Scot McKnight, with Cody Matchett, Revelation for the Rest of Us: A Prophetic Call to Follow Jesus as a Dissident Disciple (affiliate link). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2023. 312 pages.
This book is interesting, insightful, and challenging. I did not agree with all of the authors’ points, but I like reading books that challenge my thinking. I should note that just because I read a book (or even enjoyed reading it!) doesn’t mean I agree with the authors’ views. At times, reading books that present alternative beliefs helps me understand other people’s perspectives. Sometimes it clarifies my own opinions. Sometimes it changes my mind. This book hits a lot of hot buttons for people today, and I am sure it will generate some discussion.
Scot McKnight is a professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Lisle, Illinois. Cory Matchett is scholar-in-residence at First Assembly Church in Calgary, Canada. In their book, they offer a fresh perspective on how to approach, understand, and apply the book of Revelation. They challenge much of current, popular thought.
The authors note that “Speculation is the biggest problem in reading Revelation today” (3). They point out that “In the middle of the nineteenth century, the book of Revelation went populist” (5). The Premillennial Dispensationalist view emerged at that time. They suggest that this approach views Revelation 1) predictively, 2) literally, 3) premillennially, 4) vindictively (8). More recently, the Left Behind books and movies have popularized this view (9). But the authors note, “This is not how the church throughout its history read the apocalyptic texts of the Bible” (8). They also caution that “Dispensationalism’s reading of Revelation breeds confidence in America and not dissidence about Babylon” (9).
Rather than trying to discern who the beast and antichrist are and when Armageddon will be fought, the authors suggest that “The book is for all times because it is about all time” (11). They note, “The clue is that Revelation is timeless theology not specific prediction, and the moment it turns to specific predictions it loses its timeless message” (11). They add, “The Apocalypse is not about prediction of the future but prescription and interrogation of the present” (12).
The authors sum up their fundamental point this way: “The book of Revelation, when read well, forms us into dissident disciples who discern corruption in the world and church” (13). The authors believe every generation of Christians must battle the corrupting influence of Satan (the dragon) that uses government and positions of power, even in the church, to turn people to his ways rather than God’s.
In understanding Revelation, the authors suggest that “Whatever we wish to call it, the book of Revelation is an orchestral arrangement of images, some of which are difficult to understand and interpret” (15). They quote Michael Gorman, who argued that “Revelation is not about a rapture out of this world but about faithful discipleship in this world” (17). They suggest, “We might call John a double dissident because he had his eyes on the evil powers at work in the empire as well as these same powers at work in the church. He saw too much Rome in the church, and not enough church in Rome” (19).
The authors point out that “The book of Revelation has more connections to the Old Testament writings than any other book in the New Testament—yet it almost never quotes from it” (24). They suggest that understanding apocalyptic literature requires imagination. They quote Christopher Rowland, who warned, “Our imaginations are out of condition; we lack the skills to exercise our imaginations” (26). The authors state, “Our point is that good readers of Revelation will read it more like Lord of the Rings than Paul’s letter to the Romans” (29).
Rome was a proud, violent, militaristic empire that would broach no resistance. Yet Revelation “. . . is the most repugnant, hostile portrait of the ‘eternal city’ in the ancient world” (43). “Babylon” was used because it represented to Jews a powerful, evil, proud empire that was diametrically opposed to the people of God (45). Yet the authors argue that Babylons rise up in every age and must be discerned and opposed just as it was in John’s day. The authors suggest that “. . . those who fail to form a Babylonian hermeneutic for the church today . . . miss what John is doing—developing a discipleship for dissidents” (49). The authors believe Revelation was written to help Christians learn how to be dissidents in a world deeply influenced by Babylon, which is controlled by the dragon.
The authors continually beat the drum that the first place Christians should look for Babylon’s influence is in their own country: “Many of those reading Revelation specifically point their fingers at Russia or Iran or Iraq and fail to see Babylon in their own country” (49). The authors direct some strong words against America at this point. Quoting Michael Gorman, they note that “the USA has earmarks of empire in its exceptionalism, nationalism, colonialism and militarism” (49). The authors suggest that “When we read Revelation well, we develop our ability to discern the presence of Babylon in our world and in our churches, and then we learn to resist its creeping powers” (50). I believe this goal is noble. Yet one of my critiques is that once you begin looking for Babylon, you may find it in places where it doesn’t actually exist.
Rome was the modern Babylon when Revelation was written. The authors describe Rome as opulent, murderous, obsessed with image, militaristic, economically exploitive, and arrogant (61). The authors find many of these same characteristics in present-day nations, including the United States.
In analyzing Revelation, the authors chose to translate “beast” as “wild thing” (65). The various characters presented in revelation “. . . are not about predicting the future, but about shaping our perceptions of the present” (66). They note that 666 is the numerical equivalent of Roman Emperor Nero (67). They suggest the number 666 may well have referred to Nero at that time, but may denote anyone like him in any age.
The authors point out that Christ is presented in Revelation as a lion that morphs into a lamb. They observe that “The Lamb wages war, not with a sword in his fist, but with a sword coming from his mouth and with a life that embodies resistance to the lords of Babylon” (79). They note that “The way of the Lamb is not the way of Babylon and its dragon” (80). They will repeatedly point out that God does his work differently than Babylon does. “Militarism is not the way of the Lamb. Instead, the Lamb wins by losing, and his losing liberates others” (81). They note, “This is the only secret you need to reading Revelation; this book is about the Lamb’s final, complete defeat of the dragon and its Babylons and the establishment of new Jerusalem” (97).
The authors point out that there are ten interludes in Revelation that break up three cycles of seven judgments (93). They suggest that “Just when we get to the point we want to put our hands over our eyes, John lifts us into the presence of God, a place of worship and revelation” (105).
The authors critique the view some hold that relishes the judgment meted out upon the ungodly. They note, “There is something profoundly wrong and unchristian about readings of Revelation that take delight in the so-called great tribulation’s severities and judgments” (113). They suggest that the primary purpose of judgment is not to pour out wrath on the wicked but to eliminate evil from the world (117). While this view may be true, the holy wrath of God is real. God hates sin and evil. It is an interesting perspective to view the various judgments as God’s symbolic means of eradicating the earth of evil.
The authors argue that the three cycles of seven judgments are not chronological but “three overlapping revelations of the eradication and elimination of evil from God’s world” (118). They suggest that “Revelation is the depiction of that final fulfilment, completing the missing aspects of many lingering, incomplete Old Testament prophecies” (121). They go so far as to suggest that “These ‘judgments’ are perhaps better described as divine disciplines which establish justice, not vindictive judgments of retributions” (118). The authors argue this point due to the fact that, after the judgments in Revelation, the kings of the earth bring tribute to God in the new Jerusalem. They posit that many world leaders and nations will submit to God’s rule as a result of the judgments. This understanding may be a hermeneutical stretch, yet they argue that the apocalyptic genre of Revelation is not to be taken strictly literally or chronologically, but symbolically. They see the judgments as severe and the result being a groundswell of submission and worship. They argue, therefore, that “we should read the so-called great tribulation as a time of the greatest evangelistic impact in history” (130)
Chapters 6-19, they write, are preparation for chapters 20-22 (135). They note that the millennium is mentioned only in Revelation 20:4-6 (140). Entire eschatological systems are built around an event that is only mentioned once in Scripture. They suggest, “Instead, it is better to read the millennium as simply a numerical symbol of victory and rule for those who have suffered under the rule of the dragon” (142). They believe “John simply wants us to hear and understand that evil has written its last line, and God has penned the exclamation point” (145). They also argue that “There is not a shred of evidence in the only passage about the millennium that there will be a temple rebuilt in Jerusalem (Rev. 20:1-6)” (150).
The authors claim, “He did not write so we could speculate on when, where, and for how long. He wrote for the seven churches, to fire their imaginations and to inspire them with courage to walk in the way of the Lamb” (162). They ask, “How do you live in a world that is anti-God, devoted to opulence, consistently opposed to the way of the Lamb, full of itself and intent on being impressive, protected by a mighty military, and aiming to become the global superpower?” (168). They remind readers that “This entire book-don’t forget-is for each of those seven churches” (170).
Interestingly, the authors point out that there was no widespread persecution of Christians during the time Revelation was written. They quote Wes Howard Brook, who suggests, “It was the seduction of the Roman Empire from within a context of relative comfort, rather than terrifying persecution, that more accurately describes the situation of the original audience of the book of Revelation” (171). This book highlights the fact that the danger to the seven churches was not persecution but indoctrination into the system of Babylon. Revelation is urging the seven churches to beware of their mortal danger if they remain unaware of the encroachments of Babylon into their ranks.
The authors ask some challenging questions, such as, “How much of our faith is tied to our own nation and its power?” (178). They note that, “A yearning for justice topped everyone’s list, and peace and love were not far behind. But what distinguished Christian converts from their neighbors was their rejection of sexual practices and idolatries” (179).
The authors suggest that “Christendom was the most tragic mistake in the history of the church” (183). The church assumed that gaining Emperor Constantine to their side was a great advance for their cause, but it resulted in the church’s doors being thrown open to Babylon. The authors judge Constantine as a violent, ambitious emperor who used the church, even if he may have shown it kindness in certain ways.
There are nine songs in Revelation. The authors suggest they could best be viewed as similar to Negro spirituals (189). For Christians, worshipping God becomes a form of dissent (193). The authors argue that “If we want to live out the message of revelation today, we need to develop eyes that discern Babylon’s power, violence, and injustice in our midst today” (209).
I find the authors’ discussion of the dissident hermeneutic and their application of Babylon to every age intriguing. I am certainly open to a biblical critique of America as well. But at times, it seems as if the authors reveal their personal bias. Perhaps they simply overuse the Babylonian hermeneutic.
The authors suggest that Donald Trump’s slogan, “Make America great again,” is an example of Babylon’s arrogance (210). Certainly, the slogan could be used for such purposes. Yet striving to be a “great” nation is not necessarily a goal motivated by evil. There are times, especially near the end of the book, in which it seems that the authors level their guns at right-wing Christians, especially evangelicals who support the Republican Party. While everyone—including evangelicals, Republicans, and right-leaning Christians—is legitimately eligible for critique, it seems the authors focus their ire almost exclusively against Trump-supporting Christians. Of course, Trump-supporting Christians should not be exempt from critique. But it seems as though after unpacking a compelling hermeneutic for all Christians to be dissidents against Babylon, the primary—and essentially only—example they present is Republican evangelicals.
One of the symptoms of Babylon-influenced nations, they claim, is “An irredeemable inability to empathize, sympathize, and show compassion for less fortunate nations . . . There’s too much Babylonian arrogance in the United States of America” (211). Again, I am open to a robust critique of the ways the United States deviates from the standard of God’s word. But this assessment appears to be, at first glance, unduly harsh. A person would be hard-pressed to find a nation on earth that gives more funds and relief to other nations than the United States. To say it struggles to sympathize might be an overstatement.
The authors also critique the absence of “equity” in American society (213). They suggest that “Absent character, capitalism naturally produces a culture of greed and it gets religion’s icing on its cake far too often” (213). They go on, “There is no reason a nation with as many Christians as the USA has (or claims to have) should have such a disparity in income, in housing, in wages, in healthcare, and in community social capital . . . Is capitalism, as a free market system, coherent with the Christian faith?” (212). Again, this point is poorly argued. Absent of character, any economic system is prone to abuse. One could argue that communism or dictatorship or monarchy, absent of character, is worse than capitalism. There are disparities in wealth in the United States. One would hope that America’s wealth would benefit all its citizens. Of course, there is a difference between differing opportunities and differing outcomes. It certainly would be difficult to provide every citizen with the same income or housing. Communism claimed to attempt this form of equity, but it is an impossible feat. It’s also important to note that even the American poor are wealthier and healthier than large swaths of people from many nations that have different economic and political systems. That’s not to excuse abuses by American capitalism, of which there are many. Certainly every economic system ought to be critiqued when corruption is at play. But a better approach might have been to ask a series of questions and to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. The authors’ application to the United States may prompt readers to think of exceptions or counter arguments rather than applying the hermeneutic as the authors intend.
The authors also argue that “Peace through strength hollows out the Lamb’s gospel into a shell of fraudulent piety. . . Christians in America today live under the umbrella of Babylon’s arrogance, economic exploitation, and militarism” (215). Again, I would push back on this point. Has the US used its power to pursue its national goals and interests at the cost of other nations? Certainly. But any student of history understands the value of “peace through strength.” It would be naïve to think that many of the world’s nations would remain peaceful if they did not fear American intervention. Furthermore, the Lamb’s gospel is not necessarily a guidebook for nations, but for individuals.
The authors present an approach to understanding and applying Revelation and make some interesting observations and suggestions. But as they begin to level specific critiques at the United States, they expose their own bias, often expressing their points unfairly or unevenly. For example, they argue that America suffers not merely from racism but from caste (217). They argue that “It is uniquely American, propped up and created by ‘Christians’ and it has now become systemic” (217). They add, “In both South Africa and the United States, Christianity was wielded from toe to head with racism until it has become systemic in these so-called Christian countries” (218). As the authors apply their Babylonian hermeneutic to the United States, the nation is clearly found wanting. Perhaps this approach would not seem as biased if it was applied equally to other nations. Yet it sounds unduly harsh, to say nothing of historically inaccurate, to describe racism as a “uniquely American” issue. The co-author, Cody Matchett, lives in Canada, but he does not point out similar problems in that nation.
The authors are clearly reacting to evangelicals who support Trump. At times, much of their study of Revelation seems to be merely a guise in which to critique right-leaning American evangelicals. They note, “In brief, we believe evangelicals in the USA have been seduced into partisan politics in such a way that they have effectively abandoned the way of the Lamb” (220). Certainly, evangelicals ought to be critiqued any time they place trust and confidence in political power rather than in Christ. But it would seem more even-handed had the authors critiqued other segments of American society with equal fervor.
The authors claim that in the 70s and 80s, evangelicalism became politicized (222). They write, “. . . We believe Babylon has infiltrated American evangelicalism which raises the question: Is one’s eschatology—dispensationalism in particular—at work shaping the evangelical world toward becoming increasingly Republican?” (225). They suggest that Premillennial eschatology is linked to Christian nationalism (226). They argue that premillennial dispensationalism tends to see America in a good light and its enemies as being allied with the Beast.
The authors quote Sean Michael Lewis in saying that “Fear is what has caused evangelical believers to call for Qanon and will keep them from receiving the Covid vaccine” (228). This argument, again, is poorly presented. To claim that fear is the reason Americans refrained from getting the vaccine is to grossly overgeneralize and disparage people with whom they disagree. Ironically, many who rejected the vaccine did so by practicing the very hermeneutic the authors advocate. They viewed the mandate as government overreach, demanding people submit to their decrees regardless of their conscience or questions about the science. It seems ironic that in a book urging Christians to resist the bullying of Babylon, the authors’ assume Christians who took a bold and unpopular stand against the government were motivated by fear. This type of argumentation made me disappointed with the way the book’s subject matter was ultimately handled.
The authors get to the heart of their issue when they claim, “Too many today have surrendered their minds to political ideology and colonized the word of God to their ideology” (237). “Fawning over an opportunity to be in the limelight, stirred by closeness to power, and excited about making America more Christian, these sycophantic leaders have led a nation away from the gospel” (238). They claim, “A president who doesn’t follow the law is an embarrassment” (221). It is clear that the authors have nothing but disdain for President Trump. While there is certainly ample room to critique him, the authors appear to be zeroed in on him.
The authors conclude, “Babylon has seized the church’s heart. Its grip is so tight, many can no longer distinguish their politics from their gospel” (240). They continue, “Dissident disciples live with government but do not surrender the lordship of Jesus to any part of it” (245).
The authors have several apparent goals with this book. They seek to provide a fresh approach to understanding and interpreting the book of Revelation. In this, they succeed. Whether or not you accept their critique of views such as premillennial dispensationalism, they offer some helpful insights about being dissidents against the powers of Babylon. It is in their application that their bias colors their presentation and needlessly alienates readers. Had they applied their critique equally to both right-wing and left-wing Christians or to Trump supporters as well as Biden supporters, then readers could more readily accept valid critiques against both sides. But given the polarized nature of American society, it is precarious to draw all of your negative illustrations from one side of the aisle.
I found it interesting when the authors unpacked the Barmen Declaration under Karl Barth. In this, conscientious Christians resisted the inroads Hitler tried to make into the church and society. Perhaps it is more prudent to take illustrations from the confines of history where the dust has settled and the cogent facts have been revealed. It might have been better to teach readers the hermeneutic and then let them do the work on their culture, rather than simply revealing the authors’ own conclusions.
I believe the authors offer some helpful insights into understanding Revelation. However, they stumble in the second half of the book by allowing their personal opinions to color their objectivity. It will put off some readers that might have benefitted from this book’s teaching.
Rating: 2
