The Lamb in Apocalypse of John

7/21/2019 The Lamb in Apocalypse of John

1/12

The Lamb in the Rhetorical Program of the Apocalypse of John

Introduction

The Apocalypse of John is rich in its potential for being studied via rhetorical criticism. The

author is eager to persuade his audience and he uses a sophisticated rhetorical style to do so. Thegoal of his persuasion cannot be defined in narrow deliberative terms such as might be used in

identifying a clear set of desired actions. The goal of his persuasion is nothing less than a

realignment of allegiances and a radical revolution in his audience!s world view. The apocalyptic

vision in this boo" represents an imaginative relocation of the community!s self#understanding that

will have significant social conse$uences. That is why definition redefinition and parody are

central to his rhetoric.

%n her essay A Rhetorical Analysis of Revelation &lisabeth 'ch(ssler )ioren*a has called

for a paradigm shift in the interpretation of Revelation+ a shift from an allegorical#spiritual

predictive#literalist or historical#factual paradigm to a rhetorical#evocative paradigm that can do

,ustice to the sociohistorical matri- as well as to the literary#dramatic character of the boo".

)ioren*a has helpfully emphasi*ed the ethical and political potential of a hermeneutic that privileges

a rhetorical approach to this boo".

This paper confirms the identification of the Apocalypse as an e-ample primarily of

epideictic rhetoric emphasi*ingpathos and then shows how the lamb hristology wor"s rhetorically

to inform and sustain a stance of nonviolent resistance over against the forces of compromise in

first#century Asia.

The Rhetoric of the Apocalypse

%t is not necessary to suppose that either the author or his audience were highly familiar with

the study of rhetoric. This essay does not suggest that the author self#consciously used /ree"

rhetorical conventions or that his audience identified the conventions he used0at least on the

conscious level. Rather this essay suggests that rhetorical criticism is a tool that can help the reader

whether ancient or modern to apprehend how this boo" communicates and to appreciate what it

does to the reader and why.

Although Robert Royalty has emphasi*ed the epideictic nature of the boo"!s rhetoric

&lisabeth 'ch(ssler )ioren*a warns against identifying any one of the three modes of rhetoric0

epideictic deliberative and ,udicial0as central at the e-pense of the rest. 'he maintains that all

three have shaped parts of the Apocalypse. The oracles of Revelation 1#2 with their appeal to

decision and their emphasis on the re$uisite deeds of the seven churches in the immediate future


2/12

have a clear deliberative edge to them. And there are signs of ,udicial rhetoric in the bitter

denunciation of Rome the condemnation of the author!s opponents in Rev 1#2 and the calls for the

reader to ,udge the claims of those who call themselves one thing but are not. 3ut )ioren*a

concludes to decide for one 4mode of rhetoric5 over and against the other would not enhance but

diminish our readings.Royalty nevertheless claims that for several reasons epideictic rhetoric predominates+

)irst epideictic tries to affect an audience!s view opinions or values. 'econd epideictic

rhetoric includes speeches of praise 6encomium panegyric laudatio7 and blame 6psogos

vituperatio7 of persons and cities. Third epideictic rhetoric is distinguished by its amplification

6ergasia amplificatio7 of topics and imagery8 vivid description 6ekphrasis78 and compassion

6synkrisis7. All three of these characteristics are prominent features in Revelation.

The phenomenon of naming in the Apocalypse supports the identification of this boo"!s

rhetoric as epideictic. The author uses names epithets and sobri$uets to reshape the perceptions and

world view of his audience and to ma"e subtle normative claims on reality. &pideictic rhetoric is the

rhetorical mode that privileges blame and praise. 9aming in the Apocalypse is one of the more

effective ways in which the author blames and praises. This naming evo"es stories and images and

places value0both positive and negative0on the individuals groups or deities thus named. The

author employs all three of the traditional modes of proof in the Apocalypse0ethos, pathos and

logos0but not in e$ual proportion+ pathetical proofs 6pathos7 pervade this boo".

:espite Royalty!s correction of )ioren*a we should be cautious about under#appreciating the

deliberative edge to the epideictic rhetoric of the Apocalypse. &pideictic is the most difficult to

define of the three universal species of rhetoric. 9evertheless epideictic and deliberative rhetoric

clearly overlap. /eorge ;ennedy warns that a great deal of what is commonly called epideictic is

deliberative written in an epideictic style.

A good e-ample of the overlap in these categories can be found in the macarisms of

Revelation. The author pronounces macarisms or blessings in the first and last chapters of the

Apocalypse boo" on those who respond to or "eep what John writes. Although macarisms are a

medium of praise that formally fit well with epideictic rhetoric the macarisms of the Apocalypse

highlight and evo"e the readers!praxis their responseto the words of this boo"+


3/12

+


4/12

)urthermore recent students of rhetoric have affirmed the power of epideictic rhetoric to

shape the social sphere. :epending on the view of the author epideictic rhetoric can shore up the

status quo reaffirming traditional values in a nonthreatening way or it can have sweeping social

implications. %n either case the inculcation of values is not politically neutral or inherently

conservative8 rather by focusing on values epideictic rhetoric not only messes with the mind ofthe readers both individually and collectively8 it also represents a socially significant act. John used

the tools this sort of rhetoric provided not only to critici*e the prevailing values of the seven

churches but also to suggest the sorts of values that were in "eeping with the new order being

revealed by /od. Eith this in mind we are now prepared to e-amine more directly the role of the

lamb in the rhetorical program of the Apocalypse.

The Lamb in the Apocalypse

'ome commentators have made the mista"e of analy*ing the image of the lamb through a

narrowly conceived symbol analysis without ade$uate attention to how the boo"!s lamb hristology

fits with other "ey elements in the rhetoric of the Apocalypse. These "ey elements include among

other things its understanding of con$uering 61+B


5/12

power of hrist!s presence in the worshiping community and in understanding both the power and

the ethical relevance of his death and resurrection for lives of faith in the first century .&.

9ames and epithets used of hrist include Jesus hrist 6


6/12

Arnionis never used in the 'eptuagint with reference to the Passover victim the sacrificial

lamb or the 'uffering 'ervant of %saiah. The word is not used of rams in the e-tant /ree" literature.

This observation suggests that the theme of vulnerability be investigated in the Apocalypse to

determine the appropriateness of this symbolic association.

)rom a rhetorical#critical perspective it is not enough simply to identify a symbol!slinguistic bac"ground or its tradition history nor to define its role within literature by reducing it to

an essence nor simply to identify its referent. The e-egete of the Apocalypse is not one who

strives to crac" a code. Rather one must in &lisabeth 'ch(ssler )ioren*a!s words

trace 4a symbol!s5 position within the overall form#content configuration 6/estalt7 of Rev.

and see its relationships to other images and within the Hstrategic! positions of the composition. Gnly

a Hproportional! analysis of its images can determine what they are about within the structure of the

wor" determining the phase of action in which they are invo"ed.

Thus even if the seven lampstands are the seven churches 6


7/12

'ymbolic values reflected in the Aesopic traditions clearly attribute to sheep0and especially

to lambs0the value of vulnerability. They were not necessarily victims but they were vulnerable. %n

the Aesopic traditions lambs often appear in relation to wolves their mortal enemy. The

vulnerability of the lamb is also central to the animal!s semantic value in Comer though its

archetypal enemy there seems to be the lion. Ehat emerges most significantly in relation to theApocalypse is the fact that lambs in the /raeco#Roman world were most often and most directly

associated with divination with the consulting and interpretation of oracles and with vulnerability.

3ut vulnerability hardly seems to fit the rhetoric of the ApocalypseI The lamb of the

Apocalypse is a strong and victorious character. %n Revelation > the "ings of the earth and the

magnates the generals the rich and the powerful0indeed everyone both slave and free called to

the mountains and roc"s )all on us and hide us from the presence of the Gne seated on the throne

and from the wrath of the lamb 6>+


8/12

!auid6the root 4or shoot5 of :avid7 from Rev ?+?. Gn the other hand if the lamb is a symbol of

vulnerability as suggested by the linguistic evidence in the 'eptuagint and the cultural associations

in the /raeco#Roman world then it could serve to turn the old ideas of power upside down.

'o is the lamb a symbol of vulnerability or of forceM %f 3ruce Kalina is right it is the latter.

According to Kalina the purpose of portraying hrist as a cosmic lamb becomes apparent when onereali*es that the cosmic lamb is really the powerful and violent ram of Aries. All the imagery

associated with the lamb is that of power force control and con$uest. %t was his power that was

significant to John and power means the ability to control others based on an implied sanction of

force. Although the readers of the Apocalypse were suffering no persecution according to Kalina

such a message would have been welcome in a culture that submitted to nature and its forces and

would have provided a renewed *est for living.

Although it is the use of the lamb hristology within the Apocalypse that is ultimately

crucial for determining the rhetorical force of that hristology a brief review of the supposed

evidence for a militaristic lamb#redeemer figure in the traditions of &arly Judaism may be helpful

here. There are primarily three te-ts that have been used to posit such a symbolic#theological

tradition+ Testament of Joseph


9/12

persecution. The lamb in the Apocalypse never becomes any other animal0not a ram a lion or

any other creature. %t remains a lamb from beginning to end.

3ut the method by which the lamb is introduced is significant. As a narrative the Apocalypse

of John has both characteri*ation and plot. The rhetorical fulcrum of the Apocalypse is the scene in

heaven in chapters = and ?. According to 'ch(ssler )ioren*a chapters =#? lay the rhetoricalfoundation and provide the "ey symbolic images for all that follows. %t is here that many of the

important themes in the Apocalypse are introduced for the first time+ the throne 6though see


10/12

'econd ancillary details in the presentation of the lamb ma"e it clear that vulnerability not

militaristic force is in view. This lamb has been slaughtered. The first time John sees this lamb it

is standing even though it bears the mar"s of its slaughter 6?+>7. The lamb is declared worthy

precisely because it was slaughtered 6?+@7 and its having been slaughtered is an essential part of its

identity 6?+


11/12

ma"e war with them with the sword of his mouth. %n 2 in the light of the lamb. The warrior himself is called the

word of /od 6


12/12

residents of the province of AsiaM Eould a good long loo" out of their windows provide the data

necessary for determining what was really going on in the worldM Gr did they need a revelation of

Jesus hrist from /od 6through John by way of /od!s messenger angel7 to "now what was really

going onM

The message of the Apocalypse was that whether or not they recogni*ed it the Asianbelievers were facing a life#and#death struggle0a struggle they were being invited to embrace and

,oin. This struggle would necessarily be characteri*ed by real conflict. 3ut the primary weapon by

which this conflict would be engaged was the weapon of faithful witness0a witness that the author

fully e-pected would lead to their martyrdom. 3ut instead of arguing logocentrically by means of a

,udicial rhetoric why such an embrace of the struggle was the only faithful response or e-horting

them directly by means of a deliberative rhetoric to engage in the struggle he uses an epideictic

rhetoric of praise to the lamb and invective against the beasts and the whore of Rome to move his

readers to embrace his values.

Documents

The Lamb in Apocalypse of John