-Fr. John Roche, SDB
Some years ago, a great storyteller, national speaker and teacher, Father John Tickle of the Diocese of Las Cruces, New Mexico, gave a course on the Catholic interpretation of the Book of Revelation.
This particular series of lectures has stayed with me all of these years and has been an important influence on my own teaching and homiletics. Certainly, the exegetical research and the recent scholarship brought to bear on this body of Scripture is significant. Much of the work of defining the adjective and genre of literature known as “apocalyptic” was brought into greater focus as recently as the 1970s, with the work of J.J. Collins and his wife.
Other biblical and literature scholars have added their nuances to this research in the intervening years. This growing field of study, and this topic, is more important than it might appear at first glance. And that brings me back to the insights of Father John Tickle.
At the time he promoted Catholic study of Revelation, there had been an explosion of popular literature under the heading of Bible prophecy. That literature continues to expand today, and very little of it is carefully or intelligently researched. The promulgation of this literature has given rise to interpretations of political situations in the world today. As in every age, some of the interpretations have catapulted movements or set in motion ideologies that have proven harmful — and certainly not Christian — in many parts of society.
Father Tickle cleared the air so completely with one statement I am happy to share: “Whatever your interpretation of Scriptures or any religious event may be, if it does not reveal Jesus as the Good Shepherd, then it is in error.” Father Tickle referred to this understanding of Jesus as the core revelation of the Incarnation. He insisted that this must be “the litmus test” of any interpretation connected to our faith and our Scriptures.
I recall reading a popular book on Bible prophecy when I was a teenager that scared me to the core. It left me convinced that Jesus was coming again within my time and that he was pretty upset. The Jesus revealed by this author was coming soon with a vengeance and a wrath as I had never imagined.
Weeding through Revelation verse by verse, this author built a case for Jesus’ return by 1988. Nothing of the mercy, compassion or healing of Jesus came through in any of this interpretation. Jesus’ prayer for those who would come to believe in him, so beautifully enshrined in John 17, was never mentioned — a prayer begging the Father to keep his followers safe and to bring them into the same oneness Jesus shared with the Father.
This “litmus test” of interpretation has guided me far beyond the study of Scriptures and has influenced decisions I have made in many situations. It serves all of us well to remember the Good Shepherd in every study, every action and all the decisions of our lives. This, I believe, is precisely why we understand Scripture to be “Good News.”