"

Worshipping America in and for itself is wrong, and Christians should check that their country is not in the place of God and His Kingdom on earth. In that sense, civil religion is wrong. However, all ethne (nations as nations, or however you wish to define that corporate term) need to be baptized and taught to obey all that King Jesus has commanded. America should publicly, corporately acknowledge the present reign of Christ and conduct itself as a servant under His rule. In this sense, public, civil religion is the very goal of the Great Commission. One day, as the Gospel permeates the world, all of the nations will, as nations, bend the knee to Christ in sole allegiance to Him. Gorman either seems to be mixing the senses, or is otherwise unclear what is in view here.

"3. How might identifying Revelation as a pastoral-prophetic text affect our interpretation of it?"

It was written to people about to suffer immensely, but also about to be delivered from their persecutors.

"4. Is it possible to read Revelation in the ways suggested in this chapter and still believe that it forecasts the future?"

I'll answer for myself: Somewhere in the middle of Revelation 20 until 21:8 is a brief future forecast culminating in a great white throne judgment and eternal destinies. Anything before that has more-than-less already happened, everything after that (21:9ff.) is a vision of right now (post-AD 70).