If John, the writer of Revelation, was a reporter he would be fired for publishing fake news. He is not a reporter. He is a highly intelligent and creative writer who used the apocalyptic genre to reveal the truth of God. Did John see what he claimed to see? Find out in today’s episode.
Hi, my name is Terence, and I’m your host for Reading and Readers, a podcast where I review Christian books for you. Today I review “Revelation” by M. Eugene Boring, a commentary from the Interpretation Bible Commentary series. 250 pages, published by Westminster John Knox Press in August 2011. It’s available for USD 8.00 on Amazon Kindle and USD 12.59 via Logos. But I got it for free because it was the Logos Free Book of the Month.
The author is Eugene Boring, Boring by name but not boring by nature, as we will soon see. Before his retirement in 2003, Boring served as the Professor of New Testament at Brite Divinity School. He kept himself busy after retirement by writing commentaries on Mark, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and, of course, Revelation. He passed away last year, 2024. He now sees clearly what we see through a glass darkly.
His commentary on Revelation is, in my opinion, deeply flawed, and in today’s review, I will show you why.
Before Boring’s friends and family get upset, I don’t know the man personally, but I respect his work, ministry and the good I am sure he has brought out in his life.
I would like to think he is a man who loves truth. So, if he is wrong in his conclusions, he would want the world to know what is the truth. If he is correct, then others addressing the issues I raise will lead to stronger arguments in support of his positions. In the end, may the truth of God’s Word prevail over all.
Table of Contents
No Statement of Meaning
In the introduction chapter, Boring writes:
The following commentary is not intended as a statement of the meaning of Revelation. It is intended as an aid to facilitate an encounter with the text in which Revelation will communicate its own message in the mind and imagination of the reader.
He might not have intended to, but he ended up giving many statements of meaning that take readers away from the message of Revelation.
John Did Not See The Sword Come Out of the Man’s Mouth
My first reason for saying so is Boring insists that the writer of Revelation, John, did not actually see what he said he saw.
Boring writes:
Many of the scenes John describes simply cannot be imaged. Not only can they not be placed on a canvas or movie screen, they cannot be placed on the screen of the mind. The vision of the exalted Christ in 1:12–16, for example, simply becomes grotesque if one attempts to understand it as a reporter’s account of what John actually saw in the objective world.
He says this despite John saying that he saw and wrote it down. Let me read Revelation 1:12:
Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands,
John continues to describe the man who was speaking to him and in verse 16 concludes with this description:
In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.
Boring explains:
If one understands it as a description in objectifying language, one must then ask such questions as how the risen Christ spoke at all, with a sharp two-edged sword coming from his mouth, and what happened to the sword when he closed his mouth? The picture does become meaningful when understood as John’s literary composition, however, in which the sword had traditionally symbolized the sharpness and power of God’s word.
Boring is correct to surmise that the sword symbolises the sharpness and power of God’s word, but he unnecessarily frames John as an untrustworthy narrator.
John saw a vision. And visions are like dreams. And dreams can be weird.
Joseph dreamed that the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowed before him. But think about it. How would a sun bow? It has no waist to bend over. Was the dream to scale? Because the sun is enormous. And stars are also huge but very far away. Where was Joseph standing when they were bowing down to him? It’s easy to say the dream does not make sense, but when you are in the dream, you can see the sun, moon and eleven stars in front of you, and somehow you know that they are bowing before you.
And speaking of grotesque. You know what is more grotesque? Seven thin, sickly cows eating seven fat, healthy cows. And after that, still be thin and sickly! Grotesque is carnivorous anorexic cows.
Dreams and visions can be weird. So, there is no need to suggest John made things up. He saw a sword come out of the man’s mouth, and Boring is right; the sword represents the Word of God.
John Did Not See the Throne Room, Ezekiel Did
Let me give you another example.
In Revelation 4:1-6, we find the throne room scene. Let me read it.
After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne.
Instead of taking John at his word, Boring argues that John copied this scene from the prophet Ezekiel’s vision. Boring writes:
John’s vision is thus not a reporter’s account of something he “actually” saw; here, as elsewhere, it is the literary expression in traditional terms of his prophetic experience, carefully composed to communicate his theological meaning.
It is not reporting, it is creative writing. It’s just what writers in that time, before copyright laws, did. Apocalyptic writers draw upon the traditions and prophetic writings to create their own literature for their own purposes.
I have an easier explanation for why what John saw is so similar to what Ezekiel saw. They saw the same thing.
Boring has made a sorting error. Because of his expertise in apocalyptic writings and Roman and Jewish culture, he prioritised Revelation as an apocalyptic writing, and all the ways and perspectives that come with it, when he should have first prioritised Revelation as a unique testimony within the canon.
Revelation is in the canon; all the other apocalyptic writings are not because the early church did not see John as a more inspired creative writer; they saw him as a faithful prophet.
If my first criticism is that Boring does not believe what John wrote, then my second criticism is that Christians should not believe what Boring wrote… about Sin, Satan, and Salvation.
No to Original Sin
Commenting on Revelation 20:1-3, Boring makes this astonishing claim:
Just as individuals are part of God’s good creation, and therefore not inherently evil or rebellious but have been victimized by the evil structures in which their lives are enmeshed, so the nations themselves are not only the perpetrators of evil but its victims.
So, no sinners in the traditional sense, which is that we are sinners because we inherited a sin nature from Adam that makes us commit sin and rebel against God.
But according to Boring, there are no sinners, only victims.
No to Satan as a Person
Next, in a chapter titled “Interpreting Revelation Satan Language”, Boring rejects Satan is a person. After listing some Old Testament verses, he writes:
In none of these instances, nor anyplace else in the Old Testament, is there a Satan as the personification of evil.
Boring then explains how Iranian dualistic religion and its evil god Ahriman led to the Jewish tradition of presenting Satan as a person. He quotes from the Old Testament, he quotes from other Jewish writings, he quotes from Revelation, but he does not quote from the Gospels. He simply glosses over the New Testament by saying they continue treating Satan as a personification of evil because it is a convenient abstraction.
Never mind that Jesus in Luke 10:18 says, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”
And to back him up, Boring writes:
Not only fundamentalists but responsible liberal theologians of the social gospel era, the major theologians of the neo-orthodox era, and many contemporary Christian theologians with a deep social conscience have found the New Testament’s imagery for the demonic power of evil to be valuable when taken seriously but not literally.
But we don’t know who all these people are. He gives no citations. No footnote. No bibliography. We have to take his word for it.
Yes to Universal Salvation
I saved the most disturbing for last. In his commentary on Revelation 5:8-14. Let me first read verse 13.
And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!”
Boring writes:
Absolutely no one and nothing is excluded from this picture. Given this mind-expanding picture, it is impossible to see any part of the universe as ultimately rebellious and lost, just as it is impossible to see any part of the universe as existing apart from the creative will and activity of the one creator God.
He directs the readers to his chapter titled: “Reflection: Universal Salvation and Paradoxical Language”.
The words “Universal Salvation” should ring alarm bells for any Christian. This means that everyone, regardless of their convictions, will ultimately be saved. And this naturally provokes the thought: “If Universal Salvation is true, then why follow Christ? I can live my life like the devil, and be in Heaven with the saints.”
So, we expect Boring to make the case for Universal Salvation in that chapter. And this is how the chapter goes.
First, he provides the definitions of Salvation, Universal Salvation, and Limited Salvation. All is good here.
Then he lists verses in Revelation that support Universal Salvation, followed by those that support Limited Salvation. He does not expound, he just lists. I suppose he will expound later.
Then he expands his search to include verses outside of Revelation. That is good, though I note that he lists 9 verses in support of Limited Salvation and 29 verses in support of Universal Salvation. Again, he does not expound. I hope he will do so soon.
He asks the question, “How shall we understand these data from Revelation?”
Yes, Professor Boring, how shall we understand these data? Instead of helping us understand them in their contexts and go through the strengths and weaknesses of the two interpretations, he goes directly to the implications by virtue of these verses existing.
He tells us there are three options.
- John’s real view is universal salvation.
- John’s real view is limited salvation.
- John’s real view is that both are true.
I quote:
The third option is that John has no one consistent view. Neither group of texts can be subordinated to the other. This is the view affirmed here. Although inconsistency is often a defect, the mark of a muddled thinker who is not the master of his sources or traditions, that is not the case here. John was a profound thinker, a dialectical theologian who intends to present both sets of pictures, and does so using paradoxical language.
Boring later writes:
By offering pictures of both unconditional/universal and conditional/limited salvation and thus affirming both poles of the dialectic, John, in accord with biblical theology in general, guards against the dangers inherent in a superficial “consistency” obtained by affirming only one side of the issue. The interpreter’s task is not to seek ways to reconcile the tension in the text; the task is to find the thrust of Revelation’s message precisely in this tension.
The rest of the chapter teaches us how to present this paradox. To me, that is like teaching someone to look left and right at the same time. Easy. You just have to do it quick enough that no one notices.
Boring teaches us that we cannot assert universal salvation and minimise human responsibility, or God’s judgment, or the importance of faith and urgency of evangelism.
But he doesn’t explain the underlying tension. Let me quote one.
The doctrine of universal salvation should not be held in such a way that it minimizes God’s judgment on human sin. An undialectical affirmation of universal salvation has difficulty doing justice to the stern side of God’s justice and portraying the awfulness of rebellion against God. Alongside pictures of universal salvation, John offers pictures of the terror of God’s judgment. Finding universal salvation in Revelation is a matter of exegesis, not of the sentimentality of interpreters not toughminded enough to accept John’s pictures of judgment and damnation.
If you find that difficult to understand, all he is saying is both are true: God’s judgment and Universal Salvation.
This chapter is useless in supporting Boring’s claim that John holds both views to be true. For this chapter asserts that to be true, and spends more time teaching us how to deal with that paradox, which is, “Don’t overthink, don’t carry this reasoning all the way to its logical conclusion.”
If Boring can’t make a case supporting Universal Salvation, maybe he can make a case denying Limited Salvation.
Let me read what I think is one of the clearest verses on God’s judgment, which supports Limited Salvation, and read Boring’s commentary on it.
Revelation 20:13-15:
And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Boring writes:
It is futile to attempt to escape the conclusion that John has some scenes of damnation for the unfaithful. The “second death,” the place of torment beyond the “first” physical death, awaits not only the transcendent powers of evil (dragon, beast, false prophet, death [1 Cor. 15:28!], and hades) but unfaithful human beings as well. This scene concludes with the somber note, uncelebrated but unrestrained, that “… if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (20:15). John’s listing of the types of such people (21:8, 27) shows that this is no hypothetical, idle threat. Yet this scene as a whole must be placed alongside scenes of the universal salvation of God (see the “Reflection: Universal Salvation and Paradoxical Language”), which place its message in the proper perspective without neutralizing it.
Boring does not see the lake of fire as a final judgment. Why not? Because Universal Salvation is affirmed elsewhere. But by saying the people damned in the lake of fire will ultimately be saved, isn’t he doing what he said we shouldn’t? He has subordinated this verse under the doctrine of Universal Salvation.
And although he protests against consistency or picking one position, he is forced to because he is not dealing with a paradox; it is a contradiction. Limited Salvation says “not all will be saved”. Universal Salvation says “all will be saved”.
And because John is not a muddled thinker, he is the inspired servant of God; it is not possible for him to hold both views. And Boring’s arguing for a contradiction takes readers away from properly understanding the merits of the two views and making their own minds up on which is the correct one.
Concluding Thoughts
My concluding thoughts.
Although my criticisms are sharp, readers can benefit from the book. He breaks down the structure of Revelation, which I think is a must for any reader of Revelation. He gives good pastoral guidance on perseverance, church unity and worship, among many others. I don’t deny the sincerity in his beliefs and I am sure he believes what he teaches is ultimately helpful for followers of Jesus Christ.
But as my review has made clear, I argue that Boring is wrong to say that John did not see what he said he saw. Instead of taking his cue from the apocalyptic genre, he should have taken his cue from the Scriptural canon. Revelation is in the Bible; other apocalyptic writings are not, because John is a faithful witness to the vision God gave him.
I argue that Boring is wrong to say no to Original Sin, no to the person of Satan, and wrong to say yes to Universal Salvation.
I don’t approve of his methods. He reads a verse, makes as giant claim for Universal Salvation, directs us to the dedicated chapter on that topic, but disappoints. He doesn’t unpack the verses; he just lists them, assuming that their existence is enough to show that there is a paradox when there isn’t.
There is one good reason for his approach, and that is he writes for those who already agree with him. Hence, he doesn’t feel the need to rigorously defend these positions.
Boring did not intend this, but his book demonstrates the dark side of Biblical Theology, when it is cut off from Systematic Theology. If you are getting all your theology only from Revelation and no other book, then it is understandable how Boring reached his conclusions on Original Sin, Satan, and Universal Salvation. Just as it is equally understandable how many others reach other crazy conclusions from Revelation.
There is a reason why cults love to use Revelation in their teachings, as Craig Koster in his commentary, “Revelation and the End of All Things” showed. That is a better book, get Koester’s book instead.
Boring drew on the cultural and literary context to make sense of Revelation. He should have also drew on the rest of the Bible to speak on these critical doctrines. He could protest, he is writing a commentary on Revelation, not a volume of Systematic Theology. And that’s why I say, he may have showed the unintended consequences of Biblical Theology on Revelation gone wild.
Outro
This is a Reading and Readers review of “Revelation” by M. Eugene Boring, a commentary from the Interpretation Bible Commentary series. Thank you for listening.