Metaphor Matters: Violence and Ethics in Revelation

Author(s): SUSAN E. HYLEN

Source: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly , October 2011, Vol. 73, No. 4 (October 2011), pp.
777-796
Published by: Catholic Biblical Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43727119

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Catholic Biblical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Catholic Biblical Quarterly

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Metaphor Matters: Violence and
Ethics in Revelation

SUSAN E. HYLEN
Vanderbilt Divinity School
Nashville, TN 37240

The violent imagery of Revelation strikes many interpreters as morally

repulsive. Readers struggle with images like that of Christ appearing with his
armies at the end-time to destroy large portions of humanity. Although there are
popular interpretations of Revelation that embrace this violent imagery (such as
the multimillion-dollar enterprise around the Left Behind series1), most scholarly
interpreters treat the violence of Revelation as a problem to be addressed.
There are two approaches to the issue of the violent imagery, although the
second is far more prevalent among scholars. First, some interpret the imagery of
Revelation as supporting and condoning violence, and reject the book as a result.2
For these interpreters, the imagery represents real violence undertaken by God at
the end-time. The second, more common approach to the violence of Revelation

1 E.g., Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, Left Behind: A Novel of the Earth 5 Last Days
(Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1995). The official Web site, http://www.leftbehind.com, offers a
variety of books and other products.
2 Some interpreters reject (or struggle with) only the violent elements of Revelation; e.g.,
Greg Carey, "Teaching and Preaching the Book of Revelation in the Church," RevExp 98 (2001)
97-98. Others reject the book entirely, e.g., Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? The
Making of the Christian Myth (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995) 195-97; John W. Marshall,
"Collateral Damage: Jesus and Jezebel in the Jewish War," in Violence in the New Testament (ed.
Shelly Matthews and E. Leigh Gibson; New York: Clark, 2005) 35-36; Tina Pippin, Death and
Desire: The Rhetoric of Gender in the Apocalypse of John (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpre-
tation; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992). Outside of NT studies, similar assessments are
made by a number of authors, e.g., Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy and the
Genealogy of Morals (trans. Francis GolfFing; Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1956) 185.

Ill

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 778 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 73,2011

emphasizes the metaphorical nature of this language. The violent images are not
themselves the point of Revelation; they direct the reader to a second layer of
meaning. The interpreter who unpacks the metaphorical meaning of the violent
imagery finds a message that is actually nonviolent.3 This nonviolent meaning can
then be embraced.
Each of these positions has advantages and disadvantages. The first position
takes seriously the consequences of this violent imagery. It reminds the reader of
the purposes for which such imagery is sometimes employed and the human ten-
dency to claim divine sanction for violence against others. If Revelation is used to
support injustice, perhaps it should not be read. Yet opponents rightly argue that
this approach literalizes language that is highly figurative. The failure to recognize
the figurative nature of Revelation leads these interpreters to misunderstand the
book's core message. They mistakenly reject the positive aspects of the book along
with its more troubling imagery.4
The second position responds in an important way to the literary character of
Revelation. These interpreters grapple with the rich figurative language of the
book. They point out, for example, that Christ ultimately conquers with "the sword
. . . coming out of his mouth," suggesting the triumph of God's word rather than
the literal slaughter of God's enemies (19:21).5 This approach is persuasive because
it recognizes that the language of Revelation is not literal, and it accounts for the
violent imagery as a part of the book's rhetoric. Yet those who see actual violence
represented offer an important challenge.6 They underscore the rhetorical effect

3 E.g., David L. Barr, "Doing Violence: Moral Issues in Reading John's Apocalypse," in Read-
ing the Book of Revelation: A Resource for Students (ed. David L. Barr; SBLRBS 44; Atlanta: Soci-
ety of Biblical Literature, 2003) 97-108; idem, "Towards an Ethical Reading of The Apocalypse:
Reflections on John's Use of Power, Violence, and Misogyny," in Society of Biblical Literature
1997 Seminar Papers (SBLSP 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997) 358-73; Brian K. Blount, Revela-
tion: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009) 1-5; William Klassen,
"Vengeance in the Apocalypse of John," CBQ 28 (1966) 300-3 1 1 .
4 E.g., Barr, "Towards an Ethical Reading of The Apocalypse," 358-73; Elisabeth Schüssler
Fiorenza, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998)
217.

5 For this perspective, see, e.g., Barr, "Towards an Ethical Reading of The Apocalypse," 361 ;
Brian K. Blount, Can I Get a Witness? Reading Revelation through African American Culture
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005) 76, 82; Blount, Revelation, 354; M. Eugene Boring,
Revelation (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1989) 196; Loren L. Johns, The Lamb Christology
of the Apocalypse of John: An Investigation into Its Origins and Rhetorical Force (WUNT 2/167;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 184-85; Klassen, "Vengeance," 308; Patricia M. McDonald, "Lion
as Slain Lamb: On Reading Revelation Recursively," Horizons 23 (1996) 29-47, here 42.
6 Although Miroslav Volf ( Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity,
Otherness, and Reconciliation [Nashville: Abingdon, 1996]) does not interpret the violent imagery
literally, he retains the violent content of the imagery and thus makes a similar point: "the attempt
to exonerate the Revelation from the charge of affirming divine violence ... is implausible. The

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIOLENCE AND ETHICS IN REVELATION 779

that the violent metaphors often have, and they raise important questions f
who read metaphorically. Can a nonviolent interpretation neutralize the v
content of a metaphor? How does a violent metaphor become nonviolent
meaning?
Scholars who read metaphorically posit a process of "transformation" o
violent metaphor into something peaceful. Yet their description of this pr
incomplete. Such accounts tend to move quickly to nonviolent meanings o
metaphors, as if this can negate the violent imagery itself. For example, a c
way of interpreting the battle scene of 19: 1 1-21 is that the language draw
image of a cosmic battle, taken from the prophets and ancient Near Eastern
myths. But, because it is a metaphor, the violent content of the battle ima
somehow extracted and replaced with something less offensive. M. Eugene
writes:

[John] uses the ancient form of portraying the ultimate victory of God as wi
great battle in which those who have resisted God are slaughtered. But he f
with new content. This is simply what has happened in the Christian confe
such, that the Christ, the triumphant military king, is Jesus, the crucified
Nazareth, who was crucified not as preliminary to his victory but as his victor

What the battle image conveys is that Christ defeats the powers of evil - n
actual violence but through his death and resurrection. As another example,
Blount writes of Christ the Lamb, "He is a dosage of violence that is not on
titatively reconfigured into a lesser amount, but is also qualitatively transf
into a different substance. In his characterization as slaughtered, nonviol
extracted from violence and then set out as an antidote against it."8 Rich
Hays writes, "[T]he symbolic logic of the work as a whole dismantles the
bolism of violence."9 Yet to my knowledge no one has described this extrac

violence of the divine word is no less lethal than the violence of the literal sword" (p. 296). A
he does not discuss the metaphorical nature of the language, Volf understands the violenc
elation symbolically (p. 299) and also underscores the violent content of the language.
7 Boring, Revelation, 196-97 (italics original); cf. Harry O. Maier, "Coming Out of B
A First- World Reading of Revelation among Immigrants," in From Every People and N
Book of Revelation in Intercultural Perspective (ed. David Rhoads; Minneapolis: Fortr
62-81, here 73.
8 Blount, Can I Get a Witness? 8 1 ; cf. 82. Blount describes the process of this transfor
drawing on Theophus H. Smith's discussion ( Conjuring Culture: Biblical Formations of B
ture [Religion in America; New York: Oxford University Press, 1994] 196-203) of a "hom
cure," although neither author is specific about how such a cure is embodied in Jesus or sp
in the Jesus of Revelation.

9 Richard B. Hays, "Revelation," in idem, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: C
nity, Cross, New Creation. A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San F
HarperSanFrancisco, 1996) 169-85, here 175. For other descriptions of the transformation
imagery, see David L. Barr, "The Apocalypse as a Symbolic Transformation of the World: A

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 780 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 73,2011

dismantling process.10 What is missing is a discussion of the moment at which the

violent metaphor loses its content and becomes something else.
As a contribution to this discussion, in this article I explore in more depth
what metaphors are, how they function, and what they require of the reader. In
doing so, I hope to provide an alternative understanding of how reading metaphor-
ically can provide an ethical option for interpreting Revelation. To preview, I argue
that the violent imagery in Revelation does matter. It shapes the imaginations of
those who enter into John's worldview. For those who seek a nonviolent message,
the image of the conquering Christ remains problematic; however, the conquering
imagery is not all there is to Revelation. John's use of other metaphors disrupts
the logic of the battle metaphor - and in doing so may help the reader to see how
this metaphor is limited. In the end I propose an alternative strategy for reading
Revelation ethically: that of understanding John's language as multiple metaphors
that each contribute something to the reader's understanding of a complex theo-
logical concept.

I. Metaphor and Imagination

In this section I argue that the violent content of Revelation's metaphors is
not magically transmuted into something nonviolent. Instead, interpreters often
ignore the violent content because of the conventional nature of the metaphors
John uses. Nevertheless, even when it is neglected, the violent content shapes the
imagination of the interpreter.
This understanding of Revelation grows out of the recognition of the concep-
tual nature of metaphorical language, an argument that philosophers, linguists, and
cognitive scientists have been making for close to three decades. A metaphor

Analysis," Int 38 (1984) 39-50, here 41; idem, "Towards an Ethical Reading of The Apocalypse,"
361; Richard Bauckham, "The Apocalypse as a Christian War Scroll," in idem, The Climax of
Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: Clark, 1993) 210-237, here 233; Boring,
Revelation, 196; Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, 300-301.
10 I am aware of two articles that address hermeneutics and violent imagery in Revelation.
Ronald L. Farmer ("Undercurrents and Paradoxes: The Apocalypse to John in Process Hermeneu-
tics," in Reading the Booh of Revelation [ed. Barr], 109-18) draws on process philosophy. This dis-
cussion has potential, yet Farmer does not discuss how he knows to identify some images as "basal
lures" and others as "surface lures," or how the interaction between them is defined. Ian Paul ("The
Book of Revelation: Image, Symbol and Metaphor," in Studies in the Book of Revelation [ed. Steve
Moyise; Edinburgh: Clark, 2001] 131-47) draws on Paul Ricoeur 's theory of metaphor, which is a
precursor of conceptual metaphor theory. I find the development of later theorists useful in thinking
through the violent imagery. The best overall treatment of metaphorical imagery in Revelation is
that of Lynn R. Huber, Like a Bride Adorned : Reading Metaphor in John s Apocalypse (Emory
Studies in Early Christianity 12; New York: Clark, 2007). To my knowledge, however, Huber does
not address the ethical implications of her discussion.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIOLENCE AND ETHICS IN REVELATION 78 1

understands one thing in terms of another.11 The metaphor of Christ con

with the sword of his mouth (19:21; cf. 1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:15) may ser
example. This metaphor invites the listener to understand Christ's words as
with which he will conquer his enemies.12 The metaphor asks the hearer o
to see one thing in terms of another: words as swords. In the language of c
metaphor theory, the reader draws on the "source domain" (a sword) to und
the "target domain" (words).
This view of metaphor contrasts with a common view that a metaph
deviant form of language.13 From this perspective, a metaphor is a decora
of saying what could otherwise be expressed more literally. Interpreting a m
involves restating its meaning in propositional language. "For instance, a m
of the 'A is E' form (e.g., Man is a wolf) is nothing but an indirect way of
ing some intended literal meaning 'A is C' (e.g., Man is fierce)."14 Althou
interpreters of Revelation explicitly discuss their understanding of metaph
seem to be operating with this referential view of language. When the me
the metaphor is discovered, the violent aspect of the language can be dis
because it does not contribute anything substantive to the meaning of the
This view of metaphor held sway throughout the modern period, ye
longer seems adequate for a number of reasons. First, it does not account
way people apprehend metaphors without translating them into literal t

1 1 George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of

Press, 1980) 5. My understanding of metaphor draws on conceptual metaphor theory. In a
Lakoff and Johnson, some of the works I find especially useful include Max Black, "Me
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 55 (1954-55) 273-94; Raymond W. Gibbs, The
Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding (Cambridge/New York: Cambri
versity Press, 1994); Mark Johnson, The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning,
tion, and Reason (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); George Lakoff and Mark
More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor (Chicago: University of Chicag
1989); Mark Turner, The Literary Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
12 See, e.g., David E. Aune, Revelation (3 vols.; WBC 52A, 52B, 52C; Dallas: Wor
1998) 3:1067; Boring, Revelation, 195; Blount, Revelation, 354-55. For conceptual bac
see Aune, 3 : 1 060-6 1 .
13 See, e.g., Wallace Martin, "Metaphor," in The New Encyclopedia of Poetry and
(ed. Alex Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 7
English Dictionary (2nd ed.; ed. J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner; Oxford: Clarend
5:898, s.v. "figure"; 9:676, s.v. "metaphor."
14 Gibbs, Poetics of Mind, 212. Gibbs is describing the "substitution view" of metap
a description of other viewpoints, see ibid., chap. 5.
15 Huber ( Like a Bride Adorned, 67, 70) situates this modern tendency in interpreti
lation among broader trends in interpreting figurative language.
16 Gibbs, Poetics of Mind, chap. 3. Gilles Fauconnier, Mark Turner, and Mark Lakoff
discuss contemporary brain research and the apprehension of metaphorical language;
Fauconnier and Mark Turner, The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind s Hi

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 782 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 73,2011

Consider the following statements: "I am spending too much time on my work,"
and "If I cut the second assignment, I will save time on grading." Few readers will
stumble over the use of "spend" and "save" in relation to the concept of time. The
reader easily apprehends the statements because they draw on a conventional
metaphor, time is money.17 The abundant use of conventional metaphors is one
indicator of a deeper human tendency to think metaphorically. As George Lakoff
and Mark Johnson have argued: "Metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just
in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms
of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature."18 Like-
wise, readers of Revelation know to interpret the sword in relation to words
because the image draws on a conventional metaphor, argument is war. Readers
connect the sword with words because it is common to speak about words as
weapons, and arguments as battles.19
Second, when metaphors are translated into propositional terms, some of their
meaning is lost. For example, when the metaphor "Sally is a block of ice" is con-
verted to "Sally is cold" the meaning of the statement remains metaphorical.20
Sally is not literally cold but is metaphorically cold in her affect. The statement
could be further translated into literal terms: for example, "Sally is unfriendly."
Yet some of the cognitive content of the metaphorical expression is lost in this lit-
eral reformulation. "Unfriendly" does not capture the specific style of Sally's
behavior; she might be brusque or rude or distracted. Likewise, the "sword coming
out of his mouth" (Rev 19:21) cannot be translated adequately into literal language.
When interpreters express the meaning of this metaphor, they often say something
like "God conquers by means of a war of words - through persuasion, not coer-
cion."21 This is a good expression of the metaphorical meaning of this verse, yet

plexities (New York: Basic, 2002); George Lakoff, The Political Mind: Why You Can Ì Understand
21st-century Politics with an 18th-Century Brain (London: Penguin, 2009).
17 The use of small capitals is a convention of conceptual metaphor theory that distinguishes
root metaphors from their verbal expressions.
18 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 1. See also chaps. 4 and 6; cf. Lakoff and Turner, More
than Cool Reason , chap. 1 .
19 For a discussion of this conventional metaphor, see Gibbs, Poetics of Mind, 249; Lakoff
and Johnson, Metaphors, 4, 61-66. The sword metaphor is similar to other expressions in Scripture;
see Isa 1 1 :4-5; Wis 5:20; Eph 6: 17. The conceptual approach to metaphor is not necessarily anachro-
nistic in a first-century context. Although Aristotle's view of metaphor has often been understood
as evidence that the ancients understood metaphor as decorative, this position has recently been
reevaluated. See Huber, Like a Bride Adorned, 46-56; James Edwin Mahon, "Getting Your Sources
Right: What Aristotle Didn't Say," in Researching and Applying Metaphor (ed. Lynne Cameron and
Graham Low; Cambridge Applied Linguistics; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press,
1999) 69-80. Huber includes a helpful discussion of Cicero and Quintilian.
20 For this example, see Gibbs, Poetics of Mind, 217-18.
21 Farmer, "Undercurrents and Paradoxes," 115.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIOLENCE AND ETHICS IN REVELATION 783

it is still metaphorical. What it means for God's word to "conquer" is supp

the connection the metaphor creates between the sword and the word of Go
inability to find a literal equivalent suggests that metaphorical language is
than simply decorative. Metaphors have conceptual content that their literal
alent" lacks.22
Third, understanding metaphors conceptually helps to address their eff
the imagination. Metaphors invite the reader into a way of seeing the world.2
a common, conventional metaphor asks the reader or hearer to take an imag
leap, to envision the world in a particular way. Through the conventional me
time is money, we imagine time as a precious and scarce commodity, as som
that, by "saving," we can hoard for our later use.24 Through the metaphor l
journey, we imagine each of our lives as a continuous path with a starting
a destination, and various "turning points" along the way.25 Such metaphor
the way people understand abstract concepts like time and life.
This conceptual aspect of metaphor is relevant to the ethics of reading
elation, because a reader who enters into a metaphorical worldview begins
son according to its terms. Imagine this scenario from an academic confer
presenter emerges from a paper session and says to a colleague, "That second
tioner really shot holes in my argument." The colleague responds, "Yes, I th
her criticisms were right on target. I think you could strengthen your posi
making your method more explicit." The two are reasoning along the lines o
metaphor argument is war. They are strategizing for the next phase in the
The point is that people not only speak as if words are elements of warfar
also reason in these terms: one can win or lose an argument, or fight to a sta
One might experience academic discourse as a conversation or as a coop
effort. When conceived as war, the participants' experience is shaped and
strained by the metaphor.26
In light of my discussion here, what seems dangerous about the metaph
Christ's sword is how it may shape and constrain the imagination.27 This sh

22 Mark Johnson, The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding (C

University of Chicago Press, 2007) 190. For a discussion of the way objectivist views of la
deny the cognitive function of metaphor, see Johnson, Body in the Mind, 66-67. David L. Barr
of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation [Storytellers Bible 1 ; San
CA: Polebridge, 1998] 9) expresses a similar understanding.
23 Gibbs, Poetics of Mind, 207; Mark Johnson, Moral Imagination: Implications of Cog
Science for Ethics (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1993) 1-2; Lakoff and J
Metaphors, 3-5; Lakoff and Turner, More than Cool Reason, 57-59.
24 For a discussion, see Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 7-9.
25 See Lakoff and Turner, More than Cool Reason, 1-5.
26 Gibbs, Poetics of Mind, 7-8; Lakoff, Political Mind; Lakoff and Johnson, Metapho
Lakoff and Turner, More than Cool Reason, 62.
27 Some interpreters imply that violent imagery may incite readers to undertake lite

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 784 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 73,2011

occurs even when the interpreter understands the sword as the nonviolent word of
God. Even so, the metaphor invites the reader to think of Christ's word in terms
of a conquering warrior and to reason in these terms. The moral danger may be
especially strong because Revelation explicitly asks its readers to "conquer" (from
vikcuo;2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5; 12:21; 21:7) just as Christ has conquered (3:21; cf. 5:5;
17:14). The "conquering" of the reader is also metaphorical. Yet, in employing
these metaphors, John invites the reader to imagine the world in a particular way.
He asks the reader to envision spiritual advancement as a battlefield - and to reason
in these terms. According to the logic of the battlefield, "conquering" is something
one does over one's enemies. There must be winners and losers. Winning involves
the subjugation or annihilation of the enemy. If "conquering" is problematic
morally, it is not because it implies any literal violence or incites the reader to carry
out such violence, but because it may motivate and constrain the imagination to
see even God's accounting of justice as a zero-sum game.28

II. Multiple Metaphors

John's use of multiple metaphors is another reason interpreters have argued
that the violent content of the imagery is transformed. The appearance of the Christ
figure in Revelation 5 has been important to the discussion of the moral implica-
tions of the book. The chapter opens with the problem of a scroll that no one has
been found worthy to open (vv. 1-4). One of the elders says to John, "See, the Lion
of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the
scroll and its seven seals" (v. 5). John looks and sees "in the midst of the throne
and the four living creatures and in the midst of the elders a Lamb standing like
one slaughtered" (v. 6). Interpreters who struggle with the violent imagery often

lence. For example, Barr writes, "It is a short step from the literal justification of violence, to the
political justification of violence, to the use of violence against the enemy" ("Doing Violence," 99).
This view makes sense when applied in retrospect to some acts of violence by people who claim a
biblical rationale. Yet to suggest a causal relation between the violence of the text and the violent
act is much more difficult. Most readers who support the same interpretation of the same text never
undertake violent action.
28 For a discussion of the "apocalyptic imaginary," see Catherine Keller, Apocalypse Now and
Then : A Feminist Guide to the End of the World (Boston: Beacon, 1 996) chap. 1 . An example of the
way that the conquering imagery of Revelation takes hold of the imagination is found in books by
Tim LaHaye, the coauthor of the Left Behind series. The series of novels reads Revelation in graph-
ically violent terms, and the approach is reflected in the way LaHaye speaks of the Christian life.
For example, Rapture under Attack: Will Christians Escape the Tribulation? (Sisters, OR: Mult-
nomah, 1998) depicts the argument over the interpretation of Revelation as an "attack" (the chapter
headings reinforce this overall theme). Other examples are found in the titles of some of his earlier
books: The Battle for the Family (Grand Rapids: F. H. Revell, 1 982); The Battle for the Mind (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1980); The Battle for the Public Schools (Grand Rapids: F. H. Revell, 1983). LaHaye
envisions the discussions about these public issues as battles, with clear winners and losers.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIOLENCE AND ETHICS IN REVELATION 785

read the interplay of these images as a transformation of the lion into the non
lamb. In this section I argue that this "transformation" is better understoo
interplay of multiple metaphors, which the reader interprets alongside an a
literary and cultural cues.
Some scholars describe the transformation of the imagery as the repla
of the lion by the lamb. For example, G. B. Caird writes that the title La
meant to control and interpret all the rest of the symbolism. It is almost as
were saying to us at one point after another, 'Wherever the Old Testame
"lion," read "Lamb."'"29 Such a view makes sense from a referential
metaphor. The lion image suggests a fierce killer; the slaughtered lamb, its
site. Presented with this apparent contradiction, some interpreters choos
image over the other. For other interpreters, the lamb does not replace the
does "reinterpret" it.30 In either case, the nonviolent lamb remains the dom
image.
Other interpreters describe a more complex interaction between the two
images, yet without altering the overall understanding of the passage. Richard
Bauckham argues, "By placing the image of the sacrificial victim alongside those
of the military conqueror, John forges a new symbol of conquest by sacrificial
death."31 Or, as Blount writes, "There is every narrative indication that John thinks
the two titles belong together. In the end, neither subverts the other. The lion reveals
a Lamb; the Lamb remains a lion."32 These interpreters recognize the complexity
of John's metaphors and suggest that both images are important to the meaning of
the passage. Yet they end up with a nonviolent interpretation that is similar to that
of their counterparts who simply give preference to the lamb. For Bauckham, Jesus

29 G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine (BNTC; London:
A. & C. Black, 1966) 75; cf. Barr, "Towards an Ethical Reading of The Apocalypse," 361; Boring,
Revelation, 110.
30 E.g., Barr, Tales, 6; James L. Resseguie, Revelation Unsealed: A Narrative Critical
Approach to John s Apocalypse (BIS 32; Leiden: Brill, 1998) 34; cf. Johns, Lamb Christology, 168.
31 Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, 215.
32 Blount, Revelation, 1 1 6. Other interpreters who maintain aspects of both images include
Aune, Revelation, 1:352; Craig R. Koester, Revelation and the End of All Things (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001) 78; Robert H. Mounce, "Worthy Is the Lamb," in Scripture, Tradition, and Inter-
pretation : Essays Presented to Everett E Harrison by His Students and Colleagues in Honor of His
Seventy-fifth Birthday (ed. W. Ward Gasque and William Sanford LaSor; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1978) 60-69, here 68; Steve Moyise, "Does the Lion Lie Down with the Lamb?" in Studies in the
Book of Revelation (ed. Moyise), 181-94, here 189; idem, The Old Testament in the Book of Reve-
lation (JSNTSup 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 132; Mitchell G. Reddish, Reve-
lation (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001) 109-10;
Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World (Proclamation Commentaries; Min-
neapolis: Fortress, 1991) 60; J. P. M. Sweet, Revelation (Westminster Pelican Commentaries;
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979) 125; Ben Witherington III, Revelation (New Cambridge Bible
Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) 120.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 786 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 73,2011

"has won a victory, but by sacrifice, not military conflict."33 For Blount, the result
is also nonviolent, although the victory comes through the faithful witness of the
lamb.34
Conceptual metaphor theory can help explain how each metaphor can con-
tribute to the meaning of the passage at the same time that the nonviolent lamb
seems predominant. From this perspective, each metaphor contributes something
to the understanding of a complex concept.35 Take, for example, the complex con-
cept of time. I have already discussed the conventional metaphor time is money.
Another conventional metaphor is time moves (e.g., "Time flies"; "The days are
surely coming, says the Lord"). This metaphor imagines time as a moving object.
The metaphor of time moving expresses something about the human experience
of time that the money metaphor does not capture. Time is an abstract and complex
idea, and both time is money and time moves express something about the concept
of time.36 As Lakoff and Mark Turner argue, "When we try to conceptualize the
wealth of our experiences of these domains, no single, consistent structuring of
that experience is possible; instead we need to import structure from a wide variety
of source domains if we are to characterize anything approaching the full richness
of the target domains."37 Because of the complexity of a topic such as time, no
single metaphorical expression will suffice.
Like time, Christ is a complex concept. Early Christians struggled to express
who Jesus Christ was. One place John does this is in Revelation 5. Here Christ is
one "worthy to open the scroll" (see vv. 2-5), suggesting that he has an important
purpose or function, and one that is unique, for no others are found worthy. At the
same time, John identifies this one as the lion of Judah, the root of David, and the
lamb standing as slaughtered (vv. 5-6). Each metaphor is distinctive, and with
regard to the question of violence, the images are somewhat contradictory: the
lamb is not an image of a fearsome warrior; the lion cannot conquer if it has been
slaughtered. It is only in applying both images to Christ that the reader comes to
understand that Christ is both slaughtered lamb and conquering lion. The combi-
nation of these metaphors communicates something distinctive about Christ.
Although the images of the lion and the lamb convey aspects of Christ that
are in tension with each other, the combination of metaphors can make sense
because metaphorical mapping is partial, not total. Each metaphor "highlights and

33 Bauckham, Climax of Prophecy, 215.

34 Blount, Revelation, 109, 116-18; cf. Barr, "Doing Violence," 107.
35 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 52-55; Lakoff and Turner, More than Cool Reason, 2, 52.
Elsewhere I discuss interpreting multiple metaphors with regard to John 6; see Susan Hylen, Allusion
and Meaning in John 6 (BZNW 137; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2005).
36 For a discussion of these and other conventional metaphors about time, see Lakoff and
Johnson, Metaphors, 7-9, 41-45; Lakoff and Turner, More than Cool Reason, 34-49.
37 Lakoff and Turner, More than Cool Reason, 52.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIOLENCE AND ETHICS IN REVELATION 787

hides" different aspects of a complex concept like Christ.38 The image

slaughtered lamb highlights the death of Christ, and perhaps his weakness
nerability. If readers view only this image, they would not grasp this Christ
umphant warrior king. These aspects are hidden. In fact, the metaphor hide
other things that might be said of Christ, for example, his relationship to t
Spirit, or his role as a teacher or healer. The lion and root metaphors highlig
hide other attributes of Christ.
Readers find a coherent message among these metaphors by interpreting
within the constraints of a literary and cultural context. Although the text
does not dictate its interpretation, the common assumption that Revelation
be understood as a product of the first century shapes the possibilities for
pretation.39 Many of the metaphors John uses were already conventional
culture. The lion is frequently an image of OT rulers, suggesting strength an
itary victory.40 The lamb is a metaphor for Jesus (John 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32
1 :9; cf. 1 Cor 5:7), although it has a number of possible source domains.41 P
most important, "conquering" (vucáo)) is also a conventional metaphor. For
ple, 4 Maccabees speaks of reason "conquering" emotions (e.g., 4 Mac
13 :7), often in quite militaristic terms (e.g., 7:3), although the heroes of th
never wield literal weapons.42 The notion of metaphorical "conquering" is r
also in other early Christian understandings of the death of Jesus. For exam
1 Cor 1 :23-24, Paul speaks of Christ both as crucified and as "the power o
(Geou ôúva|!iv).43 This familiar pattern of reversal forms a cultural backdrop
which interpreters make sense of the lion and lamb metaphors.

38 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, 10-13; Lakoff and Turner, More than Cool Reason
39 The notion that metaphors do not have a literal referent suggests that meaning is const
in a cultural and rhetorical context. In another context, the language of Revelation 5 could
a different meaning. Imagine a champion boxer nicknamed "The Lion," who suffers a hu
and unexpected defeat. If a sports commentator later quips "the conquering lion is a slau
lamb," the juxtaposition of imagery would have a different meaning. On the cultural cons
of metaphorical meaning, see Johnson, Body in the Mind.
40 E.g., Gen 49:9; Num 24:9; Deut 33:20, 23; 2 Sam 1:23; 1 Kgs 10:19-20. Once a lion
acterizes Israel as a whole (Num 23:24). For the lion as a metaphor for the Messiah, se
1 1 :36-46; 12:3 1-34. For a discussion, see Aune, Revelation, 1 :350; J. Massyngberde Ford
tion: Introduction, Translation, and Commentry (AB 38; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 197
41 See Aune, Revelation, 1:372-73; Johns, Lamb Christology, chaps. 3-5; Russell S. Mo
One upon the Throne and the Lamb: A Tradition Historical/Theological Analysis of Revel
(Studies in Biblical Literature 1 10; New York: Peter Lang, 2007) 150-60.
42 There are many examples in ancient literature of conquering (vikcud) being used meta
ically. In the NT, see Matt 12:20; John 16:33; Rom 8:37; 12:21b; 1 Cor 15:54; 1 John 2
5:4. Outside of the NT, see, e.g., 1 Clem. 18.4; 2 Clem. 16.2; Diogn. 5.10; 7.7; Epictetus
1.18.21-22; Herm. Mand. 12.2.5; 12.5.2; Ign. Pol. 3.1; Josephus AJ. 1.19.7 §302; Philo J
Plato Symp. 213E.
43 Although the notion of "conquering" is not always present, the pattern of reversa

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 788 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 73,2011

The literary context also prepares the reader to understand these metaphors
in particular ways. In the edicts to the seven churches, conquering language appears
frequently, and often in parallel with other phrases that may shed light on its
metaphorical content. Conquering is akin to patient endurance (2:3, 19; cf. 3:10),
repentance (2:5, 16; 3:3, 19), being faithful unto death (2:10), holding fast to what
you have (2:25; 3:11), and remembering what you have heard (3:3). Thus "con-
quering" appears to be a metaphor for a being a faithful witness, or aligning one's
own will with God's. Christ is also understood as one who has "conquered" (3:21).
In this way, John prepares the reader to understand "conquering" as something
other than a literal reference to military victory.
Informed by this literary and cultural context, interpretations display a general
agreement regarding what each metaphor contributes to the overall meaning of the
passage. Within this agreement, there is room for some variety. For some inter-
preters, the lion redefines the lamb's death as "conquering."44 For others, the lamb
defines the way in which the lion's conquering takes place. As Blount puts it, "The
slaughtered Lamb is how the lion manifests itself in the world."45 Yet, even con-
sidering the difficulty in identifying a single source domain for each metaphor, the
variety in these interpretations is limited. No one argues that the lion defines how
the lamb manifests itself in the world. To do so would be to suggest, for example,
that the imagery of Revelation 5 presents Christ as a "wolf in sheep's clothing."
Christ appears to John as a passive lamb, yet his inner nature has already been
revealed as that of a ravenous lion. The lamb image is a disguise by which the lion
lures his unsuspecting prey into his lair. Given the later violent acts of the Christ
figure in Revelation 19, such an understanding is not entirely implausible.46 To
read Revelation 5 in this way, however, would be to take the "conquering" literally.
Based on the literary and cultural cues, most commentators read "conquering" as
a metaphor 47

death of Christ is familiar elsewhere in the NT, e.g., Mark 10:43-45; Acts 3:13; Gal 3:13-14; 1 Pet
2:7. Cf. the description in John of Jesus' death as "exaltation" (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34). The notion
of Jesus' death as a reversal forms a natural backdrop against which many readers understand the
language of Revelation 5.
44 E.g., Resseguie, Revelation Unsealed, 34.
45 Blount, Revelation, 117.
46 Moyise ("Does the Lion Lie Down?" 1 90-9 1 ) argues for a similar interpretation of Reve-
lation. Although it is certainly possible, the alternatives he identifies are better, not because they are
"Christian" (p. 191) but because they read the literary and cultural cues that suggest that "conquer-
ing" is metaphorical.
47 The notion of conceptual blending is another way to understand how the overall message
draws from each image, rather than one canceling the other out. The conceptual blending of the
imagery creates a "central inference" - in this case, that "Jesus conquered through suffering and
weakness rather than by might" (Barr, "Apocalypse as a Symbolic Transformation," 41). But this
central inference is not available from the lamb image alone. From the lamb image we understand
only that the slaughtered lamb is nonetheless standing, but not that this represents "conquering."

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIOLENCE AND ETHICS IN REVELATION 789

Yet to say that the lamb's conquering is metaphorical is not to say th

nonviolent. Understood as multiple metaphors, the images of lion, root, an
do not cancel each other out. Each contributes to the overall meaning. Be
these metaphors are necessary to portray Christ in this complex way, th
cannot simply negate the violent part and still say that the lamb has "conq
The "conquering" of the lamb - even of a nonviolent lamb - rests to som
on the logic of lionlike conquering. The lamb does not magically transfor
lion into something nonviolent.
From the standpoint of an interpreter concerned about the ethics of th
lence, the tension created by the images may be important. Taken on its ow
the logic of one metaphor interferes with the logic of the other. The lamb
is described as "conquering." And the lion's "conquering" is that of th
standing as slaughtered. The lamb does not mute the violent imagery. Th
position of multiple images, however, may bring the logic of violence into
or even reverse normal expectations of what conquering looks like.

III. Metaphors in Conflict

Read as conceptual metaphors, the violent imagery of Revelation will

away. It shapes the reader's imagination of the end-time. Yet by offering
metaphors, John gives the reader multiple ways of contemplating the en
Exploring the tensions among the metaphors is a resource for thinking e
about the language of Revelation. Here I provide an example of these tens
the climactic final scenes of chaps. 19-22.
Many interpreters understand these chapters as a seamless whole. One
way of reading them is to interpret the images as a chronological prediction
future. In this reading, the violent imagery is left unchecked, leaving many
preters with the ethical problem with which I began this essay. This read
creates problems in the logical sequence of events. For example, the enem
God are destroyed in the first battle, and the birds of the air devour the
(19:21). Then they are destroyed again in 20:9, consumed by a fire from h
Finally, they are brought up from the dead to be destroyed again in the lak
(20: 15). Readers may supply an explanation to overcome these tensions. For
ple, some argue that not all the enemies are destroyed in the first battle; othe
gest that the birds devour Christ's earthly enemies while the cosmic enem
consumed with fire. These details are not explained in the text but are ways
fill in the gaps.

The understanding that the lamb has "conquered" comes from the blended image of the
the lamb. For a discussion of conceptual blends, see Turner, Literary Mind, chap. 5. More
Fauconnier and Turner (Way We Think, chap. 2) discuss metaphor as a subcategory of
thought process of conceptual blending.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 790 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 73,2011

If the images are read as multiple metaphors, the reader leaves the gaps in
place. Boring offers an alternative way of understanding these chapters, as "a tour
through an eschatological art gallery."48 Each metaphor is a different picture in the
gallery, and each contributes something to the overall vision John presents of "what
must happen soon" (1:1; 22:6; cf. 1:19). I find Boring's own metaphor useful
because it helps the interpreter conceptualize what it means to read these chapters
as multiple metaphors. The images need not be taken in chronological sequence
as a literal prediction of the future; they exist alongside one another in a thematic
portrayal of the end-time. The interpreter's task is not to unify the images but to
explore what each one communicates about the subject matter.
Read in this way, the introductory words of each scene, "and I saw" (19:11,
17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11; 21:1), narrate the sequence of John's vision rather than pre-
dicting the sequence of future events. In John's "gallery," there are two different
battle images that depict the defeat of the enemy or the destruction of evil (19:11-
2 1 ; 20:7- 1 5). But other images are there as well: the binding of Satan for one thou-
sand years (20:1-3), a limitation, not a destruction of evil; the resurrection of the
faithful, who reign with Christ (20:4-6); the marriage of the bride and the Lamb,
which is at the same time the descent of the New Jerusalem from heaven (21:1-
27); the river of the water of life with the tree of life on either side (22: 1-3). When
the images are read as multiple metaphors, each is a distinctive way of thinking
about "what must happen soon."49 There are, of course, multiple ways to interpret
these images and to read them in relation to one another. Yet seeing them as mul-
tiple metaphors contributing to one complex concept offers an alternative way of
reading this climactic section of Revelation.
If John's language is viewed as multiple metaphors, the tensions of the
imagery do not go away; however, they may become ethically productive. By way
of illustration, I offer an interpretation of two images and the tensions they produce:
the first battle image (19:11-21) and the image of the holy city (21:1 -27). My intent
is not to render a complete interpretation of these passages but to demonstrate some
of the potential in interpreting them metaphorically.
The kings of the earth are destroyed in the first battle scene. They are intro-
duced along with the beast (19: 19) and are thereby aligned with the forces of evil
against Christ. The beast is thrown into the lake of fire, and "the rest were killed

48 Boring, Revelation, 195; cf. 198. 1 agree with Boring's characterization of these scenes in
this way, although he goes on to say that the theme of the gallery is "God's victory at the end of his-
tory," which seems to prioritize the "conquering" images over the others. (It may also be an uncon-
scious use of "victory" as a conventional metaphor.)
49 In this sense my reading is aligned with Boring's; he sees these images as "more synchronic
than diachronic" (M. Eugene Boring, "Revelation 19-21 : End without Closure," PSB Supplementary
Issue 3 [1994] 57-84, here 66). Cf. David L. Ban, "Waiting for the End That Never Comes: The
Narrative Logic of John's Story," in Studies in the Book of Revelation (ed. Moyise), 101-12.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIOLENCE AND ETHICS IN REVELATION 79 1

by the sword of the rider of the white horse, the one coming out of his mou
all the birds of the air devoured their flesh" (19:21). In the logic of the battle
the "kings of the earth" evoke the breadth of resistance against Christ, an
resistance is utterly destroyed. The feasting of the birds evokes the apocal
feast of the birds and wild animals of Ezek 39:4, 17-20, suggesting the finali
God's restoration of justice.50
Although the language of Revelation 19 implies the utter annihilation of
kings of the earth, the imagery of the holy city contradicts this notion. The
of the earth" reappear in the New Jerusalem, "bringing their glory into her" (2
Along with the city metaphor, this makes perfect sense. The metaphor dr
the image from Isaiah in which God's faithfulness to Israel is depicted as the
lishment of the holy city, including the tribute brought by foreign natio
60:10-11). The logic of the city metaphor requires that the kings of the eart
not simply alive at this point but possess their own glory. In addition, they
appear to be enemies of God but willingly add their glory to the holy city.
In each metaphor - the battle and the city - the kings of the earth do no
strange or surprising. Yet the juxtaposition of these images disrupts the lo
each metaphor. Because the kings of the earth have largely been portrayed
tively in Revelation (for example, as those who fornicate with the whore [
18:9]), their "glory" may appear questionable. At the same time, their appe
in the New Jerusalem disrupts the logic of the battle metaphor, which record
ultimate destruction of these kings. Thus, although violent imagery does con
to the overall picture of the day of the Lord, the tensions in the images su
that God's ultimate destruction of evil can be only a partial way of understa
this complex idea.
There is an element of coherence in the battle and city metaphors, bec
the city God establishes is fortresslike. Its walls are unbelievably large in e
dimension (21:12, 16-17). This is the city of a conqueror. Yet there is still disr
of the battle logic here, for the gates of the city are always open (2 1 :25).5 1 It
possible that God can afford to leave the gates open, having just annihilated
enemy. John subsequently indicates, however, that outside of the gates "ar
dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyon
loves and practices falsehood" (22:15). Many readers fill this gap by locating
lake of fire outside the city.52 In doing so, they connect 22: 15 with the list o
doers in 21:8, whose "place is in the lake burning with fire and sulfur." This
gests a more cohesive picture in which everything that is evil has been destr

50 Other language of Ezekiel 39 also lends a sense of finality, esp. w. 22, 29.
5 1 Boring, "Revelation 1 9-2 1 ," 77.
52 E.g., G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC;
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 1 142; Stephen D. Moore, "The Beatific Vision as a Posing Exhibitio
elation's Hypermasculine Deity," JSNT 60 (1995) 27-55, here 43; Sweet, Revelation, 317.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 792 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 73,2011

Yet it is also possible to leave the gap. The image that 22:14-15 creates is one of
entry into the city: those who "wash their robes" may enter, while others are simply
described as "outside" (ëÇo)). The lake of fire is not in view. Evildoers are not inside
the city, but they apparently still exist.
Read as a series of metaphors, John's vision of the end-time retains its violent
imagery. Yet the tensions between the images may serve as a reminder that the lan-
guage is metaphorical, and thus partial. The "day of the Lord" is a complex concept
that can be understood only metaphorically. It is, on the one hand, the rectification
of evil, as God overturns powers that have been violently opposed to God. But, if
the language is metaphorical, it is also not that.53 Other images may help the reader
to remember that the "day of the Lord" involves recreation (2 1 : 1 ). It is the restora-
tion of Jerusalem in all its splendor (21:11-21). It provides for "the healing of the
nations" (22:2). Rather than privileging one metaphor over others, the reader may
understand each metaphor as a contribution to an abstract and complex concept.

IV. The Ethics of Multiple Metaphors

Understanding John's language as multiple metaphors may contribute to an

ethical reading of the text by heightening awareness that multiple interpretations
are possible. When interpreters suggest an overarching meaning for John's
metaphors, they make choices about how the images relate to one another and
which should take priority. The interpretation of any text involves such choices.
Yet the interplay of metaphors in Revelation may create an opportunity for readers
to become aware of themselves making choices that are often hidden from view.
As Daniel Patte notes, the ability to conceive of "a plurality of legitimate (critical)
readings"54 may be a key to an ethical reading of the text from a contemporary
academic perspective. The recognition that there is not a single, universal inter-
pretation makes room for meaningful engagement with interpreters from different
contexts and perspectives. Such awareness may contribute to an ethical reading of
the text by encouraging what Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza has called an "ethics
of accountability."55 Interpreters who are aware that more than one interpretation
is possible may be more likely to give an account of why their interpretation is
ethical. Doing so requires the interpreter to reflect on her own political and social

53 On the "is" and "is not" of metaphor, see Paul Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-
disciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaning in Language (trans. Robert Czerny with Kathleen
McLaughlin and John Costello; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977) 249, 255.
54 Daniel Patte, Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Réévaluation (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1995) 7, 27-29.
55 Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, "The Ethics of Biblical Interpretation," ./5Z, 107 (1988)
3-17, here 15.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIOLENCE AND ETHICS IN REVELATION 793

context and to relate the interpretation to the context in a meaningful way.

such an account also brings greater awareness that in other contexts different
pretations may be ethical.
The difficulty of resolving multiple metaphors into one meaning reinfo
the notion that the text has many meanings, and that different interpretatio
speak ethically to different situations. Emphasizing the nonviolent nature of
vision may provide a helpful corrective in a situation where some are using r
to sanction violence. Yet to suggest that John's vision is only nonviolent m
too far and may be unproductive ethically. The violent metaphors of Reve
have been part of what has allowed the text to continue to speak in meani
ways in situations of oppression.56 The potential for John's metaphors to
ethically in different ways may remind interpreters to contextualize and ac
for their own claims.
Interpreting Revelation as multiple metaphors may be useful in contex
which ethical action demands recognition of the moral complexity of the sit
Allan Aubrey Boesak's approval of the death of "the tyrants who with imm
able arrogance dare to challenge the Kyrios "57 makes sense in the con
apartheid South Africa in the 1980s. Yet in many situations in our modern
the identification of who is with or against God is more difficult. The decis
cast one side of a conflict as deserving of God's judgment can even be a con
ing factor in a decision to undertake violence. For example, in the wake of
the U.S. pursuit of a war against the "axis of evil" cast the complex world s
in binary terms and led to a war in Iraq that cost many lives and that later a
unjustifiable. In a situation such as this, reading Revelation simply as God's
triumph over evil could reinforce the problems leading to unethical action.
In complex moral situations, reading the language of Revelation as mu
metaphors may provide resources for cultivating moral decision making. F
John's language provides a window into a rich theological tradition that ca
brought to bear on a variety of situations. Understanding Revelation's langu
multiple metaphors involves ascribing a different rhetorical function to t
guage: John is not advocating or describing ultimate violence but is giving
reader ways of understanding a complex concept, the eschaton. In this light
tiple metaphors may give readers a way of exploring ethical tensions in their
standing and experience of the divine. Interpreters have noted that John see
aware of the inability of human language fully to express who God is. For ex

56 See esp. Brian K. Blount, "The Witness of Active Resistance: The Ethics of Revelat
African American Perspective," in From Every People and Nation (ed. Rhoads), 28-46
Aubrey Boesak, Comfort and Protest : Reflections on the Apocalypse of John of Patmos (P
phia: Westminster, 1987); Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, chap. 7.
57 Boesak, Comfort and Protest, 124.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 794 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 73,2011

the repeated use of the words "as" and "like" (cbc; and ö[ioio(;, e.g., 1:12-16) indi-
cates the difficulty John has describing his vision in a straightforward way.58 He
is also reluctant to name God directly, but instead speaks of "the one seated on the
throne" (e.g., 4:9, 10; 5:1, 7). Actions are not attributed directly to God but are
expressed with the passive voice (e.g., 6:2, 4, 8)59 or by additional circumlocutions:
"I heard what seemed to be a voice in the midst of the four living creatures
saying . . ." (6:6). Likewise, speaking metaphorically allows John to give voice to
attributes of God without seeming to define God rigidly.
The use of multiple metaphors may serve a similar purpose, allowing John
to give voice to somewhat contradictory aspects of God's nature. The metaphor of
Christ's battle against his enemies speaks to God's judgment against oppression
and injustice. The metaphor of the city of God with its gates open suggests that
salvation is not foreclosed and thus points to the love and forgiveness of God.
Much of Christian tradition holds that both of the notions are true: God will judge
the unjust; God is merciful. Instead of viewing the language of Revelation as
resolving the tension between the two statements in favor of one or the other, I
suggest that the tension should remain as part of the meaning created by the use
of multiple metaphors.
This understanding of the rhetorical function of the language may change the
way the reader understands Revelation in relation to ethics. Viewed in this way,
the metaphors of Revelation 19 and 21 do not give information about the end-time
but communicate something of the nature of God, a nature that pervades past and
present as well as the future. Although modern readers may try to solve the appar-
ent tension between God's righteous judgment and God's mercy, John's language
does not clearly do so. The question, How will God triumph over evil without lim-
iting God's forgiving nature? is not one John appears to ask. Instead, he envisions
an end in which both precepts remain true without dissolving the tension between
them. The vision gives a theologically rich starting point from which readers may
come to understand themselves in relation to God and the world. If the metaphor-
ical worldview John creates invites the reader to enter into John's worldview and
reason according to its terms (as I argued above), then it seems ethically important
that there are multiple systems of logic represented, none of which dominates the
book as a whole. The ethical application of Revelation, then, cannot simply involve
the application of norms but requires substantial discernment.
Thus, reading Revelation's language as multiple metaphors may be ethically
productive because it asks the reader to be aware of the complex interplay of values
and norms, not simply to choose between two options, violence and nonviolence.
The interpreter's job is to understand the larger values or norms that are in play -

58 The language also reflects the wording of Ezekiel's throne vision (Ezekiel 1 LXX).
59 Aune, Revelation, 2:394-95.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIOLENCE AND ETHICS IN REVELATION 795

and often in tension. Inculcating the ability to recognize the tension ma

mary point of such an interpretation. In the context I mentioned above
response to terrorism, the reappearance of the kings of the earth in t
Jerusalem calls into question whether this group can be understood on
epitome of evil. Reading tension between the metaphors of the final bat
holy city suggests that neither the evil nature of the kings nor Go
response is absolute. In the U.S. context, such an interpretation might b
to argue against the use of binary terms to define the world situation. T
assumes that ethical action will not involve the application of predeterm
or values but will require discernment and the ability to recognize the c
of a situation in relation to the values involved.
A second ethical resource from this perspective is that John's language may
function as a mirror of the interpreter's embeddedness in violent systems. For those
of us who interpret from positions of relative power and wealth, understanding
one's own position in relation to violence is essential for an ethical approach to
Scripture. The U.S. government perpetrates violence every day on behalf of its cit-
izens. From my perspective as one of these citizens, to speak to others about the
ethics of violent action or to criticize another's violent interpretation of Revelation
requires a strong self-awareness of the systems of violence in which I participate
and from which I benefit. Even if I advocate nonviolence and work to end violence,
I do not do so from a morally pure position. Recognizing my own complicity in
violence seems an important step toward moral accountability.
Becoming aware of the conventional metaphors John uses may help readers
to be more self-conscious about the way their own language participates in con-
ventions of violence. As I argued above, John employs the conventional metaphor
argument is war to create new meaning regarding the day of the Lord. Interpreting
the violent metaphors requires readers to imagine the day of the Lord as a triumph
of God over enemies. The familiarity of the metaphor can mask its violent content.
Many of the commentators who insist that John's message is really one of non-
violence go on to sum up their understanding of Revelation with phrases that repro-
duce conventional metaphors of the battlefield: "God's word overcomes evil";60
"evil is conquered by the death of the Lamb";61 "Christ has conquered the powers
of evil through his faithful witness."62 Our search for a moral vision in Revelation
may be one that eschews violence, but we often miss the ways our imaginations
are fundamentally already shaped by the logic of the battlefield. We think in terms
of victories and conquering.

60 McDonald, "Lion as Slain Lamb," 46.

61 Barr, "Apocalypse as a Symbolic Transformation," 50.
62 Johns, Lamb Christology, 175.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 796 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 73,2011

In John's vision we never escape these violent metaphors. John is as embed-

ded in them as we are. Yet exploring the conventional nature of John's metaphors
may serve as a reminder that modern interpreters do not have the moral high
ground, looking down upon John, who witlessly reinscribes the violence of Rome.
All of us speak from within the limits of human language and culture. John's vision
does not remove him from such constraints, and neither does our own ethical
vision. Revelation does not provide the reader with a purely nonviolent message.
Yet it may still offer opportunities for reflection and honest self-critique that are a
key to the interpreter's ethical appropriation of the text. Recognition of the ways
that violent imagery is embedded in the ways we speak and think may be a step
toward an honest appraisal of our own motives and context.

This content downloaded from

134.226.14.55 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:02:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms