The Biblical book of Revelation, sometimes called The Apocalypse of John, is, at best, a difficult book to read. It is full of symbols, codes, strange language, and a variety of strange angelic and demonic images that may supposed to be read literally or may be supposed to be read symbolically. Not to mention seven headed dragons, the number 666, four horsemen, two witnesses, and one John of Patmos who saw the vision while in the Spirit.
It is not an easy read. Nor is there one way to read this book, which makes it all the more confusing: pinning down the meaning of Revelation is not easy at all.
When it comes to reading commentaries on the Book of Revelation, given the nature of the subject matter itself, there is no end to the interpretive meanings offered. Some are quite good while others are very, very bad. Often what takes place is an attempt to explain the theology of Revelation in relation to other New Testament works, such as the Gospel and letters of John (as they seem to share some language, theology, and ideologies). But that means that an understanding of Revelation is dependent on understanding other parts of the New Testament.
That may be the case, but when one reads Revelation, one finds that it stands out as being remarkably different from anything else in the New Testament. There are some parallels such as Mark 13, but the larger parallels are found in the book of Daniel, Ezekiel, and passages from Zechariah. This has to do with the nature of the Apocalyptic style of writing (and yes, it is a style of writing not just a one-time event found in the last book of the New Testament).
There are some great books out there on apocalyptic literature.
And then there is the one I want to mention here.
The Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation by Bruce J. Malina and John Pilch.
This is one of the most profoundly different takes on the Book of Revelation I have ever read. It seeks, primarily, to understand the book of Revelation from the standpoint of John of Patmos - not as a New Testament theologian, but as a seer: someone who is transported (either by meditation or by supernatural powers as is the case in Revelation) to another plane of existence.
John is one who professes faith in Jesus, but is proclaiming this narrative as one who has traveled into the heavens (or simply the sky) and seen things from a heavenly vantage point. So far, I would imagine, most readers would be on board.
However, what Malina and Pilch do is to take seriously the idea of an astral seer and the difficult but likely obvious work of interpreting the work of John through the lens of a 1st century astrologer. This completely transforms how one would read Revelation - not so much as a prophetic musing, but as a charted, plotted revelation that may not have as much bearing on the future as it does a recollection of past events as seen from the point of view of the heavens.
What this point of view also creates is the possibility that John was not speaking about Rome (a very common interpretation) at all. As these authors point out, there “are no clear, unambiguous, or direct references in the work to Rome or to Roman emperors. While this is the favorite historical reference for most modern scholars, there is really no proof for this tenuous hypothesis aside from gratuitous insistence.”[1]
Further, it is true that “Rome is identified with Babylon
in a number of Israelite writings from the period (4 Ezra, Apocalypse of Baruch, Sibylline Oracles 5), as it is in 1
Pet. 5:13, but the reference is solely to Rome as a place of exile, without any
hostile or pejorative overtones. In
Israelite tradition, however, the first city of humankind, Babel (in Greek, Babylon), suffers a very different
fortune. It serves very well as prototype
of any and all ancient cities.”[2]
What they will argue is that perhaps what John is describing is not the pending fall of Rome or Jerusalem, but in fact is describing the destruction of Babel from Genesis 11.
I am not going to articulate the nuances or utilize the maps, charts, and arguments that they make. I will say that this is not a fly-by-night book or theory. This is a well researched, well documented work that proceeds to look at the book of Revelation from a point of view that we in this 21st Century would not consider because it is (a) so rooted in the 1st Century that we have lost the very idea of it and (b) it sounds almost as alien as the book of Revelation itself.
This is not a condemnation. It is a fascinating read that brings in an understanding of astrology, astral seers and visions that I have only found in brief passing in other commentaries. It is an eye opener of a book and makes some of the more esoteric aspects of Revelation perhaps just a bit more clear.
The Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation
Bruce Malina and John Pilch
Minneapolis: Fortress Press
2000
ISBN - 10:0800632273
300 pages
2000
ISBN - 10:0800632273
300 pages
