"Allegorical" and "Spiritual" Hermeneutics

[Yeshua1]

2 Peter 3:8 isn't poetry.
But the poetic books in the Bible are still teaching truth, I think. Also, what about the instances of 1,000 when it doesn't speak of 'years'?

I am actually thinking of the number 1,000; multiples are another question. I can't think of very many places where it is to be taken literally and Prophecy 70 has given us a fine list of places where it isn't, but I'm prepared to be corrected.

As you, of course, know, there are also different types of literature in the Bible: wisdom, poetry, history, prophecy and so forth. One of these is Apocalyptic. Apocalyptic literature has a meaning to be sure, but there is a whole lot of imagery, which, if you take it literally, you are going to miss the point spectacularly. I am not expecting a literal beast with seven heads and ten horns to pop up out of the sea any time soon and I'm sure you're not either, so why insist that 1,000 years has to be literal?

However, God has made His plans, and He hasn't asked me about them, so if I'm wrong, I will look you up sometime after the rapture and beg your pardon. I try not to fall out over eschatology.

I see all end times view as acceptable, except for full blown preterism!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In this case, Rev. 20:2 does not have the article, but vv. 3, 4, 5, and 7 do. This means that those verses are pointing as their antecedent to the first mention in v. 2.

Wow! Is this a case of 'Great minds think alike' or 'small minds seldom differ'? I vote for the first one!

 

[Covenanter]

The thing is, Greek does not have an indefinite article, and the definite article is somewhat different in usage from the definite article in English. "In general, the presence of the article emphasized particular identity, while the absence of the article emphasizes quality or characteristics" (David Alan Black, Learn to Read NT Greek, 3rd ed., p. 30).

In this case, Rev. 20:2 does not have the article, but vv. 3, 4, 5, and 7 do. This means that those verses are pointing as their antecedent to the first mention in v. 2. In other words, they are all pointing to the same 1000 years. It is hard to see how the 1000 years could be hyperbole like other places in the Bible when so many times the article points back to the first mention. So, the 1000 years is literal, not hyperbole.

Forgive me for being technical, but v. 6 does not have the article in the TR Greek NT or the Byz. Textform, but does in the Aleph manuscript, so Nestle's 28 and UBS 3 have the article in brackets there. Either way, it's pretty clear that the whole chapter is referring to the same 1000 years, with v. 2 not having the article but the other verses pointing back to it as the antecedent.

THat proves the point that the first thousand years is indefinite, & the other definite thousands refer back to the indefinite thousand.

 

[John of Japan]

2 Peter 3:8 isn't poetry.

Oh, come on, you're a better thinker than this. Of course it isn't, but it's quoting poetry.

But the poetic books in the Bible are still teaching truth, I think. Also, what about the instances of 1,000 when it doesn't speak of 'years'?

Those would be different usages of the word, subject to different interpretations.

But think about the Psalm and 2 Peter usages. Are you saying that 1000 years to God is not a literal 1000 years? And a day to God is not a literal day?

I am actually thinking of the number 1,000; multiples are another question. I can't think of very many places where it is to be taken literally and Prophecy 70 has given us a fine list of places where it isn't, but I'm prepared to be corrected.

Yeah, no offense, but to me that's kind of cheating to say that the singular is always hyperbole but the multiples are not. So the feeding of the 5000 is a literal 5000, but the 1000 years in Rev. is not? That doesn't track to me.

As you, of course, know, there are also different types of literature in the Bible: wisdom, poetry, history, prophecy and so forth. One of these is Apocalyptic. Apocalyptic literature has a meaning to be sure, but there is a whole lot of imagery, which, if you take it literally, you are going to miss the point spectacularly. I am not expecting a literal beast with seven heads and ten horns to pop up out of the sea any time soon and I'm sure you're not either, so why insist that 1,000 years has to be literal?

I've made this very point before myself: apocalyptic literature is a different kind of prophecy, to be sure. It uses far more figures of speech than prophecy usually does. But that's exactly the point: even in apocalyptic literature, a figure of speech is a figure of speech and should be interpreted as such. But it should be a clear figure of speech, and the 1000 years is not.

However, God has made His plans, and He hasn't asked me about them, so if I'm wrong, I will look you up sometime after the rapture and beg your pardon. I try not to fall out over eschatology.

I'll be waiting for your apology as we both go up.

 

[John of Japan]

THat proves the point that the first thousand years is indefinite, & the other definite thousands refer back to the indefinite thousand.

Um, no, that's not what it means at all. Remember the quote from my textbook: the first usage of "1000 years" emphasizes the characteristics of the years: they are 1000. The other usages point back to the first one.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Oh, come on, you're a better thinker than this. Of course it isn't, but it's quoting poetry.

It's very kind of you to say so, but I'm not sure I am better than that. The Holy Spirit is obviously referencing Psalm 90, but the point remains: 1,ooo years is like a day to God; would 1,001 years be more?

But think about the Psalm and 2 Peter usages. Are you saying that 1000 years to God is not a literal 1000 years? And a day to God is not a literal day?

I think the teaching here is that God sits outside time and everything is a boundless present to Him.

Yeah, no offense, but to me that's kind of cheating to say that the singular is always hyperbole but the multiples are not. So the feeding of the 5000 is a literal 5000, but the 1000 years in Rev. is not? That doesn't track to me.

I think it does track. You might say to your son/grandson, "If I've told you once. I've told you a thousand times not to do that," which would (I hope!) be hyperbole, and in the same breath say to your wife, there were five thousand people in church/ at the ball game/at the shopping mall today, meaning a literal five thousand

I've made this very point before myself: apocalyptic literature is a different kind of prophecy, to be sure. It uses far more figures of speech than prophecy usually does. But that's exactly the point: even in apocalyptic literature, a figure of speech is a figure of speech and should be interpreted as such. But it should be a clear figure of speech, and the 1000 years is not.

I'll be waiting for your apology as we both go up.

Time will tell. I'm quietly confident that any apology will be coming from the other direction

 

[Covenanter]

Oh, come on, you're a better thinker than this. Of course it isn't, but it's quoting poetry.

Those would be different usages of the word, subject to different interpretations.

But think about the Psalm and 2 Peter usages. Are you saying that 1000 years to God is not a literal 1000 years? And a day to God is not a literal day?

It's not clear that Peter is quoting Psalm 90, though obviously the idea is related. And if he is quoting poetry it doesn't mean he is being poetic. When the Lord quoted Psalm 22 on the cross he wasn't singing a song. He was suffering the dreadful experience David could only hint at. The onlookers didn't join in the Psalm, they said: “Look, He is calling for Elijah!”

Peter is very specifically dealing with the scoffers who will perish before this generation has passed. The day, the thousand years, will amount to 35-40 years. Then the Lord will come according to his warning in his Olivet prophecy. All the elements of the OC religion will be burnt up.

And we've been in the last days since Pentecost.

 

[John of Japan]

It's very kind of you to say so, but I'm not sure I am better than that. The Holy Spirit is obviously referencing Psalm 90, but the point remains: 1,ooo years is like a day to God; would 1,001 years be more?

So just to be clear, you don't think that 1000 earthly years to God is really 1000 years? If that be true, then the whole thought breaks down.

I think the teaching here is that God sits outside time and everything is a boundless present to Him.

That is exactly right. But 1000 years is still 1000 years in the verse. If you call it hyperbole (the only possible figure of speech here), then you actually decrease the number of years. How would it be to say, "Ten years with God is as one year"? That doesn't have the impact at all of a literal 1000 years being as a literal day to God.

I think it does track. You might say to your son/grandson, "If I've told you once. I've told you a thousand times not to do that," which would (I hope!) be hyperbole, and in the same breath say to your wife, there were five thousand people in church/ at the ball game/at the shopping mall today, meaning a literal five thousand

No, you are describing an English idiom with what you might say to your son/grandson. In order to make the Biblical reference analogous, you have to say the Biblical 1000 is an idiom, and there is no evidence for that. Once again, interpret allegorically/spritually if you wish, but learn more about figures of speech in order to interpret correctly and avoid falsely depicting the literal interpretation.

Time will tell. I'm quietly confident that any apology will be coming from the other direction

We shall see, we shall see.

 

[John of Japan]

It's not clear that Peter is quoting Psalm 90, though obviously the idea is related. And if he is quoting poetry it doesn't mean he is being poetic. When the Lord quoted Psalm 22 on the cross he wasn't singing a song. He was suffering the dreadful experience David could only hint at. The onlookers didn't join in the Psalm, they said: “Look, He is calling for Elijah!”

Peter is very specifically dealing with the scoffers who will perish before this generation has passed. The day, the thousand years, will amount to 35-40 years. Then the Lord will come according to his warning in his Olivet prophecy. All the elements of the OC religion will be burnt up.

Read what you just said. "The day, the thousand years, will amount to 35-40 years." That's just crazy. Say that to the average person on the street and he'll call for you to be locked up. (That's hyperbole.)

Your problem with that is that various other authors will interpret the 1000 years quite differently from you with allegorical interpretation. For example, Amil A. T. Robertson says in his Word Pictures of the Greek NT about Rev. 20:2, "Here we confront the same problem found in the 1260 days. In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one." But if you interpret literally it is quite plain: 1000 years is 1000 years!

And we've been in the last days since Pentecost.

I agree, but it's irrelevant.

 

[agedman]

Good point, but the first use of 1,000 years in Rev. 20 is in verse 2, where it lacks the article. The other instances (vs. 3, 4, 5, 7) have the article because they are referring back to verse 2, not because they are saying "This is literal!"

Actually, by their referring back, they indeed support that verse 2 is a literal 1000 years. Not the opposite.

 

[HankD]

Good point, but the first use of 1,000 years in Rev. 20 is in verse 2, where it lacks the article. The other instances (vs. 3, 4, 5, 7) have the article because they are referring back to verse 2, not because they are saying "This is literal!"

Disagree.

HankD

 

[prophecy70]

See Post #45 below. These other usages you mention are hyperbole, but the usages in Revelation are clearly literal, as are most of the 441 usages in the Bible.

Learn what a "figure of speech" is before you leap into the argument here.

Do you understand the grammatical implication of the presence or absence of the definite article in Koine Greek?

I know what a figure of speech is.

Clearly literal? So know one else knew Greek at all?

I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 year reign), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." (Dialogue with Trypho, CHAPTER LXXX --Justin Martyr.

 

[John of Japan]

I know what a figure of speech is.

Clearly literal? So know one else knew Greek at all?

I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 year reign), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." (Dialogue with Trypho, CHAPTER LXXX --Justin Martyr.

Huh? Don't know what you are trying to say, and I have to go soon, so I won't be back on until Monday. Have a good weekend.

Concerning your Justin Martyr quote, I'm not at all convinced, looking at the context, that it was about the 1000 year reign of Christ. Some website is yanking your chain. Justin was a chiliast.

 

[prophecy70]

Huh? Don't know what you are trying to say, and I have to go soon, so I won't be back on until Monday. Have a good weekend.

Concerning your Justin Martyr quote, I'm not at all convinced, looking at the context, that it was about the 1000 year reign of Christ. Some website is yanking your chain. Justin was a chiliast.

I am saying if it was so clear why would anyone oppose it?
He was, he defended his position after this but also said many thought otherwise in his dialog with Trypho.

Have you read the dialog?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Once again, interpret allegorically/spritually if you wish, but learn more about figures of speech in order to interpret correctly and avoid falsely depicting the literal interpretation.

My mother was an English and elocution teacher. I had anacolutha, litotes, onomatopoeia and whatnot pushed down my throat at an early age.

 

[agedman]

I know what a figure of speech is.

Clearly literal? So know one else knew Greek at all?

I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 year reign), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." (Dialogue with Trypho, CHAPTER LXXX --Justin Martyr.

Would it not have been fair to have finished the quote?

“Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines[delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist , Meristae,Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews(do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are[only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.”​

You only quoted what you thought would convince.

In leaving out that which that which was not conformable, you presented you presented incomplete information.

WHO were the ones Martyr said where not Christians?

WHAT was it such taught?

 

[prophecy70]

Would it not have been fair to have finished the quote?

“Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines[delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist , Meristae,Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews(do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are[only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.”​

You only quoted what you thought would convince.

In leaving out that which that which was not conformable, you presented you presented incomplete information.

WHO were the ones Martyr said where not Christians?

WHAT was it such taught?

NO KIDDING.


I stated he defended his position later.

He is saying some reject the resurrection.
Not about the 1000 year reign.

Back to the original part, that actually is relevant to the topic.

I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion , and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.

 

[agedman]

NO KIDDING.


I stated he defended his position later.

He is saying some reject the resurrection.
Not about the 1000 year reign.

And, to whom did he account were such, and what did he consider their status as believers?

Do you honestly see Justin Martyr sitting in fellowship with whom he calls heretics?

 

[agedman]

“... But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.” (Attributed to Justin Martyr from:Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Roberts-Donaldson)

 

[David Kent]

I see all end times view as acceptable, except for full blown preterism!

I would add pre tribulation rapturism.