Is the Christ of Revelation Out for Blood?

Want more on Revelation? Bart has written a new book titled "Armageddon - What the Bible Really Says about the End". In it, he examines the least-read and most-misunderstood book of the Bible. It will be out in late March, but you can pre-order here: https://bit.ly/armgddn. Pre-orders really help drive publicity, so if you're interested in the subject (and why wouldn't you be? It's The. End. Of. The. World!), get it now while it's hot!


Episode Outline:
0:00 Is the Christ of Revelation out for blood?
0:59 Bart and Megan catch up from the mountain house
1:58 Jesus as the central figure of Revelation
4:22 Why many scholars argue Christ in Revelation is not really violent
7:20 Does Jesus ever advocate violence in the Gospels?
11:43 Why John of Patmos may have turned Jesus into a divine warrior
15:17 Is Revelation’s violence coming from Jesus, from God, or both?
16:54 Does Revelation reflect older messianic expectations of a conquering ruler?
21:05 Can the violence be defended as justice?
23:46 If it’s symbolic, does that make the violence less troubling?
27:46 Bart’s Weekly Update: upcoming interviews and events for Armageddon
29:13 Outsmart Bart: Mark’s naked man, Thomas’s “corpse” saying, and Paul’s large letters
36:18 Final summary: why Revelation’s Christ looks so different from the Gospels

Episode Description

It is surprising that many scholars say that Revelation is not a violent book and was never meant to be. In their judgment, the controlling image of the narrative is Christ as the innocent "lamb who was slain," a non-violent Son of God who experienced violence inflicted by others. The book then teaches that non-violence is the way to eternal glory, and those who practice violence on earth will, in the end, experience what they themselves promote. Is that a plausible reading of the book? In this episode I argue that in fact it is precisely wrong, and that Revelation explicitly portrays a violent Christ who wreaks blood vengeance. Is that the Christ of the Gospels?

Also watch these episodes:
Does the Book of Revelation Predict our Future?
Does the Book of Revelation Predict our Future?

Why is the Book of Revelation in the Bible?
Why is the Book of Revelation in the Bible?

The Coming Apocalypse! Jewish and Christian Views of the End of the World
The Coming Apocalypse! Jewish and Christian Views of the End of the World

This week, Bart and Megan discuss:

-what role does Jesus play in the Book of Revelation?

-Jesus is described in Revelation as the leader of god’s army, and is the one responsible for loosing the four horsemen of the apocalypse, as well as other disasters, on the unbelieving world. How does this match up with how Jesus is portrayed in the gospels?

-Did Jesus ever say “take up the sword”, and how does that line up with the peaceable figure some describe?

-Did the writer of Revelation see Jesus as an inherently violent figure, or that he’s carrying out god’s will…which juwt happens to be violent? Can we really hold Jesus accountable for the destruction that occurs after he breaks the seals on the scroll?


-Jesus as a general and king of the world much more closely conforms to the expectations of the apostles than the reality they were ultimately presented with; is Book of Revelation is a late reflection of those early expectations, or is it more of a reaction to the climate of oppression that Christians were living in at the time?

-Why is Jesus presented as such a violent entity? Why not show him as a benevolent ruler who regretfully executes god’s enemies in some kind of painless manner, rather than with such gory and graphic methods?

-How do people defend or explain Jesus' violent role in Revelation? There’s no love or mercy for this Christ; even Christians who have strayed slightly are to be thrown into a lake of fire, seemingly in contradiction to what Jesus says in Matthew about the most important commands being to love god and love your neighbor.

-On the other hand, isn’t this all symbolic? John wasn’t really advocating for or expecting this level of torture and bloodshed, isn't he using symbolism to get his point across.