The book of Revelation depicts Jesus with a sword issuing from his mouth. What does this mean? And what should we make of the other paradoxical symbols in Revelation?
Revelation contains many symbols. Some of them are easy to understand, some are hard, and some are just paradoxical.
Ironically, the paradoxical ones can be particularly easy to figure out.
Here’s what you should know . . .
1. What Is a Paradoxical Symbol?
A paradoxical symbol, as I am using the term, is one in which Revelation symbolizes something in a surprising at–at first glance–contradictory way. It involves a reversal of expectations.
These symbols often involve two statements, the first of which sets up certain expectations on the part of the reader and the second which reverses these expectations.
You can see them as a pair of two, seemingly contrary symbols that must be understood together to have a true picture of what is meant.
The best way to explain this is by looking at examples . . .
2. The Lion That Is a Lamb
In Revelation 5, one of the twenty-four elders in heaven comes to John, who is weeping because no one can open the scroll that reveals God’s will. The elder says:
“Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals” [Rev. 5:5].
This draws on symbolism from the book of Genesis where Israel’s son Judah is described as a “young lion” (Genesis 49:9).
The added specification of “the Root of David” makes it clear that the elder is referring to Jesus, the Messiah, who was both from the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David.
We are told that the lion “has conquered,” enabling him to open the scroll.
Based on what John has been told, he (and the reader) could expect him to turn and see Jesus depicted in the form of a lion, a violent, deadly beast who “has conquered”—possibly with bloody claws and fangs.
But when he turns, John sees something very different:
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth [Rev. 5:6].
Instead of a conquering lion, John sees a lamb that is “standing, as though it had been slain.”
It is not a powerful, ravening predator with dripping claws and fangs but a weak, vulnerable prey animal that has been mortally wounded.
And yet it stands. This represents Jesus’ resurrection (the Lamb stands) in spite of the fact that he was crucified (“had been slain”).
Here we have a paradox–a juxtaposition of two seemingly contradictory symbols:
The Lion: The dangerous predator that conquers (overcomes its prey)
The Lamb: The vulnerable prey that is slain (overcome by its conquerors)
To fully understand this symbolism, we have to embrace both images.
It is true that Jesus is a Lion from the tribe of Judah. He has conquered.
But the way he has done these things is surprising and involves a reversal of expectations: He has conquered by assuming a position of vulnerability, by serving as the Lamb, and being slain–and raised again to stand despite this.
This is not the only symbol in Revelation of this type.
In a previous post, we looked at a common answer to the problem of evil–that God allows sin and the suffering it causes to exist because the only way to eliminate them would be to eliminate free will.
Without free will, according to this view, something important would be lost.
If we didn’t freely choose good–to freely love God and love our fellow human beings–then these actions would lose something very important.
It would be like being “loved” by a robot–a being programmed to do nothing else.
The Love of the Saints
What about the saints in heaven? They don’t sin. Does that make their love less valuable?
The Romans destroyed Jerusalem’s temple in A.D. 70. Does the fact the gospels predict this mean they were written after A.D. 70?
One of the reasons that people often date the gospels after A.D. 70 is that they contain predictions of the destruction of the Jewish temple, which happened in that year.
Jesus couldn’t have predicted that event in advance, it is supposed. Therefore, the gospels had to be written after the event.
Really?
Would it surprise you to learn that Jesus wasn’t the only person to predict the fall of Jerusalem and the temple before it happened?
Or that we know this apart from the Bible?
I find your lack of faith disturbing
First things first: Jesus is God. He knows the future.
If he chooses to disclose to man part of what he sees, that’s well within his ability.
The idea that Jesus couldn’t predict the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, or any other future event displays a lack of faith.
That is to be expected from people who don’t profess to have faith, but it is not expected from professedly Christian biblical scholars.
Why invent a postdiction?
There’s also a question of why the evangelists would make up a postdiction (a “prophecy” given after the fact).
Sure, if they wanted to paint Jesus as a prophet, making up predictions known to be fulfilled by subsequent developments would be one way to do that.
Writing after A.D. 70, they could know all about the fall of Jerusalem and–to make Jesus look like a far-seeing prophet–they could come up with a postdiction and put it on his lips.
But if that were what they were doing, they would have done it differently.
Not enough detail
One characteristic of postdictions is that they tend to be specific about the details. After all, if you’re making up a prophecy, the more it detail it contains about what happened, the more impressive it will be.
And so when we find people in history making up prophecies after the fact, they tend to be very detailed.
But Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are not detailed. They’re quite general.
No “and he was right!”
Then there’s the fact that none of the New Testament authors–including the evangelists–speak of the event as a past fact.
In particular, they never add–after recording the prophecy–the note that it it was fulfilled. They never say, “and he was right!” or “and it came to pass, just as Jesus foretold.”
This is significant because it is precisely the kind of thing that would have been said. The evangelists love to record the fulfillment of prophecy.
Matthew, in particular, makes repeated references to how events in Jesus’ life fulfilled various Old Testament prophecies. And in Acts, Luke gives an example of a contemporary prophecy that was fulfilled:
And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world; and this took place in the days of Claudius [Acts 11:28].
If the evangelists were writing in A.D. 80 or 90 (or any time after A.D. 70), they would have little reason to try to make their documents appear a handful of years older than they were.
The “I told you so” value of recording the prophecy’s fulfillment would have outweighed any slight benefit that might arise from making it look like your gospel was written in A.D. 60 rather than A.D. 80.
He wasn’t the only one
But the fact is that one could predict what would happen before A.D. 70, and we know that someone else did predict it.
What’s more, we are not dependent on the Bible for that knowledge.
It’s found in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus (himself writing about A.D. 75-80) described several portents of the destruction of Jerusalem, including this one:
But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, he began on a sudden to cry aloud,
“A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house [i.e., the temple], a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!”
This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city [Jewish War 6:5:3].
Josephus says this occurred “four years before the war began.” The war began in A.D. 66, so this would have been A.D. 62, “at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity.”
So what happened with Jesus ben Ananus (also called Jesus ben Ananias)?
Trouble with the law
Ben Ananus basically ticked off the local leadership, including the Roman governor, and suffering ensued:
However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before.
Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!”
And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.
Amazing stick-to-it-ive-ness
Ben Ananus displayed amazing determination in driving home his message:
Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!”
Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come.
The end of ben Ananus
Eventually, ben Ananus stopped prophesying doom to Jerusalem and its temple. Joseph records the circumstances, which are tragic, touching, and funny.
This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force,
“Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!”
And just as he added at the last, “Woe, woe to myself also!” there came a stone out of one of the [Roman siege] engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages, he gave up the ghost.
There is, of course, a remaining question . . .
How did ben Ananus know?
There are a number of possibilities.
Maybe he was a nut who made a lucky guess four years before the war.
Maybe was a shrewd observer of the political scene and knew that the pent up Jewish resentment of Roman rule was likely to burst forth under zealot and sicarii agitation–and that the Romans would inevitably crush the rebellion.
Maybe God gave him a private revelation.
Maybe–like Agabus (mentioned above)–he was a Christian prophet of the New Testament period.
Maybe he was a Christian–or even just somebody who heard about Jesus of Nazareth–and knew of Jesus of Nazareth’s prophecy.
Whatever the case, whether you have a faith or non-faith perspective, it was entirely possible for someone before A.D. 70 to predict the fall of Jerusalem.
Therefore, it was possible for Jesus of Nazareth to do this.
Therefore, there is no reason to date the gospels to A.D. 70 or after simply because they contain such a prediction.
In fact, the absence of a “and it was fulfilled, just as Jesus said” points to them being written before A.D. 70.
Does this map of the seven churches of Asia contain a hidden map of Church history?Tuesday’s liturgy contains a reading from the message to the Church at Sardis, from the book of Revelation.
Revelation contains seven messages written to “the seven churches, which are in Asia.”
Some Christians, particularly in the Protestant world, think that these seven messages contain a map of Church history, from the first century until the end times.
Are they right?
About the Seven Churches
The names of some of the seven churches to which John writes are familiar to us. The very first of the seven–Ephesus–is already familiar as the place to which St. Paul wrote the letter to the Ephesians, for example.
Others are less familiar, but they were all located in a particular part of what is now Turkey, in the Roman province of Asia Minor.
We know that there were more than seven churches in Asia Minor at the time. Another one was the church at Colossae, to which St. Paul addressed the letter to the Colossians.
The number of the beast is 666, but what is the number of Jesus?
We’ve all heard that, in the book of Revelation, the number of the Beast is 666.
Whatever does this mean?
And if the Beast has a number, do others?
Does the name of Jesus have a number?
Does the name of God have a number?
Here’s the story. . . .
Modern Numbers
Today we are used to having a different set of characters to represent letters and numbers.
Our alphabet of letters runs from A to Z, and our system of numbers–or basic numbers–runs from 0 to 9.
But in the ancient world they didn’t have two sets of characters for these. Instead, the letters of their alphabets doubled as characters representing numbers.
Latin Numbers
That’s why, for example, Roman numerals are composed of letters.
In Latin, some of the letters did double duty as numbers, so I meant 1, V meant 5, X meant 10, L meant 50, C meant 100, D meant 500, and M meant 1,000.
To get other numbers you had to combine these in various ways, like using II for 2, III for 3, and IV for 4.
What about the number of the Beast and the number of Jesus?
The Virgin of Guadalupe displays the sun, moon, and stars symbolism of the Woman of Revelation 12
The book of Revelation contains a passage in which St. John sees a great sign in the sky. He wrote:
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
She brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne [Rev. 12:1, 5].
Who is this mysterious Woman clothed in the sun?
In the following video–and the accompanying audio (see the bottom of the post)–we explore that question and look at different theories that have been proposed.
In particular, we look at the view advanced by Pope Benedict XVI, both in his personal writing and in his teaching as pope.
The answer may surprise you!
Is She the Virgin Mary?
Note that the Woman gives birth to a male child who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron. That’s a reference to the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 2, where we read:
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
You shall break them with a rod of iron [Ps. 2:8-9].
Jesus fulfilled this Messianic prophecy.
The fact that the male child is caught up to the throne of God is a reference to Jesus’ Ascension into heaven, so we have another confirmation that the male child is Jesus.
And since the Woman who gives birth to him is his Mother, we could infer that the Woman here is Jesus’ mother, the Virgin Mary.
But there is more to the story.
Is She Israel . . . or the Church?
The symbolism connected with the Woman is drawn from the book of Genesis, where the patriarch Joseph has a dream involving the sun, the moon, and the stars.
Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, “Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”
But when he told it to his father and to his brothers, his father rebuked him, and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow ourselves to the ground before you?” [Gen. 37:9-10].
The symbolism of the sun, moon, and twelve stars comes from Genesis, where it refers to the family of Jacob and the twelve patriarchs, who headed the twelve tribes of Israel.
That has led some to say that the Woman in Revelation 12 is Israel.
You could go further and note that the Church is the spiritual Israel. So some have suggested that the Woman as the Church.
Figuring out Which View is True
Which view is true?
Is the Woman Mary?
Is the Woman Israel?
Is the Woman the Church?
You could try to solve this problem by making some of the symbols primary and some secondary.
For example, you could make the Woman’s role as the mother of Jesus primary, so she’s his literal mother, Mary, and the sun, moon, and stars imagery only means that Mary was a Jewish woman.
Or you could make the sun, moon, and stars imagery primary and say that she’s Israel, and the fact that Mary was the particular Jewish woman who gave birth to Jesus is secondary.
Either/Or Vs. Both/And
We don’t have to make that choice, because if you study the way symbolism is used in the book of Revelation, it often uses a single symbol points to more than one thing.
For example, Revelation 17 tells us what the seven heads of the beast represents:
This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the [Whore of Babylon] is seated; they are also seven kings (Rev. 17:9-10).
If the seven heads can be seven mountains and seven kings then the Woman clothed with the sun might be the Virgin Mary and Israel and the Church.
Pope Benedict’s View
That’s what Pope Benedict suggests. In his book Jesus of Nazareth, volume 2, he writes:
When the Book of Revelation speaks of the great sign of a Woman appearing in heaven, she is understood to represent all Israel, indeed, the whole Church. . . .
On the basis of the “corporate personality” model—in keeping with biblical thought—the early Church had no difficulty recognizing in the Woman, on the one hand, Mary herself and, on the other hand, transcending time, the Church, bride and mother, in which the mystery of Mary spreads out into history [Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth 2:222].
On another occasion, Pope Benedict said:
This Woman represents Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, but at the same time she also represents the whole Church, the People of God of all times, the Church which in all ages, with great suffering, brings forth Christ ever anew [General Audience, Aug. 23, 2006].
As Pope Benedict shows us, we don’t have to make a forced choice between the possible meanings of what the Woman represents.
In keeping with the richness of the way Revelation uses symbolism, to use Pope Benedict’s phrases, she can be Mary and “all Israel” and “the whole Church” in different ways.
Learning More
If you’d like to learn more about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation, I’d like to invite you to join my Secret Information Club at www.SecretInfoClub.com.
The very first thing you’ll get is a free “interview” with Pope Benedict where I composed the questions and took the answers from his writings.
He has lots of interesting things to say!
You’ll also get lots of additional information on fascinating topics, absolutely FREE, so you should join now using this handy form:
As someone who came to the Catholic faith from Evangelicalism, one of the doctrines that I had to deal with was purgatory.
Upon starting work as an apologist, I had to dig even deeper into the subject, and I discovered that over the course of time it has been understood in different ways.
One of my early helps in understanding the doctrine was the thought of St. Catherine of Genoa, whose thought on the subject as presented in the Treatise on Purgatory and the Dialogues Between the Body and the Soul have proved increasingly influential over time. In particular, elements of it have played a role in the thought of Joseph Ratzinger (back before he was pope) and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I was therefore delighted when I read Pope Benedict’s general audience on St. Catherine of Genoa, in which he touches on her contribution to this subject.
He begins by noting that, although she did have a profound mystical experience connected with her conversion, she did not have revelations about the souls in purgatory. He states:
It is important to note that Catherine, in her mystical experience, never received specific revelations on purgatory or on the souls being purified there. Yet, in the writings inspired by our Saint, purgatory is a central element and the description of it has characteristics that were original in her time [General Audience, Jan. 12, 2011].
One of the original things about St. Catherine’s thought on purgatory concerned the way it tended to be envisioned as a place:
The first original passage concerns the “place” of the purification of souls. In her day it was depicted mainly using images linked to space: a certain space was conceived of in which purgatory was supposed to be located.
Catherine, however, did not see purgatory as a scene in the bowels of the earth: for her it is not an exterior but rather an interior fire. This is purgatory: an inner fire.
She also understood the fire of purgatory differently than some other:
The Saint speaks of the Soul’s journey of purification on the way to full communion with God, starting from her own experience of profound sorrow for the sins committed, in comparison with God’s infinite love (cf. Vita Mirabile, 171v).
We heard of the moment of conversion when Catherine suddenly became aware of God’s goodness, of the infinite distance of her own life from this goodness and of a burning fire within her. And this is the fire that purifies, the interior fire of purgatory. Here too is an original feature in comparison with the thought of her time.
Furthermore:
In fact, she does not start with the afterlife in order to recount the torments of purgatory — as was the custom in her time and perhaps still is today — and then to point out the way to purification or conversion. Rather our Saint begins with the inner experience of her own life on the way to Eternity.
“The soul”, Catherine says, “presents itself to God still bound to the desires and suffering that derive from sin and this makes it impossible for it to enjoy the beatific vision of God”. Catherine asserts that God is so pure and holy that a soul stained by sin cannot be in the presence of the divine majesty (cf. Vita Mirabile, 177r).
Pope Benedict then makes an observation that goes straight to the heart:
We too feel how distant we are, how full we are of so many things that we cannot see God. The soul is aware of the immense love and perfect justice of God and consequently suffers for having failed to respond in a correct and perfect way to this love; and love for God itself becomes a flame, love itself cleanses it from the residue of sin.
Pope Benedict has more to say about St. Catherine’s teaching on purgatory, and on her life in general, but I’ll let you read that for yourself.
In summary, he says:
With her life St Catherine teaches us that the more we love God and enter into intimacy with him in prayer the more he makes himself known to us, setting our hearts on fire with his love.
I’ve been working on a special mailing for the Secret Information Club where I “interview” John Paul II on the subject of purgatory. In the interview, I pose questions, and the answers are taken from his writing. Current Secret Club members will get it automatically.
Purgatory is a controversial subject that Catholics are often attacked over, so if you’d like to receive the special interview with John Paul II on purgatory, just sign up for the Secret Information Club by the end of Friday, June 29th, and you’ll have it in your inbox on Saturday morning.
There is a common argument used against the idea of purgatory in some circles which goes like this: “St. Paul says that ‘to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord’ (2 Cor. 5:8). It’s that simple: If you’re a Christian and you aren’t in your body then you are with Jesus in heaven. There is no room for purgatory in St. Paul’s view. Purgatory is just a Catholic fable–a ‘man made tradition.'”
Is this true?
It turns out that if you examine what St. Paul really said, the whole argument is based on a misquotation. St. Paul said nothing of the kind.
Furthermore, if you look elsewhere in St. Paul’s writings–to the very same church he was addressing in his “absent from the body” passage–you find strong evidence for purgatory.
Far from being a Catholic fable, purgatory is rooted in the thought of the Apostle Paul himself–as I show in the following video.
I’ve also been working on a special mailing for the Secret Information Club where I “interview” John Paul II on the subject of purgatory. In the interview, I pose questions, and the answers are taken from his writing. Current Secret Club members will get it automatically.
Purgatory is a controversial subject that Catholics are often attacked over, so if you’d like to receive the special interview with John Paul II on purgatory, just sign up for the Secret Information Club by Friday, June 29th, and you’ll have it in your inbox on Saturday morning.
There is more evidence regarding who the Beast of Revelation is than I could fit in the first video I did on the subject, so in this video I pick up where I left off and reveal new and surprising facts–things most people have never heard of–that point to who the Beast is.
I’m preparing a Secret Information Club communique in which I “interview” Pope Benedict about the Book of Revelation.
If you’d like to know what Pope Benedict says about Revelation, you should sign up by Friday, May 25, and you’ll get the special interview on Saturday morning.
One of the most sinister figures in the Bible is the so-called “Beast” from the Book of Revelation. Portrayed as a frightening monster and identified with the ominous number 666, the Beast has been the subject of an enormous amount of discussion down through the centuries.
Countless individuals, both past and future, have been proposed as the true identity of the Beast, but what does the evidence from the Bible say?
In this video, I take a calm, balanced look at the evidence from the perspective of the original Christians reading the book of Revelation in the first century and suggest that the evidence points to an individual that many will find very surprising, especially if they view the book of Revelation as applying almost exclusively to the future.
Here’s the video!
By the way, I’m preparing a Secret Information Club communique in which I “interview” Pope Benedict about the Book of Revelation.
If you’d like to know what Pope Benedict says about Revelation, you should sign up by Friday, May 25, and you’ll get the special interview on Saturday morning.
You should sign up using this form right here:
Or you can use the one in the top right hand margin or by going to www.SecretInfoClub.com.
One of the most sinister figures in the Bible is the so-called “Beast” from the Book of Revelation. Portrayed as a frightening monster and identified with the ominous number 666, the Beast has been the subject of an enormous amount of discussion down through the centuries.