Divine Violence?
I'm nearing the end of Dom Crossan's God and Empire and I'm at that point where he discusses John's great apocalypse. A central theme of this book -- which I'll be writing a broader review of -- concerns the choice we must make between the nonviolent God and the violent God. If we choose the former we will have to deal with some unpleasantness in the last book of the Bible -- as well as some elsewhere.
I choose the nonviolent God, but my instincts want me to hang on to as much of the Bible as possible -- so I'm conflicted here (and elsewhere of course). But consider this statement -- and I welcome your responses:
*****
My basic criticism of the Christian Bible's final and climactic book is this: It is one thing to announce, as in Mark's Little Apocalypse, that there will be a spasmic paroxysm of human violence before the returning Christ. It is another thing to announce, as in John's Great Apocalypse, that there will be a spasmic paroxysm of divine violence by the returning Christ. The First Coming has Jesus on a donkey making a nonviolent demonstration. The Second Coming has Jesus on a war horse leading a violent attack. We Christians still have to choose. (God and Empire, pp. 217-218).
What then is your choice?
Comments
and http://levellers.wordpress.com/2006/08/15/violence-nonviolence-in-revelation-pt-2/
I am not an inerrantist, but I do not think the pacifist Christians of the early church would have canonized Revelation if they understood it in the standard violent reading which has been common since Augustine.
More help on Revelation here:
http://levellers.wordpress.com/2006/08/16/bibliography-on-revelation/
Remember too that Revelation had a difficult time making it into the canon -- so maybe it was an alternative vision that the early church struggled with.
Danny,
I do think there is a choice to be made -- at least in terms of our understanding of God and how we live out God's calling.
But I honestly think Revelation can be interpreted nonviolently--and uses violent imagery to subvert or undermine violence. I'm also surprised that Crossan didn't notice how very anti-imperialistic Revelation is.
I think that Crossan is correct to point out that often each book in this library of documents we call the Bible has its own independent motive. The warring Christ figure in John's great divine cleanup of the world is not the Jesus of Mark. John's Christ is a post-easter creation who embodies hopes of one particular faction of Christianity that is by then facing much greater persecution by the Empire under Nero and doesn't speak for all Christians of all time. This accounts for the difficulty in adding Revelation to the cannon.