The Book of Revelation is often described as perplexing, bewildering, or even impenetrable—terms that signal what cognitive pragmatics would call a “pragmatic failure.” Readers encounter moments of interpretive impasse, or aporias, in which the text seems to contradict itself or defy coherence. These aporias are not accidental. Rather, I argue that they function as deliberate rhetorical devices, intended to disrupt readers’ presuppositions and force a re-evaluation of core theological concepts—especially those related to divine judgment, warfare, and salvation.
In this paper, I propose that Revelation employs aporias to subvert traditional eschatological expectations and introduce a counterintuitive theological paradigm: SALVATION IS DEATH. This metaphor, found elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., Gal 2:19–20; Rom 6:1–11; 2.00 Cor 5:14–17), is uniquely visualized in John’s Apocalypse. The vision consistently portrays divine violence as directed not against God’s enemies, but against his own people: Jesus appears to kill the NaN.00 (6:16) whose “sealing” deaths were effected by the tribulation of the seals (7:14), and the same kings of the nations that are seemingly destroyed in 19:17–21 later process unobstructed into the New Jerusalem (21:24). Meanwhile, it is the supposed enemies of God—Satan, the beast, and the wicked—who are often conspicuously spared destruction by being cast, still alive (19:20), into the eternal lake of fire, in which they will never die (14:11). These paradoxes invite a reassessment of what John is really saying about judgment and salvation.
By tracing the motif of aporias throughout Revelation, I will argue that John is not portraying a straightforward narrative of divine vengeance but is using structured disruptions to challenge and ultimately reshape the audience’s expectations of God’s eschatological work. Rather than a simple tale of judgment upon the wicked, Revelation presents salvation as an inversion of death itself, where the faithful are “hewn” into the living stones of the New Jerusalem (20:4) through a process that appears destructive but is, in reality, transformative.
This paper contributes to discussions on metaphor and cognition in biblical studies, aligning Revelation’s rhetorical and narrative strategy with cognitive-linguistic insights. It also offers a fresh perspective on the relationship between divine violence and redemption in the Apocalypse, suggesting that John’s vision is not a war of destruction but a radical reimagining of the meaning of eschatological victory.