Theology in the Raw - 842: The Book of Revelation as Apocalyptic Political Protest: Dr. Dan Morrison

Episode Date: February 15, 2021

While many Christians read the book of Revelation as mostly about future events, it’s best understood as a piece of political protest. John is writing to confront Chrisitan Nationalism--in a first-century sort of way. There’s no better person to help us read Revelation in this way than Dr. Dan Morrison. Dan is assistant professor of New Testament at George Fox University and he wrote his doctoral dissertation on Revelation. It’s called: “Apocalypse as Protest: Reading Revelation from Places of Poverty, Privilege, Power, and Persecution” Dan Morrison joined George Fox in 2020 as an assistant professor of New Testament, working remotely on a half-time basis. He worked the previous three years as an assistant professor of New Testament and expository preaching at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary at Evangel University in Springfield, Missouri. During that same span, he served as a U.S. Navy reserve chaplain at Navy Operation Support Center (Springfield, MO). He was also director of the Cordas C. Burnett Center for Biblical Preaching at Evangel (2016-18) and, before that, served as a college and young adult pastor at Evangel Temple Christian Center in Springfield (2014-17). His experience previously included working as a communications manager at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario (2012-14), and as an editor/media specialist (2010-11) and editorial assistant (2007-10) for The Alliance for Assemblies of God Higher Education organization. He lives in Springfield, Missouri, and attends All Saints Anglican Church in Springfield. Support Preston Support Preston by going to patreon.com Venmo: @Preston-Sprinkle-1 Connect with Preston Twitter | @PrestonSprinkle Instagram | @preston.sprinkle Youtube | Preston Sprinkle Check out his website prestonsprinkle.com If you enjoy the podcast, be sure to leave a review.

Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. If you would like to support the show, you can go to patreon.com forward slash theology in the raw, support the show for as little as five bucks a month to get access to premium content, including once a month blogs, once or twice a month podcasts that I record for my Patreon-only supporters. So again, would love your support. If you can't support, that's okay too. As long as you're being generous and giving money to the poor and those in need, then both Jesus and I are very excited about your generosity. I have on the show today a new friend, Dr. Dan Morrison. Dan received his doctorate of philosophy from McMaster University, or sorry, McMaster Divinity College in Toronto. And he also received an MDiv from Assemblies of God Theological Seminary.

He is currently a professor at George Fox University in Portland, Oregon. He just started a new job there as assistant professor of New Testament. He worked for three years as assistant professor of New Testament. He worked for three years as assistant professor of New Testament and expository preaching at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary at Evangel University in Springfield, Missouri. Now, I came across Dan's work, who's kind of a friend of a friend, and I looked into his kind of area of expertise, and I saw the title of his dissertation, his PhD dissertation at McMaster. It's called Apocalypse as Protest, Reading Revelation from Places of Poverty, Privilege, Power, and Persecution. And I was like, I've got to have this guy on the podcast. This guy seems

brilliant. And he did not let me down. He is very brilliant, very down to earth. He's a great communicator, very clear. And we basically spend this whole time talking about the book of Revelation and how we can better understand this book as a piece of political protest. So please welcome to the show for the first time, hopefully not the last, the one and only Dr. Dan Morrison. Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. I am here with a new acquaintance. Hopefully, we can become friends, Dan. We'll see after this podcast. We were chatting offline and already, I don't know, I think I found a brother from another mother in terms of how to read scripture and so on. But Dan, thanks so much for being on Theology in the Raw. Thank you. And so I really

want to dig into your dissertation. I'm going to read the title here again, Apocalypse as Protest, Reading Revelation from Places of Poverty, Privilege, Power, and Persecution. Sounds very relevant to things we're working through as a country in this day and age. But first, why don't you give just a brief backstory of who you are and how you got into wanting to become a biblical scholar and now becoming a biblical scholar? Well, thanks so much for having me. It has been an amazing journey, to say the least. I was one of those kids. I grew up in a single parent home, grew up in church. I literally cut my teeth on a wooden pew. And I was that kid in Sunday school who had all these weird questions. And most of the time they were about revelation. I mean, you know, growing up in the

eighties, nineties, I had the left behind series, had all this stuff. And so I always had questions about the end of the world and the mark of the beast. And as a kid, I asked a question about, you know, recognizing that there were different calendaring systems and looking at the Old Testament, the New Testament, our current calendaring system, Jewish calendar, Roman calendar, all of this stuff. And I said, okay, if John was prophetically speaking in Revelation about, you know, at that time I'm thinking about the end of the world as we know it, no pun intended there. And I said, so the seven years of tribulation, were they Daniel's year, since we say it's based on Daniel, were they John's year since he's in the Roman Empire? Or are they our years based on our current calendar? And my Sunday school teacher looked at me and said, ask your mom when you get home. And I look back at those moments and I said, okay, see, it was destined that I become a biblical scholar. And now the funny thing was, I asked the question when I got home and my mom said,

does it really matter? She didn't say ask your Sunday school teacher. No, she was like, does it really matter if you stop and think about it? If you are of the redeemed, it shouldn't matter because you won't be negatively impacted the way people are saying. And I thought, okay. And I carried on with my life and I didn't think about it again until many years later. But here was the thing. I was always looking and exploring. And for some strange reason, as much as I enjoy reading the Bible and reading literature in general, I went to the Alabama School of Fine Arts. It's a college preparatory fine arts school. Now, I was in the math and science department because I was

a math guy. I was a science guy. But I always enjoyed reading literature. And so the one class I regret not taking was in my high school, they offered a class on the Bible as literature. not taking was in my high school, they offered a class on the Bible as literature. Never got to take that elective. And I wonder now, where would I be if I had taken that class? Interesting. But, you know, it was a huge thing. Ended up in the math department at the University of Alabama, minored in computer-based research. It was a great time, but I was always going back to all of my random Bible facts, trivia. I mean, I should have gone on a Bible game show or something as a kid. And I began in seminary to develop this rhythm, where if I had a lot of New Testament

classes, I would do my devotional reading from the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible. If it were more heavy on the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible, I would read the New Testament for my devotional time. Well, that made a huge issue for me when I was reading the book of Revelation for a class. I mean, I took a class on preaching from apocalyptic and prophetic texts. And so we focused on Revelation, we focused on Isaiah, and I'm reading a lot of Old Testament, and I'm thinking, what is going on here? And I'm like, wait, did John just, did he like swipe a lot from the Old Testament? What is this? And I'm starting to pick up on all these patterns. And so I go to my other New Testament professor and say, hey, I'm seeing these patterns. What's going on? And he

goes, you're starting to read the Bible as a whole. You're getting the metanarrative of Scripture. This is a good thing. And from there, Revelation became my passion. I mean, every paper, every paper that I wrote for a class, every presentation that I gave began to focus on Revelation in some way. I mean, even in my gospels class, I had to make a tie to Revelation until the point that in my doctoral program, they're like, oh, and Dan's going to present a paper. And somebody goes, does anybody know the topic? And one person just blurts out, it'll be something on Revelation. We all know that. And so it's been a good and fun journey. And so now I'm really focused, though, not simply on Revelation as a literary work,

or even as a theological work, but how does the text of Revelation speak to our contemporary society? And it's not how I think most people would think about it. All right. Well, that's, I mean, that's a great segue. So that's fascinating that from a young age, you've been fascinated in this book and ended up doing a PhD or dissertation on it. That's, that's a, gosh, that's a, not, what's not my story. I was like a year into my PhD program before I found my topic, but, um, well let's, yeah. So Revelation, um, most Christians listening are going to think like, oh yeah, I know there's different views on Revelation. There's kind of the, you know, the futurist view, the, what, the preterist view. So is Revelation mainly about

end time stuff from our perspective? Is it more first century stuff? Is it something other than those two options? So can you maybe begin by giving us a bird's eye view of how should we approach the book of Revelation in terms of kind of like what time period or whatever is it talking about? Oh, that's always fun. So I like to take it back to what we talk about in general hermeneutical principles. A lot of times we'll hear from Genesis to Jude, usually, minus some of the prophetic writings in the Old Testament. We take a look at the text. We see what the author could have reasonably meant when writing to the original audience, and then we make application of those principles to the current day. And somehow, when we get to Revelation, we take everything we learn about biblical interpretation and we throw it out the window. And it's like, John meant nothing. He knew nothing. He didn't know what he was writing

about. He didn't know what he was talking about. Oh, the churches that he wrote it to, they didn't have a clue. It's how we normally take Revelation on a popular level. But when we stop and we look at it and we go back to those basic foundational principles and we ask ourselves, what did this reasonably mean to the original audience? how do we apply it revelation makes a lot more sense yeah and i would say he wrote it to the seven churches in asia minor during i'm a mid-90s kind of guy okay so i'm a mid-90s you know it's like the temple's already been destroyed that kind of thing but is i'm not gonna push it much later than maybe late 90s, but that's about as far as I'll go. Okay.

But it's one of these, he's dealing with issues in his time, and he's prophetically speaking, both to his audience, I would say, and to later readers. Now the question then becomes, what is prophecy? Yeah. And a lot of times, you know, we look at prophecy and we talk about, well, you know, I mean, I grew up in a Pentecostal tradition and prophecy was like, you know, they're going to tell you what's about to happen next week. That's what I grew up with. I was like, okay, it's like, oh, like a Christian version of fortune telling. Like that's not a diss on anybody within that tradition, but it's just one of those things I

remember growing up. But when you look at scripture and you look at the prophets, you see that prophecy is a lot of foretelling, that it's confronting the people of God with where they are in the here and now. And there's also some foretelling of, oh, by the way, if you don't get your stuff straight, these bad things are going to happen. Now, what I notice is this, when you look at all of the foretelling, all of the stuff that's going on with the, this is what's going to take place, they're usually rehearsals of the curses of the covenant that you find in the Pentateuch. And even when you get to Revelation, I think that John is writing and sees himself within that old prophetic tradition within a Jewish framework and in a Jewish context. And so he's doing what the prophets did in the Hebrew Bible. He is confronting the people with what they're doing, and then he's rehearsing, if you don't get this straight, if you don't fix this, these are the curses that are going to come upon you, just as they come upon those who are unfaithful to God.

And does that explain the kind of middle portions with the seals and the trumpets and all these things being unleashed on creation? You're saying those are connected. That's John's way of talking about the covenant curses. So it's a very, yeah. That's precisely what it is. I mean, think about it. You have the rivers and the streams that turn to blood, which is reminiscent of the Exodus. I mean, you know,

you have the sores that come upon people, you have people, you know, having to flee because of rocks falling on them, a lot like the hailstones fell on the Egyptians. So a lot of this ties back to the Exodus, but at the same time, I think that the Exodus motif within that framework is a model and that John builds on that model and places it within the context of the Roman Empire, his Babylon. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so you're going to see Revelation as way more like talking about first century, yeah, late first century, for lack of better terms, political. Even early second century. Early, okay. Totally about politics. And that's, so that's, okay.

So, I mean, I grew up probably not Pentecostal, but non-denominational, Baptist-ish, pretty conservative Christianity, very dispensational, you know. And so I was kind of programmed early on to read it as a future book. Then I didn't read it for a long time. And I actually went and got a few theological degrees and then kind of came back to it. And it's like I was reading a completely different book because I didn't have those preconceived lenses on. And when I read it, especially after having studied first century Judaism and being a little more aware of just the background of the New Testament, Judaism and being a little more aware of just the background of the New Testament, a little bit of Greco-Roman stuff.

I read this book thinking this is a political protest or it does feel like protest kind of literature, which is what drew me to your dissertation. I don't want to, you know, you had apocalypse as a protest. Like, so, yeah, I would, I do have questions about, I mean, I would, I think the very end is future stuff, right? I mean, second, I mean, okay. I would definitely say that. Okay. Um, but the bulk of it leading up to chapter 19 is, is first century. So yeah, what, um, maybe, maybe give us the, the gist of your dissertation and maybe fill in some of the, yeah, how you unpack your

dissertation. This is beautiful stuff right here, at least in my mind. We'll see what the critics say when they read the published version, but I think it's beautiful stuff. But no, when you open up the book, John is doing this amazing thing because when he introduces God, he actually introduces him as, you know, the one who was and is and is to come, and then from the seven spirits which are before his throne. So all of a sudden, you see the kingship of God at the outset of Revelation. He has a throne. Then you see Jesus presented as the ruler of the kings on earth, and you bring all of these things together, and it's like, whoa, wait a throne. Then you see Jesus presented as the ruler of the kings on earth. And you bring all of these things together and it's like, whoa, wait a minute. You have God, you have Jesus, you have the spirit who is in proximity to the throne,

which speaks a lot of the power, even of the spirit within Revelation. And then once you jump into this whole issue with Daniel and this language of him coming on the clouds and every eye will see him in this meshing of prophetic language, all of a sudden you should think back to Daniel, I think it's chapter 7, where the one like a son of man goes before the Ancient of Days and receives kingdom and dominion and power and authority that has no end. And so you have at the very beginning of the book this declaration of Jesus having an eternal kingdom, which therefore, if his kingdom is eternal, it automatically means all these other kingdoms, especially if you're familiar with Daniel, are going to fall, including the most powerful empire in the world. And so John, who is identifying himself as being an exile who's on Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus, he's like, all right, let me write this thing down. And he hears a voice. Now, here's the first thing. And I want to urge all the red letter Bible editors to fix this. And yes, I say fix this.

You know, when John initially says that he hears a voice that speaks to him and tells him to write, if you look at red letter editions, those words are in red. tells him to write, if you look at rare letter editions, those words are in red. Because it says that on turning, he saw one like a son of man. So people assume that the voice is the voice of one like a son of man, being, you know, the Christ, in this radiant, like, image that is like, stick that in a horror film and let's see what happens. But in actuality, I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination that it's actually Jesus or the one like the Son of Man who's speaking to him. Really? Why not? The voice prompts, the voice actually prompts the vision. And I would say that the voice is

the voice of an angel, because when you look at Revelation, Revelation is really a six-part document. You have your introduction, your epilogue, no, your prologue. Then you have vision one, which is the vision of the one like the son of man. Vision two, the things that must take place after this. Vision three, which is the vision of the harlot. Vision four, which is the vision of the bride. And then you have the concluding remarks that close off the book. three, which is the vision of the harlot, vision four, which is the vision of the bride, and then you have the concluding remarks that close off the book. And so when you look at every single

vision in Revelation, it becomes very blatant because in visions three and four of the harlot and the bride, he specifically says, I saw one of the seven angels that had the last seven bowls came to me and said, and linguistically speaking, when you look at the second vision, beginning in chapter four, he says, and the first voice I heard speak to me. If there is a first voice, and then you have a voice that's speaking throughout chapters two and three, And then you have a voice that's speaking throughout chapters two and three. There is a distinction being made between the second voice that he hears and the first voice. So the voice in chapters two and three, that's Jesus, right?

Right. But because that's Jesus, therefore the voice in four and one and four aren't Jesus because it's... Precisely. So who is it? It's an angelic being or... It's an angelic being. And here's the reason why I would make that argument. One, you see the angelic being speaking at the beginning of 2 and 3. Second of all, you also find that the description of the voice does not match the voice of Jesus in chapter one, because you have a voice like a trumpet, you have a voice like many waters. And so when you look at and compare those two things, it's like, this is not Jesus. But in apocalyptic literature, angels or angelic

beings are the prompts that actually propel you in apocalyptic literature. And so because of that, I think based on the genre of Revelation, based on the structure and framework of Revelation, as well as how the latter parts of the book explicitly note that it's an angel, we do know this for a fact, it ain't Jesus. But I would say it's an angel because of that. I mean, that's the logical conclusion to which I arrived because of it. Okay. Okay, cool. All right. So we have the lay of the land a bit. Now, apocalypse as protest. What is John protesting? Ooh. I would say he's protesting worldly empire.

Okay. Notice, it's not anti-imperial. It's anti-worldly empire. Okay. And I think that's vitally important for us to understand. So, for example, when you look at John and you look at not even his protest of the empire. I'm going to get a little bit more specific with you with this. It's not simply protest of the worldly empire or even the Roman empire. He's protesting the church's capitulation to worldly empire.

And so as he's confronting the churches, I mean, think about it. Five out of seven churches are getting like bad news. Yeah. Because when you stop and think about it. The first church. And let me let me preface this by saying this. Ultimately, the first three chapters of Revelation, if you get the first three chapters of Revelation, you get the entire book. Because I would say that chapters 4 through 22 are simply an apocalyptic expansion on everything you find in Revelation 1 through 3. So in Ephesus, it's like, what's going on? And people always freak out about this because, you know, oh yeah, there's all this commendation for the fact that, you know what, God knows their toil, their patient endurance, that they cannot bear with those, you know, who are evil. They've tested them. And so here's what I look at from a critical reading of the passage.

I look at from a critical reading of the passage, while they're doing all of these things, they are exercising power over their opponents. It's the same thing that Rome is doing. You conform to us, and if you don't conform, we'll just do away with you. So think about this. They test them. They found them to be false. They haven't grown weary, though, but their attitude, the attitude, and so the thing is, they seem to have righteous ends that they're trying to meet. But the means by which they're attempting to achieve their goal is unrighteous because all they're doing is engaging in power abuse. Now, what I do is I tie this back to the Old Testament. When you look at Jesus or the vision of the one like the Son of Man, he holds the seven stars in

his right hand, and he's walking amongst the seven golden lampstands. And there's a promise that's made. And the whole issue of like arboreal imagery and lampstands within like the Bible is pretty like, you know, you have buds and leaves and all of these things. So you have this this imagery or imagery of trees with a lampstand that come to mind. or imagery of trees with a lampstand that come to mind. And then the promise to the one who overcomes or conquers is that they will eat of the tree of life that is in the paradise of God. This leads to the understanding in my mind that every single thing that we classify as sin is a form of power abuse. Here's why. When you look at the creation narrative, God gives humanity dominion, Genesis chapter 1, gives authority. In Creation Story Part 2, as I like to put it, or version number 2 in Genesis 2, you have where we know that humanity has authority. God tells the man, do not eat of this tree. You can eat of everything else,

but don't do this. And all of a sudden, what we realize is he has the power to, and humanity utilizes its power to do that which should not be done. sin utilizes its power to do that which should not be done. Interesting. And so when you look at what we classify as sin in general, it's always a case where we're misusing power. We are either doing that which should not be done with the power that we have, or we are refusing to do that which should be done with the power that we have. I think that's what lays out everything for us when we start to look at how things flow throughout the book of Revelation, because in Ephesus you have this. Now in Smyrna, they are, you know, second church,

nothing bad is said about them. They are suffering at the power of the empire. That's the big thing. You look at Pergamum. You know, they're holding up, but, you know, they've got some suffering going on. And now because, you know, the empire is beginning to exert its power upon them. to exert its power upon them, they're like, uh, and John is saying, you know, hold up, hold up, stay faithful. Yes, they have power. Yes, they do. But I'm going to like rectify this. This is what the Lord's saying. I'm going to rectify this problem, but I need for you to remain faithful. And then you get to Thyatira, and that's when things get really interesting. Because the church permits this woman named Jezebel. It's not a case where Jezebel has just come in, but literally, the text is like, you have permitted her to do this. So the church has the

power to stop Jezebel, but doesn't stop her, but welcomes her in. And when you look at the activity of Jezebel, here's what you find. You find that Jezebel performs the exact same activities as the dragon, as the beast, and as the harlot. So there's this connectivity throughout the visions of Revelation of deception that have connected these particular characters in an evil manner and has depicted them as such in order that it's like, hey, if you haven't figured it out by now, Jezebel's not a good character to be with. Is she a literal, do you think she's a literal individual and her name's

Jezebel or does it almost not matter? I would say I don't think it really matters. I don't think that there is literally a woman named Jezebel who's coming into the church in Thyatira. literally a woman named Jezebel who's coming into the church in Thyatira. Here's why. When you look at Revelation, remember I said there, I argue that there are four visions based on the structural breakdown of the book. When you look at each vision, each vision has one woman in it. Oh, interesting. Jezebel's the woman in the first vision, and the second vision you have the woman clothed with the sun. In the third vision, it's all about the harlot. That's the third woman. The last vision is the bride. The new Jerusalem, yeah. The new Jerusalem. So I would argue that every single woman in the

book is actually a symbol, and it goes in this pattern of good, no, sorry, of evil, good, evil, good, because you have Jezebel, who's paired with the, well, she's actually contrasted with the woman clothed with the sun. And then you have the harlot, who is contrasted with the bride. And so when you look at it in that way, I think it's pretty difficult to argue for Jezebel being a literal individual in this case. Only because when you get to the woman clothed with the sun, she is listed as – she's identified as a sign that was seen in heaven. Okay. Okay. Cool. Yeah. As you're talking, I've never made that connection between Jezebel and the harlot. But yeah, gosh, in my very limited knowledge of the book, since I have it open in front of me, I'm like, oh, yeah.

So they're letting, in a sense, Roman values. They're tolerating. They're permitting them. They're welcoming them into their community. That's like one of the worst churches, or at least, I mean, right? Sorry, Tyra? Oh, yeah, no. They definitely get some major, I mean, some major heat.

I mean, the language, and I like the way this reads. I dare say it is definitely a Hebraism, but when it talks about, what was it? And I will throw her onto a bed or I will put, I like to say, and I will put her to bed. I'm like, she's dealing with all this stuff with sexual immorality. And all of a sudden the threat that comes against her is I will put her to bed. I'm like, ooh. And those who commit sexual immorality with her, I will throw into great tribulation unless they repent of her works. And I will kill her children with death.

I'm like. That's gnarly. That's gnarly. I'm like, wait a minute. Because at first, I remember the first time I looked at my Greek text and I was like, I will kill her children. I didn't read that right. Let's wait. No? Okay. I will kill her children with death. I think a point is being driven home with that.

It's very like, almost like imprecatory. You see language like that in the Psalms where it's like the children of my enemy is my enemy. Right. And so it's been an interesting thing to see because there's a promise behind every single letter. I mean, you get to Sardis and you have a church that has a reputation. And this is the one that I remember when I first looked at Sardis, I'm like, what is going on here? Until I realized they don't really have any power. They're dead, but they have a reputation. They have a name and a name can be as good as some power, at least to a certain extent. And so they're pretending to be something that they're not. Real quick, can you define power? Because I

know that word's thrown around a lot these days, especially, and half the time, I'm not sure people know what they're saying. Can you help us unpack what does it mean to have power? It seems like intuitive. Yeah. I would say power is the exercise of dominion or authority in some capacity to be able to benefit or harm other people Okay, the thing is power is always relative. Yeah. Yeah, and the example that I like to give and somebody gave this to me years ago is Imagine the CEO who runs a major corporation and they are like they exercise power in the company and over their employees You know, They have authority. When they go home, they don't necessarily exercise the same power and authority at home as they do in the workplace.

And somebody says, OK, let somebody tell that CEO who's now home, OK, honey, if you don't hold the baby for the next 30 minutes while I go and take a moment, we are not going to see your parents this weekend. I think that the CEO is no longer exercising his his power or authority in that, you know, in the same way, because now it's like oh okay and so really and I think here's the thing people often look at power and there's a trend in I think in academia within society as a whole to say power is bad okay yeah and I would disagree with that power is not. The improper use or exercise of power, it's what's bad. So as long as power, because I mean, think about it for a moment. I'm going to go here. Sorry, I'm going to

go here though. So people are always talking about the police and power and police and power. And I've heard people say, well, just strip the police of and power. And I've, I've heard people say, we just strip the police of their power. And I thought, so wait, let's think about this for a moment. You want to strip law enforcement officers of their power because there are people who have misused and abused the authority and power that they have. But now what are you doing when it comes to criminals? Because if the police have no authority, they have no power, they can't stop criminal activity. So the issue isn't to strip people of power, it is to recognize and highlight the proper use and rightful, I won't even say lawful,

the rightful and just use of power and authority. When they say strip, I mean, yeah, this is kind of a rabbit trail, but I think it's a relevant one. So like, just to get a concrete picture, like if somebody says we should strip police of their power. Are they saying like, take away their gun, their baton, their taser, or maybe some, it could be easy, maybe. I don't know this conversation very well, but I've heard that, you know, they can get away with stuff. They don't need a body cam. They get light sentences if they abuse their power. I mean, would that be some of the power that people say we should take away? I mean – And I think that's where the issue comes in. So I've heard people say, well, remove their weapons, remove their batons, take away their taters.

And I'm thinking, OK, maybe – no, that's an extremist framework for like chaos to rule. Yeah, yeah. But what I would say is, OK, let's look at proper use. Let's look at, you know, cultural approaches. Let's explore all of these frameworks, because what you don't want to happen is for. It's for individuals to be empowered by the state. And with that power, they misuse and abuse the very people that they are called to serve and protect. Yeah. Yeah, that's good. That's a good distinction. Yeah. And I think that's the key thing. And what we look at is the language of lawful.

There are lots of things that are lawful. Yeah. But that doesn't mean that everything that's lawful is just unethical. Right. I mean, lawfully, I can let a blind person walk off of a pier and drown. And lawfully, but morally and ethically, I'm called to do more than that. Right, right.

Let's go back to power then. So what's the, what's, so you're saying when it comes to the believers, the seven churches, it's the misuse of power that's being addressed, and for each church that might look different, use of power that's being addressed? And for each church, that might look different? Or is there a certain kind of power that is being addressed, say wealth or status? That's a great, great question. I would say this. Power can be manifested in different forms, whether it's physical strength, whether it's just the ability to control others, or in the case of Laodicea, this was like my favorite message at which to look, the Laodicean church had economic power. I mean, unparalleled, it seems, compared to the other churches. To the point that if you look at the whole framework,

I'm just going to run through this message right quick. It says, And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. I know your works. You are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth. For you say, check out this language, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.

Not realizing that you are wretched and pitiable, you're actually poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to, check out this language again, to buy from me gold refined by fire that you may be rich. That solves the problem of them being poor. He tells them to buy white garments so that they may clothe themselves in the shame of their nakedness. Remember, they're naked, may not be seen. And then salve to anoint their eyes, which would restore their blindness.

and then salve to anoint their eyes, which would restore their blindness. So those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come into him and eat with him and he with me. The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the spirit says to the churches. Now, you're like, well, a lot of people would say, well, Dan, OK, yeah, you hit a little bit of, you know, rich, prospering, not having need. How do you get all this abuse of economic power out of that passage? Yeah.

Well, first of all, the whole cold or hot thing, I know people talk about hot springs and cold springs and all of that. Well, remember, I went to a college prep school and studied math and science in high school. I mean, before I was a math major, I was in engineering. So when people talk about cold and hot, So when people talk about cold and hot, the first thing I thought about was that which is cold. Because, I mean, I remember hearing sermons where people would say, God either wants you on fire for him or he wants you cold and away from him. And I'm like, I don't think God wants people to be away from him. So that didn't hold up.

That didn't add up for me. But that which is cold is distinct from that which surrounds it. It's cold. Everything else is warmer. That which is hot is distinct from that which surrounds it. Everything else is cooler than what it is. Therefore, if they're neither cold nor hot, they are just like that which surrounds them, cold nor hot, they are just like that which surrounds them, which is the culture of Laodicea, which had a lot of wealth and economic power. Oh, wow. That's fascinating. I've heard somebody give a similar interpretation years ago, and it made sense that it doesn't make sense to say, I wish you were like, hot is on fire for Jesus, cold is you hate God. And it's like, I'd rather have you hate God. Like that doesn't make sense.

And I heard, yeah, maybe so you kind of alluded to it later to see, weren't there like hot springs or whatever? And then obviously cold water is refreshing, but hot or cold are both good. I have not heard it framed in that sense of it kind of it's hot and cold or countercultural. Lukewarm is not. You're bleeding into the blending into the culture. Wow. Which fits the whole theme of Revelation when he climaxing with come out of her, get out of Babylon, like stop participating. And wow.

And so that's the key thing. And then there was that passage and I was like, what do I do with this? Or he says, those whom I love, I will prove in discipline, so be zealous and repent. And, you know, people like, oh, wait, isn't that in Hebrews or something? And I'm like, yes, but it also appears somewhere else in Scripture. It appears in Proverbs, third chapter. And in Proverbs, the third chapter within that context, it actually says, honor the Lord with your wealth. Oh, wow. And so it ties in with the economic challenge that this church is facing.

And people are like, well, OK, but it still doesn't make any sense. And I don't understand. Now, I will admit the whole thing about Jesus being outside knocking on the door. I don't know how people have church without Jesus. That part throws me like, OK, you know. It was always one of those things that, you know, being within a sacramental tradition at this point, I'm like, I don't know how you have church without Jesus. So that just doesn't work for me. But. church without Jesus, so that just doesn't work for me. But he says, the one who conquers, I will sit with him, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my father on his throne. And then you get to the very controversial passage of Revelation 20, talking about the millennium. And when you look at the millennium, what happens?

John says, and I saw thrones. And who's seated on those thrones? Those who had been beheaded for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus, for they did not worship the beast or receive his image. Which then takes you back to Revelation 13, where it talks about the mark of the beast. Without which you can neither buy nor sell.

And so, I mean, I've heard people talk about, you know, buying and selling and see it's credit cards or it's this and we're moving to a cashless society. But the text didn't say anything to a cashless society. And I'm like, the text didn't say anything about a cashless society. So I remember, I actually had somebody recently asked me about the whole Mark thing and they brought up the COVID-19 vaccine. And I'm sitting here like, wait a minute, that has nothing to do with it. So, I mean, they were highly concerned about it. And I just decided to tell them, hey, look, if you're that concerned about the vaccine, according to Revelation 13, the mark is taken on the right hand or on the forehead. So just take the vaccine in your left arm and you'll like nullify all the evil actions of the COVID vaccine and you still get it. You're good. But what we find in Revelation 13 is this whole issue of not being able to buy or sell, and so it challenges the Laodicean. Now notice,

the Ephesian church isn't getting this. The church in Smyrna isn't getting this, because that's not their issue. But the church in Laodicea that has all this wealth is being challenged to raise this question of, wait a minute, if you can neither buy nor sell, if you can't enter into the trade guilds, if you can't prosper economically without worship of the beast, which do you value more? Your relationship with Jesus? Are you going to have the door open where he can come in and eat with you and you eat with him. Or are you going to leave that door shut in order that you might economically prosper and give your allegiance to the beast, that you no longer protest against the economic power and brutality of the empire?

Or are you going to actually enter into this system and become part of it and therefore suffer the judgment that will come upon the empire because you are now one with it? That'll clear a church. Tell me about it. So the mark of the beast, yeah, is some kind of, well, I'll just ask you, how would you describe what is the mark of the beast? Or is that even the right question? Like, is it a specific thing that we should be looking for? Is it more of a concept? Or yeah, what is the mark of the beast? All of the above, yes. Okay. And here's what I mean by that. When you look at it from a literary standpoint of view, I always say that the division between chapter 13 and 14 in Revelation is probably the worst division ever, because the mark is a name. Notice,

he says, let the one who has wisdom know the number of the beast and count the number of his name, for it is the number of a man. And his number is 666. And there are also variants to that, the most popular being 616. Yeah, yeah. Well, it would seem to be imperial pointing to Nero, depending on, you know, where you are in the empire and what the coinage without which you could neither buy nor sell would have his name and his image on it. Oh, wow. So wait, so the mark of the beast is just the, let's just say Nero for a second, who thinks he's divine and his image is stamped over everything.

And so it's just money? I mean, it's just coinage that we all use. I mean, or... Without which you can neither buy nor sell. So we have, I mean, if we handle money today, is that, are dollar bills the mark of the beast, so to speak, or is that an inaccurate parallel? Well, I think what we have to do is we have to look and say, okay, is money in and of itself

evil? No. But is the love of money the root of all evil? Okay. Oh, so worshiping the mark of the beast, you're just worshiping money and participation in the economic system, which is wrapped up in all kinds of evil structures. And that's the key thing. It's, are you living in a way where you are worshiping the beast, worshiping the emperor, for the sake of your own economic prosperity? I mean, the whole issue of gaining the whole world and losing your soul is exemplified in these passages of Revelation. But the contrast with that is this. You have the mark that's taken on the right hand of the forehead, and people are like, well, you can't put money

on your forehead. Look at it from a literary standpoint for just a second. Chapter 14, verse 1, then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his father's name where? Written on their foreheads. Now, strangely, this actually takes us back to the message to the church in Philadelphia. Because the promise to those individuals was to the one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it. I will write on him the name of my God, the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven and my own new name. So you see that connection all of a sudden, and people are like, but what

does that have to do with anything? Is it everybody, the 144,000, what's going on? Well, the church in Philadelphia is facing those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are labeled as a synagogue of Satan. But all of a sudden, there's a promise that because they have kept the word of God about patient endurance, that God would keep them from the hour of trial that is coming on the earth to try those who dwell on the earth. Now, I know people are like, see, you're going back, you left behind theology all of a sudden. Not at all. all. Because when you look at those, the 144,000, when they are sealed, they are still on the earth, which means that the earth dwellers, as I like to call them, are on earth, and those who are marked with the seal of God are on the earth all simultaneously. So nobody's been stacked out of the earth or anything of that nature going on in this book. You have both groups together simultaneously on the planet, those who worship God, those who worship the beast.

And God, when he's remember, the angel comes and has them sealed before any of the bomb trials begin to come out upon the earth and affect creation. So in other words, the people of God in this text are preserved in the midst of God's judgment against the worldly empires that have come against his people. Hmm. Let's think Exodus for a moment. Oh, yeah. Where God says, I will make a distinction between your people and my people whereas the the people in goshen the israelites the people of israel abraham's descendants they they are still able to function amid all the judgments that are going on. And they're not affected by these things in the same way that the Egyptians are.

And John's like, hey, remember what happened way back when? God can do it again. In the midst of the most powerful, once again, the most powerful empire in the world in our day, it can still happen. Yeah. Yeah. Wow. Oh, so many questions. I want to get to some practical implications of everything you're saying. I think most people can connect those. Well, I think maybe not. Maybe some people might be connecting some dots, but I would like, I want to go there, but real quick, what do you do with just all the weird stuff in Revelation from like chapter seven to, I don't know, 16 with, you know, you got giant, um, locusts and I mean, uh, riders on

the horses and everything. Um, these, this is just symbolic imagery. We shouldn't try to make a one-to-one like, oh, locusts represent this thing or that thing. Is that how you describe it? Yeah, I would say when you're trying to figure out, well, the locust means this, and this bowl being poured out means this, or people then try to open up their newspapers and figure out where in Revelation we are. I think when you jump to that, you miss the point of the entire book. Take the symbols as symbols, nothing more, nothing less, and read the story. That's why I would say you come out better reading Revelation, and I know this sounds really sick and crazy, but you come out better reading Revelation to kids than you do to adults. Because the kids accept the imagery as the imagery as they would any

other story that they hear. While adults are trying to parse and figure out what exactly this symbol means. It's kind of like, I mean, apocalyptic literature is different. Well, it's similar to like a Chronicles of Narnia or something. I mean, certainly there are some things like the beast is Rome, right? The dragon is Satan. Aslan is the Christ figure. But Tumnus, I mean, is he an apostle? He's Tumnus. He's just there to form. He just is.

Yeah, he just is. Why is he half a goat? So real quick, you mentioned in passing, I've always, this isn't a major deal, but I mean, you said that you date the book to This isn't a major deal, but I mean, you said that you date the book to 90s, you know, more Domitian era. And yet the 666 does seem, is it pretty clear that that's a reference to Nero? And is that why some people date it to Nero's day? And if you do take it in the 90s, why reference Nero through the number and not Domitian? Right. I think because when you look at initial previews of things, I'll use an analogy within the book to help understand this.

Why call Rome Babylon? It's something that everyone could relate to. So, you know, it's like, not everybody's going to pick up on this necessarily. If you're like Rome, oh, Rome's not doing that. Oh, Domitian's not, like, that's the kind of thing you do. But all of a sudden, Babylon, the Babylonians destroyed the temple. And everybody knows the Babylonians destroyed the temple. Then you stop and you look, Rome destroyed the temple. And so I'm going to grab something that everyone knows. This is common knowledge we can all relate to. And at that point, I'm not a conspiracy theorist out here against the government that would kill me anyway. In the same way, John presents a riddle

pointing you to Nero, who was the first real major imperial persecutor of the church. And so he's like, hey, this is the direction in which we're heading, because it's like, might not necessarily be a case where, you know, Domitian's killing people. But. The the emperor will have this up, the leader of the imperial cult being the second beast, as I like to label it, is going to guide people into worshiping the beast, the first beast. And so as a result, there's now this, I'm lacking a word, but there's a marriage between religion and the empire. There's a civil religion going on here. I almost tossed out the language of Christian nationalism, but that's not what I was aiming for. Well, you could go, I mean. But if the shoe fits, if the shoe fits, but I think that that's the thing. When you look at it, there's this meshing of the two.

And so why not just say Demetian or why not change the riddle to match him? Because everybody knows Nero. Okay, now that makes sense. It would be like, yeah, an example off the top of my head, which I'm not, don't read into it, audience here. Okay. Depending on where you're on the political aisle.

But like, if you're going to reference, say the GOP, it'd be easy to mention Reagan, you know, and not say, well, I mean, in this day and age, obviously Trump or something like Reagan kind of is the symbol of that. Right. Right. I mean, even though he's 40 years ago or whatever, which actually fits the, I mean, maybe the analogy is better than I expected. Actually, yeah. And so I think that's the, that's the big thing. So here, and I don't even know how much, you know, about some of the work that the work that I've done. So I want to try to ask in a way as a neutral observer, but based on everything you're saying, would you say that one big takeaway Christians should have from Revelation is a prophetic rebuke against, which you use the term,

Christian nationalism or blending faith and our faith identity and our political identity. Like, would you say that is a very natural application of the book of Revelation? Very natural application of Revelation. I think that it comes out most prominently in the church in Ephesus, in that message, to not attempt to use your righteous indignation or your—don't use ungodly means as an attempt to stand for righteousness. Okay, yeah. You nullify the very thing that you're aiming for by contradicting it by your own actions. I think that's the big thing. And I will tell people when it comes to this meshing of religion and politics and whatnot, I consistently say the kingdom of God is political. Yes.

But it is not partisan. Dude, I've used that same phrase. Thank you for saying that. My audience knows. We just met right now. So the kingdom of God is political, not partisan. And I use this imagery, take it out if you will, if you need to, like take it out later. But I always say, look, when we look at this, the church, no matter what country you're in, should not get in bed with the empire. The harlot rides the beast, the bride does not.

So you're a preacher. How does this go? And is it right? I don't come from a Pentecostal tradition. I know in my tradition, this would not go well at all. I have heard from my Pentecostal tradition. I know in my tradition, this would not go well at all. I have heard from my Pentecostal friends that it's very, that in that sense, Pentecostalism is very similar. There is a lot of Christian nationalism in at least some, would that be accurate or, yeah. I would say in the circles in which I have run,

you can get pushback, especially on this. And now, now I'm an Anglican. So, right. Yeah. So, you know, you bring all of this together. But in my own experiences, when I have talked about things, which can be interesting, but I'll make a statement in some of this. But you don't understand because I was told one day that the devil had deceived me and I was blinded to his works. But I'm using the scriptures. Well, you're misusing the scriptures because you're not using them prophetically. And I'm like, I don't think you know what that word means, but OK. And so you do get pushback. But that's when I come back to the question of, okay, what does Scripture actually say? to have the ministry of reconciliation, how do we aid in the reconciliation of people with God and people with each other if we become part of the problem of bringing division because of my

partisanship or because I think that my way is better? Yeah, man, I've been having a lot of conversations, some yet to be released podcast conversations about this very thing. Just the last couple of years, especially this polarized partisanship across the country has just taken hold of the affections of the church. And it's just, I talk to pastors all the time. I'm sure you do too. Or just, man, my church is pastors all the time. I'm sure you do too, or just, man, my church is divided over the latest political hot button issue, you know? And it's like, man, that's just, we need the book of Revelation to spank us, don't we? I mean. And that's the key thing. I remember I was in a job interview one day and somebody asked me,

on the political spectrum. Between conservative and liberal, progressive, where do you see yourself? And my first thought was, wait, what? Did you just ask me that? But and my response, though, was I see myself as biblical. And my response, though, was I see myself as biblical. I tried. That's what that's what I aim for. I said, which means that if you are on the far right. There are things in scripture that are going to offend you. And if you're on the far left, there are things in scripture that are going to offend you.

And if you're moderate, there are still things in scripture that are going to offend you. And so the gospel is an offense, but I don't need to be offensive in my presentation of it. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, no, that's good. It's like we shouldn't even try to measure ourselves on that spectrum, you know, because that spectrum is defined by a whole set of values that some of which resonate with, some of which conflict with scripture. You know, and that, yeah, I just, and yet I love, again, going back to your phrase, you know, political Christian will resonate with, other things that you don't resonate with, but it's the tribalistic identity that I think is not just, I think it's dangerous that all of a sudden now our allegiance just gets pulled to the left or to the right rather than above to the kingdom of God. But the book of, I'm thankful for your work and I hope it really gets out there because the book of Revelation is so much to say to our current climate. And I think Christians are just missing it because they do read it through a futurist-only kind of lens.

So any parting words? It's been an hour. I don't want to take you any longer. But any last words of encouragement or challenge to Christians regarding this book? I would say try to approach the text forgetting all the stuff that you've heard about the book and try to read it with fresh eyes. Okay. That's a good word. Don't try to figure out who the beast is and what's going on over here.

Just read the book as it is. Don't go naming people. Just read it. Because here's the thing, you're blessed if you read it. Look, the Bible didn't say you had to understand this book to be blessed. He said, blessed are those who read, hear, and obey. Because if it came to understanding, we'd all still be messed up. Yeah, read and obey to read this book and let it reconfigure your allegiances, really. We all have allegiances elsewhere, and we need to realign those with Christ. Man, well, I appreciate you, Dan.

I could talk to you for hours, and so maybe I need to have you back on. Because there's lots of other questions about the book, and I'm sure you've done. So apart from Revelation, what else do you teach? What else are you working on? Because there's lots of other questions about the book, and I'm sure you've done. So apart from Revelation, what else do you teach, and what else are you working on, or is it just Revelation? No, so I'm branching out a little bit more. I'm actually presenting a paper next month, virtually at this point, called Tamar II, Tales of Righteous Resistance for the Society for Pentecostal Studies. So what I'm doing is I'm actually looking, using critical discourse analysis to look at the language of the story of Judah and Tamar. Oh. To show how her story within Genesis highlights a transition from her being a victim of abuse to her being a survivor of abuse.

Okay. Oh, wow. Wow. So I'm dealing a lot with those types of topics, looking at Paul and privilege. And how does he interact with people in his letters? And what kind of authority is he bringing that enables him to do the things that he does? Yeah. Oh, that's cool. Gosh.

Yeah. Oh, that's cool. Gosh. I'm not in biblical scholarship as much anymore, but you're making me miss it. Discourse analysis. That's a true... What's... Oh, McMaster. McMaster's huge where you did your PhD, right? They're all about discourse analysis. Yeah. Yeah. Well, thanks so much for being on. It comes to discourse. So thanks so much for being on Theology in Her Awe, Dan. Appreciate you. Thank you.