11:2,3 The precision of numbers here certainly tempts one to figure out exactly what it means. I recall the religion of my upbringing managing to make it all about them and how awesome they were to have the only possible interpretation of anything ever.
11:4-6 Again, far too specific to resist prying just a little. The whole vision has the flavour of a dream that one remembers in vivid detail. Just two nights ago I awoke with the lyrics and melody of an entirely original song still lingering in my mind. What did it mean? And what did it mean that a man named Iain rode toward me on a blue ATV, and wanted to take pictures of me on the beach while I did a headstand? The vibrancy, clarity, and specificity of this dream beg for interpretation . . . as do John's.
11:7-9 And as tempting as it is to leave it there, to assume that John's vision meant no more or less than my own, I can't resist sampling some modern interpretations of it--much as I would if I were reading Blake or Coleridge. No doubt the things these men saw were only preternaturally vivid altered states, and not divinely inspired visions of the future. Still, what if?
A trip down the rabbit hole reveals a lack of scholarly agreement on the topic of the 1260 days, as well as the identities of the two witnesses. Many seem to feel that the latter represents a time of papal rule, starting in the time of Justinian. But though the beginning of such a period can be supported, it seems a stretch to say that the time of papal authority ended, well, ever. Likewise, there is a general consensus that the most likely identities of these witnesses are Moses and Elijah, but such an interpretation seems meaningless. Are those two meant to return in some way, or is this a reflection of past events after all? I even went so far as to choke down the bile and review the propaganda with which I was raised. It remains as I remembered: "We are the two witnesses, cause we are awesome and right about everything."
I am reminded again about my particularly vivid dream from the other night. Taken as a whole, it is all fairly inscrutable. But the individual elements, the source of each of those is readily identified. I did indeed know a fellow named Iain. And the scene of the dream too, although unconnected with that fellow in reality, was also a real place that I remember. In fact, everything in the dream came from my real experience, or something close to it. It is merely the juxtaposition that muddles them. Is it such a stretch to suppose that John, in a dreaming or otherwise altered state, mashed the time period that he likely knew well from Daniel up with other, unrelated but similarly flavoured elements? This is very much how dreams work.
11:13 And John would have also had memories of Earthquakes in Jerusalem during his lifetime (33 AD).
11:15-18 This verse presents problems for all of the literal interpretations of the 1260 days (years, according to Daniel's rules). After the time period in question, the two witnesses are called to heaven and the Messiah takes possession of the "Kingdom of the world". At which point, the wrath of God comes, the time for judging begins, and rewards are doled out to all who fear His name. If this happened at the end of the 1260 days, either in 1798 or at some other time supposed by scholars, it is remarkable that the subsequent events went without notice.
12:5 This is perhaps the most significant event that John has recorded yet. The woman giving birth! Clearly of divine origin, she is an underscrutinized figure. I am reminded of interpretations that this woman (conflated with similar figures elsewhere in the Bible) is actually The Holy Spirit, or the Wisdom of God. The child she bears is irresistibly Christ-like. The problem with all of the interpretations that spring from that is one of timing. Is this divine birth after the second woe or Ch. 11? If so, whom could it possibly be? And what is meant by the period of exile for this woman and her child, also conveniently 1260 days?
A lot of these problems stem from the assumption that John is seeing these events unfold in linear time. Such a viewpoint is not only difficult here, but also in 8:4 and 9:11, to name just a few that have jumped out on this reading. But it is not by any means the only interpretation of time. Boethius, and all who drew from him, work from the assumption that time, when seen from divine eyes, is not linear, but simultaneous. If one adopts such a perspective, a Tralfamadorian reading of The Revelation so to speak, a lot of these difficulties fall away, and it's rather more easy to believe that John was not just dreaming.
12:13-18 Which reinvests the reader in the fate and identity of this woman. Her battles seem to be every bit as relevant as those of her son, even though they be unseen or metaphorical.
13:2 Approaching these visions from a Boethian perspective ertainly opens up some possibilities. The assumption in most exegesis that I have found is that this beast is a different one than Daniel saw in his Ch 7. Surely, since John's vision is taking place centuries after Daniel's, and presumably after the fulfillment of the latter, we are seeing a separate, still future event. But time in visions and in spirit does not necessarily work that way. There is nothing to prevent us from wondering if this beast is the same as Daniel's fourth beast, and whether John's attention wasn't simply grabbed by different details than Daniel was. it's the same instinct that prompts us to wonder whether John's vision in Rev. 4 isn't simply Ezekiel 1 seen from above. The blind men all touch the elephant in differen tplaces. To one, it is much like a wall. To another, like a sword. And to a third, it is a beast with seven heads and ten horns.
13:5-9 And if we take the assumption that this beast is indeed the same as Daniel's, this is a pretty accurate description of what awaited the "saints" after John's death.
13:11-14 But here John is seeing something that Daniel did not seem to. What arose after, propped up, and gave breath to the Roman empire after its nearly mortal blow? Surely the papacy is a strong contender. Strictly speaking from chronology, the Byzantine empire is also a strong candidate.
13:17 Which interpretation would mean that the symbol in question is actually the cross . . . I can't imagine that interpretation getting much traction though.
13:18 The most interesting and underanalyzed aspect of this verse is the fact that the number of the beast is "the number of a person". What could this mean? Is it an ordinal number? The 666th of something? Or some play on words, a person named Sextus or some such? Among Eastern Emperors, there was a VI of Constantine, John, Leo, and Michael. None of them seem to have been particularly significant though. When I get to those rulers in Gibbon's Decline and Fall, maybe more will be clear. At any rate, the mark of the beast is not its number, as is commonly thought. The number is in some way tied to the name.
A lot of people, and most scholars, seem to get tied up in conflating the identity of this beast with the Antichrist, assigning the latter a prominence in the scriptures that is unearned. There is nothing to tie the two entities together, and nothing particularly identifies the Antichrist as a literal figure. Conversely, the Bible has a well-established pattern of using beasts to represent, not individuals, but entire empires. John's two-headed beast, if one is consistent, and the name/number/mark that goes with it, seem unlikely to be that of a single person.
14:1 A prime example of how John's visions operate very much like dreams.
14:4 If these 144,000 are to be taken as a literal group of people, with a literal number, then it seems inconsistent to suppose that they are anything other than literal virgins.
14:6 I had never before stopped to suppose exactly what "midheaven" means, assuming that it just meant "in midair". But the Greek here is literally in the middle of heaven, not air or sky, and occurs only in Revelation. Having no concept of atmosphere, outer space, or anything beyond the literal sky, one must wonder exactly what John saw here. An actual celestial realm, separate from full heaven? What did it look like? How did he know what he was seeing?
14:8 Here is our clearest argument yet for a Boethian approach to this vision (and others?). Babylon the Great has not even been introduced yet, let alone the scene of her demise described.
14:10 This torture by fire and sulphur is used, I would imagine, to support an idea of hellfire. But it is worth noting here that it is "in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb" that it seems to take place--in the same heaven as the rest of the chapter.
14:13 It's been a while since we heard from the Spirit in this book: not since chapter 3, and even then the words of the Spirit were second hand, conveyed by "one like the Son of Man". In that former passage, it would have been easy to interpret it as a metaphorical or impersonal force, perhaps one of the seven that he held in his hand. Here it is definitely given a persona, though, and agency.
14:14 Speaking of whom, here again is "one like a Son of Man". Is it his voice that we heard in the previous verse, and by extension, was he referring to his own words in 2-3?
14:18 It's tempting to take the definite article here as a doorway into some metaphysical explication of the duties of various angels. The idea that there is one angel in charge of fire certainly predicates some very polytheistic questions. But the Greek here has no definite article, even though such is common in Greek--merely a relative pronoun.
15:1 I've lost track. Which scroll, trumpet, and woe are we on? Is this the third woe? All of these marker seem a lot fuzzier than one could be led to believe by reading exegesis of them.
15:5 This is the only mention that I can remember of "The temple of the tent of witness". Traditional interpretation has heaven itself as being the prototypical temple of God, not merely its location. Is this a separate temple? One devoted to a special purpose? If so, for what is it the archetype?
16:1 An argument could be made based on this verse that it is the Most Holy of the tabernacle and subsequently of Solomon's Temple, the resting place of the Ark of the Covenant, and by extension of the Divine presence.
16:4 Is "The angel of the waters" merely the angel who poured the bowl into them, or is it a more managerial position? It would not be the first time that such positions have been hinted at in this book, on both sides of the divine rivalry.
16:7 Which altar? From back in 6:9? Or is this the actual voice of the altar, not merely of those sacrificed on it? What would that even mean?
16:8 All of these plagues so far seem terribly modern. The pollution, disease, rising temperatures, vanishing marine life . . . one prone to apocalyptic thinking might have a lot of fun with these verses.
16:10 But this verse is a little more specific and a lot more obscure. If one sees a nation suddenly plunged into darkness, not only will we have identified the "beast", but also the end chronology.
16:12 After which one would expect China to invade Iraq, I suppose.
16:16 One of my favorite misinterpretations of scripture. Armageddon is not an event; it is a place.
16:19 Referent failure! The last great city mentioned was heavenly Jerusalem. Surely it is not being referred to here. If one acts under the assumption that John meant for his vision to be understood, then his omission of identifying details means he expected his readers to be able to know what he meant by "the great city", arguing for either literal Jerusalem or Rome. But John clearly does not give a withered fig if his audience is as confused as he must be.
16:20 Another very modern, or near future, sign.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment