The Mysteries Revealed

I should clarify that when I refer to Revelation as the last book, I mean that it is the last of the canonized books of the New Testament. Like the Gospels of John and Thomas, one of which was canonized and the other was not, there was much controversy about Revelation as worthy of inclusion into the accepted Bible. Burton L. Mack notes, "And even after it was blessed for posterity by inclusion in Athanasius’ list of apostolic writings, there were doctors of the church who questioned its authenticity and groused about its theology."

In George M. Lamsa’s New Testament Commentary, he notes, "The book of Revelation appeared late and consequently was rejected by Christians in the East until the fifth century. It was not included in Peshitta or the authorized New Testament text which is still used by the ancient Churches of the East. However, it is included in later Aramaic texts."

Revelation has always appealed to the apocalyptic mind, or those convinced that the future holds a violent upheaval of catastrophic proportions. I thought that since it obviously appealed to the Emperor Constantine when it was accepted and canonized as inspired of God, one would, of necessity, have to conclude that he was an instrument of the Father Confusors and not of Jesus. His overriding purpose was the unification of the empire, and Christianity provided the vehicle.

For right thought, which is necessary to create constructively, it is necessary to rise above relative thought or we then create destructively. My conclusion was that regardless of what intent lay at the root of the orthodox leader’s and the Emperor’s thinking, the book was not inspiration from Universal Being (God) but one that was created for the wrong reasons, delivering a message of fear and which created a destructive process.

This is not an uncommon perspective of those who study the Bible without a fixed conception of it as the totality of inspiration. Burton L. Mack, in his book Who Wrote The New Testament? notes, "Compared with the book of Hebrews, where a similar set of social circumstances prevailed and the attitude of the author was similar with respect to keeping the faith, extending even to an exaggerated fascination with a cosmic image of sacrifice, John’s vision filled the universe with afflictions that no one would be able to survive except those who had ‘washed their robes--in the blood of the lamb’ (Rev. 7:14). And in comparison with Jewish apocalypses of the time, such as 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch, where the overriding mood is one of lament for an unimaginably great social loss, John’s revelation seems to delight in the gruesome for the sake of a personal advantage."

Mack goes on to say, "A search for the source of John’s imagery turns up a veritable hodgepodge of ancient Near Eastern myths. From verse to verse the historian’s mind, in search of parallels, ricochets among myths of creation, sea dragons, holy wars, royal births, Egyptian depictions of the afterlife, Isis of the heavens, Horus and Seth, the divine court, wisdom at the throne of God, the plagues of the exodus, angelic warriors, cosmic conflagrations, and so on. It does not help that, interspersed with the horrific, there are many examples of heightened and holy liturgical language reminiscent of the prayers and psalms of the pious.

After twenty-two chapters of blood-soiled linens, beds, and bodies, the concluding exhortation to the thirsty to ‘take the water of life as a gift’ is not very inviting."

This is a very scholarly work, but also very critical. It is based on the fact that there has been much in the way of revision in the books of both the Old and New Testament. He approaches Revelation much the way I did – with a critical view. He obviously had no more insight into Revelation than I had. In this instance, we have the view of a Bible scholar, but one who rejects the book outright as not belonging in the Bible. Those who accept the idea of Revelation as prophetic of external events would call him a liberal, non-believer.

There was, in my mind, some legitimate reasons for Revelation being written including the necessity for encouragement of churches. There was great persecution to come during the years before the ascendancy of Constantine. While struggling with Revelation, without understanding of its real purpose, I could only see one overriding intent on the part of the writer, and that was to put fear into the hearts of the seven churches and anyone else who read it. Preachers and television evangelists are still getting great mileage out of it. When the end is near, it is a great deal easier to raise money.

I was of the opinion that it was the most "un-Christ-like" book in the New Testament. This was because, like Mack, I saw it as full of Old Testament allegory, fire-breathing beasts and outright threats.

It is replete with the same type of threats that make it reminiscent of various Old Testament prophets who wrote in the apocalyptic style. It even rivals Moses’ last speech in Deuteronomy before turning over the helm of leadership to Joshua. In this instance, Moses delivered the most horrible predictions I have ever read in any book.

I could not see Revelation as originating with Universal Being because to me it bore little resemblance to the teachings of Jesus. It seemed to me that it only served to drag those who might have gained something from reading Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels back to the fierce god of the Jews. To this day, it seems to confuse and perplex most readers, which is what one might expect from the latter day Father Confusors.

I would read it periodically and think, is it any wonder that this book has served to frighten and baffle early Christians and provide fodder for the fear mongers of this century who prey on simple believers, especially on radio and television? I was amazed at how Christian theologians seemed to be just as ignorant of its meaning as their flock. I would lay as many commentaries on Revelation on the table as I could find, and there would be as many interpretations of this book as there were writers commenting.

Roy Gingrich, in his exegesis of Revelation, The Book of Revelation (in outline form), says, "More commentaries have been written on ‘Revelation’ than on any other Bible book. Many commentators are not satisfied until they have tried their hand in writing on ‘Revelation’. Many of these commentaries are fanciful and worthless."