Introduction
On Wednesday, 1/31/2007, we visited Evergreen Presbyterian Church. The program was the last in a series of talks on the book of Revelation by Mitzi Minor, a faculty member at Memphis Theological Seminary. I was stunned by some of the statements that I heard in this talk, and have been wanting to express my thoughts about it ever since. I am going to try to get it down before I forget it completely.
I am not upset because Prof. Minor's views on Revelation differ from mine. I recognize that the book of Revelation is a difficult and complex book. There is very little agreement on its meaning among Bible scholars and teachers. There are several major schools of thought on understanding the book, and many variations and shades within those. Personally, I am not sure that there is a totally satisfactory explanation at the moment. What bothers me is that I feel that she came at the book with an agenda, and that agenda colored her interpretation. It seems to me that she was picking and choosing those details in the text that supported her interpretation, and ignoring those that did not. I feel that, when handling a difficult book like this, it is more honest to just admit that we do not understand how how all the parts fit together, than to try to fit it to a preconceived notion.
I have never heard Prof. Minor speak before. I did not hear the earlier lectures in the series, so I do not know what she taught in them.
Note: All biblical quotations are from the English Standard Version (ESV).
The problem: an agenda
Here is the agenda that I feel was driving Prof. Minor's remarks: she is a pacifist. She is a radical pacifist to the extent of saying that God is also a pacifist, and that He cannot do anything that we regard as warlike. Although she never used this phrase, I conclude from the tenor of her remarks that she feels that war and military action are always totally evil, and that Christians should have nothing to do with them. Instead, we are called to exercise our Christianity in a countercultural way by working peacefully for peace and justice. That is doing God's work in this world, going against the powerful, militaristic, and therefore evil establishment.
Now I believe in free thought and free speech, and I believe that Prof. Minor has every right to believe and teach this, and even to use the Scriptures as evidence for her view. But I do not agree with her view, and I especially do not agree with the way that she was using Scripture to support it.
The talk
In this lecture, Prof. Minor focused on some aspects of Revelation 19 and 20. She dealt with the rejoicing over the fall of Babylon, the marriage supper of the Lamb, the rider on the White Horse and the nature of the battle of Armageddon, the nature of the millennium, and the meaning of the saints reigning with Christ. As I recall, she did not deal specifically with the white throne judgment. She also tied it in to modern times by stating how she felt that a certain interpretation of these passages was playing a political role in current events in the middle east. I sensed that her talk evidenced an air of superiority to those "fundamentalists" who dare to believe that Revelation just might have a real historical interpretation.
The marriage supper of the Lamb
I do not remember much of what she said about the early parts of chapter 19. I do remember that she pointed out that the concept of a marriage supper was a symbol of great rejoicing to the common people of that time, since it was one of the few reasons that they had for a party. Therefore, the marriage supper mentioned here is a symbol of the great rejoicing over the defeat of evil and the triumph of God. That could be taken as saying that she does not see the marriage supper of the Lamb as being an actual event, though she did not say one way or the other. She also said that in the Revelation, the bride of Christ represents not the church, but the whole creation restored to its proper relationship with God. That is an interesting thought, to which I am not prepared to say yea or nay.
Christian Zionism
Prof. Minor believes that what she considers the misunderstanding of biblical prophecy drives much of the current middle east policy of the United States. She spoke of Christian Zionism. She may be using this term to speak of all Christians who support the nation of Israel, though the severity of her denunciation of them may imply a restriction to a smaller group.
She appears to be upset with the nation of Israel because they use violence against their enemies. What nation does not, when necessary? In her mind, this translates into a reason for Christians not to support Israel.
The most astounding and offensive thing that she said about Christian Zionists is that their motives for supporting Israel have nothing to do with a real love of Jews. In fact, she said that the Christian Zionists really hate Jews and want to see them all dead and in hell!
I suspect that what Prof. Minor was thinking of was that those Christians who support Israel are usually evangelicals who believe (with St. Paul) that no one, Jew or Gentile, will escape hell without trusting Christ. That, however, is a far cry from wanting anyone to go to hell.
I wonder how many how many Christian supporters of Israel Prof. Minor has ever spoken with. I have never heard any Christian who supports Israel say that they want to see all the Jews dead and in hell. I find that totally offensive, and I think that Prof. Minor should apologize for that statement.
Political implications
Prof. Minor claimed that the "misunderstanding" of the book of Revelation drives the current American policy in the middle east. The unstated implication is that since the interpretation derives from ignorance, the policy must be wrong. Of course, this is fallacious. A conclusion may be true even if the premise and logic used to derive it are faulty.
As to rationale for Christians supporting Israel, other biblical references can be cited.
Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!
The stolen blessing of Isaac to Jacob, Genesis 7:29
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem! "May they be secure who love you!"
Psalm 122:6
For thus said the LORD of hosts, after his glory sent me to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the apple of his eye:
Zechariah 2:8
Israel has problems, as do all nations, but they are the one bastion of democracy and freedom in that troubled area.
God is a pacifist?
One of the most troubling aspects of Prof. Minor's views is that God is a pacifist. In discussing the battle of Armageddon, she questioned whether God had finally "given in" and adopted His enemies' tactics. She also stated that in the book of Revelation, God is always on the side of life and peace, and that his enemies are always on the side of death and war.
Now I do not know which Bible she is reading, for mine does not read that way at all. In the Old Testament, the term translated "salvation" usually means "victory," and usually military victory at that.
Old Testament passages on God's vengeance
These are not nearly all the quotes that could be given.
I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously;
the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea. ...
The LORD is a man of war;
the LORD is his name.
Exodus 15: 1, 3
Vengeance is mine, and recompense,
for the time when their foot shall slip;
for the day of their calamity is at hand,
and their doom comes swiftly.
Deuteronomy 32:35, quoted in Romans 3:6 and Hebrews 10:30-31
God shall arise, his enemies shall be scattered;
and those who hate him shall flee before him!
As smoke is driven away, so you shall drive them away;
as wax melts before fire,
so the wicked shall perish before God!
But the righteous shall be glad;
they shall exult before God;
they shall be jubilant with joy!
Psalm 68:1-3
Let the godly exult in glory;
let them sing for joy on their beds.
Let the high praises of God be in their throats
and two-edged swords in their hands,
to execute vengeance on the nations
and punishments on the peoples,
to bind their kings with chains
and their nobles with fetters of iron,
to execute on them the judgment written!
This is honor for all his godly ones.
Psalm 149:5-9
I know that this is speculative, but to me this suggests the scene in Revelation 19.
New Testament passages on God's vengeance
If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Romans 12:18-21, quoting Deuteronomy 32:35. We are not to take personal vengeance, but God will.
This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering-- since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
2 Thessalonians 1:5-8
For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Hebrews 10:30-31, quoting Deuteronomy 32:35-36
We have not even reached the book of Revelation!
The cardinal passage that militates (word chosen carefully) against this "God is a pacifist" position is this one:
But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world?
Romans 3:5-6
God's judgment in Revelation
It seems scarcely necessary to anyone who has read Revelation to point out the examples of God's judgment in it. The whole book is a book of judgment. There are judgments mentioned on the seven churches if they fall away. Then the whole book takes up the theme of God's judgment on the wicked. The seven seals, the seven trumpets, and the seven bowls all speak of judgment. A few examples will suffice. These are those that show the actions of God and his servants causing death.
The third angel blew his trumpet, and a great star fell from heaven, blazing like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters became wormwood, and many people died from the water, because it had been made bitter.
Revelation 8:10-11
By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed, by the fire and smoke and sulfur coming out of their mouths.
Revelation 9:18
These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. And if anyone would harm them, fire pours from their mouth and consumes their foes. If anyone would harm them, this is how he is doomed to be killed.
Revelation 11:4-5
And at that hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.
Revelation 11:13
So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse's bridle, for 1,600 stadia.
Revelation 14:19-20
After this I looked, and the sanctuary of the tent of witness in heaven was opened, and out of the sanctuary came the seven angels with the seven plagues, clothed in pure, bright linen, with golden sashes around their chests.
Revelation 15:5-6
Note: This passage is interesting because it mentions that the angels who are about to wreak such havoc are clothed in linen. Prof. Minor makes much of the armies from heaven being clothed in white linen in chapter 19, saying that that proves they are on a peaceful, non-violent mission. Not so! I do note that chapter 16, which describes the seven bowl judgments, does not explicitly say that any human is killed by them. The general tenor of them, however, makes that seem unlikely.
Chapters 17 and 18 describe the fall of Babylon. This time, death is explicitly mentioned.
For this reason her plagues will come in a single day,
death and mourning and famine,
and she will be burned up with fire;
for mighty is the Lord God who has judged her.
Revelation 18:8
It is hard to imagine the destruction described in these chapters not causing any human death.
Yes, it is possible to take Babylon symbolically, as not referring to any specific geographical city. Yet the imagery of death and destruction is still there. This is hardly the imagery that would be used in a pacifist setting.
Chapter 19
Now we come to chapter 19, to deal with the issues raised here about the battle of Armageddon.
The name Armageddon
The name Armageddon is mentioned but once in the Bible, in Revelation 16:16. Here is the relevant passage.
The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, to prepare the way for the kings from the east. And I saw, coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs. For they are demonic spirits, performing signs, who go abroad to the kings of the whole world, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty. ("Behold, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake, keeping his garments on, that he may not go about naked and be seen exposed!") And they assembled them at the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
Revelation 16:12-16, emphasis added
Now Prof. Minor maintains that Armageddon is not the name of a real place, therefore there can be no real battle there since it is not a real place. When I challenged this during her talk, Prof. Minor responded only by repeating her assertion, and by saying that "they" made up a name to sound like Megiddo, and put it in the Bible.
I have heard all my life, including from the guides in Israel, that Armageddon comes from Har Megiddo, the Mount of Megiddo. I have stood on Megiddo and looked down into the valley. I know that it is there. I realize that having heard it all my life does not make it so, but I want proof that it is not.
Who is "they?" Who made up the name? And how do we know that there is no such place? Where is the proof, Prof. Minor? Show it to me!
I submit that the Greek form Armageddon is a reasonable rendering of Har Megiddo. The changes are the dropping of the rough breathing, some vowel shifts, and the addition of the final n. Dropping of the initial rough breathing is found in other examples, such as the change from "hallelujah" to "alleluia," and from "Hananiah" to "Ananias." I do not know enough about the language transition to comment definitively on the final n. I can only observe that final s is often added, in the example above and in others like "Elijah" to "Elias," "Hosea" to "Oseas," "Isaiah" to "Esaias", and "Yeshua" to "Jesus." So adding a final sound is not unknown.
Nowhere in the remainder of Revelation does the writer explicitly say anything like "Now I am describing the battle of Armageddon." This being the case, one might say that we need not identify the battle described in chapter 19 with the Armageddon at all. That understanding would render the argument about Armageddon not being a real place meaningless in analyzing the battle of chapter 19. I am not saying that I advocate this line of reasoning, just that it is one that could be followed.
Like so many other understandings in dealing with Biblical prophecy and apocalyptic, this one is obtained by putting pieces together. Chapter 16 says that the kings are being assembled for battle by the influence of demonic spirits. It is possible that this battle refers to the destruction wrought on Babylon by the rulers of the earth in chapters 17 and 18. It is also possible that the destruction of Babylon and the scene in chapter 19 are thought of as multiple aspects of the same battle. But the use of the place name Armageddon suggests that this is not the destruction of Babylon, but another battle that is being prepared. It seems reasonable to conclude, as apparently most do, that the battle in chapter 19 is the same as the one for which the gathering is described in chapter 16.
The description of the battle
Now let us look at the description of the battle itself. Prof. Minor focused on some details that could be taken to support her point of view, while ignoring others that do not. We shall examine the relevant passage, Revelation 19:11-21, verse by verse.
11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
From this description, and that given in verses 12 and 13, almost everyone would agree that this is Jesus Christ. Note what it says about him: he judges and makes war. I suppose one could say that this "makes war" has a different meaning than the way we usually use the term, but the passage offers no clue that this is the case. The burden of proof is on whoever says this.
Note also: he rides the white horse of a conqueror, not the humble donkey of his triumphal entry.
12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself.
Verse 12 does not speak directly to the nature of the battle, but is a fitting description of Our Lord.
13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.
Prof. Minor stresses that the blood mentioned here is Jesus's own blood. It must be so to be consistent with her point of view. This may be the case, but the passage does not say so explicitly. And this goes against the description given in Isaiah 63, parallel to verse 15:
Who is this who comes from Edom,
in crimsoned garments from Bozrah,
he who is splendid in his apparel,
marching in the greatness of his strength?
"It is I, speaking in righteousness,
mighty to save."
Why is your apparel red,
and your garments like his who treads in the winepress?
"I have trodden the winepress alone,
and from the peoples no one was with me;
I trod them in my anger
and trampled them in my wrath;
their lifeblood spattered on my garments,
and stained all my apparel.
For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and my year of redemption had come.
I looked, but there was no one to help;
I was appalled, but there was no one to uphold;
so my own arm brought me salvation,
and my wrath upheld me.
I trampled down the peoples in my anger;
I made them drunk in my wrath,
and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth."
Isaiah 63:1-6
This does not sound like a bloodless battle! And the blood on his clothes is not his own, but that of those he is treading down.
14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses.
Prof. Minor makes a big point of the armies of heaven wearing only linen, and having no armor or weapons. She points out that the linen represents the righteous deeds of the saints, and interprets this to mean that the saints are to fight evil only with non-violent means. She would have the righteous deeds be those done working for peace and justice.
In reply: the text calls these hosts armies, a military term. Second, the text is silent about whether they were wearing armor and bearing weapons. Even if they were wearing only linen, so were the angels who poured out the final bowls of judgment, in 15:5-6. The mission of those angels was anything but non-violent. If we agree that they were wearing no armor, it could be taken to mean that "the battle is the Lord's" and "Vengeance is mine, I will repay."
15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
Prof. Minor makes a big point that this is not a literal sword, but Christ's word. It may not be a literal physical sword, but the metaphor of a sword suggests destruction. The use of this sword of Christ's word is to "strike down" the nations. That does not sound non-violent to me. And ruling them with a rod of iron does not sound pacifist at all.
The image of treading the winepress of the wrath of God ties the scene back to that mentioned in Isaiah 63, again making the blood on his garments that of those that he treads down.
16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
Again, this does not speak directly to our topic, but is a fitting identification of Our Lord.
17-18 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly directly overhead, "Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all men, both free and slave, both small and great."
This is the detail that Prof. Minor ignores. The birds are called to eat the flesh of men. Verse 21 equates these to the slain. How one gets a bloodless non-battle out of this is beyond me.
19-20 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.
Prof. Minor uses this as her great proof that there is no battle: God just captures the beast and the false prophet, throws them alive into hell, and it's all over, with no killing. Sorry, but the next verse confutes that.
21 And the rest were slain by the sword that came from the mouth of him who was sitting on the horse, and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.
What a scene of carnage! "The rest": all the armies following the beast, "were slain." Yes, it is by the word of Christ, but they are slain nonetheless, and devoured by birds. Prof. Minor says that this is OK because it is the judgment of God. Still, Christ kills them all. As Martin Luther put it, "one little word shall fell them." Christ does not use a physical sword because he does not need one. Nor does he call twelve legions of angels. See Isaiah 63.
The only way that I can see to save the pacifist position here is to claim that the whole scene is symbolic, period. But this still leaves problems. If God is such a pacifist, why is the scene described in such violent imagery? And is the coming of Christ only symbolic, not real?
The righteous deeds of the saints are pacifism?
Prof. Minor insists that the righteous deeds of the saints, represented by "fine linen" in Revelation, are deeds of "working for peace and justice." The deeds spoken of could certainly include that, but they could also include other deeds: winning people to Christ, being generous, helping the sick and needy, and in general just treating people right. I submit that they could also include ridding the world of tyrants. The text does not specify the deeds. To limit them to those of a certain kind is reading into the text what is not there.
Rome feared Jesus's pacifism?
Connected with her pacifistic denial of the battle of Armageddon, Prof. Minor claimed that Rome feared and wanted to get rid of Jesus because he was a pacifist! She said that Pilate was willing to release Barabbas instead of Jesus because the Romans understood Barabbas and his ways, and were not afraid of him. He was just like them, so they knew how to deal with him. They could just kill him and that would take care of that. But Rome was afraid of Jesus because he used peaceful means instead of war, and they did not know how to deal with that. They were afraid that his pacifist approach would undermine their whole regime.
Now this is quite speculative. It seems to me like an instance of reading into the text what one wants to find there. It may have been that the Romans did not understand Jesus and feared his methods. That, however, is not what the gospels say. They barely mention the attitude of the Roman government toward Jesus at all. Those individual Romans with whom Jesus dealt, such as the centurion whose servant he healed (Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10), had no problem with him at all.
The impression that one gets from a plain reading of the accounts of the arrest and trial of Jesus in the gospels is that it was the Jewish leaders, not the Romans, who feared what might happen if Jesus continued his ministry. And what they feared was that the people might try to make Jesus a king, rise in armed rebellion against the Romans, and cause the Romans to crush the rebellion with overwhelming force. This would cost the leaders at least their positions of power, and probably their lives.
The accounts of the interaction between Jesus and Pilate indicate that Pilate was not that familiar with Jesus. Far from wanting to get rid of Jesus, Pilate wanted to release him, and tried all kinds of maneuvers to set him free and get out of crucifying him. Here is Mark's account of the offer to release Barabbas.
Now at the feast he used to release for them one prisoner for whom they asked. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he usually did for them. And he answered them, saying, "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?" For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead.
Mark 15:6-11
An honest reading of this account shows that it was the Jewish leaders, not Pilate, who wanted Barabbas released.
The whole argument about the Romans knowing how to deal with Barabbas but not with Jesus falls apart. The Romans did the same thing to Jesus that they were going to do to Barabbas: they killed him.
Chapter 20
The millennium
Prof. Minor summarily dismisses the idea of an actual millennial reign by saying that all numbers in Revelation are symbolic, so it is crazy to insist that this one is literal. I feel that this is a simplistic approach that does not take into account the complex fabric of the book.
Of course the Revelation is full of symbolic numbers. But are there no literal numbers? Certainly there are: the seven churches of Asia were seven literal churches. Whatever one may argue about their symbolic nature, whether they stand for all churches or all of church history, they were seven literal churches. So I do not feel that we can dismiss the possibility of an actual millennium out of hand as Prof. Minor does.
In one of her examples of symbolic numbers, she refers to the seven spirits of God, saying that of course we all know that God has only one Spirit. But not so fast! Some hold that these seven spirits are not a reference to the Holy Spirit, but to the "seven angels that stand before God," as in Revelation 8:2. Even if we grant that the seven spirits refer to the Holy Spirit, still they are symbolic of a reality. So why could not the thousand years be symbolic of a reality, an actual kingdom reign, even if the number one thousand is symbolic and not a literal length of time?
Everyone reigning equally
Prof. Minor deals with Revelation 20:4-6 by claiming that since everyone reigns with Christ (during the thousand year reign in which she does not believe), there is no one to reign over, so everyone is equal. She makes this into a pacifist version of extreme equality.
Again, this is a selective reading of the text. Let us look at what it actually says.
Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
Revelation 20:4-6
This passage speaks of the martyrs reigning with Christ. Other passages might be adduced to speak of others reigning as well, but that is not what this passage says.
The idea that "everybody reigns so there is no one to reign over" is knocked in the head by two passages. Revelation 19:15 speaks of Christ ruling the nations with "a rod of iron." If the only ones there are his saints, all of whom are reigning with him, is it really reasonable that he would rule his co-ruling saints with a rod of iron? I think not. This must refer to others over whom Christ and his saints are ruling.
This is confirmed by the very next passage in chapter 20.
And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Revelation 20:7-10
Again, is it reasonable that Satan is going to deceive Christ's resurrected saints, who have been reigning with Christ, and cause them to rebel against Christ? I think not. There must have been someone else that they were reigning over, whom Satan deceives. Also, the way that God deals with them does not sound pacifistic.
Conclusion
I feel that I have sufficiently demonstrated, through Scripture and reason, that Prof. Minor's handling of the text of Revelation is flawed. One need not reach her conclusions unless one starts with her presuppositions.
Prof. Minor appears to approach interpreting God's actions, as described in this book, with this presupposition: "If I think that something is wrong, then obviously God must think that it is wrong, too."
Sorry, Prof. Minor. God is God, and we are not. We answer to Him. He does not answer to us.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.