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.

 

[John of Japan]

"After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter" (Rev. 4:1). Interesting that it says "things which must be hereafter" meaning the future. And the word "must be" is the Greek δεῖ (dei), often translated "is necessary." It is used in John 20:9, which says that " he must rise again from the dead." So, in the future Jesus "must rise from the dead," and that is clear, but somehow people think that in Rev. 4:1 it doesn't mean what it says: there are prophecies in the book that must be fulfilled "hereafter", μετὰ ταῦτα (literally "after these things")--in the future! I am mystified by the full preterist position, and anyone else who doubts the book of Revelation. Scripture is so clear.

 

[JesusFan]

"After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter" (Rev. 4:1). Interesting that it says "things which must be hereafter" meaning the future. And the word "must be" is the Greek δεῖ (dei), often translated "is necessary." It is used in John 20:9, which says that " he must rise again from the dead." So, in the future Jesus "must rise from the dead," and that is clear, but somehow people think that in Rev. 4:1 it doesn't mean what it says: there are prophecies in the book that must be fulfilled "hereafter", μετὰ ταῦτα (literally "after these things")--in the future! I am mystified by the full preterist position, and anyone else who doubts the book of Revelation. Scripture is so clear.

people seem to miss the truth that the revelation included what was happening in the time of John, what would be happening through Church age in different type of churches, and what will happen right at end of history, right before Jesus Second Coming

 

[asterisktom]

I am mystified by the full preterist position, and anyone else who doubts the book of Revelation. Scripture is so clear.

This is why I passed on commenting to you, John. Comments like this. I am not the one doubting the book of Revelation. I do doubt your ability (or at least willingness) to consider that maybe the view that you grew up with is not in line with Scripture. Cooper's Golden Rule overrules, for example, the many passages that assure that first generation that "all these things" would be fulfilled in that generation.

At any rate, your sentence above, miscasting my understanding of Revelation as "doubts" about that book, do not encourage me to continue discussing this with you.

 

[John of Japan]

This is why I passed on commenting to you, John. Comments like this. I am not the one doubting the book of Revelation. I do doubt your ability (or at least willingness) to consider that maybe the view that you grew up with is not in line with Scripture. Cooper's Golden Rule overrules, for example, the many passages that assure that first generation that "all these things" would be fulfilled in that generation.

At any rate, your sentence above, miscasting my understanding of Revelation as "doubts" about that book, do not encourage me to continue discussing this with you.

I had no intention of insulting you. I simply put what I feel about full preterism. You reject ("doubt") the doctrine of the future Second Coming of Christ, making it a "spiritual" coming in AD 70. That mystifies me.

On the wall of the locker room when I was a high school wrestler, was the trite but true: "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." That didn't mean "the tough abandon the mat."

 

[John of Japan]

When I was on the junior varsity wrestling team of Horlick High School, I went with the team to a meet to do my part, wresting up a weight at 145. I showed up ready to wrestle. Never was that good a wrestler, but I was there for the team. But then, my opponent never showed up, so I won by default! Easiest win I ever had, unless it was that "exhibition" match when the freshman opponent totally froze up when I tried to pin him, so the ref told him, "You have to wrestle, kid." When the boy loosened up, I easily turned him over and pinned him.

So, I answered atpollard completely, including when he insulted me by saying I didn't believe in literal interpretation because I didn't literally translate figures of speech. So I kept wrestling, but he rolled over and let me pin him, because he refused to answer my cogent arguments (Post 58).

Then asterisktom came on and gave a vague statement about a clear Greek verb ESEMASEN (aorist active indicative of σημαινω, to indicate or signify), from Rev. 1:1 saying that "the main thrust of the word, namely that John was writing about actual signs, and symbols." I disproved that handily, I believe, and am still on the mat.

atpollard: crickets.
asterisktom: "I passed on replying to you." I was thought of as not nice because I said he doubted the book of Revelation (a true statement from my perspective), since as a full preterist he believes all prophecy is fulfilled already, and Revelation is prophecy!

The ref declares me the winner!

 

[asterisktom]

I had no intention of insulting you. I simply put what I feel about full preterism. You reject ("doubt") the doctrine of the future Second Coming of Christ, making it a "spiritual" coming in AD 70. That mystifies me.

On the wall of the locker room when I was a high school wrestler, was the trite but true: "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." That didn't mean "the tough abandon the mat."

John, the older I get the more I try to make good use of my efforts. I'm not saying your stupid or anything like that. I am sure you are quite astute in a number of areas. But you just don't understand my Preterism. I don't "make the Lord's coming a 'spiritual' coming in AD 70". It was actually in AD 66. And, more importantly, it was a real and visible coming of a real Person. Just as the rapture than was a real, evidential event. Unfortunately, thanks to the teaching of Don K. Preston and several others, our view is a minority among Preterists.

I'm not going anywhere.

I see now you wrote twice. I will take a look at that later.

 

[Blank]

I heard a talk on the Book of Revelation that made what I thought might be a valid point. Brandon Robbins suggested that Revelation was written to the people living at that time, people going through horrific persecution, to whom each of the “apocalyptic literature” symbols would have been painfully obvious. The book starts out with seven real churches with seven very real conditions that Christians living under that culture and persecution would have been familiar with. The horsemen represent sufferings like war and famine and oppression that those people would have been only too familiar with. After acknowledging their suffering, the veil is pulled back and John/God reveal the spiritual war going on unseen behind the events of their hard lives (offering a glimpse and a hope that Satan would ultimately be defeated). Lastly comes the climax, a glimpse of the end with the ULTIMATE PROMISE that God will not merely triumph, but that those that are suffering NOW will one day be with Him and everything will be made RIGHT.

It is not intended to be a literal future prophecy for future generations to pick apart into complex debated timelines, it is a symbolic code for people IN a hard times to find hope. It was written to THEM about THEIR TIME, but it is timeless because Christians suffer and struggle in EVERY TIME. We have done an injustice to the church by making it about some FUTURE EVENTS when it is about getting through PRESENT STRUGGLES with Hope.

As just one small example, 144,000 is 12 x 12 x 10 x 10 x 10 … 12 is the number of God’s People (how many times is that used symbolically in scripture), so 12 x 12 is all of Gods people (Jews and Gentiles). 10 is symbolic of “many”, so 10x10x10 is many x many x many … basically “infinite”. So putting those together means that 144,000 is “ALL OF GOD’S PEOPLE, A MULTITUDE BEYOND COUNTING” … now what did John promise would happen to this multitude of God’s People … and remember that he made this promise to people that were LIVING (and dying) through the events of the Horsemen. Do you think that might have offered some encouragement to them in the middle of their hard times? Do you think it might still offer some encouragement to people living through their own personal hard times TODAY?

Problem is, when one begins going down Symbolism Street, there's no end to the gullies, ditches and dead ends one can get him/herself entangled in.
Think Origin.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

[John of Japan said:] 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.

You are right that "spiritual" and "literal" are not inherently mutually exclusive:

1 Corinthians 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

As this text shows, in NT usage, "spiritual" is used to speak of literal food and drink that humans ate and drank physically; "spiritual" does not inherently mean that something is figurative of something else.

 

[John of Japan]

John, the older I get the more I try to make good use of my efforts. I'm not saying your stupid or anything like that. I am sure you are quite astute in a number of areas. But you just don't understand my Preterism. I don't "make the Lord's coming a 'spiritual' coming in AD 70". It was actually in AD 66. And, more importantly, it was a real and visible coming of a real Person. Just as the rapture than was a real, evidential event. Unfortunately, thanks to the teaching of Don K. Preston and several others, our view is a minority among Preterists.

I'm not going anywhere.

I see now you wrote twice. I will take a look at that later.

You have changed. You said some time ago (years probably) that the Second Coming of Christ happened as a spiritual coming. I pointed out that "The body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26). You got very upset with me at that, did not say what you are saying here, and quit the discussion.

You also got very upset with me (and did not tell me what was wrong with my view of preterism) when I said that in preterism, the future stretches out interminably, since there is no Second Coming remaining. Yet you did not tell me what was wrong with my assessment. Care to do so now? If in full preterism there are no more prophecies left to be fulfilled, then how does the future not stretch out interminably?

 

[asterisktom]

You have changed. You said some time ago (years probably) that the Second Coming of Christ happened as a spiritual coming. I pointed out that "The body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26). You got very upset with me at that, did not say what you are saying here, and quit the discussion.

You also got very upset with me (and did not tell me what was wrong with my view of preterism) when I said that in preterism, the future stretches out interminably, since there is no Second Coming remaining. Yet you did not tell me what was wrong with my assessment. Care to do so now? If in full preterism there are no more prophecies left to be fulfilled, then how does the future not stretch out interminably?

If it was years ago then, yes, my view has changed quite a bit. Since that time I have realized that most of full preterism is a form of gnosticism, under the influence of what I call the Pope of Preterism, Don K. Preston. I don't have time to write now, but I probably wrote things I shouldn't have. I don't remember exactly what I wrote.

I don't remember quitting a discussion. I was in China at the time and frustratingly Internet would be gone for days at a time. Also, in the university I taught in technicians went to all the foreign teachers's apartments and "upgraded" our already slow computers. Probably spyware, because after that they really crawled.

At any rate I have no problem with James 2:26. What was your point there that may (or may not) rattled my cage?

 

[JesusFan]

John, the older I get the more I try to make good use of my efforts. I'm not saying your stupid or anything like that. I am sure you are quite astute in a number of areas. But you just don't understand my Preterism. I don't "make the Lord's coming a 'spiritual' coming in AD 70". It was actually in AD 66. And, more importantly, it was a real and visible coming of a real Person. Just as the rapture than was a real, evidential event. Unfortunately, thanks to the teaching of Don K. Preston and several others, our view is a minority among Preterists.

I'm not going anywhere.

I see now you wrote twice. I will take a look at that later.

When did the physical resurrection of the dead in Christ, and those alive happened in history, as far as I know, still as future event yet to come