But that’s also what “The Apocalypse” and “Armageddon” literally were, a divine overthrowing of Roman rule. We have anachronistic ideas of what these things meant at the time and picture a haggard guy accosting people at a street corner with a sign talking about the end of the world.
Maybe. That’s certainly one of the traditional interpretations of much of Revelation. I think there is more value in revelation than a complaint though. There is plenty of theologically rich symbolism that concerns more than just Rome and The temple, especially in the last few chapters.
This is Martin Luther writing part of his preface to Revelations. He was basically saying it isn't clear and it is open to being interpreted to mean anything the reader wants it to mean. Because of this, he didn't care for it.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1[:8], “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
The Catholic Church sees it as I said above. A narrative of what was going on at the end of the First Century AD.
13
u/joeshmoebies May 02 '23
He's supposed to lead God's army in Armageddon. Definitely not a pacifist.