In my last post, I showed that in Revelation, holding tightly to the “word of God” and the “testimony of Jesus” (or similar phrases) will possibly lead someone to death. This was a reality for John and his readers, one they were encouraged to face with perseverance (see 13:10).
It would be wrong, however, to think of this message as lacking in hope, although it would certainly be hard to stomach. So I want to look at the message of hope given in Revelation, lest anyone think Revelation is all bad news. But let’s heap the grim realities a little higher, first.
Below is a chart showing the connection between faithful testimony/witness and the prospect of facing death because of it. It’s important to know that testimony, witness and their related words come from the same Greek root. So whereas we might not make the connection in English (or if we do, it’s purely thematic), there is a linguistic tie-in for these verses. I’ve underlined the portion about the testimony and italicized the death/persecution references.
Following Jesus, the faithful witness, unto death |
“Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead” (1:5; cf. 3:14) |
“Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city” (2:13) |
“the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained” (6:9) |
“when they (2 witnesses) have finished their testimony, the beast… will attack them… and kill them” (11:7) |
“they triumphed…by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (12:11) |
“the dragon…went off to make war against the rest of her offspring- those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus” (12:17) |
“the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.” (17:6) |
“I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God” (20:4) |
A couple things to notice. One, Jesus is the faithful witness par excellence, who was killed for not turning his back on the truth. And while Antipas is the only other person referred to as a “faithful witness,” the theme is seen clearly in these other references, where people are killed because they will not recant their witness. You can’t get more faithful than being marched to death for what you believe and proclaim.
So, to repeat the point: if you remain faithful to your testimony about Jesus, there is a decent chance you will be killed for it.
But there is a message of hope in Revelation, and it shows up in places other than the final chapters. Notice that Jesus is called the “firstborn from the dead.” That is, he is no longer dead. Jesus wasn’t just the faithful witness who paid the ultimate price for his faithfulness; he is the faithful witness who won the ultimate victory. His resurrection guarantees that death does not have the final say over his life.
Nor does death have the final say over the lives of Jesus’ followers. That is the message of hope. Those who follow Jesus will participate in his victory over death on the last day. All of the persecuted groups in Revelation (the souls under the altar; the 2 witnesses; the 144,000; etc.) await the day of their resurrection and the New Jerusalem.
Part of the goal of Revelation is to encourage its readers to remain faithful witnesses until the end of one’s life. Of course, for John’s original readers and many other believers around the world being a faithful witness might cause that end to come sooner than it otherwise would. But just as death is guaranteed (by one means or another), so is resurrection promised to those who belong to Christ. Yes, the war waged by the dragon and the beast are real and terrible. But it is temporary. Resurrection- life in Christ- is eternal. While Revelation presents a grim picture of the world, underlying the entire message is the hope of Jesus’ faithful witnesses experi
Book Review: The Revelation of Saint John by Ian Boxall
Posted in book review, Revelation, tagged commentaries, Ian Boxall on Saturday, May 16, 2009| 3 Comments »
Special thanks to Kathy of Hendrickson Publishers for a review copy of this book. I should note that paperback volumes of the Black’s series will be released in the relatively near future. I have a hardcover copy.
As for Ian Boxall, a quick Google search lets you know that he’s a young Oxford scholar who has previously published on Revelation (or a personal fitness trainer, but I’m guessing it wasn’t him that wrote this book). It wasn’t until relatively recently when I read a positive review of this commentary that I decided I’d check it out. I’ve searched for a commentary to recommend to students without the requisite Greek knowledge to keep up with Beale and the like. I own Ben Witherington’s commentary, which fits this category, but am not in love with it.
I have a second confession to make. I was an idiot for passing over this a couple years ago. Throughout the commentary I found myself impressed with Boxall’s interpretations (even when I disagreed) and thankful for his, at times unique, insights.
For instance, in the introduction alone I encountered three things I had not fully considered previously. First, is the importance of Revelation as a visionary text. Boxall does not deny “that the Apocalypse is also a carefully crafted document” (p4), but he does suggest that perhaps John’s “conscious intention cannot be the determining factor at every points” (p5). A provocative suggestion, indeed. I actually felt that Boxall could have explored the importance of the visionary experience in more depth. What about the majesty of the throne room vision in chapter 4? How ought this impact the reader? I can’t help but wonder if, in the search for the meaning of little details, we lose sight of the sheer force of the imagery and its intended effect on the reader/listener.
Second, Boxall attempts to illustrate the importance of the John’s location: Patmos. True, most interpreters note the importance of his exile (Bauckham being a notable exception) and the location of his readers, but Boxall is just as concerned with Patmos as the location of that exile. He argues that the visual pagan imagery of Patmos may show up periodically in Revelation (specifically Artemis and Apollo).
Third is the importance of the call not to compromise in Revelation. Boxall doesn’t discount the threat of persecution for John’s readers, but argues that not enough attention has been given to the threat of compromise. I’ve already written about this here, so I won’t go any further down that road.
There are, to be sure, some things I disagreed with here and there. I don’t agree with the contention that the 7 Spirits of 1:4 are angels rather than the Holy Spirit. I’m confused why he thinks this view “may too readily assume a developed trinitarianism” (p31), yet he can frequently refer to the “Eucharistic” setting of Revelation. It seems to me that assuming a Eucharistic liturgy is more anachronistic than a developed trinitarian theology. I’m not at all convinced that the scroll John ingests in chapter 10 is the same scroll from chapter 5. And so on.
I found myself nodding in agreement more often than not. The 144,000 of chapter 7 are not only ethnic Jews, but to be understood by the vision of the multi-ethnic multitude. The angel of chapter 10 is not to be identified with Jesus. The 2 witnesses of chapter 11 are “representative figures of the prophetic ministry of the Church” (p164). Throughout the commentary I was grateful for his demonstation of the importance of Ezekiel for John’s vision, especially in the final two chapters. Boxall even includes a helpful chart on page 255. In fact, Boxall has convinced me of my need to beef up the Ezekiel portion of my library. When you combine this with Beale’s emphasis on Daniel, I begin to wonder how I can understand Revelation without some working knowledge of these two OT books.
(Note: I’m intentionally leaving out reference to his interpretation of the millennium in this review, because in my experience this is the first place students look in determining the worth of a Revelation commentary. Believe it or not, there is more to the book than 20:1-6)
This is one of the better non-technical commentaries on Revelation, alongside Witherington and Keener. For those who have a long interest in Revelation, there is enough insight in here to be of great help- he packs a lot into a short space. For those looking for a reliable guide as they learn the book, Boxall will prove to play the role well. In my opinion, what the church needs in its books on Revelation is clarity, not cleverness. Boxall’s commentary is remarkably clear and penetrating without trying to force anything. And let us remember that there are excellent commentaries out there not written by men with names like Fee, Moo, Carson, Beale etc. I hope to read more of Boxall’s work in the years to come.
Read Full Post »