Loading...One argument used to support the idea that the controlling image of Christ in the narrative is the lamb who was slain is that this is how he is introduced in his very first appearance in the book. Anything that follows must therefore be read in light of this introductory image. The problem is that this claim is simply not true. Christ first appears not in chapter 5 as the sacrificial lamb but in chapter 1 as “one like a Son of Man,” (1:13) that is, as the cosmic judge of the earth referred to in Daniel 7, who destroys God’s enemies and their rule. In this opening vision Christ is dressed in a white robe and gold sash, just as the mighty angels who will later pour out the bowls of God’s wrath (15:6). But he is far mightier than these earth-destroyers. His hair is white, not to show that he is old and decrepit but to reveal that he is the One who has ruled from eternity past (see Daniel 7:9), the “alpha and the omega” (22:13). Most important, he has a two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. This probably shows that he is the one who speaks the Word of God; but for John the Word of God is not a peaceful, soothing communication to calm the souls of those on earth. It is the Word of Judgment. Later Christ tells the Christians they should repent or “I will make war against them with the sword of my mouth” (2:16), as indeed he does near the end of the book (19:11-16), where we find the book’s final physical description of Christ (19:11-21). This is at the last battle, where Christ comes forth from heaven on a white horse and wages a war of righteous judgment against the armies of the Beast at the battle of Armageddon.
Here Christ is called “The Word of God” and we are told that he is clothed with “a robe dipped in blood” (19:13). He will not be shedding his own blood again, however; he will now make his enemies pay for his earlier sacrifice. Once more, he is said to have a sharp sword coming from his mouth. Now there is no doubt what the sword is for. With it Christ will “strike down the nations” so that he can rule the world with a “rod of iron” (19:15). He proceeds to do so, and the blood of God’s enemies flows.
The Christ of Revelation is not the proponent of non-violent resistance who inspired Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. He is the lamb who has become a lion, set to destroy everyone who is not a slave of God.
It cannot be emphasized enough in this connection – even though it is often simply overlooked – that in chapter 6 it is precisely
Interested in seeing more? The following points are particularly important for understanding Revelation. Why not join the Blog! Click here for membership options
Bart,
I dont believe in all my >50 yrs of being a Christian before I left the church I ever heard
Ananias and Sapphira ever mentioned. It shows a view of a God that appears every
bit as petulant as a few episodes in the OT some Christians like to dismiss as well thats
just the OT…
The story really begins at Acts 4:32 with a few verses of context and then concludes at Acts 5:11.
What is your opinion of this strange disturbing tale? If folks are going to be struck dead for
lying about money most of the world would be gone tomorrow…
TY for your time!
Wow, the point you are making about God’s judgement on the earth in the Revelation is shocking but true. To kill billions of men, women and children in the most cruel manner doesn’t seem like something a loving God would do. Kind of like burning a person for eternity for not accepting the gospel. I believed all of this to be true, I understood the Revelation completely like you thanks to Hal Lindsey’s book in the 70’s. I was a fundamental Pentecostal believer, now I’m a bit crushed by what I’ve learned. So now what do I do? My family are all fundamental Christians. Kind of a tough place to be for someone almost 70 living in the bible belt. Still, better to know the truth I think.
An atheist since the age of 16, I raised my son with no religious training at all, one way or the other.
One day when he was at college, he called me. He said he decided he needed to know something about Christianity, and was going to read the Bible. Cheekily, I told him to read Revelation first. “Oh, yeah, it’s hugely important,” I told him.
Some days later, I got another phone call. My son was whispering into the phone–apparently, he was actually in a lecture class, but had been surreptitiously reading Revelation. “Mom! Jesus is a bastard!” he whispered.
That was the end of that for him.
Oooh, very well played; love it!
Though I have to say, I reached the same conclusion about Jesus from starting with the gospels. I mean, here’s someone who spends his time ranting at his supposed friends for being stupid and unworthy and getting condescending about how he puts up with them anyway, interspersed with cursing a random tree in a fit of temper, being hypocritical enough to accept expensive ointment after telling other people they were supposed to give everything to the poor, and, worst of all, responding to a mother who desperately wanted help for her dying child by refusing and telling her she and her child were dogs. I could never understand why so many people apparently thought I should be this guy’s friend.
dr bart i heard you said quran is perfectly transmitted did you study it for a while or you just read some scholarly articles or ask the quranic scholar himself , which scholar said so? to what extent that its perfectly transmitted ?
I’m taking everyone’s word for it; but I don’t think I said “perfectly” did I? I probably said that all the surviving copies are entirely or almost entirely the same..
i know scholars like haythem sidky and marijn van putten said that quran is absolutely preserved and if theres any scribal mistake its non hereditary unlike bible also quranic scholars like i cited agree there were no interpolation after the officialize codex by the caliph uthman in 650 ad so people can copy it throughout the empire, its really preserved moreover the skeleton letter because quran is like hebrew letter before masoratic text voweling , the difference is masoratic text have interpolation and corrupt while quran not, this said by hythem sidky and marijn van putten, also angelika neuwirth said the manuscript that we have is truly show the genuineness of quran and also quran not just rely by manuscript but by memorization or we can say oral reciting so its really strengthens the preservation of quran because we know quran the only holy book that can be memorized entirely unlike nt that could have scribes mistake that inherited even to our bible today because its not divinely preserved and only know about manuscript copy even though it has previous mistake, what do you think?
My view is that it’s not a competition.
Carl Jung once said, “If the unconscious could see, it would not be unconscious, and we would be completely superfluous.” “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will control your life, and you will call it destiny.”
From my perspective, the book of Revelation is a symbolic book about human inner progress and psychic growth, or the spiritually-symbolically lost son’s awakening to the return to the Father. Chapter 19 as I read this is like a depiction of a spiritualization, a spiritual purification after the partial fall of the Self / Ego (Babylon) outlined in Chapter 18 to raise our consciousness. “The lamb’s marriage has come and his wife has made herself ready” indicates a process (made herself ready), perhaps a new state of consciousness where a union of flesh-oriented and soul-oriented minds, as indicated by Jung above, is possible.
The referenced chapter 19 is in my mind about the prodigal son on his way back through the way of Christ who for our consciousness becomes “the King of the King, and in my mind it is all within us and is not a message of violence.
If you were to recommend one of Bruce Metzger’s books to a student new in the field of TC, which one would you recommend?
If you’re interested in textual criticism strictly speaking (the art and science of reconstructing what the authors of the NT actually wrote given our different manuscript witnesses) then his introduction: The Text of the New Testament.
All the more terrifying about Revelation is how charismatic figures use the imagery to influence their followers’ attitudes and beliefs. When I was a member of Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church in the 70s, I believed the group taught peace. We seldom focused on the darker elements of Revelation (the beliefs, encapsulated in their holy book, Divine Principle, stem from creative interpretations of the Bible).
Moon died in 2012 and the son, Hyung Jin Moon (aka Sean Moon), who he “anointed” prior to his death uses Revelation to justify his group’s militancy and near worship of the Second Amendment. Sean Moon teaches his followers survival skills to prepare for the horrors to come (if not to initiate them) as the group buys up lands as retreats.
The “rod of iron” to them means assault rifles and they even hold them during their marriage ceremonies.
Read incorrectly for guidance, Revelation leads to some frightening scenarios. Your new book is important clarification.
What do you think of Revelation’s Christology? Is it high enough that the Lamb claimed to be the First and Last, Alpha and Omega *a divine title reserve for Yahweh alone in OT*? Or in Rev 5, where the Lamb is given worship/praise by every creature *literally every single creature on heaven, earth and under the earth.* It seems that the Lamb is distinguished/excluded from the created category. If he’s one of them, then he’ll be worshipping himself. This iw what Christian apologist had argue that Revelation have a high view of Christology, probably equal to Yahweh.
Yup, it’s high. The Lamb claims the same titles as God, but is also, obviously not on the same throne but standing beside it.
The Lamb in Revelation is about as docile as the rabbit in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch won’t stop Him!
A bit more, but a nice analogy!
Wow! Never again will I use the rhetorical questions “Is the Pope Catholic?” or “Does a bear poop in the woods?” Replacing them will be “Is the sacrificed lamb of God violent?”
How would you compare the Christology of Revelation with the Gospel of John?
There are clear similarities, especially in the Lamb christology and the exalted view of Christ. I’d say there’s a large difference between the righteous anger John tries to portray in the temple incident, and the painful destruction of the vast majoriy of the human race in Revelation. But yes, definite similarities. The ROLE of Christ is very different though. In John it is all about belieing in him for eternal life that starts now. In Revelation it is about being the slave of God so as not to be destroyed at the end of time.
You mean it gets worse?
Yup…
I could be way off here, but I’m noticing a trend, and I’d love to hear whether or not I’m on the right track:
It seems like there are two Jesuses: the lion and the lamb. I’m not sure which one, based on his teachings, is closer to the historical Jesus, but you probably have a pretty good idea. My observation is this: many religions, particularly Abrahamic ones and those which stemmed from them (Branch Davidians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.) always seem to end up focusing on a sort of vengeful redemption narrative (we’re hurting now, but in the end we’ll live in paradise and they’ll suffer). In my limited experience, it seems so common that it might just be a human reflex.
Would it be fair to say that followers of Christ gradually (or not so gradually), moved in a ‘lion’ direction after his death, contradicting his teachings? Or were his historical teachings actually this contradictory?
Sorry, I’m very new to this subject.
Yup, I’d say that was the clear movement; and I don’t think either is close to the historical JEsus, if by Lamb we mean the lamb who chosee to be sacrificed by others.
Dr. Ehrman,
I’m Anas, a new subscriber coming in from Islamic Studies. I’m doing research on soteriology in the Islamic tradition, and I hope to learn here what ideas in late antiquity (Christian and Jewish) played a role in establishing/articulating its own soteriological claims. I sense many ‘Christian’ texts were circulated early on and transformed into ‘Islamic’ texts and so Islamic texts likely preserve remnants of Christian texts that otherwise extinct. The subject of this post is relevant to my research in that Islam depicts Jesus and ‘the Gospel’ as providing the woof and warp of its doctrine of jihad. The tremendous ability of the early Islamic armies to take down both the Byzantine and Persian empires and replace them with a ‘new order’ meant that Islam’s truth was almost a given in religious polemic. Obviously this is not the time or place to show you everything I’ve come up with, but I’m wondering if any of these motifs/themes show up in known Christian texts:
v. 14: ‘Be helpers of God, like Jesus said to the disciples, ‘Who are God’s helpers?’ Some Israelites believed; others didn’t. God gave them victory (past tense!) over their enemies, and they attained manifest victory.’
I’d say this is roughly the theme of Revelation, yes.
v. 9 ‘God sent His messenger with guidance and true religion so that it will reign supreme, even if infidels detest that.’
v. 4 God loves those who fight in His path, standing in formation like a building firm.
v. 5 Moses said, ‘My people! Why do you hurt me, when you know I’m God’s messenger?’
v. 6 Jesus said, ‘Israelites! I am God’s messenger, I come to give you the good news that a messenger will come after me, who will be named, ‘the praiseworthy one.’ But when clear signs came to them, they said: why, this is sorcery! [I understand that in the Greek rite the idea emerged of the ‘eternal empire’; is there any evidence that non-chalcedonian Christians were expecting someone (not Christ) to give victory to the true faith?
v. 11: salvation requires belief in God and His Messenger, and ‘jihad in the path of God’
The difference in every case is that in the NT destruction comes from God, not from armed believers.
Thanks for answering! Do you mean to say NT explicitly rules out armed believers? Because if not, then the armed believers could still say (as they often did) ‘God was effecting change *through* us: in the Qur’an, these armed believers are told that ‘it was not you who cast (on the day of battle), but God who did so.’ (Mind you: I’m asking an academic question here, not a theological one: I’m not trying to ask ‘So Islam is the real deal, isn’t it?’ 😂 I see you get a lot of questions along these lines, I wanted to clarify that mine aren’t.)
In fact, the main reason I doubt the traditional Muslim reading of the Qur’an to read that Jesus himself was not crucified was precisely that jihad involved an element of sacrifice: in jihad, God ‘purchased from believers their lives and possessions; in exchange they receive paradise. This is God’s promise true, in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an.” I can’t understand what he means by “the Gospel” unless he’s referring to Jesus. I see it personally as an attempt to make use both of traditional Jewish (militant) + later Christian (spiritual) understandings of messiah.
Parts are against it and parts seem to assume it’s OK.
Dr Ehrman, Did you happen to see the New York Times obituary for Madeleine Albright? Apparently, three of her grandparents and twenty + other family members were killed by the Nazis in the holocaust. To avoid further Jewish persecution, her parents went into hiding, AS CATHOLICS! Only years later did she learn of the truth. Your perspective on this would be interesting. Over time many Jews have been brutally murdered rather than renounce their faith, not so in this case, thankfully.
I greatly appreciate your thought provoking work.
Kurt D.
I”m afraid I don’t know anything further about it. But it’s right — even if they were known to be Catholics, they’d have to go in hiding, since those invidious race theroies, for the Nazis, still meant they had to be eliminated as Jews.
Ok, Professor I’m a bit confused now. I reread Daniel 7 from a source that noted the Aramaic translated as “one like a son of man” meant a human. But if I recall correctly somewhere you argued Aramaic speaking Jesus used the phrase to mean an angelic figure (except when using “this son of man” in place of “I”.). Certainly John of Patmos could have read Daniel (in whatever language?) differently than Jesus had heard it read to him; and, no doubt wanted to have Jesus be the violent figure Jesus may never have wanted to be.
It is one “like” a human being, in contrast to the beasts — a favorable comparison. Later in the passage th eone like a son of many is identified as the holy ones, the saints — that is, the people of Israel, to whom rule will be given forever (just as each beast represents a kingdom, so too does the one like a son of man)
Dear professor Ehrman, this question is potentially triggering and kind of personal, but I hope you answer anyway, so I’ll try to be as brief and non-specfic as I can to keep it safe for both me and other potential viewers. The point of the question should still be clear even if I don’t go into much detail. It’s about your position on suffering. You see, I had a 4 years younger sister who committed suicide in 2019 shortly before she turned 25. She shot herself. I won’t go into details about how and why, it could have probably been avoided in theory, had she reached out sooner, but she didn’t, that ship has sailed. Whenever I listen to somebody trying to make a philosophical argument about why suffering is necessary and why its existence doesn’t contradict the existence of a loving, intervening, personal god…somehow, I just can’t bring myself to take it seriously, all I can think about is: “Really? Are you really trying to tell me this makes it fair and warranted and okay?” I feel like my argument is ultimately emotional, though. And I kind of feel like it is so in your case, too. Is it?
I’m so sorry to hear about your sister. That’s the kind of pain that stays forever. For those who have suffered such a horrific loss, it is indeed almost i,possible to talk about the issue of suffering “objectively” without an emotional reaction. I have never experienced that kind of painful reality personally, but I do think this is not an issue that can be addressed without a real sense of what actual, horrible suffering entails. It is a human concern, not a purely philosophical one. All best wishes.
Scholars have noted that imagery in Daniel 7 has striking parallels to the Ugaritic Baal cycle. Why do you think the author of Daniel was able to draw on this old Canaanite religious imagery in the the Hellenistic period?
I don’t think he had read the CAnaanite myths from many centuries earlier. That kind of mythology affecged other mythology that affecged other views that were in the environment, just as modern Christians have been heavily influenced by Plato but have never read a single one of his Dialogues.
Hey Dr. Ehrman. Random question regarding the Greek of 1 Corninthians 11:23: Some scholars believe that when Paul says he “received from the Lord” the teaching of the eucharist, that the directness of “from the Lord” is best interpretted as Paul speaking of a revelation he received. This is a view commonly held by Carrier-school Mythicists, but also by some Historicists (James Tabor, for example). What do you make of the counter-argument that Paul’s use of “apo” instead of “para” (“from”) suggests Paul isn’t talking about a personal revelation but that he views Jesus as the teaching’s ultimate source? I recall from Did Jesus Exist? that your view is that Paul isn’t necessarily talking about a revelation here, but I don’t recall you using the “apo” v. “para” argument. What do you make of that argument? Does it carry any weight against the revelation view?
I’d say that the Greek could be read either way and that it’s less a philological questoin then an interpretive one, based on knowledge of context, paul’s usage of similar formulae, historical situation, and so on. I’d forgotten that Carreir thinks it means Paul heard it directly from Jesus, but of course he would have his own explanation of that, since he doesn’t think there ever *was* a Jesus.
i vote to remove the Book of Revelations from the Bible.
+1 LOL
No wonder Luther found it so unfitting for the gospel of grace yes? Might you someday explore in detail Luthers objections to the book?
I talk about them a bit in my book.
Dear Dr. Ehrman
Granted, this is not specifically about the Lamb of God violence, but it is about verbal violence in the parables of Jesus. In the parable of the sower and the seed, Jesus immediately follows by explaining to his disciples and other followers that he speaks in parables in order that “,,, they may indeed listen, but not perceive; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.” What are we to make of that? Isn’t it a bit cruel?
Likewise, he ends the parable of The Great Dinner with these words, “For I tell you, none of those who were invited will taste my dinner.” Again, isn’t it a bit cruel?
I know other great wisdom teachers often taught in words difficult to understand, but I’m not aware of any who said they did so to hide the truth from some (or to exclude some from happiness). What do you make of all this?
Many thanks,
Phil Kershner
Bart, according to your/mainstream view… Can you give a short list of the EARLIEST gospels/acts/epistles that are not in NT canon?
Thanks
Gospels: Thomas and Peter, both early 2nd c. Acts: most of the apocryphal Acts (Thecla, Paul, Peter, John, James) date to the end of the second or early third century. Epistles — do you maan allegedly by apostles or their companions? I supposed Barnabas, Laodiceans, Epistula Apostolorum, 3 Corinthians. Other earlier letters are 1 Clement, letters of Ignatius, letter of POylcarp.
And in the Methodist tradition we looked at Revelation as a “book of hope”. We didn’t like the “destruction of the world” in a literalist viewpoint prevalent in other protestant denominations.