Why did you write commentary on Revelation?
For many years the book of Revelation has fascinated me. I did not always understand the book, but there was a fascination.
In the early years of my faith, the church I attended studied the prophecies of Revelation several times. Each time the feeling grew in me that the studies originated in news stories or modern technology and authors twisted the scripture to make listeners believe we live in the end times. I dislike twisted scripture.
When I was in college and seminary, I took several classes in Revelation and Eschatology (study of end times) under renowned professors. These classes were interesting and gave more in-depth and connected commentary. The studies left me with a lot to think about. The professors compared scripture to scripture. Ultimately, the book’s complex plot twists were difficult to follow. But I had a better understanding.
For years I studied other books of the Bible that I understood better. I resisted studying the book of Revelation until several senior adults in my church cornered me into teaching it. I told them I would guide them to understand passages in the book of Revelation related to the worship and praise of God. But the Senior Adults took it as a challenge to make me share how I felt about Eschatology in the book of Revelation.
I accomplished the class, but a year later, the same people wanted me to teach it again. I did, but during preparation, I saw something that helped me understand the meaning of the Apocalypse. During the 15th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center, I realized Revelation is not about the future. It concerns a past crisis. Twenty years before John wrote the book of Revelation, attackers destroyed the city of Jerusalem. John asked, “Why?" and God explained.
From the time I had my epiphany, I felt an undeniable desire to write a commentary. The process took ten years. Over those ten years I had to examine previous assumptions, always verifying that new ideas were true and Biblical. I did not want to twist the scripture, as others have done. The book is now written.
Why do you think the multitude of existing commentaries are inadequate?
Many commentaries exist in the book market that claim to simplify the book of Revelation. I have found none that really make the book less confusing. Several issues cause confusion about the Apocalypse.
1) Commentators look at Revelation in a piecemeal fashion. Commentators divide the book into small parts. They use unrelated Old Testament (or sometimes New Testament) proof texts to explain these small parts, which have themes based on those texts. ... If a proof-text does not fit, people will force it to fit.
2) The book of Revelation’s division into small parts causes it to lack a real storyline. The book imposes a timeline, forcing some parts to fit at the expense of clarity.
3) The imposed timeline creates a problem because it needs to be updated every 10-20 years since the end has not occurred yet.
4) Some things imposed onto the book to fit the proof texts are pathetic, such as:
. a) The book clearly says things are happening “soon.Biblical literalists counter with, “It is like climbing up a hill, we see the mountain in the distance and John didn’t realize there was a valley containing years of time between the hill and the mountain, creating a long time, not a short time.”
. b) The seven churches seem to be mega-churches, or at least like modern churches. Most pagan communities had no mega-churches.
. c) Presentations imply the seven seals reveal the scroll’s contents. However, the scroll is still unread in chapter 10.
. d) the seven trumpets = ten plagues of Exodus. Any mathematician knows 7 does not = 10, and the plagues are out of order. ... I think Genesis 1 makes more sense (explained in my book). 7 days = 7 trumpets, seals, bowls, churches, and a lot of other sevens in the book.
. e) The number 666 ... how many things can it mean? Commentators impose gematria (which was not common at that time) or various other twisted ideas to seem smart. None of them are biblical.
How is your commentary different from any other commentary?
1) My commentary looks at the Apocalypse as John would have understood it, as a Jew living in the first century.
2) John wrote the book 20 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. John wanted to know, in real time, why God allowed the destruction of the Temple, its altar, and its priesthood. People in crisis don’t have time to dream about a distant end of the world.
3) I share cultural Jewish practices as verified through books of Jewish ceremonial tradition. These same books share Jewish conversation of the first century. I quote them so the reader can understand John’s thoughts and reasoning.
4) I offer a storyline that fits history. The story can be verified, and I share eye-witness accounts. Because the story really happened, it is easier to follow. Each person mentioned is real and appears in history. Revelation is not fiction.
5) I found the book to be very consistent. There are 8 parts that mirror each other. I can compare and find meaning where it might not be apparent because the mirror verses fill in the gaps. Each of the 8 major parts contains 2 sets of 7 (patterned after the seven days of the week) and a summary poem (or song). Consistency and John clarifying his own story to add reliability. The entire book is well-footnoted.
6) The message and history were written by a Jew about Jewish things ... not by a Jew about Gentile Roman things. John writes about current events, which he knows and understands, not about future technology or people who would not exist for thousands of years.
7) The book actually fits the genre of the rest of the Bible, not some type of unrelated fantasy prediction. When you read “John’s Apocalypse: A Jewish Idea” it will make sense. Click here to buy
Why would you write a commentary to sell in an already crowded book market?
I wrote the book to bring sensibility back to the Book of Revelation. People will attempt to fit “John’s Apocalypse: A Jewish Idea” into some existing pattern of theology ... but it will not fit. The message found in my book is historical and filled with profound truths (like the rest of the Bible) rather than being futuristically eschatological. Read the first part of te book online, you will see the difference.
