wof and 1 Corinthians 15:51-54

[Tallen]

o in this viewpoint, are the seven churches in some way a chronological view of seven "times" or are they in existence all at the same time?

Not seven times. The book of Revelation was written to the first century believers and was relevant to them addressing seven real and literal churches..., as well as it was written to the church throughout the church age, and has relevance to them. We are included. It is a revelation of risen and glorified Christ... as the Apostle stated.

First we see a vision of the risen and glorified Christ walking among the churches of Asia Minor. There are references to events, people, and places of the time it was written..., therefore relevant to the believers of that time. Second, the values, rebukes, commendations, warnings have value, and values, for believers throughout the church age. This sets a precedence for the rest of the book as the message was intended for both the first century church, and for the church through the rest of time. It's message is relevant still for us in this time.

Are they symbolic of church "ages" or simply church "types," like Philadelphia would perhaps be the charismatics and Laodicea, the Presbyterians?

They are real churches in which we find differing conditions... which are mentioned as both a warning and an encouragement to the reader. Some conditions are quite anti-christ and some conditions are proper values and actions of true believers. This first section tells us about the conditions of the church from Christ's first coming to His Second coming, revealing Him in this age.

I think your above statement about "ages" and "types" goes too far and reveals the desire of some folks to read certain hermeneutics, presupposition and theological assumptions into the scriptures. There is nothing within the text that leads us to read these ideas into it.

 

[Tallen]

So on a side note: why was there such a ruckus that the dispensationalist takes things literally, but some of it is symbolic (because John was simply telling what he saw and didn't understand the reality - such as a tank or a nuclear warhead (in dispy talk)); or true symbolism, such as lampstands or stars in his hand? Both mix their ideas, it seems, and "know" one from the other simply because of individual hermeneutics.

The reaction from Amillennianist isn't because of the idea that some things are literal and some things are symbolic... the reaction is two fold. 1) Despensationalist accusation that Amils spiritualize "everything", which is a misrepresentation. 2) Depensationalist have an inconsistent hermeneutic. Whereby the they take some things literally and some things symbolically randomly and often time within the same sentence. The Literal Hermeneutic is arbitrarily applied to interpret scripture to satisfy arbitrary ideas being read into the text... like tanks, nuclear warheads, etc.

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

Not seven times. The book of Revelation was written to the first century believers and was relevant to them addressing seven real and literal churches..., as well as it was written to the church throughout the church age, and has relevance to them. We are included. It is a revelation of risen and glorified Christ... as the Apostle stated.

So it was written to everyone in the church.

First we see a vision of the risen and glorified Christ walking among the churches of Asia Minor.

A vision of Jesus presented to John. He told John to write to the churches -- Jesus didn't "walk among the churches" in Revelation. But, ok.

There are references to events, people, and places of the time it was written..., therefore relevant to the believers of that time. Second, the values, rebukes, commendations, warnings have value, and values, for believers throughout the church age. This sets a precedence for the rest of the book as the message was intended for both the first century church, and for the church through the rest of time. It's message is relevant still for us in this time.

Yes, it's written to all of the church throughout time. It is a rebuke and an encouragement for the churches.

They are real churches in which we find differing conditions... which are mentioned as both a warning and an encouragement to the reader.

Yes, we say the same words.

Some conditions are quite anti-christ and some conditions are proper values and actions of true believers. This first section tells us about the conditions of the church from Christ's first coming to His Second coming, revealing Him in this age.

This is a supposition based upon you hermeneutic and eschatology, but so be it. (It is what I'm asking about, so no complaint. Just reminding any silent readers the context of our discussion.)

I think your above statement about "ages" and "types" goes too far and reveals the desire of some folks to read certain hermeneutics, presupposition and theological assumptions into the scriptures.

There are many eschatologies. There is one that says the churches in chapters 2 & 3 are church ages both past and present. I didn't know if you shared this view or another. Now I know. BTW, I agree with you as fat as chapters 2 & 3 go, it is written for all of the church throughout time.

There is nothing within the text that leads us to read these ideas into it.

Agreed, But there is nothing in the text to suggest the seven cutouts that you gave in a previous post, other than your chosen eschatology and hermeneutic.

In fact...
Ch 4 begins with "After these things..." Thus, chronology.
Ch 5 begins with "Then I saw..." Thus, chronology.
Ch 7 begins with "After this I saw..." Thus, chronology.
Ch 8 begins with "Now when ...." Implying a place in a current chronology. But it is the same word καί (kai) as "then" in the other chapters.

Ch 9...."Then..."
Ch 10...."Then..."
Ch 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22 .... "Then...." Implying chronology.
Ch 18, 19 ... "After these things..." Implying chronology.

καί (kai) can also be translated as "and" or "now." These are conjunctive words; they connect and they imply progression I(order). So that is where I get more of a chronological reading from the text.

You have obviously come to some conclusion that these chapters can be divided as you've listed. I don't see it from a language construct point of view. Perhaps there is a content point of view that would change it and make a parallelism more prominent?

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

The reaction from Amillennianist isn't because of the idea that some things are literal and some things are symbolic... the reaction is two fold. 1) Despensationalist accusation that Amils spiritualize "everything", which is a misrepresentation.

This may be true of some dispensationalists, but is not a reason to then attack the dispensational viewpoint on the basis of literal and spiritual interpretations.

2) Depensationalist have an inconsistent hermeneutic.

a) Not from the dispensationalist point of view.
b) And you don't?

Whereby the they take some things literally and some things symbolically randomly

Randomly from your viewpoint because you apply a meaning that they don't adhere to.

and often time within the same sentence.

Do you have one example of this? I'm not looking for a treatise on the subject, just an example.

The Literal Hermeneutic is arbitrarily applied to interpret scripture to satisfy arbitrary ideas being read into the text... like tanks, nuclear warheads, etc.

Tanks and warheads are a suggestion for interpretation of the language of John, when he looked upon something shown to him from the future and did not understand what he saw. The dispensationalist is not saying that *this* is definitely a tank. They are saying that perhaps what John was seeing was something like a tank, and he did not have the foggiest idea how to explain it. It is a reasonable suggestion to make. As Joe said in a post somewhere in this ether, maybe it really is a giant bug that looks like a lion with dragon's wings and a goat's horns. Suggestions, that's all.

 

[Tallen]

b) And you don't?

All views come with their problems.

Do you have one example of this? I'm not looking for a treatise on the subject, just an example.

And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; and in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Revelation 1:12‭-‬16 KJV

For instance.

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

All views come with their problems.

Been saying this it seems like forever.

And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; and in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Revelation 1:12‭-‬16 KJV

For instance.

So where does symbolism begin and end? Symbolic? Well, seven means perfection, so there were never seven of anything. And was he clothed down to the foot, for it wasn't a real (or visionary) foot, for the foot was symbolic of something else. So no foot, which means no Son of man either, for he would need a foot. Really?

His hair like wool and white as snow. Purity, but if its symbolic then there is no hair either. His eyes as a flame. So, [Bob], were his eyes really on fire? Even though it says AS a fire, not on fire.

So what is real and what is Memorex here, Ted? Is there a voice? Is there a foot? Is there hair? Is there a mouth? How do you know?

Simply because someone in some hermeneutic doesn't know what eyes as a flame of fire looks like, John does. He saw it and he described what he saw. (Future or present? Different question.) I don't know exactly what he saw. I wasn't there. But John was confronted by the Son of man and he wrote what he saw. I believe him. I don't think he wrote poetry to try to get across a dream he had. I think he was taken up to heaven and he met the Son of man and he was shown visions (or actuality) of the future -- he wrote what he saw in the best words that he could put together. So when he says "the locusts looked like horses equipped for battle. On their heads were something like crowns similar to gold, and their faces looked like men’s faces," I think that this is exactly what he saw. When he says "The number of soldiers on horseback was 200,000,000," I think this number is correct. If it was meant to be "a very large number," then he would have said 1,000, would he have not?

Do I know without a doubt what, in reality, he is looking at? Of course not. I can only guess. But I do not think that John is writing in the secret code of symbolism that nobody is going to understand, and that everybody could likely assign to anything that they wanted it to be.

But to each his own.

In the end, does it make a difference? Perhaps, if you say yes, you can tell me how. If I'm right and this is literal, then those who experience it won't be running to Revelation to say "See! They told us!" No they will be dying, bleeding, running, hiding, screaming, going insane. Meanwhile, I'll be in heaven eating strawberry cheesecake. It will be a glorious feast for all of us. If you're right then there won't be locust horses, and Jesus will come and get us and we can eat strawberry cheesecake in heaven.

I think a hermeneutic that can be drawn from Revelation would be what John tells us in the likes of Revelation 9:17. He says....

Revelation 9:17 (NET)​

Now this is what the horses and their riders looked like in my vision:​

He tells us that he is describing what he saw. He is telling us what it looked like to him. He never says let me tell you a parable. He never says let me give you symbolism and you can discern the result. No. He told us he is describing what he saw and what it looked like to him.

 

[Tallen]

Been saying this it seems like forever.

Well..., we can agree on something, then.

So where does symbolism begin and end? Symbolic? Well, seven means perfection, so there were never seven of anything. And was he clothed down to the foot, for it wasn't a real (or visionary) foot, for the foot was symbolic of something else. So no foot, which means no Son of man either, for he would need a foot. Really?

His hair like wool and white as snow. Purity, but if its symbolic then there is no hair either. His eyes as a flame. So, [Bob], were his eyes really on fire? Even though it says AS a fire, not on fire.

So what is real and what is Memorex here, Ted? Is there a voice? Is there a foot? Is there hair? Is there a mouth? How do you know?

Simply because someone in some hermeneutic doesn't know what eyes as a flame of fire looks like, John does. He saw it and he described what he saw. (Future or present? Different question.) I don't know exactly what he saw. I wasn't there. But John was confronted by the Son of man and he wrote what he saw. I believe him. I don't think he wrote poetry to try to get across a dream he had. I think he was taken up to heaven and he met the Son of man and he was shown visions (or actuality) of the future -- he wrote what he saw in the best words that he could put together. So when he says "the locusts looked like horses equipped for battle. On their heads were something like crowns similar to gold, and their faces looked like men’s faces," I think that this is exactly what he saw. When he says "The number of soldiers on horseback was 200,000,000," I think this number is correct. If it was meant to be "a very large number," then he would have said 1,000, would he have not?

Do I know without a doubt what, in reality, he is looking at? Of course not. I can only guess. But I do not think that John is writing in the secret code of symbolism that nobody is going to understand, and that everybody could likely assign to anything that they wanted it to be.

But to each his own.

In the end, does it make a difference? Perhaps, if you say yes, you can tell me how. If I'm right and this is literal, then those who experience it won't be running to Revelation to say "See! They told us!" No they will be dying, bleeding, running, hiding, screaming, going insane. Meanwhile, I'll be in heaven eating strawberry cheesecake. It will be a glorious feast for all of us. If you're right then there won't be locust horses, and Jesus will come and get us and we can eat strawberry cheesecake in heaven.

I think a hermeneutic that can be drawn from Revelation would be what John tells us in the likes of Revelation 9:17. He says....

Revelation 9:17 (NET)​

Now this is what the horses and their riders looked like in my vision:​

He tells us that he is describing what he saw. He is telling us what it looked like to him. He never says let me tell you a parable. He never says let me give you symbolism and you can discern the result. No. He told us he is describing what he saw and what it looked like to him.

Your post is a perfect example of what i was talking about, none of which fits my view. I'll say it again, there are seven sections in the book that run parallel to each other, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ's first coming to the time of His second coming, and His role and relationship with mankind in this present age. They are visions that John had that reveal Jesus Christ and His role within that time. Each section represents Christ's relationship to 1) His people, and 2) the people in the world. The point is not whether these things are literal or symbolic (although they are both literal and symbolic, maybe some things are both at the same time), the point is what morality and values we can glean from them as a message to us in and during our time. We are bearing down on a day of reckoning, where all men will stand before the great Judge and recieve their rewards..., both believer and unbeliever. This book gives us an urgency and perspective that our Mighty God is in control and will bring to an end the current dispensation.

The real difference between us, BA, is you read the book as an unfolding historiography, and I read it as a revelation of the role of Christ in a relationship to mankind throughout the church age told from various perspectives.

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

Your post is a perfect example of what i was talking about, none of which fits my view.

That post wasn't about your view. I asked for a verse with literalism and symbolism, which you gave. My response was simply about assigning symbolism, how and why. The resultant landing zone for literalism vs symbolism, I would think, then help feed which hermeneutic would be favorable.

I'll say it again, there are seven sections in the book that run parallel to each other, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ's first coming to the time of His second coming, and His role and relationship with mankind in this present age. They are visions that John had that reveal Jesus Christ and His role within that time. Each section represents Christ's relationship to 1) His people, and 2) the people in the world. The point is not whether these things are literal or symbolic (although they are both literal and symbolic, maybe some things are both at the same time), the point is what morality and values we can glean from them as a message to us in and during our time. We are bearing down on a day of reckoning, where all men will stand before the great Judge and recieve their rewards..., both believer and unbeliever. This book gives us an urgency and perspective that our Mighty God is in control and will bring to an end the current dispensation.

Yes, I understand to a limited degree. Don't agree, but I understand the overview.

The real difference between us, BA, is you read the book as an unfolding historiography, and I read it as a revelation of the role of Christ in a relationship to mankind throughout the church age told from various perspectives.

Agreed. I'll have to go do some research on progressive parallelism to get a handle on why this should be sectioned out this way.

 

[Tallen]

Agreed. I'll have to go do some research on progressive parallelism to get a handle on why this should be sectioned out this way.

BOOK:
The Bible and the Future
By: Anthoney A. Hoekema

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

BOOK:
The Bible and the Future
By: Anthoney A. Hoekema

At Last - GIPHY Clips

Twilight Zone

giphy.com

 

[Tallen]

At Last - GIPHY Clips

Twilight Zone

giphy.com

Just don't break your glasses. ?

 

[Tallen]

At Last - GIPHY Clips

Twilight Zone

giphy.com

What does it mean to see progressive recapitulatory parallelism in Revelation?

In reading the viewpoints of Reformed Theologians I have moved away from seeing Revelation as a strict chronological timeline like that of Dispensationalists. What is recapitulatory parallelism in...

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

The Structure of the Book of Revelation - Truth Is The Word

When building a house we first have to clear the ground by knocking down any existing structures that cannot be incorporated into the overall ground plan. I did that, to a certain extent, in the post titled Knocking down faulty foundations. The next construction step is to lay a solid foundation...

truthistheword.com

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

Just don't break your glasses. ?

a) this is the timeframe I need for all the books.....
b) below is a gif of him after he breaks his glasses ?

It's Not Fair - GIPHY Clips

Twilight Zone

giphy.com

 

[Tallen]

a) this is the timeframe I need for all the books.....
b) below is a gif of him after he breaks his glasses ?

It's Not Fair - GIPHY Clips

Twilight Zone

giphy.com

Post-wof

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

Post-wof

The Penguin was Methodist. So his was likely postmillennialism, not dispy.

As for your comment directly, I thought there was no POST-WoF. The eternal kingdom IS Word of Faith.
You get a jet. And you get a jet. And you get a jet. And you get a jet. Everyone gets a jet.

 

[Tallen]

The Penguin was Methodist. So his was likely postmillennialism, not dispy.

As for your comment directly, I thought there was no POST-WoF. The eternal kingdom IS Word of Faith.
You get a jet. And you get a jet. And you get a jet. And you get a jet. Everyone gets a jet.

tyfyt