Carey, Greg. Rereading Revelation: Theology, Ethics, and Resistance. Eerdmans, 2025. xviii+210 pp. Pb. $29.99 Link to Eerdmans
Greg Carey is Associate Dean and Professor of New Testament at Moravian University School of Theology. He has previously published Stories Jesus Told: How to Read a Parable (Abingdon2019), Using Our Outside Voice: Public Biblical Interpretation (Fortress, 2020), and Death, the End of History, and Beyond: Eschatology in the Bible in the Interpretation series (WJKP, 2023). He often contributes to Sojourners Magazine.
This new book on Revelation addresses the book topically and theologically. He says that his theological perspective is “without bias” (xi). This might be possible, but in his introduction, he goes on to describe his biases. “I aim to read Revelation in a way that fosters life, community, sustainability, dignity, and equity” (xii). His goal in this book is to reach a broad audience, so there is no intensive engagement with secondary literature and certainly no list of what commentaries say about Revelation. In many ways, this theological reading of Revelation engages in a kind of reception history emphasizing modern interpretive methodologies. Often, Carey engages various approaches to Revelation (feminist interpretation, queer readings, post-colonial readings).
He observes that Revelation is a “dangerous and necessary part of the canon” (xii), which some Christians reject because of its violent imagery or the interpretations that it has fostered over the years. Perhaps the book is too esoteric? Is the book impossible to understand? For many readers, the answer is yes, and the book of Revelation is easily pushed aside. Carey’s book is an example of theological interpretation. It is a series of related essays on the book of Revelation without any sustained exegesis or historical research. Certainly, Carey has done that work, but this book stands on the grammatical-historical method, intertextual studies, and the socio-historical study of Asian Rome in the first century.
For Carey, the primary challenge of Revelation involves loyalty. Followers of Jesus are called to resist imperial culture and the worship of emperors and imperial gods. As such, the book is resistance literature (xv). The book is written to real churches in Roman Asia Minor who genuinely struggled to resist imperial ideology. Readers were experiencing pressure regarding their exclusive witness, and some hostility from both outsiders (the “inhabitants of the Earth”) and some unfaithful insiders (the “synagogue of Satan”). The author of Revelation allows no compromise with culture. Carey states that “Revelation is the only New Testament document to condemn Roman power in an overt way” (23).
The first chapter of the book is programmatic. He wants to reread Revelation as apocalyptic, prophecy, and a letter. This is often observed: Revelation is an apocalypse, or represents apocalyptic literature, yet it claims to be a prophecy and has features of a letter. As an apocalypse, Revelation participates in the literary traditions set forth by Daniel and 1 Enoch (5). Apocalyptic unveiled. More specifically, it unveils Rome through symbols such as a beast, a prostitute, or a dragon. “Revelation’s unveiling actively mocks Roman rulers, commerce, and piety by means of parody and satire” (21). Ancient Apocalypses have a scribal quality. They are intense conversations with other texts. He observes that Revelation alludes to 250–1000 Old Testament texts (depending on who is doing the counting).
As a prophecy, John does not see a boundary between prophecy and apocalyptic (as some scholars do today). He states that theological interpretation of revelation requires us to acknowledge John’s perspective (revelation is prophecy) but not necessarily to adopt it. For Carey, prophecy is a “contested category” (9). As a letter, Carey’s focus is on the embedded letters to churches in Roman Asia Minor in Revelation 2-3. Historians use these letters to reconstruct the circumstances of these seven churches, focusing on the conflicting teachers in Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira (Balaam and Jezebel). Carey warns his readers about making too much of small clues in these letters (14).
There are two key challenges for Christian readers. First, how exclusive is loyalty to Jesus? What potential allegiance is threatened by this loyalty? Second, what is the relationship between the followers of Jesus and the state? These two questions have currency in the first century and make four interesting theological and cultural applications in the twenty-first century. Carey’s focus in this book is on Western Christianity, but it could easily be applied to other cultural contexts.
In chapter 4, Carey asks whether Revelation has an eschatology. He suggests “not in the popular sense” that many modern prophecy teachers used to read the book. Certainly, the book has something to say about “the end,” but it does not have anything to say about the rapture, the tribulation period, or any kind of literal judgments on earth. For Carye, this is not demythologizing because he does not think those elements were present in Revelation in the first place. Eschatology is not a sequence of future events, but a description of how we view reality, or cosmology. Maybe, eschatology is “what’s really going on.” If readers pay attention to the apocalyptic elements of the book and discern how they function in their own culture, they will not fall into the sorts of interpretations popular among premillennial or dispensational interpreters of Revelation (69).
Carey argues that Revelation provides the cosmological framework, with pervasive evil in this world and salvation coming from heaven. This is all based on a Jewish worldview of the first century. I don’t have a problem with this; Carey is certainly correct as far as he goes. However, it seems to me that the “Jewish world view of the first century” included quite a bit of fiery judgment on this world that at least some Jews took quite literally. If Revelation participates in the same literary world as Daniel and Enoch, why would it not also share literal eschatological expectations with that literature?
Nevertheless, he does recognize some eschatology in the book. There is an into history: the lamb defeats Satan and the beast, and the whole supernatural drama comes to an end (76). How all that happens is not what Revelation is about.
Chapters 6-9 discuss specific issues in Revelation (wealth, feminist approaches to the book (“A Queer Book”), violence (how can a pacifist read Revelation?), and resistance. With respect to violence, Carrie says, “Many readers, myself among them, find the lake of fire repulsive for moral and theological reasons (83). Revelation has an active hope for an afterlife for the righteous, but the punishment of the wicked is repulsive. But this violence is repulsive from a modern perspective (no one in the ancient world would see anything wrong with the lake of fire, and there are many antecedents in Revelation’s dialogue partners, the Hebrew Bible, Daniel, and 1 Enoch. Carey observes that “Revelation celebrates and endorses violence, even though it never calls its audience to violent action” (152). If Revelation is resistance literature, then the violence is expected.
For Carey, it is best to emphasize the book’s hopeful passages. For example, “Christian hope is not the same as empty optimism” (78). Revelation grounds its future in the shape of what God has already accomplished in creation, Israel, and the church (79).
Conclusion. Carey’s Rereading Revelation is a helpful contribution to theological readings of Revelation. By rereading Revelation through a thoroughly modern lens, Carey offers insight into this difficult book that other approaches overlook.
NB: Thanks to Eerdmans for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
Does he even tackle the problem of failed prophecy? Or how Paul viewed it vis-a-vis 2 Corinthians 11 and 12? Or how it encouraged the burning of Rome and the latee Jewish Revolt? This book has deceived millions of believers and is the most evil book ever written. Selah.
Woodrow Nichols
woodrowenichols@gmail.com
Not at all. This is a theological reading of Revelation, so he is not interested in whether the book is a prophecy of AD 70 (or not)
Is that because it’d in the Bible? How does the theology of Revelation differ from that of Paul’s. I’m not sure if I understand the distinction you are making.
Theological Interpret ion of Scripture is a particular hermenutical strategy popular these days. Less importance give to historical grammatical method (and background material), and more on theological implications of the text as it is. So Carey has a chapter on violence in Revelation, one on feminist and queer perspectives, and post-colonial readings pop up from time to time. Whether John was a failed prophet or not is not important to these theological readers (since authorial intent is not going to survive very long).
Okay, thanks for the explanation. I obviously overreacted.
The Xtian ‘Word of God’ has no portion with Sinai
The בראשית Divine Names אל שדי אלהים אל וכו stand apart from the revelation of the שם השם לשמה revealed in the first Sinai commandment. Hence the Avot did not “know HaShem”. The Mishkan פרט teaches a profound משל which requires the generations to make the דיוק נמשל. The kabbalah-שכנה refers to rabbi Yechuda’s Yatzir Ha-Tov in his kre’a shma interpretation לבבך\כם; consistent with the dedication of Horev spirits/middot 13 followed up by Talmud Yerushalmi/Bavli middot 7 Hillel, 10 Akiva, 13 Yishmael affixed to interpreting Gemara common law halachic precedents and HaGallil 32 middot/aggada – to re-interpret (משנה תורה) the language of the Mishna which Gemara common law serves to interpret as a mirror of courtroom witnesses who testify based upon their given “fixed” perspectives. Akin to the front-top-side views of a blue print.
The theological abomination of Monotheism perverts the reality that each nation unique, because each nation worships its own national God. The 30 Year War a strong precedent. A T’NaCH source precedent, the permanent split between the kingdoms of Yechuda and Yisroel serve witness before the אלהים court. First the kingdom of Israel assimilated and embraced alien cultures and customs and abandoned the Oral Torah which serves to define the culture, customs, social practices which define the identity of the chosen Cohen people. Then Yechuda also worshiped other National Gods by embracing foreign cultures customs and forgetting and abandoning the revelation of the god of Sinai. Hanukkah serves witness. The Rambam serves as a prime example of how assimilation and intermarriage define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein explains the failure of Reshonim scholarship to inspire Israel to conquer our homelands, based upon the model of Moshe Rabbeinu.
Mesechta Avoda Zarah specifically instructs that only Israel accepts the Torah. Hence the דיוק – the god of Sinai only a local tribal god. Clearly the god who delivered Israel out of Egypt not confused with the Gods of Egypt. בראשית ברא אלהים introduces Av tohor wisdom commandments taught through the משל of the world created in six days. The נמשל introduces time-oriented Av Torah commandments which require k’vanna & creates the chosen Cohen people in all generations through the sanctification of time-oriented wisdom commandments. Hence Torah commands mussar, the definition of prophetic wisdom. Torah does not teach history. T’NaCH & Talmud, Siddur & Midrashim establish the culture, customs, practices and identities of the chosen Cohen people. Just that simple, no fancy dancing.
The god of Israel judged the Egyptian Gods. The Av tuma witchcraft which declares: as above so below – rejects the Revelation of the Torah first Sinai commandment: השם לא בשמים היא; the god of Israel post Sinai vs. the Gods of Egypt serve as the eternal הבדלה that differentiates the revelation of רוח הקודש מידות which quicken and cause the Yatzir Ha-Tov to live & breath. Herein defines the k’vaana of Oral Torah common law Court-room justice as the substance of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. The Goyim world contrast-view reads their Bible or Koran — Egypt’s Gods either false or subordinate inferior Gods, who do not actually exist at all. Hence their Av tuma avoda zara promotes the theology known as Monotheism. Goyim never accepted the Blessing/Curse brit of Sinai. Just as Goyim aliens do not determine the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach so too Goyim theology does not determine the god of Israel.
The curse of g’lut: Jews lose the skill required to do mitzvot לשמה – based upon the first Sinai commandment – Egypt לאו דוקא. The temple of Shlomo – av tuma avoda zara made by a fool. The Book of Kings makes a דיוק satire by referring to Shlomo as the “wisest of all men”. The god of Israel binds only Israel because only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Assimilated Rambam, another ‘latter day’ Mormon-like fool; he embraced the Arab tawhid and ruled that Jews could daven in Arab mosques, and his Guide philosophy based upon Aristotle rather than פרדס logic; that Allah the same god of Sinai – despite the cold hard fact that Goyim, specifically Muhammad, reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Prophets never sent דוקא to Goyim; both Moshe and Yona sent to lands not included in the oath sworn to the Avot as the inheritance of their Cohen seed to cause g’lut Israel to remember the brit and do t’shuva. The Pauline ‘original sin’ replacement theology perverted the introduction of the Torah curse/theme of g’lut\exile and substitutes – the belief system, messiah Jesus God saves from sin.
The Nicene Creed which equates Jesus as God, perhaps the strongest proof; international law a myth of propaganda morality, not a binding authority. Political conflicts throughout history falsely classified by some as a failure of diplomacy. But casting this political rhetoric upon the dust bin of history together with the NT & Koran, political conflicts express a natural clash of sovereign “Gods.” Restated: A nation‑state — a functional “God.” Theological Universal Monotheism\tawhid, often called “international law” by UN member states who oppose Israel, attempt to override national sovereignty through Religio-political rhetoric. But history provokes-proves that nations create their own sacred narratives, “Word of God”. Universal monotheism directly resembles Great Power imperialism. The revelation of the Torah at Sinai establishes faith as judicial Sanhedrin court justice limited to the bnai brit people alone.
Other nations never bound to the 7 mitvot other than Gere Toshav living within the borders of the Cohen brit republic. Why? These mitzvot make a required הבדלה which separates ger toshav from na’creeim. The Talmud always remains within the judicial boundaries which the Written Torah written Constitution determines. Post sealing of the Shas Bavli all opinions made by scholars compare to US Supreme Court rulings which later Courts can overturn.
The Blessing/Curse Torah oath brit faith never presumes any conclusion that g’lut applies to HaShem as its applies to Israel, based upon the contrast between the בראשית Divine Names from the first Sinai Name. Any reading that attempts to teach this metaphor – if taken literally – merely a טיפש פשט. The sophomoric Bible mistranslations and Koran serve as witness. For example: among the Reshonim, only Rambam ruled halacha from aggadic sources. His Universal Monotheistic God permits Jews to daven in av tuma avoda zara Mosques.
That later Goyim, such as Hobbs, Schmitt, or modern nationalism “influenced” by the Torah, (the Founding Fathers of the American Republic serve as witness), does not invert this Torah “Nation-State as Functional God” as post Talmudic; based upon the Torah premise: the chicken created and later laid eggs. Church rejection of the פרדס Oral Torah combined with their Jesus God NT theology – invalidates its literalist reading of the Creation story. Just as Muhammad’s equal redefinition of prophets as persons sent to all nations invalidates the revelation of the Torah first commandment. Allah simply a Golden Calf word substitution.
Rambam’s universalist Noahide framework only a philosophical systematization; it does not appear explicitly in the Talmud or Tanakh as a normative precedent. Hilchot Melachim 8–10, expresses a foreign philosophy — a Greek-influenced natural law perspective. The Talmud does not frame Goyim as bound by any such universal natural law – in a systematic, Greek-like sense. Rambam abstracts from Talmudic rulings unto a universal ethical schema — a philosophical move, that created a new Judaism religion. There is no canonical Talmudic or Tanakh precedent for universalist moral obligations like Rambam “God” imposes through his Roman-like statute law religious codification. Oral Torah logic employed by Sanhedrin justices to interpret law based upon precedents. The lights of the P’rushim hanukkah serve as witness that assimilation to Greek culture and deductive reasoning causes Israel to forget the Torah.
T’NaCH prophetic sources such as found Isaiah 13-14, 40-48 directed toward the failure of Israel to do t’shuva and remember the Sinai oath brit. Never to Goyim – who to this very moment in time do not accept this Sinai oath brit blessing\curse-Life/Death judicial justice-g’lut oppression faith obligation. Yonah sent to Nineveh, serves witness. Repentance made by Goyim shares nothing with the Torah mitzva of t’shuva. Because t’shuva centers upon remembering the oaths sworn by our fore-fathers; repentance refers to regret made over personal sins – based upon the Pauline theology-doctrine: Original Sin. The “repentance” made by the king of Assyria – only an Indian Summer. Goyim not delivered from Egyptian slavery, therefore Goyim incapable of remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut the time-oriented Torah brit which creates the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations.
The בראשית “Creation story” introduces Av time oriented wisdom commandments. בראשית does not introduce something other than the revelation of the Torah at Sinai judicial common law. Based upon the כלל that a opening “Thesis Statement” followed by “particulars which validate” the thesis statement through specific particulars כלל-פרט.
The Bavli aggada -does – mention Noahide categories, but not as a system, any more than the Creation story instructs that the Universe created in some silly טיפש פשט literalist reactionary reading. D’varim defines two types of Goyim in the brit oath-land inheritance of the chosen Cohen people. Mesechta Sanhedrin aggada address ger toshav and mesechta Baba Kama halacha – Nacreeim. Talmud does not ever refer to Goyim in foreign lands as having to obey the 7 mitzvot bnai noach. Why? Because Goyim never accept to this day the revelation of the Torah – inclusive of the Book בראשית.
Mesechta Avoda Zara and Chullin teach that a Hebrew Goy slave – a ger toshav. Another proof: Orpha decided to return to her Moavite family. The דיוק clear, she returned to Moav and abandoned keeping the 7 mitzvot bnai noach. Ruth by contrast, returned to Israel and serves as the model of the mitzva ger tzeddik.
[If] every nation establishes its own god, such as did Casear, and Mao; and HaShem breaths tohor middot – only the Oral Torah god of Israel – when we rule our homeland with righteous judicial common law courtroom justice — [then] What status of divine justice operates outside this Sinai brit? Each people by making their own Gods, as either Heads of State or theological belief systems etc. The Code of Hammurabi – approximately 600 to 800 years older than the commonly accepted date for the Sinai revelation after the liberation of the Israelites from Egypt, serves as witness. History testifies that throughout human history national leaders have assumed the role of God of their people/kingdom. Sinai does not sit atop of any universal pyramid. Rather the revelation of the Torah at Sinai — a different “mountain” entirely.
According to the Zohar, the Mishkan a משל teaching the נמשל of the Shekina. Based upon בבא מציעיא נט — לא בשמים היא.