Interpreting Revelation

[Iconoclast]

I believe in the literal return of Jesus and that we are to serve him and be about MT 28 here in this sin cursed world....

If i had to say where i am it is like this;;;

1]postmill

2] amill

3] historic premill

4] premill


In other words..each view has an understanding...I list what i see at this time as the most likely view of truth..in order....to go back to any premill idea,,,,I would have to have completely lost my way hermenutically. Post and amill are close...historic premill is not really that far away....the premill...is way out because of dispensational error.

Rm...i will offer a defense of what I have posted if you want....you can offer verses, links, sermons etc..i will respond if you are sincere... It does not have to do with you personally...that would be another whole discussion as i do not care for your M.O. in vague and veiled remarks .....80% against cals....to be fair...the other 20% I have seen you be occasionally fair minded to a non cal here or there...even more than most other non cals.I will give you credit for stepping up once in awhile...

 

[preachinjesus]

Man, it's like folks have taken angry pills...well, in a hope to refocus back to the question in the OP.

One of the reasons why I left the futurist reading of Revelation of my youth came about in seeing how figurative this hermeneutic becomes when understanding the scenes presented. I believe the book is centered around several episodes (sorry no time to give specific references right now) when John is caught up "in the Spirit" (εν πνευματι.) As a result, he is taken out of his regular ontological plane and given a prophetic, or apocalyptic vision, of events from a vantage point outside of time.

For the futurist position, in my studies, to make sense with a cogent reading of Revelation, it has to ignore the varying scenes of apocalyptic revelation and attempt to rationalize the various seals, trumpets, and bowl judgments in a kind of linear order that makes them perpetuate themselves upon each other. In the end, Revelation is caught up into justifying a future scene that seems quite impossible to unfold.

Then I did the math. I started to count the different scenes of tremendous peril and descriptions of death and destruction. Adding up the amount of blood it would take to fill the Valley at the Battle of Armaggedon and then seeing how big the hailstones would have to be added another check mark against the futurist interpretation.

These events are so difficult to comprehend literally they must be figurative or allegorical tales of great destruction.

I can honestly say that I never took some of these crazy modern day prophecy talking heads very seriously. Hal Lindsey makes too many egregious hermeneutical mistakes to arrive at his position it just doesn't seem coherent.

So, in realizing that John is attempting to record ontologically shaking events that are depicted before him, in these visions, in such a way that they necessitate a less than literal read of chapters 4-19.

Anyhoo...maybe this will get things back on track.

 

[Revmitchell]

RM I am sorry you feel that way. If you believe that I am arrogant, condescending, and smart alecky then you are entitled to your opinion. I live in a sea of dispensationalists so I know exactly what arrogant and condescending are.

However, I know what I believe and I am not afraid to defend those beliefs. I believe that dispensational doctrine is a false doctrine developed by John Darby about 200 years ago and sadly popularized in this country by the Scofield Bible. I have stated on numerous occasions on this Forum that, though I consider dispensational eschatology to be incorrect, it is not the major problem with their doctrine. The major problem, which dispensationalists seem to want to avoid discussing is their doctrine of the "parenthesis" church. I believe this to be clearly contrary to Scripture and has been invented as is said "out of whole cloth". Then there is the doctrine of teo peoples of God, the Jews and the Church. As I understand Scripture Jesus Christ died for the Church.

Acts 20:28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I have yet to see a passage of Scripture which states that Jesus Christ died for the Jews as a body, individually yes, and then they are incorporated into the Church just like everyone else. It follows then that God has only one people, those whom Jesus Christ redeemed through the shedding of His lifes blood.

Ok so you have a different view. That is not what is at issue with me. It is the way those folks like yourself respond and characterize the view of others. You all cannot seem to do it without tearing down other views in a condescending way.

I would love to have discussions about the differences. But it cannot happen so long as there is a need to tear others down or gang up on them.

For example, dyspies did not create anything. They looked in scripture, did an honest search and exegesis and this is how we see it. When you all acknowledge that then we can have a conversation. Until then it is just all condescension.

 

[Iconoclast]

Maybe it is, but not purely. It's akin to Progressive Parallelism, as described in More Than Conquerors, by William Hendriksen.

More than conquerors was helpful...Days of vengeance I have not seen anyone answer it very well:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

One of the reasons why I left the futurist reading of Revelation of my youth came about in seeing how figurative this hermeneutic becomes when understanding the scenes presented. I believe the book is centered around several episodes (sorry no time to give specific references right now) when John is caught up "in the Spirit" (εν πνευματι.) As a result, he is taken out of his regular ontological plane and given a prophetic, or apocalyptic vision, of events from a vantage point outside of time.

Do you believe rev 12 is a great example of this very thing? he sees redemptive history laid out?

 

[OldRegular]

Maybe it is, but not purely. It's akin to Progressive Parallelism, as described in More Than Conquerors, by William Hendriksen.

The New Geneva Study Bible, now the Reformation Bible, takes this approach though their divisions are slightly different then Hendricksen and I believe fit Scripture better. Some years ago I spent a lot of time teaching Revelation in SS. The concept of progressive parallelism makes a lot of sense and that is the approach I took.

Most Christians avoid the Book of Revelation but it can be a great blessing to those who will devote the effort required to study it!

 

[Iconoclast]

Then I did the math. I started to count the different scenes of tremendous peril and descriptions of death and destruction. Adding up the amount of blood it would take to fill the Valley at the Battle of Armaggedon and then seeing how big the hailstones would have to be added another check mark against the futurist interpretation.

Gary demar wrote an article and said there are not enough horses in the world to spill that amount of blood,

 

[kyredneck]

....You all cannot seem to do it without tearing down other views in a condescending way....

You really, really, need to take a look at yourself before you spout this sort of accusation. You routinely make some of the most obnoxious, insulting, condescending remarks/smears.

Knee jerk, spontaneous, insults/smears.

Maybe you should count to ten before you type.

 

[OldRegular]

More than conquerors was helpful...Days of vengeance I have not seen anyone answer it very well:thumbs:

One of the best commentaries entitled The Book of Revelation is by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, an Anglican. The book takes the idealist amillennial approach and reads a lot like a devotional!

 

[Iconoclast]

One of the best commentaries entitled The Book of Revelation is by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, an Anglican. The book takes the idealist amillennial approach and reads a lot like a devotional!

I have His commentary on Hebrews. He was a gifted person....

I believe Revelation and Hebrews go hand in hand...to explain to the church in the first century where Jesus was and how he was functioning as our Eternal High Priest...to comfort them in their persecution;

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

 

[kyredneck]

...I believe Revelation and Hebrews go hand in hand....

Revelation goes 'hand in hand' with far more other scriptures than just Hebrews.

 

[OldRegular]

For example, dyspies did not create anything. They looked in scripture, did an honest search and exegesis and this is how we see it. When you all acknowledge that then we can have a conversation. Until then it is just all condescension.

If we read the Old Testament we see covenants, not dispensations. The word dispensation does not occur in the Old Testament. It occurs only 4 times in the New Testament and there it means economy or stewardship.

A new convert earnestly studying Scripture would understand that God deals with people through Covenants not dispensations.

 

[Iconoclast]

Revelation goes 'hand in hand' with far more other scriptures than just Hebrews.

Yes Kyred..I agree...much of the OT is found in REV.

The special link I "see" with Hebrews is the Eternal Priesthood comforting suffering saints.

 

[Greektim]

I have His commentary on Hebrews. He was a gifted person....

I believe Revelation and Hebrews go hand in hand...to explain to the church in the first century where Jesus was and how he was functioning as our Eternal High Priest...to comfort them in their persecution;

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

I've observed a close similarity to Hebrews and Rev as well.

After studying other apocalyptic literature as well as Qumran writings, I am coming to the conclusion that Hebrews is a manuscripted sermon (common) of an apocalyptic preacher, or at least a preacher entrenched in the apocalyptic mindset giving an apocalyptic sermon of sorts (not so common).

Many would say the same was true of Jesus.

 

[Aaron]

I am coming to the conclusion that Hebrews is a manuscripted sermon . . .

My thoughts exactly.

 

[kyredneck]

Originally Posted by Greektim
I am coming to the conclusion that Hebrews is a manuscripted sermon . . .

My thoughts exactly.

Now I'm curious, why do you think that? And what is the significance of it?

Not doubting you, just curious.

 

[Greektim]

Now I'm curious, why do you think that? And what is the significance of it?

Not doubting you, just curious.

Read this Themelios (32 no 2) article, "Preaching Advice from the 'Sermon' to the Hebrews"... very instructive. But it is just a summary of what many Hebrews scholars have been saying. http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/32.2_Selvaggio.pdf

Basically, there is much more to it than simply comparing Hebrews 13:22's "word of encouragement" w/ Acts 13:15's "word of encouragement". It seems like you have the concept that this is a sermon in the way it was in Acts. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Honestly, Hebrews is so full of rhetorical devices that it is obvious the speaker was quite elegant in crafting, structuring, and orating his sermon. This leads me to think that it is still possible that Paul was the speaker and maybe Luke the writer (best of both worlds). See David Alan Black on this.

 

[kyredneck]

Thank you GT, I'll definitely check it out.

 

[Greektim]

Thank you GT, I'll definitely check it out.

On the rhetorical devices in Hebrews, Dr. Black's articles are quite helpful:

"Literary Artistry in the Epistle to the Hebrews" Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 no 7, 1994.
"Hebrews 1:1-4: A Study in Discrouse Analysis" Westminster Theological Journal 49 no 1, 1987.

I've done some work myself in Heb. 3:1-6 fleshing out the rhetorical devices too. It is quite eloquent.

 

[Aaron]

Now I'm curious, why do you think that? And what is the significance of it?

Not doubting you, just curious.

For me, it just reads like one.