reading log: fiorenza's revelation

1 files changed, 57 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/reading-log.md b/reading-log.md
index 1a15609..88a46fa 100644
--- a/reading-log.md
+++ b/reading-log.md
@@ -6,6 +6,63 @@ author: Joe Carstairs
 
 ## 2026-04-17
 
+### @{revelation-vision-of-a-just-world}
+
+Big idea: Revelation can be used today from a hegemonic point of view to justify
+hatred and revenge. It should not be so used. Revelation should be read from a
+marginal point of view to invoke commitment and resistance.
+
+Fiorenza emphasises that readers should not attempt to recover the
+scientifically objective 'first meaning' of Revelation, because Revelation is a
+work of rhetoric, which means that its meaning is partly determined by its
+audience. We have a responsibility to interpret it in ways which do good things.
+
+She reckons John is writing from a marginal point of view. He vilifies the rich
+churches like at Laodicaea, and praises the poor and oppressed ones like Smyrna
+and Philadelphia.
+
+John is writing against other Christian prophets, one of whom he gives the
+slanderous name 'Jezebel'. They seem to be arguing for a reasonable compromise
+with the imperial cult. In contrast, John is appealing to his readers to keep
+well away from the imperial cult. His visions depict Rome as a mythical beast in
+opposition to God and an agent of Satan, and promise that those who resist will
+enjoy God's eschaton in New Jerusalem.
+
+Fiorenza thinks that interpreting the visions of Revelation allegorically or
+typologically as representing past, present or future historical events is a bad
+plan. But she also thinks it is a bad plan to spiritualise the visions,
+understanding them as merely describing the theological truth of God's justice
+etc, as this kills off the critique of injustice and hope for a better world,
+and scrubs out the complex inter-relationships between symbols in the visions.
+
+I sense her view is something like this. In order to portray Rome for the way it
+really is, John describes Rome in a way it literally isn't. Rome is the harlot,
+the beast, the servant of Satan. Kings, merchants, and sailors will mourn over
+her. She will be cast into an everlasting lake of fire, and because of her all
+human beings will be killed. Those who resist Rome will rule in God's empire,
+not just a bigger Rome but an upside-down one as well, where there are no
+oppressive, life-destroying forces. None of these things are literally true, but
+they can't and shouldn't be reduced to an underlying allegorical, typological or
+theological truth, either. The vision, preserved in its imaginative wholeness,
+enjoins us to re-see Rome for what it really is. This reconfigures the way we
+approach moral decisions, like whether to eat food sacrificed to idols or to
+honour an image of the emperor.
+
+In particular, John seems to imagine Rome as a pretender God. It has usurped his
+place in the world, demanded obeisance and seized power with force which rightly
+belonging to God alone. When Christians compromise with the imperial cult, they
+declare their submission to Rome's fake self-deity, and thus abandon their
+commitment to the one God, the one source of life, the one hope of peace and
+justice. In his view, even when it is disruptive, Christians must resist the
+symbolic universe of the Roman imperial cult which sets up imperial power as a
+fake God, and worship the true God instead.
+
+Hope? She emphasises the marginal perspective from which John writes, and how he
+gives mythological encouragement, that those who pay now because of the
+oppressive powers of the world have their reward in heaven. The battle against
+Satan is already going on, and the martyrs have staked their lives on the
+winning side.
+
 ## 2026-04-16
 
 ### @{climate-history-modern-world-v2}