A Subversive Vision (Revelation 5:1-14)
A Subversive Vision
09-13-26
Revelation 5.1-14
By: Pastor Deepak Babu
Did you see it? Did you see it? When the passage was read did you see a glaring gap? Did you wonder why you did not get to see what was promised? Or did you miss it? Way back in 1999, I was in the middle of my M.Div. degree at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. I was doing an internship at the Glendale Presbyterian Church under Pastor Darrell Johnson with a focus on worship. Being the year before the much-anticipated, but highly underwhelming Y2K, Darrell had decided to take us through the book of Revelation.
And since I was doing an internship he offered me the opportunity of preaching on one Sunday. Since my internship focused on worship, I chose as my text the passage we heard, which forms the second part of the central and centering vision of the book. And as I prepared for that sermon, I came to a realization that I haven’t been able to shake and that still haunts me every time I read the text. And yes, I used the word ‘haunt’ intentionally for it is the word that best represents what I experience whenever I read this passage.
To understand this, consider what the titular character, who happens to be a gorilla, says in Daniel Quinn’s masterful book, Ishmael: “There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with people. Given a story to enact that puts them in accord with the world, they will live in accord with the world. But given a story to enact that puts them at odds with the world, as yours does, they will live at odds with the world. Given a story to enact… in which the world is a foe to be conquered, they will conquer it like a foe, and one day… their foe will lie bleeding to death at their feet, as the world is now.”
What the gorilla realized, and what we often do not, is that we are creatures who live in accordance with stories. This is why most of the bible is in narrative form. This is why most of Jesus’ teachings involve stories. This is because we do not live according to propositions, even though too much Christian ink has been spilled defending all sorts of propositions. Rather, as creatures of a God who reveals God’s heart through the billions of years of unfolding drama in this universe, we find meaning in our own lives by locating ourselves inside that very drama.
In the book of Revelation, John is being given one large vision that is divided into many smaller scenes. After receiving an opening vision and a series of letters for seven churches, John is introduced to a scene of worship in the heavens. Some Christians have concluded that, since John is carried to heaven, this symbolizes the Rapture of the Church. However, in Revelation, John moves between earth and heaven quite often. In that case, we would have to conclude that Jesus’ return would be characterized by an elevator experience in which the Church flies off and lands multiple times. I don’t know anyone who takes such an approach. But consistency would demand that we conclude Jesus’ return would be much like a pathetic series of elevator trips perhaps disguised as an amusement park ride.
Anyway, the second part of the scene begins with John telling us that God had a scroll in his hand and that he was looking for someone worthy enough to open the scroll. Unlike most scrolls, this one had writing on both sides. What was written in this scroll? And why was someone worthy needed to open it? Scrolls appear quite often in the Old Testament and almost always symbolize God’s plans and purposes. These often are worded in terms of judgments. Here a slight detour is in order.
The word ‘judgment’ is often misunderstood. Judgment does not mean punishment in the bible. Rather, judgment involves everything God does to set things right in a broken world. Hence, the healing of someone is judgment since it indicates that God has judged the sickness needed to be ended. Similarly, the overthrow of a tyrant is also a judgment. In situations of injustice, therefore, the setting right of things will involve the disempowerment of the perpetrators of injustice along with the restoration of the victims of injustice. Both need to be recognized in order for us to have a holistic view of judgment. Hence, as I said earlier, judgment is whatever God does to set things right in a broken world.
We can, therefore, assume the same to be true about this scroll too. It contained whatever God planned to do to set things right in a world that had increasingly fallen under the spell of the dragon.
But what was all this about worthiness? Those familiar with the MCU will be aware that Thor’s hammer, Mjölnir, can only be wielded by someone who is worthy. Similarly, the sword Excalibur would reveal its magical powers only if the one who wielded it was deemed worthy. Mythology is full of stories in which an important object only works for someone who is worthy. However, in most cases, we are not told what qualifies someone as worthy. This is where Revelation differs from other pieces of literature. It clarifies for the reader what the grounds for worthiness are.
But it is important that we take the narrative on its own terms. You see, there is a difference between visual art and literary art. When you see a painting, it comes at you all at once, without any recognizable sequence. You may later focus on this or that element of the painting. However, there is no way of knowing how each element affected you when you first saw the painting. This is not the case with narrative. In a narrative, the order in which the narrator chose to tell the story is crucial and serves to build tension and later to resolve the tension.
So… what do we hear when we read Revelation 5? After an entire chapter of focusing on the one who is seated on the throne, John’s eye is drawn toward God’s right hand in which he sees the aforementioned scroll. John hears an angel ask for someone who is worthy to step forward to take the scroll from God and to open it. Imagine you were in one of the first century churches as this book was read aloud to you. When the reader read the line, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?” what would you have thought?
Given that the book introduced itself as ‘the Revelation of Jesus the Anointed’ you would quite naturally think that Jesus would answer, “I am worthy.” However, this is not the case. Instead, when John writes, “And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it,” he is indicating that some time perhaps elapsed during which there was no response, thereby hammering home the conclusion that no one was worthy. If the scroll contained God’s plans to set things right, how would you respond to the realization that no one was found to implement those plans?
John tells us how we would respond by writing, “And I began to weep bitterly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.” Of course you would respond that way. Do we need a reminder to jog our memories that things are haywire in this world? Do we need convincing that there is rampant injustice in the world? So, if no one was worthy enough to implement God’s plans, then it would mean that there was no answer to the injustice in the world. And we can understand why John would weep bitterly upon reaching this realization.
Then one of the elders tells him not to weep. And the reason he gives is, “The Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” Clearly the title ‘Lion of the tribe of Judah’ is being applied to Jesus. It is presumably a messianic title. But how many times do you think this title appears in the bible? Would you be surprised if I said it appears over fifty times? What about if I said it’s about twenty times? What about a dozen times? What about never apart from here in Revelation 5?
Yes, that's true. The title ‘Lion of the tribe of Judah’ cannot be found anywhere else in the bible. However, the idea that Jesus is a lion pervades Christian thought. Why is this the case? In the intertestamental period, better known as the Second Temple period, Jewish hopes for a return to the glory days of David became mainstream. Based on Jacob’s blessing of Judah in Genesis 49, the tribe of Judah had adopted the lion as its symbol. From this, the Jewish hope for David’s descendant was expressed in the title ‘Lion of the tribe of Judah’. However, let’s give this some thought.
As Methodists, we do not accept the claim of Pentecostal Christians that there is a second baptism. As Methodists, we do not accept the Baptist claim that infant baptism is not valid. In other words, even though our siblings in the Messiah from other traditions interpret some scriptures differently, we do not simply accept what they claim. And this is for those who consider the same scriptures as inspired. Why then would we want to accept the Second Temple Jewish development of the idea of the ‘Lion of the tribe of Judah’? It would be as good as if we accepted that there was a hammer that only Thor could wield. And last time I checked, we are not devotees of Thor.
However, John was a Second Temple Jew who was steeped in the ethos of Second Temple Judaism, including the expectation of the ‘Lion of the tribe of Judah’. When the elder mentioned this figure, what do you think ran through John’s mind? During his years of ministry, Jesus had likened himself to a vine, a shepherd, light, life, a road, etc. None of these are fighting images. But ‘Lion of the tribe of Judah’ was different. This was a military commander. When John heard this title, he must have thought, “Finally! Jesus is going to roll up his sleeves for the battle with evil.” Most of us too would have such ideas floating in our heads when we heard the elder announce the ‘Lion of the tribe of Judah’. John would have turned, fully expecting to see a powerful lion, with a majestic, flowing mane, its claws pushed out and ready for a battle.
Let us go once again to 1999. Amid all the hype of that year, we also readied ourselves to watch the first prequel of the Star Wars series - Episode I: The Phantom Menace. In the two years that we were married till then, I had successfully indoctrinated Alice into liking all the science fiction that I enjoyed. I had a lot of help in this from many of my friends. So, we were eager to watch the movie. We purchased tickets for the first show on opening night. And we entered the theater expecting to be amazed. But what we got was boring discussions about trade disputes. And Jar Jar Binks. To say that we were let down would be an understatement. We had expected a majestic story revealing how Anakin’s journey to the Dark Side started. Instead we got a bumbling idiot and insipid dialogue.
John turns, expecting to see a grand lion. Instead, what he sees is a lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered. There could be no wider gap between what John expected to see and what he actually saw. On the one hand, an apex predator, often called the king of the jungle. On the other hand, a domesticated animal, specially bred to be non-aggressive and docile. On the one hand, a carnivore with teeth and claws designed to overpower prey. On the other hand, a tiny herbivore with barely any defence features.
And not only was there this glaring gap between what he is promised and what he is given, but also he had to make sense of the elder’s words that the ‘Lion of the tribe of Judah’ had conquered. John saw a lamb. Since lambs have no offensive or defensive features, should he reject the idea of the conquest the elder announced? That would mean that Jesus had not really been victorious. Or should he allow the glaring gap to redefine what is meant by the word ‘conquer’? And what would it mean to say that a lamb has conquered? Think about that.
We can easily think of what it would mean to say that a lion has conquered. With its teeth and claws it would have subdued its adversary. But what would conquest by a lamb look like? As the vision continues, the elders and the living creatures sing, “You are worthy to take the scroll and to break its seals, for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God, saints from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Responding to this, the angels sing, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”
According to the angels, the living creatures, and the elders it is the Lamb’s death that entitled him to achieve everything he achieved. In other words, according to them, it is the Lamb’s death that constituted his victory. Or to put it more bluntly, the Lamb’s death is how he conquered. This is a crucial point to observe. It is Jesus’ death that was his victory. Many Christians think that his resurrection was the defeat of death. But that is not what Revelation says. The victory is ascribed to his death. This was recognized by the early church.
Hence, the Easter chant of the Orthodox churches asserts: “Christos anesti ek nekron, thanato thanaton patisas, kai tis en tis mnimasi zoin charisamenos.” Translated into English it says, “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and to those in the tombs, granting life.” The vision that John is given subverts our expectations in multiple ways.
First, contrary to the idea that his resurrection was his victory, Revelation tells us that Jesus’ death was his victory. What this does is detach the triumphalism often ascribed to Jesus’ resurrection and attach it to his crucifixion. The cross is not Jesus’ defeat but his victory. By allowing himself to be killed, Jesus revealed that death had no power over him. So what role did the resurrection have if it is not Jesus’ victory? The resurrection is the sign that the victory had been achieved. The resurrection is the announcement of the good news of a prior victory.
Second, Jesus does not change who he is from before his death to after. John sees a lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered. In other words, this is a post-crucifixion vision. And Jesus remains the lamb. He has not changed into something else. Even though John - and perhaps we - would want to see a more powerful symbol of victory, the symbol of victory John is given is Jesus as the lamb who was slaughtered. In other words, Jesus’ essential character does not change. In particular, there is no ‘lion-ness’ in the lamb.
Third, therefore, there has never been a lion. The conquering lion is a figment of our imagination, a projection of our desire for violent retribution onto God. But God has never been lion-like. Hence, his Anointed, the one who is worthy to implement his plans for his creation, is the lamb who was slaughtered, not the lion who slaughters.
Just two days after the twenty-fifth anniversary of 9-11, this is a lesson we would do well to learn. I was here in the USA on that day. And I saw fear overpower this nation as it chose to lash out like a wounded animal, without even caring who it was lashing out at. People began to distrust those who had skin like mine. The suspicion that developed led to calls for unrestrained vengeance. But that has never been the path to victory. Because of this, today the USA, under the leadership of a real life Jar Jar Binks, has lost much of the prestige and good will it once had, while its own citizens reel from staggering increases in the cost of living. That is what comes from parading like a lion and waging endless wars.
But what Revelation reveals is that there is only one path to complete and lasting victory. And that is the way of the lamb, the way of self-sacrifice, the way of unwavering trust in a God who will set things right. The question is, “Do we believe it?”