The Lion, the Lamb, and the Sword: Rethinking Violence in Revelation

Steve Chiara

MA in Christian Apologetics, Biola University

Author's Note

This essay was developed in collaboration with an AI assistant. I used it as a research, editing, and discussion partner throughout the writing process. The arguments presented here were developed through a lengthy back-and-forth process of questioning, research, reflection, writing, and revision rather than by simply asking AI to generate an essay. I have personally considered, revised, and ultimately take responsibility for the ideas and conclusions expressed here.

Purpose

This article is a response to two objections recently sent to me against a nonviolent reading of the book of Revelation. I think both objections get directly to the heart of the question: 

Does Revelation ultimately reveal a Jesus who overcomes His enemies through violence, or does it portray the victory of the same enemy-loving, self-giving Lamb revealed in the Gospels?

The objections were put this way:

Objection 1. The Lion and the Lamb:

“You both know Jesus comes as a lamb in the first coming and he does come as the lion in the second coming, which corroborates the entire book of Revelation.”

Objection 2. The vengeance and violence of Revelation:

“I’m just really confused. Luther rejected the book of Revelation. The souls cry out, ‘When will you avenge our blood?’ The rest of the book of Revelation is God avenging their blood and destroying every evil person and most of the earth in the process. Symbolizing it away doesn’t work for me, so I guess I’ll agree with Luther & you and just toss the book?”

What follows is my attempt to take both objections seriously without tossing Revelation and without allowing Revelation to overturn Jesus’ clearest teachings about enemies, violence, and the nature of God.

Outline

I.  Summary

II.  Taking Revelation's Symbolism Seriously

     A.  Aside- Non-Literal Imagery of Revelation
     B.  Interpret the Obscure in Light of the Clear
     C.  Lion/Lamb

     D.  Aside- Eight Examples of Ironic Inversion

III.  Judgment of God

     A.  Aside- Destruction of Jerusalem

IV.  The Battle Beneath the Battle

V.  Conclusion

VI.  Further Resources

I.  Summary

I begin by addressing the implicit suggestion in Objection 2 that the book of Revelation ought to be taken literally (by and large) and not mainly symbolically.  I show, I hope successfully, that the real question is not whether it should be read symbolically but rather how ought we interpret the symbolism that is clearly present?  I give some direction for interpreting this symbolism and point to the Lion/Lamb imagery highlighted in Objection 1 as especially important in doing so.

I acknowledge and agree with Objection 1 that the question of the proper interpretation of the Lion/Lamb passage is critical in determining whether Revelation ultimately corroborates a violent or nonviolent understanding of Christ.  I point out that the way the text introduces the juxtaposition is representative of a common literary device used throughout Scripture that some have called “ironic reversal” or "inversion." 

I then address what I think is actually the main concern of Objection 2, namely that if Revelation is read symbolically, through the nonviolent lens of the lamb, then the judgment scenes have to be "symbolized away" and cavalierly dismissed without the proper respect the text deserves.  I readily acknowledge that violent judgment scenes are present, but I argue that they do not subvert a nonviolent reading of the text; in fact, quite the opposite is true.  

From there, I transition to another layer of meaning found in the symbols that are used to describe the judgment.  It is there in the symbols that the beauty of God, godly jealousy, and righteous indignation against evil are revealed.  It is where, what has been called the "false self," is put to death.  It is where God's ultimate reconciliation and unconditional love are put on full display, and where a God who looks like Jesus—the Jesus who preached the Sermon on the Mount, loved His enemies, and willingly went to the cross—is finally unveiled in this Revelation of Jesus Christ.

II.  Taking Revelation's Symbolism Seriously

I want to begin by addressing the "symbolizing it away" charge in Objection 2.  Revelation is full of symbols from beginning to end.  I contend that it is most definitely, from the very beginning, meant to be taken symbolically.  The challenge isn't whether symbolism exists, but how to interpret it.  Let's not make the mistake of taking what is figurative as being literal, for as Augustine said, "When what is said figuratively is taken as though it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner... It is a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things"  (On Christian Doctrine I.36).  For a small sampling of some of the symbolic language found in Revelation see below.

A.  Aside- Non-Literal Imagery of Revelation:

 •  Jesus is not literally a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes (5:6)

•  Satan is not literally a seven-headed dragon (12:3-4,9; 20:2)

•  The Church is not literally a bride descending from heaven (19:7-8; 21:2, 9-10)

•  Babylon is not literally a prostitute sitting on seven hills (17), nor is Babylon literally Babylon

•  Jesus does not literally wield a sword with His teeth (1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:15, 21)

More...

•  Locusts emerge from the abyss looking like horses prepared for battle, with human faces, women's hair, lions' teeth, iron breastplates, wings like chariots, and scorpion tails (9:7-10)

• Around God's throne are four living creatures—one like a lion, one an ox, one a man, and one an eagle—each with six wings and covered with eyes (4:6-8).

• An army of 200 million horsemen whose horses breathe fire, smoke, and sulfur, with heads like lions and tails like serpents (9:16-19).

• A beast from the sea with seven heads, ten horns, and features of a leopard, bear, and lion (13:1-2).

• A second beast with two lamb-like horns that speaks like a dragon (13:11).

• John is told to eat a little scroll; it is sweet in his mouth but bitter in his stomach (10:9-10).

• Prayers of the saints are pictured as incense in golden bowls (5:8; 8:3-4).

• Jesus has seven stars in His right hand (1:16, 20).

END ASIDE

In fact, Objection 1 inadvertently concedes the very point at issue: that Revelation’s imagery is symbolic, at least in some instances.  Specifically, Objection 1 admits that Jesus is symbolically portrayed as a lion and also a lamb, which of course, represents something else.  

Time to move on to the main contention of Objection 2: A nonviolent reading of the book of Revelation requires that the judgment scenes be dismissed and 'symbolized away' without being taken seriously.

To address this concern, I first have to acknowledge the fact that Revelation certainly does contain judgment.  It is that judgment that the martyrs under the alter are beseeching God for.  They ask, "How long until you avenge our blood?" I don't deny that cry at all. But what we need to ask is: 'What form does God's vengeance take and how does He overcome?'  In other words, and I reiterate, the question isn't whether symbolism exists but rather how we should properly interpret the symbolism that is most certainly present.

B.  Interpret the Obscure in Light of the Clear

One of the most widely recognized principles of biblical hermeneutics is that the ambiguous should be interpreted by the unambiguous. If that is true, then should we really read John's deeply mystical, symbolic, and apocalyptic visions in Revelation, chock full of startling imagery, as revealing a Jesus who acts contrary to the one who told us in plain language to love our enemies, forgive seventy times seven, and rebuked His own disciples, "You do not know what spirit you are of," for wanting to call down fire from heaven upon their enemies?  The disciples were hoping for supernatural fire, now we take matters into our own hands and deploy F-22 Raptors.

Not only did Jesus tell us in plain words, but He demonstrated, in actions, what His teachings look like on the cross.  He could have destroyed His accusers and told His disciples to do the same but instead he was essentially saying to His students, "No! Watch carefully! This is the way of peace (His followers were called 'people of the way')!  Do what I am doing! This is what my kingdom looks like!  For they do not know what they are doing, but I do!"

Revelation itself centers on a Lamb who conquers by being slain.  That's the lens I'm trying to read the whole book through, not because I want to explain it away, but because I believe Jesus, especially as revealed in His teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and His work on the cross, is the fullest and clearest revelation of God's character.

C.  Lion/Lamb

Let me again address the first objection:

"Also, you both know Jesus comes as a lamb in the first coming and he does come as the lion in the second coming which corroborates the entire book of Revelation" [emphasis mine].

Yes. The term "Lion" (λέων) is used, but only once in Revelation as a reference to Jesus, and it is used ironically... as an apocalyptic inversion. Here it is in Revelation 5:5–6:

"...behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to be able to open the scroll and its seven seals."

But when John turns to look at the "Lion" here's what he sees: 

"And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slaughtered..." 

There actually is no lion!  Only a slaughtered Lambkin, which is exactly how He overcame (according to verse 5; see also 12:11)... by sacrifice, not violence!  This is an ironic, apocalyptic, and even comical inversion.  In fact, while the term for "lion" is used once in Revelation, the term for little lamb, or lambkin, (ἀρνίον) is used 29 times.  It is impossible to overemphasize this point!  It is highly symbolic, and according to Objection 1, corroborative to the understanding of the entire book of Revelation... just not in the way originally assumed.  The conclusion that Revelation corroborates a violent portrayal of Jesus rests on the premise that He comes as a lion, when the entire point of Revelation 5:5–6 is exactly the opposite!  So what then happens to the corroboration of the violent interpretation of Revelation?  It vanishes as a mirage.

This ironic reversal/inversion is a common theme throughout the New Testament, and especially so in Revelation.  In fact, Eugene Peterson considered this idea so central to Revelation that he titled his book Reversed Thunder (that's the book Tracy recommended to us both).  In the Bible, thunder usually symbolizes God's overwhelming, terrifying power and judgment. Think of Exodus at Sinai or the visions in Revelation, where thunder accompanies God's throne.

Peterson argues that Revelation takes that expectation and turns it on its head. Instead of God conquering through raw force, the climactic revelation is that the conquering King is the slain Lamb. Divine power is revealed through self-giving love, sacrifice, and faithfulness rather than coercive violence. In that sense, the "thunder" is reversed.

D.  Aside- Eight Examples of Ironic Inversion-

1. The Cross- The Ultimate Royal Inversion and Paradoxically, Jesus's Actual Enthronement

 • The Gospel of John presents the cross as Jesus's "lifting up"

John 3:14 – "As Moses lifted up the serpent..."

John 8:28 – "When you have lifted up the Son of Man..."

John 12:32 – "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."

On one level, "lifted up" means being lifted onto a cross. But John also uses it to mean being exalted. Crucifixion and glorification become the same event.

•  The cross is His glorification: 

John 12:23 — "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified."

John 12:27–28 — "Now is my soul troubled... Father, glorify your name."

John 13:31–32 — After Judas leaves: "Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him."

John 17:1 — In the prayer just before going to the garden: "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son, that the Son may glorify you."

In John's Gospel, the cross is not treated as the opposite of glory—it is the very means by which Jesus is glorified. This is one of John's central theological themes: crucifixion, exaltation/glorification, and enthronement are all bound together.

•  The inscription above His head becomes part of an ironic coronation ceremony

The soldiers intended mockery:

     • KING OF THE JEWS inscription

     • crown of thorns

     • purple robe

     • reed as a scepter

     • acclamations- "Hail , King of the 

        Jews!"

But John's Gospel shows us that the joke is actually true. Jesus really is the King. The Roman Empire unknowingly conducts the true coronation ceremony!

•  The cross reveals what God's kingdom is like.  He asks us to follow Him and do as He does.  The cross is what it looks like when the kingdom of God encounters the kingdom of man.

Earthly kingdoms rule by force. Jesus says:

"The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them... It shall not be so among you." (Matthew 20:25). 

The cross becomes the clearest picture of divine kingship.  God reigns by self-giving love.  

•  The early Church often spoke this way. Several early Christian writers described the cross as Christ's throne.  For example, Augustine of Hippo wrote:  "The cross was the Lord's tribunal."

Other Fathers referred to it as His royal throne because there He defeated sin, death, and the devil—not by crushing His enemies with violence but by overcoming evil through sacrifice, love, and obedience.

2. Lion vs. Lamb- Revelation 5:5-6, integral to the understanding of the entire book of Revelation- discussed above.

3.  Revelation 12:11- "And they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death."

The saints overcame not by killing their enemies (which would be typical) but by their own spilt blood and that of the lamb (inversion).

4.  Palm Sunday- Jesus's triumphal entry. The crowds were waving palm branches and laying them at the feet of Jesus as He was entering Jerusalem because they believed Jesus was perhaps to be the Messiah in the same vein as prior military victors like Judas Maccabeus.

For historical context the Jews, led by Maccabeus, defeated the Seleucid Empire by use of violent military force around 164 BC (the origin of Hanukkah).  Right after this, when the Temple was rededicated and purified, the Jews celebrated with palm branches.

2 Maccabees 10:7- "...they carried ivy-wreathed wands, beautiful branches, and also fronds of palm, offering hymns of thanksgiving..."

They also celebrated with palm branches when the last Seleucid garrison was overthrown and expelled from the Jerusalem Acra 23 years later, in 141 BC. After the victory, the people's triumphal entry into Jerusalem was accompanied "...with praise and palm branches..." (1 Maccabees 13:51).

It's easy to see the parallel when Jesus later enters Jerusalem to the waving of palm branches, only this time the Messiah comes not as another Maccabean conqueror, but riding on a humble donkey.  Not on a warhorse with a sword in His hand, like so many equestrian monuments celebrating victory through violence (see photo below for such a one in the city where I work), but on the back of a humble donkey, announcing a kingdom of peace.

-Monument of Juan Seguin, downtown Seguin, TX-

Here is what the prophet Zachariah says about Jesus's triumphal entry: 

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.  I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace to the nations..." (Zechariah 9:9-10)

Bottom line, Jesus is making a mockery of the warhorse!  Or at the very least, he is deliberately subverting its symbolism.

5.  Sword from Jesus's Mouth

This is an inversion because, instead of holding a sword in His hand like some shopworn, conventional warrior, He holds it in His mouth.  This is repeated several times (1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:15, 21).  The sword is never in His hand but always in His mouth.  This is, of course symbolic.  The "weapon" is His word.  It is not a physical sword, depicted in some literalistic, kitsch fashion, with Jesus gripping it in His teeth and wagging it around to kill His enemies. Such a reading would suggest that what He taught in the Sermon on the Mount somehow ended up not working.

No!  He is waging war in the manner described below:

2 Corinthians 10:3–5:

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ."

6. Magnificent, Powerful, Seemingly Indestructible Babylon Falls... in 1 Hour

Revelation 18

7. The New Jerusalem Overcomes by Descending

Revelation 21- Humanity tries throughout Scripture to build upward (Babel), but God's city comes downward.  Salvation is God's gift, not man's achievement.

8. Teachings of Jesus

•  The last shall be first, and the first last

• Lose your life to save it- One of Jesus's favorite paradoxes. The way to life is death

• The greatest becomes servant- This is not merely humility.  Greatness itself is redefined

• Blessed are...

The poor

The meek

Those who mourn

The persecuted

Everything worldly wisdom calls failure becomes blessing.

• Love your enemies-  "You have heard that it was said, love your neighbor and hate your enemy.  But I say unto you love your enemies!"  What a shock this must have been the first time it was preached!

• Forgive 70X7.  This is an inversion of Lamech's limerick of revenge: "...for I shall slay a man for my wound and a young man for my hurt, if Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy times seven" Genesis 4:23-24 (Jubalee Bible translation, 2000).  Jesus turns this vengeful attitude of exponential violence into grace and exponential forgiveness.

• Turn the other cheek- Power is displayed by restraint and refusing retaliation.  Jesus is not saying to be a doormat.  If you listen carefully He is advocating for creative, peaceful, non-compliance.  He says if somebody slaps you on the right cheek turn to him the other.  Now if somebody who is right-handed were to slap you on your right cheek it means they backhanded you, which in that culture, was a huge insult indicating that they considered you vastly inferior.  By offering the left cheek, you're essentially telling them, “In the sight of God, we're equals, so if you want to strike me, at least strike me as an equal.”  What a powerful display of restraint and respectful, nonviolent, defiance. 

END ASIDE

III. Judgment of God

Let's talk about the battle where Jesus "kills his enemies" in Rev 19.  Among other things, I think this could also be a picture of putting to death the old, sinful, fleshly, false man, but let me unpack this a little. 

Let me first address the idea of God's judgment on His enemies.  But while I do that, please keep in mind Jesus's commandment to love enemies and the fact that He called Judas—who, by every account, would be considered an enemy—a friend (Matthew 26:50).

As a partial preterist, I believe much of Revelation describes the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD where there was literally a great slaughter.  So, of course I'm not denying that Revelation 19 depicts real historical judgment.  But I think it is important to clarify what is meant by "God's judgment."  I think most people think of God's judgments as punishments imposed extrinsically—penalties having no organic connection to the offense itself. In the legal system, imprisonment for theft would be an example; that is, incarceration does not naturally arise from the act of stealing but is imposed upon the offender from without.  An alternative way of understanding God's judgments is as the natural, undesirable consequences that organically flow from the sinful actions themselves.  If this is the case, then instead of an austere God, standing apart from and above those He's sentencing, God can actually grieve and suffer along with the ones suffering the judgements.  This happens to be exactly what we see in the gospels.

In any case, I'm of the opinion that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was God's judgment, but only in the sense that it was the natural consequence of persistently rejecting the way of peace Jesus preached in favor of violent resistance against Rome. As Jesus said, “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). They did not listen to Jesus, and so He laments, “If you had known on this day, even you, the conditions for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes” (Luke 19:42). He goes on in verses 43 and 44 to describe the destruction Jerusalem would suffer in AD 70. See below for how Josephus described the calamity.

A.  Aside- Destruction of Jerusalem

1.  Corpses piled around the Temple

"Around the altar were heaps of corpses, while streams of blood flowed down the steps of the sanctuary, and the bodies of those slain above slipped down to those below" (Josephus, The Jewish War 6.5.1 (§271–276)).

2.  The famine during the siege became so severe that a mother ate her own child-

Summary: After unbearable famine, a woman, cited as Mary of Bethezub, killed her infant son, roasted him, ate half, and saved the other half. When armed men demanded her food, she uncovered the remains and offered them a portion.  The entire city was horrified, and many wished for death rather than witness such misery. See The Jewish War 6.3.4 (§201–213).

3. The dead became impossible to bury

Josephus records that one official reported that 115,880 bodies had been carried out through a single city gate during only part of the siege, and many more were buried elsewhere or simply thrown outside the walls because relatives could no longer keep up. See The Jewish War 5.13.7 (§566–567).

4. The final death toll:

According to Josephus 1.1 million died during the siege and 97,000 were taken captive. See The Jewish War 6.9.3 (§420–425).

5. Blood throughout the city

Summary: Even before the Romans captured Jerusalem, Josephus describes the civil war inside the city, saying that the outer Temple was flooded with blood and that thousands of bodies lay in the Temple precincts as rival Jewish factions slaughtered one another. See The Jewish War 4.5.1 (§313–325).

END ASIDE

So, yes an actual, literal, beyond violent judgment, did befall Jerusalem as described in the book of Revelation.  And just as a man who jumps from a cliff suffers the judgment of God when he strikes the ground, so Jerusalem suffered God’s judgment as the natural consequence of its commitment to violent resistance against Rome.

IV.  The Battle Beneath the Battle

However, there is another layer of meaning here that I want to explore.  It is more cosmic and timeless in scale and it is found in the symbols used in Revelation.  John intentionally portrays God's judgment with symbols that elsewhere in Scripture signify purification, the death of the old self, and the victory of Christ through sacrificial love. The historical event (AD 70) and the theological meaning (God's restorative judgment) are not competitors but complementary layers of the same apocalyptic vision.  So we now move on to the theological meaning of the symbols used in Rev 19.

First, before the battle begins, before anyone "dies,"  Jesus is depicted as already having his robe dipped in blood, as if anointed by a sacrifice (Rev 19:13).  He already made the sacrifice... it is His own blood, not that of His enemies.

Second, the sword that is used to strike down the nations is, again, not in His right hand but proceeds out of His mouth, as discussed above.  It is clearly symbolic, pointing to the fact that Jesus overcomes by His word, not violence.  Not in a magical sense where His word makes people literally drop dead, but instead by changing hearts.  See 19:15, 21 and also earlier in 1:16, 2:12, and 16.  See also Hebrews 4:12- "The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword" (it specifically contrasts God's word with violence and asserts that it is the better weapon) and Isaiah 11:4- "He shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth."  The Messiah defeats evil by what He speaks, not who He kills.

Third, the angel in 19:17-18 calls the birds of the air to eat the flesh of the kings, the flesh of commanders, the flesh of the mighty men, the flesh of the horses and those that sit on them, and the flesh of "ALL people" (emphasis mine).  This is a reference to Ezekiel 39 and it also makes me think of Mark 9:49 where "EVERYONE will be salted [or purified] with fire" (emphasis mine).

The Greek word for “flesh,” sarx, is, in my opinion, deliberately repeated five times in verse 18 to emphasize and contrast the fleshly nature of fallen humanity, along with all of its power structures, with the nature of God—an interpretation that is consistent with the thought of theologians such as Thomas Merton and C. S. Lewis (see: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cslewisjournal/vol17/iss1/3/?)

One of the definitions of sarx is: "the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God."  It is this flesh that will be eaten away by the birds.  This is the same symbolic meaning of circumcision where the flesh is cut away.  Or, as in another picture, the dross is skimmed away in a refiner's fire and metal is purified.  Or as launderer's soap is used to remove impurities (Malachi 3:2-3).  The "old man," the false self, the one we create through our sin, whose name is not written in the book of life... is eaten away, cut away, skimmed off the top, washed away, or burned up (Rev 20:15).

Thomas Merton is famously known for this theme.  Although he was not specifically referencing Revelation 19 when he made the following quote, the principle is the same: "Every one of us is shadowed by an illusory person: a false self."  Merton goes on to argue that much of the spiritual life consists of allowing this false self to "die" so that our true self in Christ can emerge.

Whatever metaphor you want to use, I believe the scene in Rev 19 is a picture of the purification of all humanity (see also my post on the Sheep and Goats).  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, expressed the same sentiment in The Gulag Archipelago, "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart…”  This best explains the fact that the “kings of the earth,” who are opposed to God in chapters 17–19 and were supposedly “killed,” come back—now purified—and bring their glory into the New Jerusalem, (see 21:24, 26).

V.  Conclusion

So where does all of this leave us? I do not believe a nonviolent reading of Revelation requires us to “symbolize away” its judgment, vengeance, or disturbing imagery. Quite the opposite. It requires us to take that imagery seriously enough to ask what the symbols themselves are actually telling us. Revelation is not a straightforward account of Jesus abandoning the way of the cross and finally resorting to the violence He rejected during His earthly ministry. It is an apocalypse—an unveiling—and its strange and terrifying images must be interpreted in light of the Jesus the book claims to unveil.

Nor do I believe the Lion and the Lamb represent two successive versions of Jesus: the Lamb who suffers and loves His enemies at His first coming, followed by the Lion who violently destroys them at His second. John hears that the Lion has conquered, but when he turns to see Him, he sees “a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain” (Rev. 5:5–6). The Lion conquers as the Lamb. This reversal is one of the great interpretive keys to the book: the victory of God is accomplished through the self-giving, enemy-loving way of Christ.

None of this requires denying judgment. Judgment is real, evil matters, and God is not indifferent to what destroys His creation. I have argued that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 can properly be understood as divine judgment, while also recognizing the natural consequences of humanity's persistent allegiance to violence. But Revelation does more than describe historical judgment. Through its symbols it draws us beneath the battle to something deeper: God's war against everything that enslaves, corrupts, and dehumanizes His creation. The sword comes from Christ's mouth. His robe is already stained with blood before the battle begins. The flesh is consumed. The old passes away. What God ultimately destroys is that which destroys us.

This is why I do not think Revelation overturns the Sermon on the Mount. It unveils its victory. The Jesus who told us to love our enemies, who rebuked His disciples when they wanted to call down fire upon their enemies, who prayed for His executioners, and who overcame evil by allowing it to exhaust itself upon Him is not replaced at the end of Scripture by a different Jesus. The Lamb remains the Lamb.

And if Revelation really is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, then perhaps that is the most important interpretive principle of all. Whatever else its dragons, beasts, bowls, swords, blood, fire, battles, and judgments may signify, they must finally unveil the same God whom Jesus unveiled on the cross. Revelation does not reveal that the Lamb's way eventually fails and violence wins after all. It reveals that the Lamb's way is how God wins.

IV.  Further Resources

• Brian Zahnd- "War of the Lamb."  Zahnd argues that the Lion is revealed to be the Lamb, that Revelation's violent imagery is symbolic, that the sword from Jesus' mouth is his word, that the blood on his robe is his own, and that Revelation 19 portrays Christ overcoming enemies rather than literally slaughtering them. He even says that Christ “slays” us with his word and thereby sets us free. 

• Barbara Rossing- "Apocalyptic Violence and Politics."  Hosted by Yale, this article explicitly argues that Revelation contrasts Rome's violent way of conquering with the Lamb's nonviolent way of conquering. Rossing discusses the sword coming from Jesus' mouth and actually calls it a “reversal almost as unexpected as the substitution of a Lamb instead of a Lion.”

• Michael Gorman- "Reading Revelation Responsibly" This is a recent long-form interview with Gorman. He explicitly says Revelation teaches “discipleship to the lamb,” practicing nonviolence, hope for the reconciliation of the nations, and hope for new creation.

• Ted Grimsrud — Peace Theology: Revelation resources.  This is a collection devoted to reading Revelation through Christian peace theology. His basic thesis is that the Beast conquers through coercion and violence whereas the Lamb conquers through co-suffering love. He also specifically discusses Lion → Lamb in Revelation 5.

• Greg Boyd — ReKnew, “A Cruciform Magic Eye.” Boyd describes Revelation rather memorably as a “violently anti-violent war scroll.” His point is that Revelation absolutely does depict warfare, but the followers of the Lamb wage it by being willing to die rather than kill, overcoming through the blood of the Lamb and their testimony. He also supplies additional scholarly reading recommendations.

• Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics—Discusses Christian discipleship, enemy-love, nonviolence, and the conviction that the Church should embody the peaceable character revealed in Christ.

• Eugene H. Peterson, Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John and the Praying Imagination — Peterson emphasizes Revelation as imaginative, symbolic, worship-forming literature centered upon the slain Lamb rather than as a literal blueprint of end-times violence.

• Craig R. Koester, Revelation and the End of All Things — This work takes Revelation's symbolic and theological character seriously and is useful for understanding how its visions function rather than treating them as straightforward predictions.

• N. T. Wright, Revelation for Everyone — A readable verse-by-verse treatment that places Revelation firmly in its first-century Roman imperial setting and emphasizes its symbolic character and its message of faithful Christian witness.

• Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination — Helpful background for understanding biblical language about warfare and victory in terms of Christ's confrontation with the spiritual and political powers behind human systems of domination.