Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalsim

[Hazelelponi]

Jesus tells us what to expect...or how to interpret Revelations when He said..."19 Therefore write down the things you have seen, the things that are, and the things that will happen after this."

Those words are instructions given to John, the one receiving the vision, telling him what to record. They describe the scope and content of what he is shown, not the interpretive principles for later readers.

The interpretive signal for the reader is given earlier, in Revelation 1:1, where we are told the revelation was given “to show” (or “to signify”) the things revealed. That term indicates the use of signs, symbols, and representative imagery — which is exactly how the book then proceeds.

So Revelation itself distinguishes between what John is to write and how the revelation is communicated. The former explains the subject matter; the latter explains the mode.

Appealing to Revelation 1:19 as a hermeneutical rule for reading the book reverses those roles.

"And that is the huge elephantin the room issue with CT. A return of Christ mentions a white horse. The white horse in any kind of scenarion is found void in Acts 1.


Even if you fully symbolize the return of Jesus on a white horse...the sword, robe dipped in blood etc., this portrail of the return of Christ isn't anything like the description of ascention of Christ in which Christ returns in the same way as per 1 Thes 4:16ish."

Acts 1 is historical narrative. The angels explain the manner of Christ’s return: the same Jesus, bodily and visibly, returning in glory.

“The same way” refers to continuity of person and visibility, not a requirement that every future description repeat identical imagery.

Revelation 19 is not historical narration. John explicitly tells us he is seeing a vision. The text itself requires symbolic interpretation: a sword proceeds from Christ’s mouth, His robe is already dipped in blood, and His name is written that no one knows but He Himself. These are not physical mechanics; they are theological disclosures. The vision reveals who Christ is and what His coming means, not how His feet move through the atmosphere.

So Revelation 19 is not redefining Acts 1. It is interpreting the same return through apocalyptic imagery. Visions reveal reality symbolically; they are not camera footage.

The imagery itself is consistent with Scripture. The white horse is covenantal war imagery drawn from the prophets (Zechariah 10:3) and signifies royal conquest. The robe dipped in blood points to Christ’s finished sacrifice and judicial authority. The sword from His mouth is explicitly identified elsewhere as the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17) and represents its power to judge and rule.

None of these are intended to function as transportation details.

Rev 19 defines how Christ The Word of God, the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS will return. What John saw in his vision...was reality.
The reality is scripture.
The ascention in Acts chapter 1 is also reality and the reality presented in Revelations chapter 19 is different. So different they must be representations of different events...pertaining to the return of Christ Jesus as told by the Angels (men in white)."

The choice is not between “symbolism” and “reality.” Both Acts 1 and Revelation 19 are Scripture, and both describe reality. The question is how different genres communicate that reality.

Your conclusion assumes that if two passages describe the same event with different imagery, they must be describing different events. Scripture itself does not operate that way.

Historical narrative tells us that an event happens. Apocalyptic vision tells us what that event means. Differences in imagery do not create different events; they reveal different dimensions of the same reality.

Acts 1 describes the return of Christ in plain, historical terms: the same Jesus, bodily and visibly, returning in glory. Revelation 19 does not contradict that. It expands it by unveiling Christ’s kingship, authority, and judgment through symbolic imagery appropriate to apocalyptic vision.

If different imagery required different events, then Scripture would constantly multiply resurrections, kingdoms, and comings. Instead, the Bible regularly presents one reality through multiple lenses.

So Revelation 19 does not redefine or replace Acts 1. It interprets the same return by revealing who Christ is and what His coming accomplishes. The difference is not in the event itself, but in the mode of revelation.

Prophetic revelation does not cancel or reverse earlier, clearer teaching; it unfolds and deepens it.

Scripture doesn't refer to Satan as being thrown into the abyss as a means of allowing the Gospel to be spread.


"in harmony with clearer teaching elsewhere."....OK, if you say so.

I've just demonstrated how the symbolic or misinterpretation of the CT meaning of the symbols isn't supported by the real world examples
In this particular reply....the proble wth no white horse at the ascention of Christ as well as Satan still being free and not locked away in the abyss which means we are not in the millennial reign...literally of symbolically."

The same hermeneutical principle applies to Revelation 20.

On Revelation 20 and the binding:Scripture defines the binding’s purpose precisely: “so that he might not deceive the nations anymore” (Rev 20:3). It does not say Satan is unable to persecute, tempt individuals, oppose the church, or influence governments—only that he is restrained from deceiving the nations as a whole.

Jesus Himself interprets this binding: He has bound the strong man to plunder his house (Matt 12:28–29), inaugurating the kingdom by casting out demons through the Spirit.

This is present reality, not future.

The apostles elaborate: Pre-Christ, the nations were left in darkness while God focused on Israel (Acts 14:16; Ps 147:19–20).

Post-resurrection, Christ claims all authority and commissions disciple-making among all nations (Matt 28:18–20). Paul declares the gospel bearing fruit “in the whole world” (Col 1:6), even amid persecution.This is the binding in action: Satan can no longer prevent the nations from hearing and responding to the gospel.

He rages (Rev 12:17; 1 Pet 5:8), persecutes, and deceives individuals—but he fails to stop Christ building His global church (Matt 16:18).