Revelation is not about the FUTURE

[JesusFan]

It follows as an inevitable conclusion of the words that you did say. Your exact words (which I quoted) were …


… then you take me to task for DARING to interpret it LITERALLY.

wooden Literalism you are employing there, not what we see prophecy as being

 

[JesusFan]

True. Let me correct that.

I am utterly indifferent to the writings of the ECFs. First, they are not “God Breathed” like the writings of the Apostles, so why allow the “second string” to overturn the “first string”. Second, they got as much incorrect as they got correct. Shall we reject the hypostatic union as some did, or embrace the various heresies that the earliest councils needed to combat? Of course not. Thus, I throw out all their opinions and adopt a “sola scriptura” starting point (right or wrong) as the Reformers did and for the same reason (‘traditions’ of men is unreliable.)


Being familiar with apocalyptic literature as a literary type, they had no need to be told that ‘prophetic’ (revealing spiritual truth through symbolism) visions were not literal.

Jesus fulfilled literally many OT prophecies First Coming, so why not same for Second One?

And while ECF not inspired, they must have learned that premil from Apostles and those right after them

 

[JesusFan]

You appear to have missed the point entirely. It was from church history, not strictly theology. Again my point: the Apostle John wrote the book of Revelation. He had disciples named Polycarp and Ignatius, who presumably he led to Christ. He then discipled them, so that in church history they are known as disciples of John. They then both wrote clearly that they were premillennial. Therefore it follows that John taught them to interpret the 1000 years literally, since he wrote the book of Revelation where we are told about that. As John wrote, "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth" (3 John v. 4).

Have you ever won anyone to Christ and then discipled them? If not, you wouldn't know how it works. I'm discipling a man named R. right now. Surprise! He now thinks like I do on many things (hopefully Bible based). If, however, you have never discipled anyone, then you would not know how discipleship works. Get to work, win someone to Christ, disciple them. It's a great joy!


Being familiar with the apocalyptic book of Daniel, they knew that the prophecies of Daniel about the first coming of Christ were fulfilled literally, so they would have assumed that the prophecies of an apocalyptic book would be fulfilled literally.

The Lord Jesus literally fulfilled OT Messianic prophecies, so why samer for Second Coming?

 

[JesusFan]

You are correct--I overestimated your knowledge of literal interpretation. I assumed you knew how we do that. It appears that you have never taken a course on hermeneutics or studied it for yourself, so perhaps I can help you.

The technical term for what I called "literal" is "grammatical historical-interpretation." It involves taking the text for what it directly says in the grammatical sense (according to the syntax and semantics of the original) and its historical sense (understanding the issues of the day in which the work was written). It is literal in the sense that it takes the text directly for what it says, not inserting meaning outside of the syntax and semantics of the original. It is not literal in the sense that it twists figures of speech to interpret them literally, against the nature of such expressions.

The grammatical-historical interpreter interprets figures of speech as just that: figures of speech, not meant to be taken literally. For example, one of those is the metaphor. This is a "Figure of speech in which a word or expression normally used of one kind of object, action, etc. is extended to another" (P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 243). Those who, like me, take the futurist view of Revelation are well aware that the book is full of metaphors and other figures of speech, and interpret those figures of speech accordingly. So the sword coming from the mouth of Christ is obviously a metaphor for the Word of God, which metaphor had previously been taught in several NT passages.

"In contrast to the other approaches to the book of Revelation, the futuristic position allows a more literal [not "completely literal--JoJ] interpretation of the specific prophecies of the book. Though recognizing the frequent symbolism in various prophecies, the events foreshadowed by these symbols and their interpretation are regarded as being fulfilled in a normal way" (John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 21).

I hope this helps.

Plain sense of the meaning of the scripture, as understanding it in the Genre written in, and in words meant to be used for metaphor, allegory, literal, poetry etc

 

[John of Japan]

The Lord Jesus literally fulfilled OT Messianic prophecies, so why samer for Second Coming?

Absolutely! God did not change His methods between the Old and New Testaments.

 

[John of Japan]

Here is a quote about "literal interpretation" from a classic work on interpretation: "The literal interpretation of Scripture readily admits the very large place which figurative language has in the Scriptures, and Feinberg is correct when he says, 'It is not true that [the literalists] require every single passage to be interpreted literally without exception.' Literal interpretation does not mean painful, or wooden, or unbending literal rendition of every word or phrase. The literal meaning of the figurative expression is the proper or natural meaning as understood by students of language. Whenever a figure is used its literal meaning is precisely that meaning determined by grammatical studies of figures. Hence figurative interpretatiojn does not pertain to the spiritual or mystical sense of Scripture, but to the literal sense" (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 141. The Feinberg quote is from Premillennialism or Amillennialism? 2nd ed., p. 27).

 

[John of Japan]

Again by Ramm: “The main burden of doctrinal teaching must rest on the literal interpretation of the Bible. (Ramm's italics) In our treatment of general hermeneutics we maintain that the literal meaning of the Bible was the first and controlling principle for the understanding of the Bible” (Ibid., 148).

 

[asterisktom]

Now, you did not answer my point about the disciples of John, the writer of Revelation, being premillennialists. Would not John have warned them that his writing should not be taken literally?

It is only church tradition that assumes that those men were disciples of John, or even had met him. Very often these stories are made up to grant authority to later persons and places. Phillip Schaff makes several good comments along these lines.

But, more importantly, concerning your second assertion: John did indeed warn us that his writing is not necessarily to be taken literally. But most translations obscure this hint form John. One example is the NKJV of Rev. 1:1

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him TO SHOW His servants–things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John"

καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ, τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάνῃ,

Because of these loose renderings of the original text a very valuable key as to how to approach Revelation is unintentionally hidden from most readers.

Here is the key: The book is filled with SIGNS. The Greek word ESEMASEN can indeed be translated “to show”, as many versions chose, but to do so misses the main thrust of the word, namely that John was writing about actual signs, and symbols. A more recent cognate of this word is “semaphore”, referring to a device using symbols and markings to communicate information to trains, ships, and airplanes. Airplanes are directed on the tarmac by workers holding flags in certain positions. Likewise, readers of this difficult book can be directed by the symbols God has given us.


Hendriksen wrote this in “More than Conquerors” (p.38):

“The entire book consists of changing scenes like these, of moving pictures and active symbols.”…

“N.B. the first verse of the book ‘and he made it known by means of signs (or symbols)’.”

Understanding this first verse ought to save readers from trying to make literal details in this book that were never meant to be taken literally! What makes it worse for all Bible students of Revelation is David L. Cooper’s oft-repeated mantra:

“If the plain sense of Scripture makes sense seek no other sense … “.

I, at least, certainly heard this often in Greek classes at BJU, the school where Cooper earned his doctorate.

Well, the plain sense has steered us wrong. And – more to the point – the plain sense goes against Revelation 1:1. “Plain sense” has often gotten in the way of spiritual understanding. The Jews understood “plainly” that Jesus said He would rebuild the temple in three days. The disciples misunderstood just as “plainly” about the “leaven of the Pharisees”.

The Bible is a spiritual Book. It's main theme and thrust is spiritual. To ignore this is to make the same sort of mistakes the disciples and the other Jews made. But "spiritual" does not mean mean "unreal". The Book of Revelation certainly had real persons, places, and events. The seven churches, for instance, were actual congregations. In this instance many dispensationalists go to the other extreme, dropping strict literalism here and applying those seven churches to symbols of long ages of Church history.

Just to be clear, there is much in the Bible that is literal: Our sins, Christ's death on a Cross with literal blood also. But, in the style suited to the people of that culture, to teach these important truths symbols and metaphors are often used. And certainly in this book.

 

[John of Japan]

It is only church tradition that assumes that those men were disciples of John, or even had met him. Very often these stories are made up to grant authority to later persons and places. Phillip Schaff makes several good comments along these lines.

Well, now, you took me off "Ignore." I'm sure you'll put me back soon.

No, it is not church tradition. It is church history, universally acknowledged by scholars. The church fathers universally acknowledge that Papias was a disciple of John (Eusebius, Jerome, and many others.) The same goes for Ignatius, who bore witness to Papias being a disciple of John.

If Schaff said something different, trot it out. Don't just mention Schaff casually without quoting him as if he fully supported your view. Give the quote and let us decide for ourselves. Otherwise you are committing the logical blunder of "appeal to authority."

But, more importantly, concerning your second assertion: John did indeed warn us that his writing is not necessarily to be taken literally. But most translations obscure this hint form John. One example is the NKJV of Rev. 1:1

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him TO SHOW His servants–things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John"

καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ, τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάνῃ,

Because of these loose renderings of the original text a very valuable key as to how to approach Revelation is unintentionally hidden from most readers.

"Loose renderings"? Absolutely not. Friberg, Friberg and Miller says, "Making something clear signify." Mounce says, "to make known, communicate." I could list many other lexicons. God gave John clear knowledge, actual prophecies about the future, "things to come."

Here is the key: The book is filled with SIGNS. The Greek word ESEMASEN can indeed be translated “to show”, as many versions chose, but to do so misses the main thrust of the word, namely that John was writing about actual signs, and symbols. A more recent cognate of this word is “semaphore”, referring to a device using symbols and markings to communicate information to trains, ships, and airplanes. Airplanes are directed on the tarmac by workers holding flags in certain positions. Likewise, readers of this difficult book can be directed by the symbols God has given us.

Prove to me that ESEMASEN is pointing to "actual signs and symbols." The word semaino (σημαίνω, aorist in Rev. :1), "signify," occurs in 6 passages. In three passages, John 12:33 and 18:32 and 21:19, Jesus used it to "signify" what death He would die. Was that symbolism? Those were all three written by John. So John strictly used the word in his Gospel for an actual future event. There is no indication in Rev. 1:1 that John is using it differently there.

In Acts 11:28, Agabus "signified" (same word), meaning prophesied, that there would be a famine. The famine occurred. In Acts 21:27, Festus uses the same word to "signify," refer to the "crimes" Paul had supposedly committed.

So in every single case in the NT, including Rev. 1:1, the word semaino (σημαίνω), refers to actuality, not "signs" or "symbols."

Hendriksen wrote this in “More than Conquerors” (p.38):

“The entire book consists of changing scenes like these, of moving pictures and active symbols.”…

“N.B. the first verse of the book ‘and he made it known by means of signs (or symbols)’.”

Well of course there is figurative language. Who denies that? The book's genre is apocalyptic/prophetic.

Understanding this first verse ought to save readers from trying to make literal details in this book that were never meant to be taken literally! What makes it worse for all Bible students of Revelation is David L. Cooper’s oft-repeated mantra:

“If the plain sense of Scripture makes sense seek no other sense … “.

I, at least, certainly heard this often in Greek classes at BJU, the school where Cooper earned his doctorate.

Well, the plain sense has steered us wrong. And – more to the point – the plain sense goes against Revelation 1:1. “Plain sense” has often gotten in the way of spiritual understanding. The Jews understood “plainly” that Jesus said He would rebuild the temple in three days. The disciples misunderstood just as “plainly” about the “leaven of the Pharisees”.

I think you should have paid more attention in Greek classes at BJU!

The Bible is a spiritual Book. It's main theme and thrust is spiritual. To ignore this is to make the same sort of mistakes the disciples and the other Jews made. But "spiritual" does not mean mean "unreal". The Book of Revelation certainly had real persons, places, and events. The seven churches, for instance, were actual congregations. In this instance many dispensationalists go to the other extreme, dropping strict literalism here and applying those seven churches to symbols of long ages of Church history.

Just to be clear, there is much in the Bible that is literal: Our sins, Christ's death on a Cross with literal blood also. But, in the style suited to the people of that culture, to teach these important truths symbols and metaphors are often used. And certainly in this book.

In what possible way does "spiritual" not mean "literal"? Does the Holy Spirit dwell within us figuratively or literally? Is the fruit of the Spirit literal or allegorical: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control. These are all spiritual but literal.