The Book of Revelation: Amillennial/idealist Interpretive Method

[Red Baker]

Let me make sure I am understanding that correctly.

Part 1:

Correctly understood, sola scriptura asserts the Bible is correct and authoritative pertaining to all it states, sufficient for understanding faith and Christian practice, and all truth necessary for understanding salvation and the Christian life can be found therein.

Is that what you mean by "sola scriptura"?

I ask because sola scriptura makes no claims specifically about eschatology or millennialism beyond "understanding faith and the Christian life." Sola scriptura would not apply specifically to the matter of millennialism

Greetings Josheb~

By saying what I said, I meant mainly I do not use extra-biblical sources to gain an understanding of bible prophecies found in Daniel, Matthew 24,25; Mark 13; Luke 21; 2nd Thess. 2.; and 1st John 2:18; and Revelation ~ Or, Mystery Babylon which starts in the Psalms and goes all through the prophets and summarized in the book of Revelation. The extra sources I'm thinking of are works by such as Josephus, Tacitus, Seneca, etc. mentioned by 3 Resurrections above especially so Josephus' war of the Jews the Pertersit's second bible~maybe even first for some.

I firmly believe scriptures interpret each other ~ truths are hidden within God's testimony of what is truth.

Daniel 10:21~"But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince."

Should be every believer's words to others as they teach/preach and spread the word of God to others. I mean no more than this.

We were discussing the common principles, precepts, and practices of (sound) exegesis. Exegesis stems from, or is a product of, the sola scriptura belief scripture is correct and authoritative to all that it speaks. As I have already posted, one of the first, most basic, fundamental, and/or foundational "rules" in exegesis is to read the text of (correct and authoritative) scripture as written with the normal meaning of words in their ordinary usage unless there is reason in the text giving reason to do otherwise.

I do likewise the same. I agree totally with you. But, at the same time truth is hidden with using seemly plain words, so we must read the scriptures distinctly and then give their true biblical senses before anyone can truly understand the meaning. John 3:16 is a classic example how sound bites can be very misleading when we do not take into consideration all scriptures.

Nehemiah 8:8~"So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading."

I understand what you are saying and truly I do this even with the book of Revelation, yet knowing truth is only known by diligently comparing all scriptures and allow them to render their meaning/truth ~ and they will most of time, if God is willing to give it to those seeking, sometimes he does not do so for reasons known only to him.

Another basic, commonly shared rule of exegesis is to understand the original intent of the author and how the original first century reader would have understood the text.

It might be a commonly share rule among those men who have a personal agenda to put forth~but the all wise God gave the scriptures and even sealed the same for a particular time in God timeline of events that he would reveal according to his own good pleasure. The scriptures truly were not given for men to understand until the time God would reveal truth to whomsoever he would and the time he would. The word of God is still a sealed book to most of the world's population and will always be so!

Do you, as an Idealist applying Idealism to the text, seek first to understand what is written as originally intended and understood when written?

Truly Josheb, I do not apply any method so to speak in order to understand the scriptures ~ I just follow Nehemiah, 8:8.; 2nd Timothy 2:15, etc. Study, pray, seek, and trust the word of God to reveal truth to me through the Holy Spirit. If that cause me to be known as an Idealist, so be it. I'm not being rude but honest.

Do you think John, the author of the book understood the symbols? Do you think the original readers of Revelation understood the symbols?

Josheb, I cannot answer that question perfectly, but will say this: Paul, John and all the apostles taught this truth: antichrist/man of sin, abomination of desolation..... ALL ONE AND THE SAME....... will come in the latter days of this world history. Revelation is a book describing these events happening using symbolic language which can only be understood by searching the scriptures mainly from Daniel to Revelation to get the pictures and timelines of what is coming upon this world in the latter days. To answer your question consider:

1st Peter 1:912~"Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."

Maybe John did enquired and searched diligently concerning what he had written by the inspiration of God. Maybe God did open his eyes even more~than what he said in 1st John 2:18~based upon what he heard from Christ in the Olivet discourse.

 

[Mr GLee]

The heart of fallen mankind in its natural state is capable of deceiving itself and others without any assistance whatever from the Satanic realm being present in the world. Christ made that very clear in Mark 7:21. "For, from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, ...deceit, lasciviousness..." etc.. Those who have no belief in human depravity would deny this fact. Even believers can be deluded and can deceive others (as "deceiving your own selves").

True but this exclusive deceiving has to do with?nations as a whole not individuals When did fall he fall?

 

[3 Resurrections]

True but this exclusive deceiving has to do with?nations as a whole not individuals When did fall he fall?

Satan's target of deception (back when he was still in existence) was devoted to both individuals and nations. You can't really have nations that don't include individuals. Satan's change from a formerly "anointed cherub" into a fallen state was sometime in the years between Creation week and the time He was deceiving Eve: a timespan of about 36 years by scripture comparison. But again, a topic better served in a post dedicated to that theme instead.

 

[Red Baker]

Would you say Revelation should be read literally where the text is meant to be read literally, and it should be read allegorically where it is meant to be read allegorically, and read anagogically where it is mean to be read anagogically?

Or would you, as an Idealist applying Idealism to Revelation, say Revelation should be read only allegorically, never literally or anagogically, because Revelation is only and always everywhere allegorical?

I have always and still do approach all scriptures literally, if not, then there is no way of rationally communicating with anyone ~ yet, we as children of God seek for the meaning of what the Holy Ghost is saying with the words he is using by comparing scriptures with scriptures.

You understand world does not mean what most folk believes it does ~ Israel does not always mean Abraham's natural children~believing that it does, leaves folks in dark on many important truths. The words save/saved/ salvation has at least five different meanings in the scriptures, and unless we rightly divide them, we will end up holding onto false doctrines in a few areas ~ the list is long~all, whosoever, many, etc. Is bread the liquid substances we eat, or can it be the word of God? You know that answer.

We read all scriptures at face value, including Revelation and let the Spirit of God guide us into its true meaning by using His word throughout the scriptures.

"Reduced"?

Maybe not a good word to use, yet, if we read it and understand it by letting others scriptures interpret Revelation for us, then yes, this prophecy book is reduced to the wars of two kingdoms, Mystery Babylon and the Kingdom of Jesus Christ~or, this world system under its prince the devil himself, and the kingdom of Jesus Christ, who triumphs at the end! There are two kingdoms in this world one a chosen generation with Jesus Christ as their King~the other, the generation/kingdom of the wicked one, generation of vipers, who hate God, truth, righteousness, and Jesus Christ and his saints. Daniel 7-12; Matthew 24; and Revelation all addresses these truths. The children of the wicked one will overtake the temple of God/churches/congregations of Jesus Christ just as they did he temple in Jesus' days. The beast will make war with the saints and overcome them, not destroy, yet they will be driven from the professing churches of Jesus Christ, just before he end comes, much like Christ was outside of the temple for the most part joined with a few followers called the sect of the Nazarenes. But they refer to themselves as Christians, followers of Christ.

The book of Revelation instructs its readers not to add to or subtract from its contents. can I get some clarification on "reduced"?

I fully understand that verse of scripture, yet, it is truly a warning for all of the prophecy of the word of God ~ since truth is one cohesive whole. God knows I fear doing so~that's one reason why I use only the scriptures for my support in what I believe and teach.

I believe I gave some clarification above, if not just ask for more.

I am very familiar with Augustine, the various eschatological positions he took over the course of his lifetime and his books (including "The City of God"). I am curious about the mention of "The City of God " because there are only two places in the entire book where Augustine mentions Revelation (once in chapter 7 and again in chapter 13 of Book 20) and neither report is specifically Idealist. Thoroughly Amillennial, but not Idealist.

What am I missing?

Josheb, you probably are right, I have read very little from Augustine, not enough to speak for him. But, I did read his exposition from Revelation 20, more than once, and not sure where I got the material from, I do have his book, yet cannot remember where I got it. Off the Internet I'm sure, since most of what I read now comes from the internet, not from books, which I had a large section of, before the internet became so popular, quick and much easier to read.

And what does Augustine's "City of God" have to do with sola scriptura? In one part of the same post I read, "The only rule I use is sola scriptura," but then I also read an appeal to Augustine, and extra-biblical source. Then I also read the main guidelines would be using scripture to interpret Revelation (a principle previously asserted in this thread by both Arial and I). Can you see why I ask this question?

It certainly does not have anything to do with Sola Scriptura, and I must look back and see why I even mentioned him.

I agree with you and I would go so far as to say it's not only not chronological, but it also repeats itself (recapitulation).

Agreed~Let me say this~I use the scriptures to interpret itself, I look for them to give me the light I'm looking for, the truth I'm seeking ~ I approach the word of God at face value when reading it without a personal agenda or a sect to support, ( since I'm outside of all religious sects, not to say all within are children of the wicked one, yet most within care nothing for the truth of God, ) and if I know that other scriptures give light to what I'm reading in one place then I use as many scriptures in other places to support my understanding. By doing this over the years, has landed me into the camp of Amill Idealist a name that I did not give myself, but others did.

When I first came to Christ in my mid twenties, I started out with the premill group, Armenian to the core, etc. I left them within two years after I started to read, search and pray. It was not too long I found myself in my home with a small family trying to worship and serve God the best I knew how. The first truth I saw was unconditional election of grace, that put me outside of many in the area I was living. Next to follow was Amill, and that did me in for almost 95% of churches in this area. Then what closed the door was I left a group who were heavily leaning toward Perteristism.~along with other problems. It has been a fifty year journey that I would gladly do again!

Forgive me if this was more than you wanted to read.

 

[3 Resurrections]

It might be a commonly share rule among those men who have a personal agenda to put forth~but the all wise God gave the scriptures and even sealed the same for a particular time in God timeline of events that he would reveal according to his own good pleasure.

The "sealing" of scripture prophecy you mentioned above is most definitely God reserving the fulfillment for a later time down the road. Daniel 12:8-9 made that point very clear at that time. This is why the "unsealing" of the book's seven seals by the Lamb in Revelation 6 tells us that the time had then arrived in John's days for fulfillment to take place.

It is also why John in Revelation 10:4 was told to "seal up" what things the 7 thunders uttered, since that particular set of events would again be reserved for the generations future to John's days.

Do you think John, the author of the book understood the symbols? Do you think the original readers of Revelation understood the symbols?

I know this was a question for RB, but yes, the original readers of Revelation would have been able to understand Revelation's symbols. That was the very purpose behind God giving John the Revelation - "to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass." Daniel 12:10 predicted for the "time of the end" that "none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand". Daniel himself claimed not to understand what he heard at the time, but that was not going to be true for the wise when the "time of the end" had arrived.

Christ said in John 16:13 He was going to leave the Spirit of Truth when He departed this world, and that the Comforter would "show you things to come". 1 John 2:20 testified that this was true: that the believers had "an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." Paul also testified of the Thessalonians that they were not in darkness about the day of the Lord's coming, and that he had no need to write to them about the times or seasons (1 Thessalonians 5:1-4). They knew more back then than most today know about those things.

 

[Arial]

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.

Hence the / separating the two. It is amillennialism combined with idealism.

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.

There of course will be some who take an allegorical approach, apparently @Red Baker does, but it is not typical. It interprets symbols according to their usage in other places of the Bible. It does not consider the book of Revelation to be allegorical literature.

Read "The Returning King a Guide to the Book of Revelation" by Vern S. Poythress.

 

[Red Baker]

Hence the / separating the two. It is amillennialism combined with idealism.

There of course will be some who take an allegorical approach, apparently @Red Baker does, but it is not typical. It interprets symbols according to their usage in other places of the Bible. It does not consider the book of Revelation to be allegorical literature.

Read "The Returning King a Guide to the Book of Revelation" by Vern S. Poythress.

True~Never heard of Vern Poythress but will be checking him out today.

 

[Josheb]

Greetings Josheb~

By saying what I said, I meant mainly I do not use extra-biblical sources to gain an understanding of bible prophecies found in Daniel, Matthew 24,25; Mark 13; Luke 21; 2nd Thess. 2.; and 1st John 2:18; and Revelation ~ Or, Mystery Babylon which starts in the Psalms and goes all through the prophets and summarized in the book of Revelation. The extra sources I'm thinking of are works by such as Josephus, Tacitus, Seneca, etc. mentioned by 3 Resurrections above especially so Josephus' war of the Jews the [preterits'] second bible~maybe even first for some.

First, let me commend the practice of leaning first and foremost on scripture and not extra-biblical source.

But then let me dissent the comment about not using extra-biblical sources because we are discussing millennial views and the amillennial position was doctrinally, largely an invention of an extra-biblical source (Augustine) as are ALL of the various millennial positions. We are all discussing things developed after the canon of scripture was closed, using extra-biblical source and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

And as far as the hogwash about preterists' second Bible, I have addressed that early on by stating the interpretive method of preterists is an exegetical reading of scripture that emphasizes the literal reading of scripture and does so much more than most, even the Dispensationalists. Neither do we make post hoc arguments to assert our Amillennial/Postmillennial conclusions. The only time that comes up is in answer to the question, "When did that happen?" and that question is always fallacious because post hoc answers are always fallacious.

You will not find me making those arguments to reach my millennial view. I can appeal to the histories of the time but I do not need to do so, and if you examine my eschatological posts in any forum you will find me posting scripture and piles of it, rarely if ever making any appeals to Josephus, Tacitus, etc.

So please correct your view of preterism. Preterism is simply the belief prophecies have been fulfilled. It is not a method; it is a position, and it is a position we reach by the plain and exegetical reading of scripture.

I firmly believe scriptures interpret each other ~ truths are hidden within God's testimony of what is truth.

Me, too.

So when the book of Revelation explicitly states the time is at hand do you apply sola scriptura, the plain reading of scripture, original meaning, and scripture interpreting scripture to take those words exactly as written? If the word "near" or the phrase, "at hand" (Greek = "engys") is examined in the New Testament we find God NEVER uses the word "near to mean anything other than near in time or space. NEVER. New Testament scripture never allows for any other usage.

Anyone truly sticking to the practice of using scripture to interpret scripture cannot make Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 mean anything other than what is plainly stated.

So let me put you on the spot: Do you actually practice sola scripture and the three most basic, fundamental rules of exegesis (one of which you cited) and thereby read the "near" to mean near, is is the normal meaning of the word in everyday usage?

If not, the please briefly explain the interpretive method used to make the "near" mean something other than what is plainly stated with the normal ordinary meaning of the word that is 100% wholly consistent never waveringly consistent with every other example of "near" in the New Testament. Please do not appeal to Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3.8. Neither verse uses the word "near."

 

[Arial]

True~Never heard of Vern Poythress but will be checking him out today.

I learned of him through one of Voddie Bacham's (sp) videos on Revelation. You tube.

 

[Arial]

The heart of fallen mankind in its natural state is capable of deceiving itself and others without any assistance whatever from the Satanic realm being present in the world. Christ made that very clear in Mark 7:21. "For, from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, ...deceit, lasciviousness..." etc.. Those who have no belief in human depravity would deny this fact. Even believers can be deluded and can deceive others (as "deceiving your own selves").

.That is true, but that does not take away from his still being active in the world. He works through the hearts of men and through men, just as God does. Satan is still a liar and the father of lies.

That is not the given order of events in Revelation 20 for the millennium. The millennium ends with the "First Resurrection", which was that of Christ and the Matt. 27:52-53 resurrected saints in AD 33. The Matthew 27:52-53 saints were the Revelation 20:5 "remnant of the dead" which "lived again" when the millennium was finished.

That is an assumption, and it reads into scripture what is not there. Nowhere does it ever say that 144,000 were resurrected when Jesus died. And if that was to be important for us to know when we come to Revelation or even in Rev 20 itself, there surely would be some indication of this. Guessing or presupposing may or may no arrive at the truth, but until it is known as the truth from the Bible itself, it cannot be considered fact.

Here is another view of it. Jesus raises people from the dead, and that is not considered a first resurrection. It is likely that those raised in this instance died again later. That it was temporary. If they had remained and were given incorruptible bodies as we are said to receive at the resurrection of the dead, they would still be here.

So was it a sign. A foreshadowing of what was to come as a result of Christ's death? 1 Cor 15:23 distinguishes Christ's resurrection as the first fruits from that of believers "at His coming." It could be demonstrating that His death inaugurated the new covenant.

This event of the "remnant of the dead" coming to life again was called the "First resurrection". They were the group of "First-fruits" to be raised from the grave: all 144,000 of them who came out of Jewish graves broken open around Jerusalem after Christ's resurrection as the "First-fruits".

See above.

 

[Josheb]

I have always and still do approach all scriptures literally, if not, then there is no way of rationally communicating with anyone...

Great.

As a millennialist of any kind, one of the things the claim of literal reading begs is what do you make of the "near" in verses Rev. 1:3 and 22:10. If read literally then that leads to preterist conclusions (whether few or many, the preterist position is unavoidable).

As an Amillennialist/Idealist, then the question - relevant to this op - is, "By what method(s) do you discriminate between the literal reading and the symbolism, since Idealism emphasizes the symbols and spiritualizes scripture anagogically (not just allegorically). Or are you not that kind of Idealist?

~ yet, we as children of God seek for the meaning of what the Holy Ghost is saying with the words he is using by comparing scriptures with scriptures.

Yes, and when doing so we weight the literal over the figurative, using the literal to interpret or otherwise render the figurative (both forward from the OT to the NT and the reverses). An example from Revelation (since that is the book being discussed in this op) is the lampstands. Revelation 1:20 explicitly states,

Revelation 1:20
As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

The seven lampstands are the seven churches. The text itself tells us meaning of the lampstand symbol. We could still interpret the meaning of the term "lampstand," and add things like "lampstands give light," or use the verse to inform ecclesiological doctrine because the Church or the light of God if we appeal to something like Matthew 5's commentary about Us (the Jews or the converts to Christ?) being a light to the world. The more explicit connection would be Exodus 25:37.

Exodus 25:31-40
Then you shall make a lampstand of pure gold. The lampstand and its base and its shaft are to be made of hammered work; its cups, its bulbs and its flowers shall be of one piece with it. Six branches shall go out from its sides: three branches of the lampstand from its one side and three branches of the lampstand from its other side. Three cups shall be shaped like almond blossoms in the one branch, a bulb and a flower, and three cups shaped like almond blossoms in the other branch, a bulb and a flower — so for six branches going out from the lampstand; and in the lampstand four cups shaped like almond blossoms, its bulbs and its flowers. A bulb shall be under the first pair of branches coming out of it, and a bulb under the second pair of branches coming out of it, and a bulb under the third pair of branches coming out of it, for the six branches coming out of the lampstand. Their bulbs and their branches shall be of one piece with it; all of it shall be one piece of hammered work of pure gold. Then you shall make its lamps seven in number; and they shall mount its lamps so as to shed light on the space in front of it. Its snuffers and their trays shall be of pure gold. It shall be made from a talent of pure gold, with all these utensils. See that you make them after the pattern for them, which was shown to you on the mountain.

Are "lamps" and "lampstands" synonymous? Perhaps not because Revelation 4:7 states,

Revelation 4:5-6
Out from the throne come flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God; and before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal; and in the center and around the throne, four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind.

This is another explicit, literal statement within this otherwise symbol-laden book of Revelation. This verse tells us the lamps are symbols for God's seven spirits . For the sake of time and space I won't chase that down because scripture has a lot to say about the many spirits of God, but I will not the book of Hebrews tells us the earthly examples of the OT were indicative of heavenly realities.

Hebrews 9:11-12
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, he entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, he entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Physical lampstand with seven lamps was made in Moses' day. John is told the seven lampstands in his vision symbolize the seven churches. Do the seven lampstands of Exodus also symbolize the seven churches? If not, then what? What other scripture literally states the meaning of "seven lampstands"? I looked it up while writing this post and there is only one verse in the entire Bible explicitly, literally identifying the meaning of "seven lampstands." Scripture interpreting scripture. Upon what basis, upon what method, would any further meaning be assigned as an Idealist? If we do a word substitution replacing the word "lampstands" with "churches" then Revelation reads as follows:

Revelation 1:12-13
Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden [churches]; and in the middle of the [churches] I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash.

Revelation 2:1-5
To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden [churches], says this: I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your [church] out of its place—unless you repent.

But wait, Revelation 11:4 gives us another definition of some lampstands.

Revelation 11:3-4
And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth.

Lampstands are witnesses.

Makes since the aforementioned city on a hill is a lamp to the world, the very first command ever given was to subdue the earth and rule over it, and the people of God was commanded to be an example to all other nations, one of Jesus' last commands was to make disciples of all nations, and we are called ambassadors of Christ .

The events described were near to when John wrote Revelation and Revelation contains things he'd see, things which were, and things that came afterward, and the lampstands are the seven churches, which are a more perfect tabernacle not made with hands and entered through the blood of Christ (who has already come).

This post is getting long so I'll stop here. I hope it is clear the preterist, historicist, and to lesser degrees the idealist and futurist views are not mutually exclusive of one another. Although I have emphasized the preterist view I want to make it clear I do so only as an example. I could have used any of the view, or could have exploited the covenant and dispensation models to make the exact same points differently. My comments and inquiries should all be understood as vehicles, contrasts, and/or comparisons intended to better understand the Amillennial/Idealist pov, and give you two (has anyone else identified as Am/Id while I was gone from the thread?) the opportunity to elaborate on the Amillennial/idealist interpretive method .

In summary: The seemingly different methods, approaches, tools, etc. often overlap, especially the literal, allegorical, and anagogical readings (which can all be applied to the moral reading), and my question is: if a literal reading of scripture is what Idealists use and scripture interprets scripture is another tool Idealists use, then are you agreeing with what I have just posted?

 

[Josheb]

You understand world does not mean what most folk believes it does..

I do indeed.

Israel does not always mean Abraham's natural children

Yep.

believing that it does, leaves folks in dark on many important truths.

Yep.

The words save/saved/ salvation has at least five different meanings in the scriptures, and unless we rightly divide them, we will end up holding onto false doctrines in a few areas ~ the list is long~all, whosoever, many, etc.

You might need to fill me in on five different meanings (I can think of four off the top of my head) and explain how all five are relevant to this discussion because this conversation is supposed to be about the book of Revelation, and specifically millennialism, and more specifically about Amillennial/Idealist interpretive methods thereof.

I'd therefore expect an emphasis of eschatological salvation with some soteriology overlap but do please list for me the five meanings of salvation.

Is bread the liquid substances we eat, or can it be the word of God? You know that answer.

Let me stop you here because no one I know reads scripture ONLY literally (even if they claim to do so) and everyone I know reads scripture to some degree great or small recognizing the various literary devices employed in scripture (there are at least 20 different types used in scripture. I do know there are some who do not know or understand there are occasions where the exact same word is used in multiple ways (like "save" or "death").

You and I are not among that latter group .

I understand you may be expounding for the benefit of others .

We read all scriptures at face value, including Revelation...

No, we do not. The phrase "face value" means the value observable on the face of something. It's a curious juncture we've just reached because I can think of multiple passages where the Biblical writers instruct the reader NOT to take what is written or what is observed in the world by the value on its face. In point of fact I would venture to say the overwhelming majority of the NT's application of the OT Law is presented as something other than "face value"! A prime example would be application of the Law prohibiting the muzzling of the ox while it threshes. That verse is used at least three or four times in the NT and NONE of them have anything to do with oxen, threshing, or muzzles.

But, of you mean "plainly," as in reading the words with their normal meaning in ordinary usage then I can agree you and I do so but I do not believe ALL do. A prime example relevant to this op would be the Premillennial view Jesus physically lives on earth for a literal 1000 years when the facts of Revelation 19, 20, and 21 (chapter 20 is the only chapter in the entire Bible explicitly mentioning the millennium) are that nowhere is it mentioned Jesus comes to earth physically, let alone stays for a literal 1000 years.

and let the Spirit of God guide us into its true meaning by using His word throughout the scriptures.

Yes, but let's not over-spiritualize reading. That is a red herring; something to be avoided and not used to divide people. The simple fact the God who created humans with the ability to communicate and understand what is communicated revealed Himself and His plan for the specific and express purpose of it being understood. All the more so among those who have the mind of Christ and the Spirit who knows God's mind. Revelation was revealed to be understood. The opening statement of the book explicitly states it was provided for the purpose of showing.

My pagan next-door neighbor's seven-year-old son could understand, "the seven lampstands are the seven churches." Scripture makes it plain everyone knows certain things about God's attributes, power, and nature simply because God has made it known (Rom. 1). Those things do not take the Spirit of God's guidance. They will not be able to use that as an excuse.

I understand what you mean but I want to make it clear appeals to your or my special insights gained by the Holy Spirits making you or I more knowledgeable, understanding, and wiser than everyone else is bovine refuse.

Maybe not a good word to use, yet, if we read it and understand it by letting others scriptures interpret Revelation for us, then yes, this prophecy book is reduced to the wars of two kingdoms.....

I disagree, and I'm a bit surprised to read that from you given the degree of self-identification with Idealism I've read in these posts.

Why?

Because even the word "war" has context!

You and I would, presumably, definitely agree God is almighty. He is immutably omni-attributed and sovereign over all creation and there has never been a moment or a place in all of creation when He is not so. He is God, and He alone is God. A god is not a God. So while it is observably true the word of God uses words like, "war," "battle," "fight," "struggle," and other words related to conflict the blunt simple truth of ALL scripture is that of.....

GOD

A finite creature cannot actually fight
an infinite omni-attribute ALL-MIGHTY God
one fraction of a nanosecond longer
than that God permits.​

And this is not limited to the words of conflict, either. Every single word in the entire Bible should be understood in the context of the Creator and His creatures. This is axiomatic, prima facie, necessary logic, rock-bottom-scripture Truth.

So, now, there's not actually a literal war between two kingdoms. There is in fact only one Kingdom and it is God's and God's alone. When God speaks about various kingdoms he does so always, everywhere, necessarily, and absolutely within the context of His being God.

This prophecy can be reduced to an already decided victory.

Daniel 7-12; Matthew 24; and Revelation all addresses these truths.

Let's stick with Revelation for the time being and not hop around the hermeneutical spiral (working outward from one verse through its immediately surrounding text on through the individual book as a whole and then next first to the specific other texts to which the book of Revelation itself connects the reader.

The children of the wicked one will overtake the temple of God/churches/congregations of Jesus Christ just as they did [the] temple in Jesus' days.

Got scripture for that in Revelation?


Start with what is literally stated if you can. If unable to do so then please be immediately and directly forthcoming and state, "I do not know of an explicit statement in Revelation literally reporting "the wicked one" will take over the temple of God/Church/congregations just as they did the temple in Jesus' days." Only then can you apply a non-literal reading using the tool you've asserted (scripture interpreting scripture) to evidence that claim.

Can you do that? It's a great opportunity to demonstrate the Amillennial/idealist interpretive method .

 

[Josheb]

Hence the / separating the two. It is amillennialism combined with idealism.

Yes, I understand that. There are other forms of Amillennialism and within the Amillennialist/idealist perspective asserted in the title there are other Amillennial views (although I don't think I know of an Idealists who are not also Amil. Within the Amil/id pv there are also variations. From my reading of the posts, you and @Red Baker do not see everything exactly the same. It's good to have him here because he offers an example of Amil/id interpretive method different from your own, as my partial-pret Amil views present a third contrast and comparison, and all three highlight the methodological common ground.

There of course will be some who take an allegorical approach, apparently @Red Baker does, but it is not typical.

Is it being assumed your views are typical? I can think of many Amillennial theologians who are not idealist (happy to list some of them), and I linked to a gotquestions article indicating idealism is not the prevailing Amillennial view.

Do you also mean "predominantly-allegorical approach" because as I told Red, I do not know of anyone who is only or wholly literal, or wholly allegorical, or wholly anagogical. everyone mixes the three to some degree or another and anyone using the tool of scripture-interprets-scripture is definitely employing that tool to explain something read allegorically (or anagogically).

It interprets symbols according to their usage in other places of the Bible. It does not consider the book of Revelation to be allegorical literature.

Perhaps it would be good to define our terms.

Literal means taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

Allegory means words have hidden meaning(s) or multiple meanings.

Anagogic means words have spiritual or mystical meaning beyond their other meaning (whether literal, allegorical, or moral).

Moral means the words have ethical meaning.


Does that work for your purposes for this thread? If not, since it's your op, I will defer to your definitions. Let us know so we can use the terms with common understanding and don't post past one another with ambiguity.


This is important because while it is true idealists tend to be more allegorical than the Amillennial/idealist, they are also more anagogical and that's what separates the Idealist from everyone else. A blend of the two views might vary from person to person, as it does with you and Red.

 

[Josheb]

Read "The Returning King a Guide to the Book of Revelation" by Vern S. Poythress.

I have.

I very much like Poythress. I enjoy and affirm his Christological emphasis of Revelation and agree Revelation is not a puzzle and was written using figures of speech and symbols John's readers would recognize so as to have the writing get past his Patmos guards. That seems obvious to me but important someone put it in a book in case others hadn't garnered that from reading Revelation. I share common ground with his general cyclical or recapitulation view of Revelation. I do not, however, find he is as thorough as he should be, and I don't like his blowing by the temporal markers (like the infamous "near"). There are many claims made that don't have any exegesis to support them, and while I may know what he's saying and how he got there and agree with him, he should have explained himself. They are written as givens or article of faith whereby the read is supposed to accept the claim. When he does this at the beginning of an argument, he's on fragile ground because if the original premise is incorrect then likely so too is everything built upon it. More germane to this specific op is, imo, the portion of content spent on the millennium. It's a nice short review of Revelation from a noted Amillennialist's pov (which is akin to this op's title) but it doesn't spend a lot of time explaining how or why he's amillennial or how or why Revelation should be read that way. If you haven't already read it, I recommend Kim Riddlebarger's book, "A Case for Amillennialism." William Henrickson's book on Revelation, "More Than Conquerors," is a nice comparison to Poythress' and contrast to the Dispensationalists. He's good because he is not prone to spiritualizing things. Anthony Hoekema (who influenced both Poythress and Riddlebarger) also wrote a very good book, "The Bible and the Future," from the Amil pov. Outside of eschatology, Poythress is a mathematician (PhD) and is a Van Til-influenced presuppositionalist and his articles on science and math are good (he considers them languages of God).

I read a lot .


Let me also commend your recommendation for openly citing one of your influences. The, "I only read scripture" dross is rarely true and where true invariably indicates crooked views are pending. It's helpful to know another's influences. We (believers) learn from those who walked the path with Christ before us and Poythress is a good source .

 

[Arial]

I do not, however, find he is as thorough as he should be, and I don't like his blowing by the temporal markers (like the infamous "near").

Opinion. It was a book suggestion not asking for a book report.

Let me also commend your recommendation for openly citing one of your influences.

So relieved to have met your approval. Just saying. Do you see how that could push buttons?

 

[Josheb]

Opinion. It was a book suggestion not asking for a book report.

So relieved to have met your approval. Just saying. Do you see how that could push buttons?

Got anything op-relevant to post?

 

[Arial]

Is it being assumed your views are typical?

No.

Do you also mean "predominantly-allegorical approach" because as I told Red, I do not know of anyone who is only or wholly literal, or wholly allegorical, or wholly anagogical. everyone mixes the three to some degree or another and anyone using the tool of scripture-interprets-scripture is definitely employing that tool to explain something read allegorically (or anagogically).

I generally mean what I say. Great to know though.

Literal means taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.

That may be what many people mean, but it also means literally as to the type of genre it is. Dispensationalist accuse covenant theology for example, which is often a part of idealist/amillennialism (that means a combination of the two) of not interpreting Revelation literally. But that is not the case.

This is important because while it is true idealists tend to be more allegorical than the Amillennial/idealist, they are also more anagogical and that's what separates the Idealist from everyone else. A blend of the two views might vary from person to person, as it does with you and Red.

Let me quote from the Revelation book intro in the Reformation Study Bible under History of Interpretation.

"Idealism says the visions of Revelation present trends and forces, often spiritual and thus invisible, that are engaged in the ongoing warfare of the kingdom of God with the devil's kingdom of darkness, warfare that continues between the victory won by Christ in His suffering and exaltation and His glorious bodily return. The visions depict not specific events but ongoing and repeated principles and patterns in this spiritual war. The principles are operative throughout the church age and may have repeated embodiments, and the visions provide complementary perspectives on the same church age rather than a chronologically successive calendar of events."

That does not mean the symbols are not portraying things that actually happen. They just aren't the specific event itself. It is neither allegorical and certainly not anagogic. One could read that an make the assumption of what it is saying and then become entirely allegorical and analogical in their interpretation. But I do not believe that is what it is conveying.

Allegory: according to Webster. The expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths. A symbolic representation.

 

[Josheb]

That may be what many people mean, but it also means literally as to the type of genre it is. Dispensationalist accuse covenant theology for example, which is often a part of idealist/amillennialism (that means a combination of the two) of not interpreting Revelation literally. But that is not the case.

I completely agree. Do you think Revelation is a literal genre?

Let me quote from the Revelation book intro in the Reformation Study Bible under History of Interpretation.

"Idealism says the visions of Revelation present trends and forces, often spiritual and thus invisible, that are engaged in the ongoing warfare of the kingdom of God with the devil's kingdom of darkness, warfare that continues between the victory won by Christ in His suffering and exaltation and His glorious bodily return. The visions depict not specific events but ongoing and repeated principles and patterns in this spiritual war. The principles are operative throughout the church age and may have repeated embodiments, and the visions provide complementary perspectives on the same church age rather than a chronologically successive calendar of events."

That does not mean the symbols are not portraying things that actually happen. They just aren't the specific event itself. It is neither allegorical and certainly not anagogic. One could read that and make the assumption of what it is saying and then become entirely allegorical and analogical in their interpretation. But I do not believe that is what it is conveying.

I tend to agree.

So, help me (and the lurkers) understand how an "Amillennial/idealist" is different than what Idealism says; how you do not believe what Idealism says about the visions of Revelation is what is conveyed?

Allegory: according to Webster. The expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths. A symbolic representation.

I can accommodate that definition. Are you aware of any of the categories listed in this op never reading any scripture allegorically? Is Revelation thought to be wholly or solely allegorical?

 

[Josheb]

.
Do you think John, the author of the book understood the symbols? Do you think the original readers of Revelation understood the symbols?

Josheb, I cannot answer that question perfectly...

Think that through.

God revealed to John things God wanted to show the saints of the first century..... but John did not understand. God revealed His revelation and the revelation He revealed was revealed to a man not understanding what He revealed even though the Revealer was revealing revelation to show things.

God revealed stuff and was not successful?

 

[Josheb]

Revelation is a book describing these events happening using symbolic language which can only be understood by searching the scriptures mainly from Daniel to Revelation to get the pictures and timelines of what is coming upon this world in the latter days.

Is it only symbolic language? Is there anything in Revelation that is not symbolic language?

Why only Daniel to Revelation? Is there nothing from Genesis through Ezekiel referenced in Revelation? If not, then by what interpretive method was that position reached?

Are you aware the latter days began in the first century when Jesus was revealed? (1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:2; Jms. 5:3; 1 Pet. 1:20)

Lastly, what do you know of the Amillennial and/or Amillennial/Idealist interpretive method in contrast and comparison?