The Book of Revelation: Amillennial/idealist Interpretive Method

[Arial]

@Josheb

As the thread has been successfully taken off track and none of the conclusions reached that were presented in the method of Amillennial/idealist, have been discussed at all, let's go where it has been taken. Here are the opening statements made in the OP.

There are four basic interpretive approaches to this book: Preterism including partial preterism, futurism, historicism, and idealism.

Attached to these are the categories of premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. Add to that the two basic interpretive tools, dispensationalism and covenant, and we have yet more divergences in methods and categories.

Note the words "approaches", "categories", and "tools."
Your response was:

Correctly understood, Preterism (partial- or full-) is not a "method."

This implies that the other three approaches to the book of Revelation are methods but for some reason preterism is not. You go a bit farther and say:

Preterists are preterists because scripture is read as written and the logically necessary conclusions of reading scripture as written and applying long-held and well-established rules of exegesis is (partial-)preterism.

I, as a partial-preterist, DO NOT approach scripture with a pre-existing belief everything or most everything is in the past. That never happens. It is and has always been a false accusation wrongly leveled against preterism. I read verse like Revelation 1:3 literally. I, unlike most others, do not add anything to the verse and subtract nothing from it. I read it exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words as found in ordinary everyday usage. Many hermeneutics claim to do this but they do not.

The first sentence implies that the other three methods do not read scripture as it is written or use rules of exegesis, as though I were talking about all the many failures in people being the basis for the interpretive approaches rather than the established and defined approach itself. And even though I laid out the approach in this method later in the post, and the exegesis etc. that forms it. It accuses "most others", unlike, yourself, of adding and subtracting, to arrive at what they already believe, as though the OP was about the shortcomings of people and not the established and defined method itself.

So, since the above has been said, it is up to you to demonstrate how the other methods do not use correct hermeneutics, exegesis, etc. but arrive at their conclusions from a pre-established view rather than the other way around. And since the OP concerns itself with only the one view, restrict it to that method.

How does it not read scripture as written and the logically necessary conclusions reached?
How does it not apply long-held and well established rules of exegesis?
What does a false accusation against preterism have to do with it?
How does it add things to Rev 1:3 or any other verse? Or subtract things?
How does it not read exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words in everyday usage? And is there ever a time when what one considers everyday usage shows by what follows that the everyday usage was being applied to the wrong thing or that the evidence found in the rest of the content shows it was being used in another way for another purpose? A warning perhaps?

 

[Josheb]

Are you a dispensationalist? Then the you applies to things in dispensationalism

Who was it that brought first preterism and then dispensationalism into the conversation? What is the title of the OP? What is the purpose stated in the title, and what does the body of the OP do?

Preterism was first broached in the opening post, and I have already answered all the other questions.

[edited for the sake of goodwill]

 

[Josheb]

I was not going to respond to or even read these posts as you stated you were moving on from them

Never said any such thing. What I said is I am moving on from the point about preterism bieng an "interpretive method." There is a lot more to the opening post than just that. I stated my position, explained how what I stated is so and having done so feel no need to belabor the point - especially seeing the response that point received.

I never presented the millennial views as methods, but as categories contained within the methods.

The opening post proves otherwise. The second line of the op states,

There are four basic interpretive approaches to this book: Preterism including partial preterism, futurism, historicism, and idealism.

Four "interpretive approaches" are asserted. Four "interpretive approaches" are listed. Plenty of opportunity to collaboratively clarify that statement has availed itself if I misunderstood it. So do not make me the bad guy. What I posted is correct: preterism is NOT an interpretive approach. Preterism is a belief some or all of prophecy has been fulfilled based on an interpretive method, and I have described that interpretive method as beginning with not interpreting scripture unnecessarily.

This is very op-relevant and deserves to be noted because there are a lot of Christian teachers who get it incorrect.

The same holds true of the other three "interpretive approaches" to lesser degrees. Idealism isn't a method. Idealism is the view patterns found in scripture repeat themselves throughout human history. That position is based on an interpretive method. The idealism is not the method.

 

[Josheb]

The first sentence implies....

No, it does not imply any such thing.

@Josheb

As the thread has been successfully taken off track...

If getting the discussion back on track is desired then why respond to digressions?



I have endeavored to keep the posts about the posts. I find there are a few good points made in this op but I also find several mistakes. I'm an equal opportunity critiquer so I will....

• Affirm that which bears consistency with scripture, objective facts, and truth,
• Inquire about that which I either do not understood or do not find clear,
• Refute that which does not bear consistency with scripture, objective facts, and truth.

and I expect every other poster to take a similar approach, knowing many do not. Most folks do not have problems with the first two practices but some do not handle correction well. My observations of mistakes in this op are coming. Any differences can be discussed collaboratively or ignored. I cannot reply to what does not exist.


Preterism is not an interpretive method. Technically, neither are the other four. Those four items listed are positions people hold because of their interpretive method. My point was made and seeing it is not well-received I have moved on to another matter I find of interest.

The next point is this: An affirmation of the op's observation covenants and dispensations are not doctrines in and of themselves, but frameworks around which interpretation comes. Great observation! You are invited to discuss that with me since I engaged this op on that point back in Post 16. It is now Post 24 and every reader can see what was posted in Post 16 has been ignored. Non-collaborative responses will be ignored, and I will move on to another aspect of this op, and then another and another and I will do so until my views on this op are expressed. I will linger in the thread as the responses warrant because I love having stimulating on-topic polite and respectful conversations with others.

[edited by admin]









The second sentence in this op is incorrect. The four items listed are not methods. They are positions reached through various interpretive methods and most adherents of those four positions share common methods. The chief reason the different positions exist, in my stated opinion, has to do with the degree of consistency with which the commonly shared methods are applied.

The sentence about covenants and dispensations is correct and very astute. Adding to that astute observation there a few things worth noting about those two frameworks from which interpretive methods come. First, they are large irreconcilable approaches because one is continuous and the other discontinuous. One can be found explicitly stated in scripture; the other is a wholly man-made invention. Adherents of both perspectives take liberties adding to scripture.



Now I just got us back on topic.

I am going to make other observations directly based upon statements made in this op. I will be on topic.

 

[Josheb]

I do not believe that this method has been put forth in these threads. I may have missed it.

There are four basic interpretive approaches to this book: Preterism including partial preterism, futurism, historicism, and idealism.

Attached to these are the categories of premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. Add to that the two basic interpretive tools, dispensationalism and covenant, and we have yet more divergences in methods and categories.

Just to be clear, neither dispensationalism or covenant are doctrines in and of themselves. Doctrines do come from them, but they are the framework around which interpretation comes. Just as in building a house, the framework determines the shape and size of the house, but is not the house. Everything put together in the finished product is the house. And just as in building a house, if the whole is not integrated, if the foundation and the framework are off as to plumb, the house will not stand true in all its parts. There are many branches of dispensationalism, some believing this, some that, but at its core it views God's relating to humans through dispensations--ages, in which He did this one way for a time, and a different way at a different time. That is my understanding of it.

Covenant theology on the other hand has the premise that God relates to and is in relationship with humans and creation through covenant. The amillennial/idealist method of viewing Revelation is covenantal. Without going into a detailed interpretation of Revelation, I will give an overview of the method.

First of all it interprets the book according to the type of literature it is, which is apocalyptic prophecy as is much of the writings in the prophets of the OT. Just as in the OT, Revelation makes use of highly symbolic and figurative language. As in Rev 1:1 John himself states, "The revelation of Jesus Christ. which God gave Him to show to His servants things which must shortly take place and He sent and signified (sermaino) by His angel---

Amillennialism in this method understands the millennium to be a picture of the present reign of Christ and the saints in heaven. This was initiated by the binding of Satan (Matt 12:29) resulting in him no longer being able to deceive the nations. (Matt 4:14-16; Acts 17:30-31). Satan was bound through Christ's triumph in the crucifiction and His resurrection. The believer is no longer condemned by sin as they have His righteousness imputed to them, and death can no longer hold them any more than it could hold Jesus. The believer is sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit and no one and nothing can take them out of His hand. Through the believer the gospel goes to all nations which Satan is bound from stopping, until he is released from those chains for a short time. So the millennium in this view is the time period from His resurrection to His second coming. A long undesignated period of time as the number 1000 signifies in other places of the Bible.

This is all very good but what is the method by which the covenantal amillennialist interprets the book according to it's type of literature. What is the method for interpreting apocalyptic prophecy (as opposed to non-apocalyptic prophecy, or non-prophetic literature)? By what interpretive method does the amillennialist render the symbols and figurative language used by Revelation?

What does Rev. 1:1 have to do with answering either of the above questions?

By what method does Amillennialism understand the millennium as a picture of Christ's present reign. By what Interpretive method is the binding of satan viewed to have occurred in the crucifixion? By what method is the binding of satan understood to mean "the believer is no longer condemned by sin...."? I am very curious about that particular statement because the text of Revelation 20 does not mention believers no longer being condemned by sin at all. The only mention of believers is that of those not having a mark of hand or head and those reign with Christ at the end of the thousand years (millennium).

A lot of statements are made. They are claims of position, not descriptions of method.

Is this op about interpretive method or something else?

 

[Arial]

This is all very good but what is the method by which the covenantal amillennialist interprets the book according to it's type of literature. What is the method for interpreting apocalyptic prophecy (as opposed to non-apocalyptic prophecy, or non-prophetic literature)? By what interpretive method does the amillennialist render the symbols and figurative language used by Revelation?

By how the same or similar symbols and figurative are used in other parts of the Bible, primarily the OT as that is where they are most used and the content and context in which they are found. For those used in prophecies that came to pass in the Bible times we can ascertain their meaning from the fulfillment. All of it is interpreted through the lens of what has already been written in the whole counsel of God. Sometimes events in history can aid in this. And certain numbers are used so consistently within the scriptures that what they represent becomes clear.

What does Rev. 1:1 have to do with answering either of the above questions?

Nothing all on it own. What John means by soon and why he used that word can only be ascertained by the content of the rest of the book. If we take the common usage of the word soon to mean, very soon, or as being in the lifetime of those who he is writing to---which is probably the first approach and quite natural---we soon find as we continue reading, many things that are shown that have not happened even 2000 years later. And we find applications that were present in John's day, that came shortly after----and all through the history of the church age, even now. So we can adjust our thinking on the matter, or we can look for ways in scripture and historical accounts of events to identify these things as having all happened in John's lifetime or shortly thereafter.

By what method does Amillennialism understand the millennium as a picture of Christ's present reign.

I do not believe that this method has been put forth in these threads. I may have missed it.

There are four basic interpretive approaches to this book:

I have not called amil a method. Is it really necessary to split hairs over the word that someone uses and argue over that when the content of the OP itself makes clear what it's purpose is and what it is putting forth? And in doing so entirely warp its purpose? It is bickering.

Amillennialism arrives at this view from the content in the NT---some of which I have already mentioned in the OP.

By what Interpretive method is the binding of satan viewed to have occurred in the crucifixion? By what method is the binding of satan understood to mean "the believer is no longer condemned by sin...."?

Already explained in the OP.

I am very curious about that particular statement because the text of Revelation 20 does not mention believers no longer being condemned by sin at all. The only mention of believers is that of those not having a mark of hand or head and those reign with Christ at the end of the thousand years (millennium).

There was no need to mention it. We have already been told that---and John's audience were believers---in the epistles. This view does not see the visions as chronological separate events but as representing trends and forces---- as stated in the OP.

A lot of statements are made. They are claims of position, not descriptions of method.

Is this op about interpretive method or something else?

Irrelevant, vain sematical bickering.

 

[Josheb]

Because these posts are lengthy, I'm gonna reply in smaller increments to smaller portions.

By how the same or similar symbols and figurative are used in other parts of the Bible, primarily the OT as that is where they are most used and the content and context in which they are found.

Great. That is an interpretive method. Please give me specific examples as they pertain to the Amillennial understanding of the 1000 years as a picture of Christ's present reign and the binding of satan viewed to have occurred at the crucifixion.

 

[Josheb]

For those used in prophecies that came to pass in the Bible times we can ascertain their meaning from the fulfillment.

By what interpretive method do Amillennialists ascertain the fulfillment? Once something is fulfilled, by what interpretive method is meaning ascertained?

 

[Josheb]

I have not called amil a method. Is it really necessary to split hairs over the word that someone uses and argue over that when the content of the OP itself makes clear what it's purpose is and what it is putting forth? And in doing so entirely warp its purpose? It is bickering.

I do not know about "Necessary," but it is useful our own posts as best we can so false accusations of hair splitting and bickering do not occur. The title of the thread is "The Book of Revelation: Amillennial/idealist Interpretive Method." Amillennialism was called a method. According to the title of the op there is an Amillennial Method. The 13th sentence of the opening post states, "The amillennial/idealist method of viewing Revelation is covenantal." Amillennialism was called a method again! That FACT is stated right in the title of the thread for everyone to objectively read and verify for themselves and I, despite accusations to the contrary, kindly and patiently awaiting clarification and when denial of what is plainly stated in the opening post and accusations of bickering ensued, I moved on to ask other questions specifically related to the op.

That Amillennialism a method is stated right in the title, and it is plainly stated in the opening post. If those words are not to be read exactly as posted the clarify it so and and all the other readers do not misunderstand

Amillennialism arrives at this view from the content in the NT---some of which I have already mentioned in the OP.

Great, but I disagree. It was stated the Amillennial view was X and Y but it was not explained how the Amillennialist arrives at that X or Y.

Amillennialism in this method understands the millennium to be a picture of the present reign of Christ and the saints in heaven. This was initiated by the binding of Satan (Matt 12:29) resulting in him no longer being able to deceive the nations. (Matt 4:14-16; Acts 17:30-31). Satan was bound through Christ's triumph in the crucifiction and His resurrection. The believer is no longer condemned by sin as they have His righteousness imputed to them, and death can no longer hold them any more than it could hold Jesus. The believer is sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit and no one and nothing can take them out of His hand. Through the believer the gospel goes to all nations which Satan is bound from stopping, until he is released from those chains for a short time. So the millennium in this view is the time period from His resurrection to His second coming. A long undesignated period of time as the number 1000 signifies in other places of the Bible.

Here's a list of the assertions:

• The millennium is a picture of Christ's present reign.
• The millennium was initiated by the binding of satan.
• Matthew 12:29 is the scripture supporting the above statement.
• Satan was bound through Christ's triumph in his crucifixion and resurrection.
• The believer is no longer condemned by sin.
• Righteousness is imputed to the believer.
• Death no longer has a hold on the believers any more than it could hold Jesus.
• The believer is sealed by the Holy Spirit and n one can remove them from God's hand.
• The gospel goes to all nations through the believer.
• Satan is bound from stopping the above statement until he is released.
• Satan will be released for a short time.
• Consequent to the 11 points just stated, the millennium is the period of time from the resurrection to his second coming.

Just to be clear: I am not disputing any of the above. I might do so later but there's not a lot here with which I disagree as far as the points themselves go.

The questions I have pertain to "interpretive method." More specifically, I have questions about how Amillennialism in "this method" goes from Revelation 20 (which is the only place in the entire Bible where the 100 years, the millennium, is mentioned) to all of the 11 points just listed and the position, "The millennium in this is the period of time from the resurrection to his second coming."

I also wonder why this is specified as an Amillennial/idealist method (or whatever the preferred label might be) since Postmillennialism holds to the exact same position: The millennium is not a literal 1000 years; it covers the period of time between Calvary and Christ's return. But for now the Postmil view and methodology by which that position is reached can wait. This op is about the book of Revelation: the Amillennial/idealist interpretive method.

I also understand that the believer is no longer condemned by sin. That is plainly stated in Romans 8:1. No interpretation from that verse to our lack of condemnation is needed. However, how does an Amillennialist get from Revelation 20 to Romans 8:1, or the point believers are no longer condemned by sin. By what interpretive method does the Amillennialist get from Revelation 20 to the binding of satan in Mattew 12:29 when that verses does not say satan was bound at Calvary? By what interpretive method does the Amillennialist get from the millennium, from Revelation 20, to righteousness being imputed, death no longer holding believers, Holy Spirit sealing, the gospel in all the nations, etc.????

I know the verse that state some of those premises. What I do not know is by what interpretive method the Amillennialists gets from the Revelation text on the millennium to how the Amillennialist holds the Amillennial view. These are valid, op-relevant inquiries and they provide an opportunity for clarification and explanation, not just for me but for any lurker yet to participate in the thread. No il will is intend by these questions. There's no ulterior or nefarious motive behind these questions. There's no reason for not answering them I'll understand if silence ensues.

It might be best, given the number of points asserted in the op, to select one or two and work from Revelation 20's mentions of the 1000 years using the interpretive method to show how Amillennialism concludes the millennium is the period of time defined in the op.

 

[Josheb]

Irrelevant, vain semantical bickering.

It's not, but if that's how it is seen then I won't belabor the matter.

 

[Red Baker]

I do not believe that this method has been put forth in these threads. I may have missed it.

There are four basic interpretive approaches to this book: Preterism including partial preterism, futurism, historicism, and idealism.

Attached to these are the categories of premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. Add to that the two basic interpretive tools, dispensationalism and covenant, and we have yet more divergences in methods and categories.

Just to be clear, neither dispensationalism or covenant are doctrines in and of themselves. Doctrines do come from them, but they are the framework around which interpretation comes. Just as in building a house, the framework determines the shape and size of the house, but is not the house. Everything put together in the finished product is the house. And just as in building a house, if the whole is not integrated, if the foundation and the framework are off as to plumb, the house will not stand true in all its parts. There are many branches of dispensationalism, some believing this, some that, but at its core it views God's relating to humans through dispensations--ages, in which He did this one way for a time, and a different way at a different time. That is my understanding of it.

Covenant theology on the other hand has the premise that God relates to and is in relationship with humans and creation through covenant. The amillennial/idealist method of viewing Revelation is covenantal. Without going into a detailed interpretation of Revelation, I will give an overview of the method.

First of all it interprets the book according to the type of literature it is, which is apocalyptic prophecy as is much of the writings in the prophets of the OT. Just as in the OT, Revelation makes use of highly symbolic and figurative language. As in Rev 1:1 John himself states, "The revelation of Jesus Christ. which God gave Him to show to His servants things which must shortly take place and He sent and signified (sermaino) by His angel---

Amillennialism in this method understands the millennium to be a picture of the present reign of Christ and the saints in heaven. This was initiated by the binding of Satan (Matt 12:29) resulting in him no longer being able to deceive the nations. (Matt 4:14-16; Acts 17:30-31). Satan was bound through Christ's triumph in the crucifiction and His resurrection. The believer is no longer condemned by sin as they have His righteousness imputed to them, and death can no longer hold them any more than it could hold Jesus. The believer is sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit and no one and nothing can take them out of His hand. Through the believer the gospel goes to all nations which Satan is bound from stopping, until he is released from those chains for a short time. So the millennium in this view is the time period from His resurrection to His second coming. A long undesignated period of time as the number 1000 signifies in other places of the Bible.

The idealist view says the visions of Revelation represent trends and forces, often spiritual and invisible. They are engaged in an ongoing warfare between the kingdom of God and the devil's kingdom of darkness. The visions do not depict specific events but ongoing and repeated patterns in this spiritual war. These principals operate through all of the church age and may have repeated embodiments. The visions provide complementary perspectives of the church age rather than a chronological, successive calendar of events. The book is also not pertaining only to future events but in the visions we also see an overview of the the entire historical accounts we have from the Exodus forward, from the perspective of the spiritual realm, and the correlation to the OT shadowing of Christ, His fist coming, and the time between that and His second coming. What was, what is, and what is to come.

Well said~this is my personal understanding and has been for over forty five years or so~started out premill as a young believer back in the early seventies, but soon saw through those science friction sermons by the mercy of God. THANK YOU LORD!

I would like to do some posts on Revelation 7,11,13, 17,18, etc. Maybe the whole book~if I can keep 3 Resurrections from interrupting me.

3 Resurrections~you remember the days at Tabernacle. science friction sermons from the book of Revelation. Good people, just so wrong on their eschatology.. Of course you went the wrong way with your partial preterism position. But, I believe you fear and love the Lord, which is great thing above being right on every little doctrine, though important for sure.

 

[Josheb]

Well said~this is my personal understanding and has been for over forty five years or so~started out premill as a young believer back in the early seventies, but soon saw through those science friction sermons by the mercy of God. THANK YOU LORD!

I would like to do some posts on Revelation 7,11,13, 17,18 etc. Maybe the whole book~if I can keep 3 Resurrections from interrupting me.

Great.

Do you self-identify as an Amillennialist?

 

[Red Baker]

Great.

Do you self-identify as an Amillennialist?

Yes, along with idealist, since there are many who are Amill, yet some are Historical, others, partial, or full Preterist, etc. Many Amill attempt to rubber stamped 70 A.D. on most NT scriptures and Daniel's prophecy. What happened in and around 70 a.d. is not even mentioned in the scriptures, it is forced there by men looking to Josephus, indeed of trusting the scriptures to interpret themselves for us.

 

[Arial]

Yes, along with idealist, since there are many who are Amill, yet some are Historical, others, partial, or full Preterist, etc. Many Amill attempt to rubber stamped 70 A.D. on most NT scriptures and Daniel's prophecy. What happened in and around 70 a.d. is not even mentioned in the scriptures, it is forced there by men looking to Josephus, indeed of trusting the scriptures to interpret themselves for us.

Depending on how one dates Revelation is often what produces these different views of the 70a.d. destruction of Jerusalem. If the late date is used that would have happened and would not necessarily need to be mentioned as the recipients of the letter would be aware of it. In any case it is obviously not the central issue or purpose of Revelation, for us, or those who received the letter. And neither is it a jigsaw puzzle we must put together to obtain its purpose and message.

 

[Arial]

It's not, but if that's how it is seen then I won't belabor the matter.

It may be important to you and causes you to be confused, the use of the word "method", though I doubt it confused anyone else. It certainly is not conducive to an actual conversation that pertains to the OP and its intent.

 

[Arial]

It might be best, given the number of points asserted in the op, to select one or two and work from Revelation 20's mentions of the 1000 years using the interpretive method to show how Amillennialism concludes the milleium is the period of time defined in the op.

It might be best if a participant in the conversation did not try to take control of it, and tell them what they ought to do. There are actual places where that person could post their own OP just the way they wanted one to be.

 

[Arial]

There's no reason for not answering them I'll understand if sielnce ensues.

I take issue with the use of the word "understand" in this sentence inserted into the demands of the one who made it. Understand implies in this case that that one person knows precisely what is going on in another person's mind when they have not been told what that is. Such a thing is impossible. And to state that one understands the "silence that may ensue" without stating what that understanding is, leaves the intended? impression that the one making the statement has the higher moral ground, or superior intellect, or whatever. What it will most likely never include would be a closer look at self.

OP's are posted for the purpose of conversation and debate, not for the purpose of being critiqued by the the English professor as though it were an assignment that he gave them. Just a word of advice.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There are many branches of dispensationalism, some believing this, some that, but at its core it views God's relating to humans through dispensations--ages, in which He did this one way for a time, and a different way at a different time. That is my understanding of it.

Covenant theology on the other hand has the premise that God relates to and is in relationship with humans and creation through covenant. The amillennial/idealist method of viewing Revelation is covenantal.

These two concepts of history divided into dispensations or covenants are not of necessity mutually exclusive concepts. What if God's division of the ages or dispensations of this world was separated into covenantal periods? Mind you, I am not proposing the typical direction in which dispensational adherents go, in that they have a Jew-versus-Gentile flip-flopping on God's part up until the end of human history.

My father until he died believed that there were no less than 8 covenants over the total timespan of human history, but I couldn't tell you just how he divided those up. He was definitely premil-disp. in his eschatology; believing that God still has a plan somehow for elevating ethnic Jews as a nation once more over all other nations. This is a belief which I do not share, though I do recognize the basic covenants beginning with Adam, then Noah, then Abraham, then Solomon, then Christ's new covenant.

Personally, I believe I see a scripture pattern of seven ages total for human history, composed of a thousand years each. This is a rather common viewpoint that many others have also proposed. Each of those seven millennial ages has had, or will have, a prevailing theme that could be descriptive of that age. Those seven prevailing themes are echoes of God's performance during each day of Creation week. We are currently at the ending of the sixth millennial age, with the beginning of the seventh age of human history on the near horizon.

I would like to do some posts on Revelation 7,11,13, 17,18, etc. Maybe the whole book~if I can keep 3 Resurrections from interrupting me.

LOL, you know me, RB - can't help myself...

 

[Mr GLee]

Dispensationalism is a construct. Covenantalism is a construct. Dispensationalism OVERTLY asserts a specific hermeneutic by which it overtly tells readers how to read. Before the book is opened Dispensationalism assumes the scriptures should always be read literally (when what they mean is literalistically, not literally). It is a priori assumed there are discontinuous dispensations, there are two groups of people (not one) for whom God has two completely different plans (not one). These three tenets make up the Dispensational hermeneutic and because of that method the conclusion reached is a different premillennialism than the Historicists reach. Idealism, less egregiously but no less eisegetically assumes as an a priori condition the belief the Bible can and should be read allegorically and the stories therein (whether real and true or not) are indicative of patterns or cycles in history that repeat and will repeat in different ways until the end comes.

Dispensationalism it is the root of literalism. It destroys the signified or called hidden manna in chapter 2:17. Remember without parables the hidden understanding Christ spoke not .

The whole idea that God works differently in time periods it would seem neglect God finished all the work in 6 day .It's his labor of love reconked by 6 days that works in all the generations .

The important focus in our life is God in us forming us to his image. . that has to be complete along with our daily tasks sometimes we can put God on the back burner rather than first seeking the kingdom in respect to the things not seen.

God understood these things, "the limits of mankind" in that way he created a space in time when things were made complete with hm, yoked with the believer empowering them to work with God. (Phillipian 2:13)

If we do not harden our hearts our focus can be complete . If we harden it. . . . it could be compared to a student who reads but does not study to show themselves approved according to the loving commandment .

Not that it changes the simplicity of the gospel God saves "Let there be salvation" and "it is was good" . But again how we hear the mysteries of a God not seen to enrich our walk

2 Timothy 2:15-16 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

In that way he does not leave the slower learners behind on the Journey home or I would be in big trouble. To embarrassed to raise hand. He is our confidence

he informs us in Philippians 1:6 If he began the good teaching work in us he will continue till our last breath of oxygen . It's an open living word book test years ago a wrote a short poem I would offer to share

Wilderness love.(the backside of God.)

In the dawning of your love... this day breaks forth anew. The fasting rest is surely broken, awakening my hunger turns towards you. Now looking for your precious love, it awakens me finds me waiting .... . Filling my cup to overflowing .- This is your love for sure . . .leading to where we are going.- Your love has so awakened me, as it has desired so this cannot be mistaken. . Where your love leads me, I will surely go.-

Looking in hopeful anticipation . . .the gate swings open to this day anew.- And in humble adoration we follow. . . your lamp unto our feet............ leads us through. Step by step we follow your path as the light of your word guides our hearts from above . . . marveling at the fact for our trespass you did pay, But why?????-

Walking with joy towards your mansion, we pause to drink from your living waters of delight.-This raises our hope like putting on armor; we are strengthened by the authority of your glorious might.-

Times along this journey are sometimes rough we know, a stone “false gospel” may cause us to stumble, in that dark valley, so, so far......... below. We sometimes feel overshadowed, falling far behind. In this dark and dreary valley,- how much longer.... echoes in our mind?-

Suddenly lifted high in visions of rapture upon the solid Rock of Christ, we stand. We look in anticipation for you to speak a word.... but find we can only . . . sigh.- We ask that we might see your face... please do not deny.

Suddenly we find ourselves in a cleft of a Rock the place we firmly stand. We ask?? Could this be the answer of seeking your face your gracious and loving reply?

The cloud of your presence now veils the light as your glory passes by. . Blinded by this wonderful grace - suddenly your veil now is lifted high. Sounds of battle we faintly hear, as we look our vision still blurry and marred.-

You are the victor of our faith, our Holy shield, and our rear guard. Us stragglers and strays you left not behind, but in love said follow me.. By this love you made the victory sure, by your blood you set us free. Such unfailing love that rescues those you bought . . . such love that knows no end. Thank you Jesus for being our Savior, and also for being our loving friend.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, along with idealist,

What is the interpretive method you, specifically as an Amilliennial Idealist use to reach your Amillennial Idealist view of Revelation? How is that interpretive method any different than what a non-idealist Amillennialist might use, a Postmillennialist might use, or a Dispensationalist might use? Please do not list specific views of scripture because I am asking about method, not position or conclusion.


Start small. Give me three principles, precepts, rules, or guidelines specific to the Amillennial Idealist interpretive method.