The Book of Revelation: Amillennial/idealist Interpretive Method

[Mr GLee]

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.

What is a Amillennial Idealist?

 

[Josheb]

OP's are posted for the purpose of conversation and debate

And I am awaiting exactly that.

If I cannot have that with you then I will have it with those who do, and I will continue to post whatever I like about this op within the liberty and limitations provided by this forum's tos.

• The op errs when it conflates method and position or conclusion. There's an easy repair possible by simply clarifying the two correctly and not continuing to conflate them. All conversations and debate on the topic of the book of Revelation from an Amillennialist/Idealist interpretive method will ensue better without that conflation.
• Preterism was broached in the opening post, but it was asserted as an "interpretive approach," along with three other "approaches," when they are not approaches. They are positions held because of conclusions reached by various interpretive methods and the example of preterism was used because preterists are often Amillennialists, Idealists, and/or Amillennial Idealists. They can also be Postmillennialists. Similar cases could have been made for the other three examples but they were not posted for the sake of space and kindness to the op so as not to over-emphasize the error made conflating approach with position. This too is an easily repaired mistake that needn't cause any disruption of the conversation or debate.
• "Dispensationalism and covenant" are also broached in the opening post. They are introduced as "interpretive tools." They are also said to be "doctrines in and of themselves." Issue was taken with splitting hairs but there are very valid and important points to be made about "dispensationalism and covenant." What the op should say is dispensations and covenants are interpretive tools, and "dispensationalism and covenatalism" are doctrines. That was overlooked and the concepts presumably being communicated were affirmed in goodwill and expanded upon because the word "covenant" can actually be found throughout the Bible and found throughout the Bible punctuating various events therein. The word, "dispensation" can be found, but not throughout the Bible. The theology of dispensationalism invents dispensations where none are labeled by scripture itself and dispensationalism does this in direct contradiction and opposition to the mention of "covenant" in the Bible. That is an interpretive method and it is not one used by Amillennial Idealists (or the rest of Christendom for that matter. Amillennialist Idealists prefer and use what is stated in scripture. That is their method. And because the Amillennialist tends toward using what is stated over what is not stated they also use the mentions of covenant as an interpretative tool and method. This is, in fact, one of the tools and methods that separates the Historic Premillennial, the Amillennial, the Postmillennial, and the Ideal from the Dispensational Premillennial view.
• All of those holding millennial use a certain set of common tools and approaches. For example, the basic tools of exegesis are used by all but they may not be used consistently and that is, typically, where differences ensue. Aside from abject failure correctly applying exegetical rules, another reason for differences in apply exegesis can be attributed to the existence of various hermeneutics or hermeneutical positions. Most use a grammatical-historical approach, but there are others that can replace or overlayed atop that hermeneutic. Another example is the redemptive-historical common to Amillennialists but not necessarily Idealist. Lastly, there are also the interpretive approaches in which scripture is read literally, allegorically, anagogically, and/or morally. All millennial views read scripture literally to some degree great or small because that is the first rule of sound exegesis. Amillennialists also apply an allegorical approach while Idealists may be more anagogical. Lastly, the classic Protestant hermeneutical view is that the Old Testament informs the New Testament while the New Testament explains the Old. Simply put, the newer revelation reveals what was foreshadowed, veiled, or hidden in the older. Dispensationalism tends not to practice that view.

These are some oof the various "interpretive methods," "approaches," and "tools" applied to the book of Revelation and those of the Amillennial/Idealist views have been affirmatively highlighted for the benefit of conversation and debate. More will follow as the discussion warrants.

 

[Arial]

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.

How about you dispense with the word "method" in your requests, which makes what you are asking for require an essay that would need to return to the historical ways in which the views in amil/idealist were originally arrived at before calling it amil/idealist, if one satisfies your need to have "method" restricted to your preferences of its usage. If that must be the criteria in order to satisfy you, a person simply explaining how they arrive at what they believe, would only meet with more critique. You would never be satisfied, only critical, again making the thread about one word in the OP rather than the OP itself. People tend to not want to bother and engage with that sort of thing. I only know what you are driving at by inserting that word "method" into every question and request from having to be embroiled in it with you. Others are likely to have no clue why you seem to neither understand or accept what they say, but seem to be picking at something they no not what.

However if we dispense with that obsession, a conversation on the beliefs and how the person arrives at them can ensue.

I state the above as advice from the position of admin, to hopefully avoid more of the same.

 

[Arial]

And I am awaiting exactly that.

I will post the rest of the sentence so it no longer distorted.

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.

 

[Arial]

The op errs when it conflates method and position or conclusion. There's an easy repair possible by simply clarifying the two correctly and not continuing to conflate them. All conversations and debate on the topic of the book of Revelation from an Amillennialist/Idealist interpretive method will ensue better without that conflation.

I did not notice that anyone else had that particular problem in being able to ascertain what the OP is about. Maybe it would be easier for you if I tell you what it is not about. It is not about the word "method". I would think the pick axe would get burdensome to carry around. Most don't bring one into a conversation. They get right to the meat of the post. But go ahead if you must. Let's see if anyone engages in your conversation about the use of the word "method."

 

[Mr GLee]

The Amil the signified understanding of parables can be viewed in many ways. Chapter 2:17 calls it hidden manna .

Hidden manna is another way of saying scripture alone . digging is required. the temporal historical seen must be mixed with the hidden things seen (2 corinthians 4:18) no mixing no gospel understanding , no rest not yoked with him (Hebrew 4:1-2)

Search the timing of the fall where satan could no longer deceive all the nations . What was the sign Again it had to to with deceiving all the nations?

Revelation 20:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

The time of reformation spoken of in Hebrews 9.??????

 

[Josheb]

What is a Amillennial Idealist?

Ask Arial, it's her op.

All the millennial views get their name from their view of the "1000 years" mentioned in Revelation. A "millennium" is 1000 years, hence the label, "millennialism." Premillennialism believe Jesus returns prior to the 1000 years and tend to read the "1000 years" literally. The millennium will, therefore, be specifically and exactly a literal 1000 years long. Amillennialism, along with Postmillennialist and Idealists tend to believe Jesus comes after the millennium and they do not read Revelation 20's mentions of "1000 years" literally. Those three millennial views read the 1000 years figuratively and they do so for various reasons. Exegetically the reasons are because that chapter is filled with figurative language that provides reason not to read the 1000 years literally and there is no verse stating Jesus is physically on earth during that time. Doctrinally, or theologically, the Trinitarian view dictates the divinity of Jesus means there has never been a time when Jesus has not been God, Lord, King, and ruler of all the earth (despite temporal observations to the contrary). These are only a few of the reasons, approaches, methods used to arrive at the Amillennial view. If you would like to know more about the Amillennial view then I strongly recommend Kim Riddlebarger's "A Case for Amillennialism." I read it when I was a Postmillennialist and I found his exegetical prowess impressive. I keep a copy in my office for routine reference.

Idealism is something different altogether. Idealism is not specifically a millennial view. Idealism simply believes the patterns of history found in scripture recapitulate throughout the entirety of human history and will continue to do so until such a time that Jesus returns. It takes a highly allegorical and anagogical (spiritual) approach to reading scripture. There is allegorical and anagogical meaning even in the most literal texts of scripture. Symbolism is commonly seen even in the seemingly ordinary.

Amillennialists are not typically Idealist but they do share an acceptance of allegory and analogical meaning, along with the use of the redemptive-historical hermeneutic. Simply put, the Bible is a historical record of God's redemptive action in creation and scripture can and should be read with that understanding. Historical Premillennialists may agree, but Dispensational Premillennialism uses other approaches, eschewing the more classic approaches, methods, and tools.

As far as any specifics intended to be asserted about an "Amillennial/idealist method" in this op, you'll have to ask the op.

 

[Arial]

Ask Arial, it's her op.

I believe he was asking you if that is what you were asking. Already confusion enters, and not from the OP itself.

 

[Josheb]

Dispensationalism it is the root of literalism.

Do you mean literalism is at the root of Dispensationalism?

It is true one of the core, most basic, foundational precepts to the Dispensational hermeneutic is the rule to read scripture literally. I can and will readily affirm that is the claim of Dispensationalism and I have a pile of theology and textbooks written by leading Dispensationalist over the course of the last 100+ years from which I can quote to prove that is what they teach. No dispute there.

The problem is Dispensationalist do not preach what they teach. This is easily demonstrated by the fact Dispensationalists do not read Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 literally. If they did then they would not be futurists. Pretribulational Dispensationalists do not read the verses stating disciples go through the tribulation literally. If they did then they would not be pretribbbers.

And that all I am going to say about this because this op is about the Amillennial/idealist interpretive method, not the Dispensational Premillennial interpretive method and Dispensationalist have tendency to hijack every op they enter to argue their eschatology. I will not collaborate with that.

 

[Arial]

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.

I agree they are not mutually exclusive in the way you describe which I will come to in a moment. But the way in which the covenant framework and the dispensationalist framework are applied result in very different eschatology and also altars much of the OT in its application to Gentile believers. It mostly presents it as having no application to Gentiles but only ethnic Jews.

Covenants with mankind and creation do run through the ages----but in dispensationalism the ages become dispensations that take precedence over the covenants. The covenant of works which included a land grant, in the Mosaic covenant becomes a dispensation, rather than the covenant view of ages being the way in which God communicates with people. In that covenant He communicated through Law, and through prophets. When this becomes a dispensation it separates all the covenants, even the one with Abraham concerning his Seed, from its unity with the covenant of redemption that exists in all other covenants and comes to fulfillment in Christ.

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.

This I cannot begin to address as I have neither heard it, studied it, or found it for myself.

Good post.

 

[Josheb]

I will post the rest of the sentence so it no longer distorted.

But you are AGAIN wrong because if a poster wants to post for the purpose of being critiqued by the English professor as though it were an assignment he had given them they have liberty to do so as long as they do not violate the tos and it is not advice; it is a god-forsaken attempt to control others' posts.


The simple fact is I have provided plenty of valid, op-relevant content, none of it is being discussed, and deliberate choices are being made not to do so. That is ALL on you. I take this an indication you do not want to discuss what I bring to this conversation. That's okay with me, but the derogatory personal comments violate the tos and should cease.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Covenants with mankind and creation do run through the ages----but in dispensationalism the ages become dispensations that take precedence over the covenants. The covenant of works which included a land grant, in the Mosaic covenant becomes a dispensation, rather than the covenant view of ages being the way in which God communicates with people. In that covenant He communicated through Law, and through prophets. When this becomes a dispensation it separates all the covenants, even the one with Abraham concerning his Seed, from its unity with the covenant of redemption that exists in all other covenants and comes to fulfillment in Christ.

I would agree that all covenants are under an "umbrella" of God's intent to redeem a people for Himself. It has been an incremental process over the millennia, with a fixed culmination point at which God will have finally purified this planet entirely of the presence of evil in all its forms. It will not just be a restored Edenic condition, but even better, in that any possibility of it falling again into rebellion and separation will be no more.

Unfortunately, the very scriptural word "dispensation" has been appropriated by an entire system that has hijacked the word and bent it to mean something else entirely.

 

[Mr GLee]

Do you mean literalism is at the root of Dispensationalism?

It is true one of the core, most basic, foundational precepts to the Dispensational hermeneutic is the rule to read scripture literally. I can and will readily affirm that is the claim of Dispensationalism and I have a pile of theology and textbooks written by leading Dispensationalist over the course of the last 100+ years from which I can quote to prove that is what they teach. No dispute there.

The problem is Dispensationalist do not preach what they teach. This is easily demonstrated by the fact Dispensationalists do not read Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 literally. If they did then they would not be futurists. Pretribulational Dispensationalists do not read the verses stating disciples go through the tribulation literally. If they did then they would not be pretribbbers.

And that all I am going to say about this because this op is about the Amillennial/idealist interpretive method, not the Dispensational Premillennial interpretive method and Dispensationalist have tendency to hijack every op they enter to argue their eschatology. I will not collaborate with that.

If you cannot stick to the op then I'll report the post(s) for violating Rule 3 for the forum's tos. Please post accordingly . Do please post a separate op on the Dispensational interpretive method. It will serve as a contrast and comparison to this one. I'll gladly contribute to that discussion because I find Dispensationalism reprehensible and believe everyone should know its problems.

I am still interested in "Amillennial/idealist method". . . . . What is the idea of it?

 

[Mr GLee]

I agree they are not mutually exclusive in the way you describe which I will come to in a moment. But the way in which the covenant framework and the dispensationalist framework are applied result in very different eschatology and also altars much of the OT in its application to Gentile believers. It mostly presents it as having no application to Gentiles but only ethnic Jews.

What aplies to the Jews aplies to the Gentiles .God puts no difference between them. Beginning with the gentile Abel the second born to represent all born again from above. . the second born genealogy ending with the Son of man, Jesus .

 

[3 Resurrections]

I am still interested in "Amillennial/idealist method". . . . . What is the idea of it?

Idealism tends to have symbolism and metaphor define everything. A literalistic meaning is almost totally lost. In other words, it tends to fall in the opposite ditch than premil-dispensational teaching which tends to erase anything symbolic in scripture and interpret all things in literal terms. The truth lies in a balance between both metaphor and literal.

 

[Josheb]

I am still interested in "Amillennial/idealist method". . . . . What is the idea of it?

Clarify your inquiry.

I have already posted several posts expounding upon the methods used by Amillennialists, Amillennial Idealists and to a lesser degree the Idealists. Have they been read. If so the specify your inquiry.

And understand I can only share my views on the subject. The op may have different views.

 

[Mr GLee]

Idealism tends to have symbolism and metaphor define everything. A literalistic meaning is almost totally lost. In other words, it tends to fall in the opposite ditch than premil-dispensational teaching which tends to erase anything symbolic in scripture and interpret all things in literal terms. The truth lies in a balance between both metaphor and literal.

Thanks for that>very clear

I would think that would introduce what I call the 20/20 mixing formula for rightly dividing the parable. . . in order to seek the understanding of God,. . . . . in order to mix the two (the unseen eternal with the temporal seen) If no mixing . . .then there can be no gospel rest. . .

Yoked with him our burdens are lighter with a living hope beyond one's last breath .

2 Corinthians 4:18King James Version1 While we look not at the "things" which are "seen", but at the "things" which are not "seen:" for the "things" which are "seen" are "temporal"; but the "things" which are not seen are "eternal."

I think we receive the loving promise then the testimony "it was very good. God alone good.

Satan turned that God alone is good upside down earthly (from the dust) inspired of dying mankind.

Hebrews 4:1-2 King James Version Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

​

 

[Josheb]

Thanks for that>very clear

I would think that would introduce what I call the 20/20 mixing formula for rightly dividing the parable. . . in order to seek the understanding of God,. . . . . in order to mix the two (the unseen eternal with the temporal seen) If no mixing . . .then there can be no gospel rest. . .

Yoked with him our burdens are lighter with a living hope beyond one's last breath .

2 Corinthians 4:18King James Version1 While we look not at the "things" which are "seen", but at the "things" which are not "seen:" for the "things" which are "seen" are "temporal"; but the "things" which are not seen are "eternal."

I think we receive the loving promise then the testimony "it was very good. God alone good.

Satan turned that God alone is good upside down earthly (from the dust) inspired of dying mankind.

Hebrews 4:1-2 King James Version Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Not sure I followed that or see its relevance to this op.

The rules of exegesis are extraordinarily uniform regardless of one's eschatological orientation and they begin with reading the words in the Bible exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words as used in ordinary conversation unless there is something in the text providing a reason for doing otherwise. Included among the basic precepts of exegesis is the rule scripture is the first best interpreter of scripture. The op references this when it applies references outside of Revelation as a means of understanding the millennium and appeals to how Revelation uses symbols and figures of speech found elsewhere, like the OT prophets.

Since this op is specifically about the Amillennial/idealist interpretive method of Revelation I am not sure how the appeals to mixing, yokes, "God alone good," "good upside down," 2 Corinthians4:28 and Hebrews 4:1-2 are relevant.





Aside from what I previously posted, tell me what knowledge and/or familiarity with Amillennialism or Idealism you have. I'll work there to answer your question.

 

[Red Baker]

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.

Very briefly~I'll speak only for myself other Idealist can speak for themselves. Let me start with precepts. Precepts and rules are almost identical

The only rule used by me, is sola scriptura. I trust God's word through the Spirit of God to give me the interpretation of his word~I will never seek for the understanding in the writings of such men as Josephus, an infidel, beside history is written by victors who are not honest~always slanted for their purposes, and, or, advantages ~ Besides, truth is hidden within the scriptures not outside of them. So, percepts, a general rule intended to regulate methods or thoughts. Percept and rule are basically the same.

For me, it has always been..... what saith the word of God, I care less about men like Josephus a Jewish infidel, whom many look to to help them to unlock God's mysteries hidden in his word for his elect only. History is written by victors who have a very biased agenda to set before the public. I trust only the inspired word of God, where truth is hidden therein for those who are willing to seek for it as for hid treasures, for there's no treasure on earth or in the seas more valuable than GOD'S TRUTH.

guidelines specific to the Amillennial Idealist interpretive method.

The very elect know this: truth is hidden in the scriptures, so we use the scriptures to interpret themselves and they do.

Revelation is a book of highly symbolic language ~ so, by employing allegorical interpretation, ( interpreting those allegorical phrases with SCRIPTURES ) the book is reduced to a symbolic exhibition of good versus evil. “The more moderate form of allegorical interpretation, following Augustine, . . . regards the book of Revelation as presenting in a symbolic way the total conflict between Christianity and evil or, as Augustine put it, the City of God versus the City of Satan. Zion versus Babylon, they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

The main guidelines would be using scriptures to interpret Revelation. Also, knowing that Revelation is not written in chronological manner, chapters do not follow each other in sequence~but each give to us a bird eyes view from the cross to the end of the world~with the end coming in different chapters.

This is as brief as I can make it.

 

[Red Baker]

This is as brief as I can make it.

A little more may help.

The only rule used by me, is sola scriptura. I trust God's word through the Spirit of God to give me the interpretation of his word~I will never seek for the understanding in the writings of such men as Josephus, an infidel, beside history is written by victors who are not honest~always slanted for their purposes, and, or, advantages ~ Besides, truth is hidden within the scriptures not outside of them. So, percepts, a general rule intended to regulate methods or thoughts. Percept and rule are basically the same.

The scriptures are one cohesive whole, no one scripture is given to us in a vacuum. We need all of them to come unto the knowledge of the truth, which most cannot find, for they seek for truth from extra-biblical sources. Shame on them ~ confusion shall dwell with them

Isaiah 28:13~"But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken."

It is truly here a little and there a little. It has been said and I agree that the bible is one spiritual puzzle, and truth is seen and understood when all pieces are put into their proper place by using scriptures without forcing one's biased opinion upon them.

I have heard one Historical Amill preacher say: you need to understand Daniel before you can understand the Olivet discourse, which is so far from the truth! Daniel was a PROPHET not an historian! Daniel prophesied concerning Things written in MAtthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; 2nd thess 2.; 1st John 2:18 and the book of Revelation.

Matthew 24:15~"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand"

So, Daniel was not an historian, telling us about the past before him, but a prophet foretelling of the end of this world that what shall come to past at the last days.

Daniel 12~"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.

So, being an idealist, or, what others chose to call folks like me, I just follow the scripture alone and let them interpret themselves by comparing scriptures with scriptures, here a little and there a little, etc. The only way to truly be wise. The wise live by every word that comes from the mouth of their God.