Revelation/Apocalypse/Last Judgment: Thoughts?

[HansMustermann]

I agree with the first part, as did DH Lawrence among others. God's promise in Genesis to never again destroy humanity is clearly scuppered here in favor of the horrifying torture and murder of nearly everyone on the planet by the most ghoulish, painful means imaginable.

Well, just to have the correct image of the context, God in Genesis technically only promised never to DROWN the world again. (And, hey, look, he even put a rainbow in the sky as a sticky note to remember to not drown everyone again.) That that leaves room for other ways to murder everyone without breaking the promise, actually seems to have occurred to Jews very early. An all time favourite for the next cleansing was fire, and there have been prophets ranting and raving about that for centuries before John had a bad trip and wrote Revelation.

Now John does get a bit more creative than "got lights the world on fire, everyone but the faithful burns, the faithful are left to prance and gambol on the burnt skulls of their enemies, end of story." But still, he fits perfectly in the same culture and tradition that only a second flood is off the table, anything else is fair game and perfectly compatible with what God promised the first time around. Fire? Perfect! Orbital bombardment? Excellent! Giant venomous scorpions? Great! Just as long as it's not water again.

 

[Vortigern99]

Well, just to have the correct image of the context, God in Genesis technically only promised never to DROWN the world again. (And, hey, look, he even put a rainbow in the sky as a sticky note to remember to not drown everyone again.) That that leaves room for other ways to murder everyone without breaking the promise, actually seems to have occurred to Jews very early. An all time favourite for the next cleansing was fire, and there have been prophets ranting and raving about that for centuries before John had a bad trip and wrote Revelation.

Now John does get a bit more creative than "got lights the world on fire, everyone but the faithful burns, the faithful are left to prance and gambol on the burnt skulls of their enemies, end of story." But still, he fits perfectly in the same culture and tradition that only a second flood is off the table, anything else is fair game and perfectly compatible with what God promised the first time around. Fire? Perfect! Orbital bombardment? Excellent! Giant venomous scorpions? Great! Just as long as it's not water again.

Good points! Re-reading the relevant passages in Genesis I see that you're absolutely correct; God only promises not to drown the world in a flood, he doesn't say he won't do it via dragon fire, falling stars, stinging locusts with lion's teeth, horrible ulcers, drought, etc. etc. -- all non-diluvian dooms with which Revelation is rife.

Reminds me of the Brick Testament image of the Lego lady being struck with a 100-pound chunk of hail as she screams at the sky: "Did you ever stop to think this why people won't worship you?!"

 

[Vortigern99]

What eight bits said. Also, it's impossible to understand Revelation except against a rich Jewish tradition of apocalyptic writing, which probably began during the Babylonian exile of the sixth century BCE and intensified up through the Hellenistic period (see the book of Daniel, second century BCE). The prophetic promises of return from exile into a perfect new world ruled over by a Davidic Messiah-like character seem to have become eschatological (ie, pertaining to the end of the current world, rather than a mere political change within it) almost as soon as they were written. See Ezekiel, or Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55) to see the sort of thing: the Judeans were going to return in triumphant procession through the desert to a new super-Temple and state of perfect peace and all the nations would come and worship there ... whereas in fact, while there was a return from exile, it was probably rather small-scale and the returnees found it difficult (Ezra, Nehemiah). Furthermore, Judea was almost never independent again; so by the first century CE, when it was under Roman imperial rule, Jews were expecting such a restoration as an eschatological, rather than historical, event.

Revelation is just one of a whole genre of apocalyptic visions of the time; there are several others in the intertestamental, apocryphal, and other roughly contemporary Jewish writings (Apocalypses of Baruch, Elijah, and a whole host of other pseudonymous figures, Psalms of Solomon, 4 Ezra, and many others). Nearly all the famous aspects of Revelation, including the Son of Man, the martyrs in white washing their robes, other transfigured characters in heaven, angels, rulers, the large-scale battle at the end of time, and so on, are shared with these other writings.

So no, Christians (like me) don't need to think of Revelation as a unique, weird sort of prediction of something that will directly happen or that has happened. Rather it's a piece of literature which is of a clearly recognizable genre and relates to events that were happening in the first century CE. The writer has interpreted these events according to the categories and myths he understood from his own Jewish background.

Thanks for this! It gives me a strong foundation for continuing research into the book and into the period in which it was written.

I will suggest that any of the books of the New Testament can be read as "a piece of literature which is of a clearly recognizable genre and relates to events that were happening in the first century CE". This reading does not appear to dissuade you, as a Christian, from accepting the Gospels as factual, even with all their wonder-tale elements and frankly incredible events.

May I ask, what is it you find unique about Revelation that distinguishes it as clearly symbolical or fictional, whereas you appear to believe the other miraculous events recounted in the other books of the NT? (And please, don't let me craft any straw men; correct me if I'm not accurately describing your beliefs.)

 

[Slowvehicle]

Wail and gnash your teeth! Make mixed drinks!

SOP...

 

[TimCallahan]

Part of the code in which Revelation was written involves Babylon, a city personified as a harlot resting on the heads of a beast with seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 17:3). Just previous to this description, she is said to be "seated on many waters" (Rev. 17:1). A bit after this she is described as follows (Rev. 17:4 - 6):

The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and, and bedecked with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication; and on her forehead was written a name of mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth's abominations." And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

By the time John of Patmos was writing, Babylon had lost its greatness and was now a backwater. If it was renowned for anything, it would have been its rabbinical college. The identity of "Babylon" is explained in these verses (Rev. 17:9 - 11):

This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven hills on which the woman is seated; they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is; the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while. As for the beast that was an is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to perdition.

The city that rests on seven hills is, of course, Rome. There are a number of interpretations of who the seven kings + the eighth, the beast One is that the five kings who have fallen are the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. The one who is would be Vespasian. Titus would be the one yet to come, who "must remain only a little while." Titus died after only two years as emperor. The eighth, then, could be Domitian, or it could refer to Nero redivivus, a resurrected Nero.

The author made Revelation cryptic enough to allow for some leeway in its prophecies, a leeway that has been expanded now to cover two millennia .

 

[Sledge]

ETA Personally, I'm an atheist. If I am an agnostic instead, I don't know that I'm one.

You're probably both.

 

[Jon.]

It strikes me, from only a casual acquaintance with Revelation, that it is a bit of a revenge fantasy wank. It's full of "all those people who didn't join us, look at all the bad stuff that's going to happen to them while we're walking on streets of gold alongside the waters of life, and hobnobbing with Yahweh himself!" I don't know if that's characteristic of eight bits' long tradition of Jewish apocalyptic writing or not, but that's what I'm seeing.

 

[Hokulele]

<snip>

It bears noting that the book you read is one out of hundreds (or thousands?) written on the subject, plus scads of essays and commentaries offered by numerous organizations, individuals and authorities over the centuries. I like this interpretation, but it would seem damn convenient to accept uncritically that the single book you happened to have read on the topic happens to have it right.

I have read the book Bikewer mentioned, as well as several others on that and similar topics, and it actually is one of the better ones. It doesn't deal directly with "what Revelation means" so much as "how have different groups of people over the years interpreted it, and what was the context in which it was originally written". It also considers the question of why it was included in the New Testament in the first place. I do recommend it if you are interested in a historical overview of the Revelation and what it has meant to different people.

It is also important to note that it was by no means unique to the time period it was written. IIRC, there were several other Revelations and Apocalypses that didn't make it into the NT.

 

[Piscivore]

As a poetic vision I find Revelation enthralling, nightmarish;

I'm far too jaded to find it "nightmarish". Maybe there is something wrong with me. Of course, most poetry doesn't do anything for me.

 

[Hokulele]

I'm far too jaded to find it "nightmarish". Maybe there is something wrong with me. Of course, most poetry doesn't do anything for me.

Are you sure?

And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood;And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

One third of the fish stocks, instantly gone!

 

[Piscivore]

Are you sure?

One third of the fish stocks, instantly gone!

The man said "died", not "rendered inedible".

 

[Hokulele]

If one third of the fishing fleet is destroyed, and the crews of the rest are running around burning and plague-ridden, how exactly are those ex-fish supposed to come to you?

If you have to exercise yourself to get to them, well, I would submit this in the category of "nightmarish vision".

 

[eight bits]

Thank you for the kind words, sleepy lioness.

Hi, Jon

I don't know if that's characteristic of eight bits' long tradition of Jewish apocalyptic writing or not, but that's what I'm seeing.

That was actually sleepy lioness who said that, but I wish I had I think it would be fair to include "reversal of fortune" among Revelation's themes.

For the loser now will be later to win,
For the times they are a' changin'.

Hi, vortigen. The record ought to be clear that you made no presumption, but the question block did. It had no provision for an alternative which we both apparently have some sympathy for to be responsive. Fixed.

In answer to your question about the YouTube link I gave, "that book" was Moby Dick, which I had used as an example just before giving the link. The video is complementary to Craig's Lego link for Revelation. It's funny. And short.

 

[Piscivore]

If one third of the fishing fleet is destroyed, and the crews of the rest are running around burning and plague-ridden, how exactly are those ex-fish supposed to come to you?

If you have to exercise yourself to get to them, well, I would submit this in the category of "nightmarish vision".

You know me too well.

 

[Ethnikos]

Or is it purely symbolic of an on-going, interior reality? A struggle of good vs. evil waged within the soul of every human being?

Probably that.
A synthesis of various apocalyptic expectations in the Jewish world, refined to fit in with Christianity to explain that the empire was carrying out God's will in a certain way but not to get involved in it yourself.

 

[Vortigern99]

Part of the code in which Revelation was written involves Babylon, a city personified as a harlot resting on the heads of a beast with seven heads and ten horns (Rev. 17:3). Just previous to this description, she is said to be "seated on many waters" (Rev. 17:1). A bit after this she is described as follows (Rev. 17:4 - 6):

[snip]

The city that rests on seven hills is, of course, Rome. There are a number of interpretations of who the seven kings + the eighth, the beast[.] One is that the five kings who have fallen are the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. The one who is would be Vespasian. Titus would be the one yet to come, who "must remain only a little while." Titus died after only two years as emperor. The eighth, then, could be Domitian, or it could refer to Nero redivivus, a resurrected Nero.

The author made Revelation cryptic enough to allow for some leeway in its prophecies, a leeway that has been expanded now to cover two millennia .

I've read of "Babylon the Great" being postulated as Jerusalem, as well, for it too sits on seven hills. But Jerusalem was hardly a major political force in the Mediterranean world at that time, the late 1st century CE when John of Patmos was writing. And Rome is just too delicious a solution to dismiss. The Empire was still pagan and persecuting Christians mightily, and so was ripe to receive John's barbs.

I like your attribution of the various emperors as the eight "kings", as well. Vespasian ruled till CE 79, while a consensus of academics seems to agree that Revelation was written around 76.

 

[Ethnikos]

I've read of "Babylon the Great" being postulated as Jerusalem, as well, for it too sits on seven hills.

There are seven hills within old Jerusalem.

Gareb, Goath, Acra, Bezetha, Moriah, Ophel, Zion

 

[godless dave]

I read a book called "Revelation, the history of the world's most dangerous book" and the author went fairly extensively into the history of the thing. The book was mostly about how subsequent societies interpreted the thing...
Anyway, the author made a good case that Revelation was actually not in any way intended to be prophetic. Rather, it was a rant about things going on at the time, in code.

The author was mightily annoyed at the large number of false prophets wandering around, and that Christianity was still so divided, and that so many Christians were straying from the "true" teachings... And so it was one big long rant about how screwed up things were and what was likely to happen as a result.
Nothing more.

My trusty book of New Testament criticism from the 70s said pretty much the same thing.

Unfortunately I lost it long ago* and can't remember the title.




*Actually can't remember if it was given to me or if I found it in my parents' attic.

 

[TimCallahan]

I've read of "Babylon the Great" being postulated as Jerusalem, as well, for it too sits on seven hills. But Jerusalem was hardly a major political force in the Mediterranean world at that time, the late 1st century CE when John of Patmos was writing. And Rome is just too delicious a solution to dismiss. The Empire was still pagan and persecuting Christians mightily, and so was ripe to receive John's barbs.

I like your attribution of the various emperors as the eight "kings", as well. Vespasian ruled till CE 79, while a consensus of academics seems to agree that Revelation was written around 76.

Really? Could you give me a link on that? I've always read that it was likely compiled ca. CE 90. Of course, there may have been multiple authors, i.e. one main author + one ortwo subsidiary authors who added embellishments.

Another way of dealing with the number of emperors listed is to include Galba, Otho and Vitellius, three generals who ruled briefly in succesion CE 68 - 69. Then the eight emperors would be: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius. However, this doesn't fit the prophecy as well.

 

[Vortigern99]

Really? Could you give me a link on that? I've always read that it was likely compiled ca. CE 90. Of course, there may have been multiple authors, i.e. one main author + one ortwo subsidiary authors who added embellishments.

Another way of dealing with the number of emperors listed is to include Galba, Otho and Vitellius, three generals who ruled briefly in succesion CE 68 - 69. Then the eight emperors would be: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius. However, this doesn't fit the prophecy as well.

You're right! It's fun to make factual errors, so that I feel like I've learned something in being corrected.

Supporting your point, the wiki article says:

According to early tradition, this book was composed near the end of Domitian's reign, around the year 95 AD. Others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69 AD, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter.[21] The majority of modern scholars accept one of these two dates, with most accepting the Domitianic one.[22]

21. Kenneth Gentry. Before Jerusalem Fell, ISBN 0-930464-20-6. Powder Springs, Georgia: American Vision, 1989.
22. Robert Mounce. The Book of Revelation, pg. 15-16. Cambridge: Eerdman's. Books.google.com​

The earlier date (68-70 AD) was first proposed in modern times in 1976. (I think I conflated these two dates into "76 AD". ) There doesn't seem to be much substantiation of this claim beyond:

...the seven heads of the "beast" are regarded as the succession of Roman emperors up to the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD,[26] Caligula through Vespasian.

26. Mounce, pg.19-21​

Wiki further reports:

Some interpreters attempt to reconcile the two dates by placing the visions themselves at the earlier date (during the 60s) and the publication of Revelation under Domitian, who reigned in the 90s when Irenaeus says the book was written​