A Bloody Apocalypse?

In a couple of earlier postings I noted Dom Crossan's charge of militarism against John and his Apocalypse. Michael Westmoreland-White has challenged that reading -- and the reality is, there is more than way of reading this text. With Revelation 19 being the keystone of this debate -- and it must be noted that dispensationalists tend to take this section in militaristic ways -- I thought I'd check Eugene Boring's Interpretation Commentary on Revelation. Boring is a NT professor at Brite Divinity School -- a Disciples related institution.

He notes that many Christians have seen the militaristic imagery found here to be alien to the person of Jesus who is after all the Prince of Peace. Boring points out, however, that the key to understanding this passage is found in Rev. 5:1-14, where "the death by which he conquers is his own, the once-for-all offering of his life on the cross." The conqueror, he says, destroys not by the literal sword, but by the Word. In other words, things are turned upside down. The "triumphant military king" is the one who is crucified, and the blood that is spilt is that of the martyrs not the "enemies. Jesus of Nazareth is "crucified not as preliminary to his victory, but as his victory." (M. Eugene Boring, Revelation: Interpretation, John Knox Press, 1989, pp. 196-197).

There is more than one way to read this text, but the way it is used in some circles makes it problematic at best. All of which makes it understandable that the early church struggled with what to do with it. I do think that whether Crossan is correct or Boring is, it is a part of Scripture that requires a good deal of attention -- and teaching lest people be led astray by the Tim LaHayes and the Hal Lindseys.