The Book of Revelation: Amillennial/idealist Interpretive Method

[Arial]

Yes the metaphor 144,000 all the saints the whole bride from Abel forward

I would not call it a metaphor though but that it signifies all the saints.

 

[Mr GLee]

I would not call it a metaphor though but that it signifies all the saints.

Metaphors are the golden measure hid like hidden manna spoken on in Rev. 2 :17 Not the literal according to man the prophet John who has no eternal vision recorded as by faith. (Christ in us ). again the signified language of parables .

Parable teach us how to walk by faith (Christ's) the unseen eternal things of God .They must be mixed with the literal understanding then we can yoked with him enter his gospel rest .

From my experienced Satan must hate parables they replace his false throne as the "king of lying signs to wonder or marvel after" .Wondering and marveling keep a person form believing prophecy through parables .

God has already taken care of the matter he simply send a strong delusion so they can trust the wondering and maveling god .

2 Thessalonians 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

 

[Arial]

Idealists are heavy on the anagogic end of the spectrum. Dispensational futurists not so much. The idealist is looking at the OT mostly as examples of patterns/cycles repeating and mystically spiritual meaning is in everything.

How would you know what any particular person who would be largely categorized (which they shouldn't be but are)as idealist is interpreting the OT? You certainly have not categorized me right, and yet my category of interpreting the book of Revelation would fall into that of Idealist. (a concession to your requirement of precision according to Josheb, in order to avoid further discussion of it.) I see patterns and cycles in the OT, because they are there, but it is not a factor in my exegesis.
I take strong issue with your use of the word mystical
a
: having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence
the mystical food of the sacrament

b
: involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality

Your depiction of Idealist as seeing the OT and Revelation as mystical is gnostic. There were truths in the OT that were mysteries because God had not yet fully revealed them. They are not mysteries to us. They have been revealed. As to its being anagogic and alegoric, much of it is of necessity since it is portraying spiritual truths through the natural order. The things in the tent of meeting were patterns of what is in heaven, the natural first and the spiritual second etc. Therefore one thing seen is used to represent something not seen. A God who is completely other than humanity is communicating to the finite. They are either told by God Himself in the word, or revealed later. And the chains that hold Satan are not literal chains, the key not a literal key, the beast is not a literal beast and does not come out of a literal sea. angels most likely do not have multiple eyes etc. So we find what those symbols mean by finding out what they typically represent in other parts of the Bible. That does not mean that there is not a literal Satan or that he is not literally bound, or that the beast is not a literal enemy, or anything else that is symbolically represented in any part of the Bible. And it does not mean that all the OT accounts were not literal accounts.Or that the idealists does not exegete correctly.

 

[3 Resurrections]

I would not call it a metaphor though but that it signifies all the saints.

The 144,000 cannot possibly represent ALL the saints, since they are specifically called the "FIRST-fruits unto God and to the Lamb" in Revelation 14:4. This is not the final harvest of the saints; it is only the FIRST one.

 

[Mr GLee]

Your depiction of Idealist as seeing the OT and Revelation as mystical is gnostic.

I am still not understanding the use of the word idealist. It must mean thoses who rightly divide the signified understanding Revelation 1:1 a spiritual idea called hidden manna in 2:17.

Then the literal idealist looking to the temporal literal things seen and not the metaphor that give the gospel understanding, enriching the gospel Not destroying the simplicity the the foundation .God does all the saving.yoked with His labor of Love called a work of faith our burden can be lighter .

It's like a coin I believe Caesar one side, God the hidden side, both have value when mixed. Perhaps like Mary and Martha one inspired to do the work the other wash the feet both represent the gospel, the power that worked in both ladies

 

[3 Resurrections]

I probably need to start at the beginning of this discussion on Revelation 7, which I will, but want to say this to you 3 Resurrections~The gospel has never been offered to any nation! You sound like the average Armenian preacher.

The gospel was first given to the Jews and then to the Gentiles~the Jews in the OT, Gentiles in the NT. God does not offer Jesus Christ to anyone, he sends his truth to apprehend his elect! The rest he hardens, by leaving them in their sins and not showing mercy to them.

RB, you know I am a believer in the election of believers, so please don't make me an offender for a word when I'm posting in haste. If you think the word "offer" make me sound like an Arminian I can substitute another term. The gospel was delivered to the Israelites during that last 70th week of Daniel's prophecy, which ran from AD 30 until AD 37. Only the elect "remnant" of the ethnic Israelites accepted that message. Halfway through that week of the New covenant being confirmed with many of Daniel's people, Christ was cut off by crucifixion. The disciples continued to present the gospel mainly to their fellow-Israelites, until God gave the vision to Paul in the Jerusalem Temple to "depart, for I will send thee far hence to the Gentiles".

During His ministry, Christ told those such as the Canaanite woman that "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." That was a temporary time limitation of delivering the gospel message of the New Covenant to His own ethnic people, but that 7 year time period expired in AD 37, and from then on the main focus of evangelism went to all the nations as a whole. "To the Jew first, and also to the Greek". The mystery was then revealed that God had always had an elect people for Himself among all the nations of the world, from creation onward.

 

[Mr GLee]

The 144,000 cannot possibly represent ALL the saints, since they are specifically called the "FIRST-fruits unto God and to the Lamb" in Revelation 14:4. This is not the final harvest of the saints; it is only the FIRST one.

The first no name will be first. the ones with name great men of faith will be last . God hid the ones the world was not worthing of viewing .

After the list beginning with Abraham well known he introduces the cream of the crop the hidden cherry. beginning with ladies like Deborah

Hebrews 11 :35-49 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect

He even moved Elijah out with the still small voice of the eternal gospel. .. . . you are not all that it safe to come out Come out I have more work for you don't be a caveman get out in the public where I can use your feet as My apostle .. LOL

 

[Mr GLee]

During His ministry, Christ told those such as the Canaanite woman that "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." That was a temporary time limitation of delivering the gospel message of the New Covenant to His own ethnic people, but that 7 year time period expired in AD 37, and from then on the main focus of evangelism went to all the nations as a whole. "To the Jew first, and also to the Greek". The mystery was then revealed that God had always had an elect people for Himself among all the nations of the world, from creation onward.

I would ask why wouldn't the gentiles represent the lost sheep from the houses of Israel. Remember not all israel is born agin Israel just as with Christian not all that say they are, are.

And in the same way God does not consider Jew as outward, temporal dying flesh what the eyes see. But he is a Jew inwardly where the born again Holy Spirit dwells. . his bride the church.

The father in Isaiah 62 promised to rename his bride with a more befitting name to represent the bride of all nations calling her Christian in Acts.

Christian. . literally . . "residents of the city of Christ" prepared for his bride the church .Named after her founder and husband Christ .

Look to the things not seen the eternal not the temopal dying things

 

[3 Resurrections]

I would ask why wouldn't the gentiles represent the lost sheep from the houses of Israel. Remember not all israel is born agin Israel just as with Christian not all that say they are, are.

I'm not writing about the current conditions that you and I live under. I am speaking only of the time span during Christ's ministry during that last 70th week from AD 30-37. Remember, when Christ first commissioned His twelve disciples to evangelize, He commanded them saying, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 10:5-7).

This was only a temporary restriction put upon them. As we know, later on they were directed to go into all the world to preach the gospel. But for the time being during Christ's ministry, that last 70th week of "confirming the covenant with many" of Daniel's people was going on.

 

[Arial]

I am still not understanding the use of the word idealist. It must mean thoses who rightly divide the signified understanding Revelation 1:1 a spiritual idea called hidden manna in 2:17.

Then the literal idealist looking to the temporal literal things seen and not the metaphor that give the gospel understanding, enriching the gospel Not destroying the simplicity the the foundation .God does all the saving.yoked with His labor of Love called a work of faith our burden can be lighter .

It's like a coin I believe Caesar one side, God the hidden side, both have value when mixed. Perhaps like Mary and Martha one inspired to do the work the other wash the feet both represent the gospel, the power that worked in both ladies

The idealist category of viewing Revelation, does not see the visions as either chronological or parallel events. It sees them as spiritual forces at work in the war between two kingdoms. God's kingdom and the kingdom of darkness. Earth and its inhabitants is what is being fought over so to speak, Satan trying to achieve dominion over God. Which of course is futile, nevertheless the battles rage on and this can only be by the consent of God. The visions give a perspective from heaven and they are actually an overview of all that we have already been told from our perspective in both testaments. As well as what will be in earth all the time period until His second coming and what follows.

This heavenly perspective, which is spiritual, (unseen), can only be portrayed through symbols. Therefore the symbols represent spiritual (unseen) truths. Such is the case with all apocalyptic prophecy throughout the Bible. Therefore if we want to know what they are representing we find our clues from their use in other places of the Bible in the same type of literature. Everytime something is said to be a pattern of what is in heaven etc. And no, it does not claim to be the only view that rightly divides all of the word, as say premil dispensationalists often do, or evidently partial preterists.

In my Reformation Study Bible the text notes often give possible meanings, or various meanings of the symbols and where the idealist view gets its preference, that are suggested. No one will ever have it all right. Some of it intentionally remains a mystery, but does not take away from what it is meant to convey as to who Jesus is, the strength and encouragement we need to persevere and endure, and our hope.

 

[Josheb]

I admit that is what it sounds like. But you are the one that said the 144,000 were the ones who came out of their graves at the crucifixion. Now you are going to a different part of Revelation where it mentions these 144,000. And are just about to step into dispensationalism.

No, he's spiritualizing like a good Idealist would. A Dispensationalist will say those are 144,000 Jews, Jewish converts, because the Church isn't around (it's been raptured off the planet) and Revelation states they are "from every tribe of the sons of Israel," (Rev. 7:4), and they are standing with Jesus on Mt. Zion, having been purchased from the earth (Rev. 14:1-3).

However, the only place "twelve tribes of [the sons of] Israel" is mentioned in Revelation is,

Revelation 21:12
It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.

The other Revelation mentions of "tribes" is tribes of the earth, not tribes of Israel.

I think there is great significance---and I am not sure of what exactly---that its states all the tribes and does not list all the tribes, and still comes up with the number 12. But I think it probably has a relationship, considering what is said immediately following, with it representing the fullness of God's people, all the saints, Jew and Gentile both.

Part 1:

I will suggest the principle of scripture rendering scripture is a useful tool here. The first mention of twelve "tribes" is NOT a reference to the twelve tribes of Israel; it's a reference to the twelve tribes of Ishmael (Gen. 25:16). The twelve tribes of Israel are not mentioned for another two-dozen chapters, by which time and entire new generation has been birth and grown into adulthood. Jacob is the first to use the phrase when he gives his deathbed blessing (Gen. 49). The end of that chapter states, "All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father said to them when he blessed them. He blessed them, every one with the blessing appropriate to him," but the reader of the blessings can see it was not all blessings. Furthermore, we know Jacob was Israel and the name "Israel" means "contends with God," or "fights with God," and comes from the event recounted in Genesis 32 BUT the larger truth is that Jacob - whose name means "heal-grabber," or "grifter," had been wrestling with God all his life until God finally broke him. We also know Jacob, or Israel, was the son of the son of promise. Isaac, not Ishmael was the son of promise, the son God had pledged Abraham, the son through which God's promise to Abraham to become the father of many nations, the son through whom the promised seed (Jesus) would come, the son through whom the salvation from sin would eventually come. Isaac, like Jesus, is called "monogene" which the English Bibles translate as "only begotten" but transliterally means "one-origin" or "single-source." Isaac is the son of promise. So, too, is Jesus. The latter is the one by whom "the right to become children of God... who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God," is given (Jn. 1:13-14). It is a birthright. We also know, according to Paul, not all Israel is Israel because Israel is not measured by genetics (bloodline) or the Law but by faith. The righteous live by faith. The same thing is true of descendants of Abraham. Not all descendants of Abraham are his sons. Jacob and Esau are stated to be the example, and God hated Esau and loved Jacob before either of them were born. It did not depend on how either man willed or walked; it depended on the will and purpose of God. The names have meaning. Reuben means "behold, a son;" Judah means "praise;" and Ephraim means "fruitful." Understanding the names will help determine the identity, meaning, and significance of Revelations tribes.

We find something similar happening after the Egyptian slavery because the twelve tribes that enter the promised land are not the same names Jacob blessed. Two of Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, replace Joseph and Levi (who are separated from Simeon because of the two brothers' violent response to their sister's violation). Joseph and Benjamin are the son's of Jacob's true love (Rachel) and not the wife he got grifted into wedding or his concubines. These two sons were the sons of Jacob and Asenath, who'd been a wife of Pharoah's and was the daughter of a priest of the sun god, Ra, from whom the Pharoahs were descended (sons of god).

I'm blowing through content here, trying to highlight what might be informative to understand the identity of the 144,000.

 

[Josheb]

Part 2:

In the New Testament we're told it was to Israel to whom belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants. the temple and their fathers' promises (Rom. 9:4-5). But we also read,

Matthew 19:27-30 (see also Luke 22:30)
Then Peter said to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?" And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name's sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life. "But many who are first will be last; and the last, first.

Acts 26:4-7
So then, all Jews know my manner of life from my youth up, which from the beginning was spent among my own nation and at Jerusalem; since they have known about me for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that I lived as a Pharisee according to the strictest sect of our religion. And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. And for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews.

There was a promise the twelve tribes hoped to attain, and the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were facing judgment. James also wrote his epistle to the twelve dispersed tribes and he identifies that readership those indwelt by the Spirit, so they are not Jews. They are Christians. Jesus' words in Matthew are most telling though because, whoever is the identity of the twelve tribes of Israel written on the walls of the new Jerusalem, they are judged by the ones sitting enthroned with Jesus. Those names are written "at the gates" of the new city. Are their names on the inside or the outside of the wall? Are the tribes themselves inside or outside, or only their names?

Hebrews 3:1-11, 16-19
Therefore, holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, who was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God’s house. For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.) Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, but Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope. Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years. Therefore, I was provoked with that generation, and said, ‘They always go astray in their heart; they have not known my ways.’ As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest.’ For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

One last thought. We, Christians, tend to think of the "patriarchs" as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob but according to the New Testament the patriarchs are Jacob, his brother, and the ten who sold Jacob into slavery.

Acts 7:8-9
And He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs. The patriarchs became jealous of Joseph and sold him into Egypt. Yet God was with him...





The tool just used are exegesis and the covenant structure. The method of interpretation could be literal, allegorical, anagogical, or moral, or all four combined as indicated by the New Testament precedents (which would be my referred method). There were originally twelve tribes, but their identities changed over the course of history, as did their role in the Abrahamic/Christ covenant. As a preterist who emphasizes the literal reading of scripture unless the text indicates otherwise, I'm inclined to say there is plenty of symbolism that is explained throughout the Old and New Testaments that can and should be read allegorically and anagogically (as the respective texts indicate). The conclusions is the names on the new city's walls have already been inscribed because the city is the Church and its foundation (and more) is Christ, but it is entered by way of the promises made to Abraham and Jesus manifested through the tribes of Israel but, ultimately, anyone not believing in Jesus as the seed promised Abraham, gets judged and they do not enter the city. Their city was judged and flattened. The same patterns recapitulate throughout history but the specific of Revelation are mostly in the past. The hope Israel had can be found by all.

Galatians 5:4-6
You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
.

 

[Josheb]

Those who have the mark of the beast would be the unregenerate and it is not a literal mark. We see with the first beast, the second beast and the false prophet, a mimicking of the Trinity. A false trinity.

So the mark of the beast would be the mimicry of the believer being sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Great. Two questions:

Is the "mark" in our past or our future?

What other scriptures inform the interpretation just posted?

 

[Josheb]

I am not sure what you mean by what do I do with the cultural mandate and great commission?

The "cultural" or "dominion" mandate is found first stated in Genesis 1:27 and the "great commission" is found in Matthew 28.

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Matthew 28:19-20
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

The cultural mandate was also articulated in various different wordings throughout the OT (see Gen. 9, for example). Neither command has ever been revoked. Apparently, God wants the entire earth subdued. He wants His people to rule over it. In Christ, He wants all the nations taught Christ's commands and "baptized". He wants that done "even to the end of the age."

Post #108 states,

And I believe that Revelation does show us that the persecution of the church will become world wide and come from governments near the end. We have always needed this book to encourage and remind and trust.

So I am wondering how this belief in the worldwide persecution of the Church that eventually comes from the governments is reconciled with the God's expectation His people will be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth, rule over it, baptize all the nations, and teach them (the nations) Jesus' commands, baptizing them in the Trinity.

Will that happen, or not?

I'll add just a few things from my pov. First, the Genesis text states "rule over," not rule, and I think this is important because the Reconstructionists are Dominionists who believe a Christian geo-political state should be created. I do not subscribe to that position and don't want what I've posted here to be construed that way. We're told that at the "harvest" both wheat and weeds will be harvested, indicated that weeds exist all the way up unto the end. Therefore, the cultural mandate and great commission cannot be read to mean all evil is eradicated from earth prior to the final return of Christ. The great commission is said to be in force "even to the end of the age" and, according to Paul. the ends of the ages fell in the first century (1 Cor. 10:11). So either the era of the great commission ended back in the first century or the end of the ends hasn't yet come and the great commission is still in force. Whether persecuted or not, God expects all the nations to be baptized.


Are you optimistic? What is the result of the government fostered worldwide persecution of the Church? Is it the cultural mandate accomplished, or not? Is the great commission realized, or not? Has God commanded these things with no expectation they will actually happen?

What about Psalm 110? According to that psalm, Jesus does not return until all his enemies are defeated by his Father. The Lord remains seated (in heaven) until his LORD defeats the Lord's enemies. The Lord's people serve freely, the kings are shattered, and the nations filled with corpses before the Lord comes.

Psalm 110:1-7
The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." The LORD will stretch forth your strong scepter from Zion, saying, "Rule in the midst of Your enemies." Your people will volunteer freely in the day of your power; in holy array, from the womb of the dawn, your youth are to you as the dew. The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." The Lord is at Your right hand; he will shatter kings in the day of his wrath. He will judge among the nations, he will fill them with corpses, he will shatter the chief men over a broad country. He will drink from the brook by the wayside; Therefore, He will lift up his head.

Just interested in how that worldwide persecution is reconciled with worldwide rule and worldwide great commission.

 

[Arial]

The cultural mandate was also articulated in various different wordings throughout the OT (see Gen. 9, for example). Neither command has ever been revoked. Apparently, God wants the entire earth subdued. He wants His people to rule over it. In Christ, He wants all the nations taught Christ's commands and "baptized". He wants that done "even to the end of the age."

We gave up our dominion over the earth when Adam was kicked out of the garden. That does not mean that it is no longer a requirement of the created order. We were meant to rule it perfectly. We no longer can. We sin.

Christ is who is getting that back for us. Not ourselves, and it won't happen until His return and the new heaven and new earth, inhabited by the redeemed who will then have been made incorruptible. As to the great commision to carry the gospel to all nations, that is being done. It is a gathering in of Christ's flock. They hear. They believe. They are sealed unto the day of the fullness of our redemption.

 

[Josheb]

How would you know what any particular person who would be largely categorized (which they shouldn't be but are)as idealist is interpreting the OT? You certainly have not categorized me right, and yet my category of interpreting the book of Revelation would fall into that of Idealist. (a concession to your requirement of precision according to Josheb, in order to avoid further discussion of it.) I see patterns and cycles in the OT, because they are there, but it is not a factor in my exegesis.
I take strong issue with your use of the word mystical
a
: having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence
the mystical food of the sacrament

b
: involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality

Your depiction of Idealist as seeing the OT and Revelation as mystical is gnostic.

Again, I will ask you to heed the small "i" and large "I."

Idealism eschatology is not the same thing as Amillennial eschatology, and an Idealist is not synonymous with an idealist. The reason I can parse out who is Idealist and who is idealist is because 1) I know the difference between Big I and little i, 2) I can read what a person states about themselves and compare the two, and 3) if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it is probably a duck. If you say you are idealist then I take you at your word and assume you are not an Idealist. If you say you are an Amillennialist who is idealist, then I take you at your word and thereby know - according to your own words of self-identification - that you are not an Idealist which is amillennial.

An Amillennialist who is idealist is not the same as an Idealist who is amillennial.

And I have provided plenty of evidence to evidence all this.

Now maybe you weren't aware of all the distinctions, differences, and spectrums involved with the labels "Amillennial," Idealist," etc. but if that's the case that information has now been provided.

My depiction of Idealists as seeing the OT and Revelation as mystic is not Gnostic. Gnosticism holds knowledge is the means of salvation, of obtaining higher levels of spirituality, and they believe the physical is evil and only the spirit is good. (Christian) Idealism does hold any of that to be true.

There were truths in the OT that were mysteries because God had not yet fully revealed them. They are not mysteries to us. They have been revealed.

I completely agree, and noting I have posted should be construed to say otherwise. The Christian eschatological Idealist will also agree. When they read something in the Bible to reference something mystic or spiritual they 1) are NOT using a new age definition of mysticism or spirituality, and 2) their reading is completely consistent with the mysteries having been made known to us. "mystic" is not synonymous with "unknown mystery yet to be revealed." They most definitely are not Gnostic.

As to its being anagogic and allegoric, much of it is of necessity since it is portraying spiritual truths through the natural order.

Yep.

But there are degrees to which this concept would be applied. I, as a partial-preterist Amillennialist accept a limited amount of idealism, whereas you, an Amillennial idealist, may accept more so than me but less so than @Red Baker, or a full-fledged eschatological Idealist who happens to be amillennial. In other words, that summary describes FOUR different eschatological views and none of them are Gnostic. Or, more accurately, three different variations of the same overarching view (Amillennialism with degrees of idealism) and a completely different eschatology (Idealism that is amillennial).

 

[Arial]

Great. Two questions:

Is the "mark" in our past or our future?

What other scriptures inform the interpretation just posted?

Eph 1:13 tell us we are sealed by the Holy Spirit when we believe.In Him you also, when you hear the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Hi, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of His glory.
1 Cor 1:22 And who has also put His seal on us and given us His Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

 

[Arial]

So I am wondering how this belief in the worldwide persecution of the Church that eventually comes from the governments is reconciled with the God's expectation His people will be fruitful, multiply, subdue the earth, rule over it, baptize all the nations, and teach them (the nations) Jesus' commands, baptizing them in the Trinity.

Will that happen, or not?

As to regaining our subduing of the earth that exists, as was intended at creation, no it will not. And you are conflating two things that are not the same thing. This earth is cursed. Only God can remove that curse. The same erroneous principle that it sounds like you are suggesting as a preterist, is found in the war on so called global warming or climate change. Man can fix it! It is understandable that the Puritans settling America were largely preterists and thought in this way. It seemed like it was happening as the gospel began to spread, and all the good cultural changes that came out of it. And hey, the Catholics tried it by murdering all the opposition, and having huge families. But WW1 for starters, followed on its heels by WW2, kind of took the wind out of those sails.

Yes, the gospel will continue to spread to all nations, His people will be gathered in, until the last one comes into the fold. When Satan is released from being bound as in unable to stop the spread of the gospel, that is when in a last ditch effort he besides he will just kill them all or make their life so uncomfortable, that the only way out is to worship him. The only way to get a meal for you and your family is to worship him. And though we are seeing signs of the great apostasy now by cultural pressures, that is when the chaff will be separated from the wheat.

 

[Josheb]

I take strong issue with your use of the word mystical
a
: having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence
the mystical food of the sacrament

b
: involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality

You can take issue all you like but I have provided a pile of links from many diverse theological perspectives that all say Idealism is a spiritualized interpretation of scripture. I also stated the mysticism of the Idealist is not the mysticism of the new ager.

An Idealist agrees with the first part of definition "a," but sacraments have nothing to do with eschatology. They'd agree with definition "b". Furthermore, there have been piles of notable Christians who were mystics. They range from the "Desert Fathers," Anselm of Canterbury, Francis Assisi, all the way up to A. W. Tozer, Watchman Nee, and Henri Nouwen - NONE of whom would be considered Gnostics. Some consider John the Baptist, Paul and even C. S. Lewis mystics! I wouldn't be among them, but the point is mysticism has a long history within orthodox Christianity.

Yes, I could just as easily list a pile of wack job mystics posing as Christians. Don't know that any of them were Idealists (but I do know of a few who were Dispensationalists).

So you can take strong issue with it if you like but strong issue is meaningless without evidence.

F. D. Maurice was a leading Idealist of the 19th century and his work, along with the later influence of the liberal Barth, are the chief influences on modern Idealist eschatology. These guys eschewed all futurism, but they also eschewed literal, physical, and/or earthly interpretation, too. Maurice was Anglican (his father was Unitarian), writing in the so called "restoration movement" when there was a huge explosion of sectarian views in the west's Christianity. Maurice was a socialist; his theology influenced by Marx. Barth was somewhat existentialist (which is ironic because his neo-orthodoxy was an attempt to refute the 19th century influences adulterating Christianity) and in his view the God of revelation, revealed in Jesus Christ, a He, but always an "I" and always the existential measure of the eschatological (or Christological, or soteriological) reader of revelation (the Bible). God's kingdom is God himself and not merely somewhere, somehow, or at some time. It is always and everywhere transcendent. Prior to these influences eschatological idealism was not much of a separate ~ism within Christianity.

But it is today, and it is a completely different eschatological paradigm.

Poythress is idealist, not an Idealist.

 

[Josheb]

Eph 1:13 tell us we are sealed by the Holy Spirit when we believe.In Him you also, when you hear the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Hi, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of His glory.
1 Cor 1:22 And who has also put His seal on us and given us His Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.

Let me make sure I understand that correctly. The mark John mentions is the seal of the Holy Spirit Paul describes in his epistles.

Is that correct?

Would you, therefore, then say the mark to which John is references is a mark that already existed at the time when John wrote Revelation?