I feel like I'm opening a can of worms here but here it goes anyway. A part of me agrees with what you said above, but another part of me thinks about what Jesus meant in John 8:31b-32, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” To double down on this there's John 16:13, "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."
Interpretations of verses in the Bible are commonplace and by nature means understanding things differently or even in exact opposition to each other such as whether Jesus is God or not. Then you have the book of Revelation which is interpretation on steroids. What do we do with verses the speak of "the truth?"
After thinking about this some more, I realize that claiming to know what "the truth" is was the foundation that twi was said to be built upon and we know that claim is a huge, fat lie and we all know the hurt and arrogance that lie brought into our lives. Claiming to know "the truth" has led in the past to persecution and even wars within the body of Christ. This is not what Christianity is.
Jesus spoke the truth and Christianity is about having a personal relationship with him and through him we come to know the Father. Personal means it's between the believer and Christ as we are led by the spirit he gave us. Our understanding of him and his words is meant to be a personal one and we are meant to walk in love towards each other as 1 Cor 13 defines it. All of this has been shared here many times before, even once or twice by yours truly.
So looking through your reference material it seems that 2 of the 4 views are historical and not widely held currently - the two that are most prevalent today are idealist and futurist views.
The futurist view looks at everything from Chap 4 on as unfolding in a future time. This view is tied to dispensationalism and it is directly mentioned that the Left Behind series is from this perspective.
The idealist view looks at the book as entirely or mostly symbolic to a spiritual warfare.
I don’t feel entirely comfortable with either view so I am probably somewhere in the middle of these 2. I don’t think a strict fundamentalist view makes sense to me any longer. And I’m not a poet that reads for symbolism or picture entertainment.
There are inherent challenges with futurist as it would mean that Johns revelation had little to no current meaning at the time written. The idealist perspective leaves the Bible as an entertaining read but not much meaning.
So maybe like one of the articles says i am turning Methodist which they say accepts multiple interpretations of scripture. I didn’t know that is what they said of themselves.
Thanks Chockfull, reading your analysis was easy on my brain cells which helps when delving into the book of Revelation for the first time. I'm sure there will be more food for thought as posts keep coming in.
Revelation is a symbolic book, but that does not mean the symbols do not depict literal events.
It is likely that God has chosen esoteric symbols from the common store of apocalyptic symbols in the 1st century in order to turn the reader away from exactly what he is going to do and toward the theological meaning of how he is going to do it. We do not know what is going to happen behind the pictures of locust plagues, meteor showers, volcanic eruptions, and horrible storms. Some may happen literally, many will not…One of my takeaways from what Osborne is saying here is that in general we might not be able to ‘decode’ the exact means of how God is going to make something happen – but we should recognize that God is sovereign – He is orchestrating the show.
~ ~ ~ ~
Grant Osborne mentions another theologian, G.K. Beale who spoke of the 4 levels of communication:
The linguistic level, comprising the exegetical study of the text.
The visionary level, considering John’s experience.
The referential level, centering each symbol in its historical referent.
The symbolic level, asking what is connotated by each symbol.
~ ~ ~ ~
Symbols are metaphorical utterances that are meant to be understood first pictorially and then referentially. There is a referential dimension to metaphor, but we find the meaning through the picture that is connoted. The sources for interpreting them come from the Old Testament, intertestamental literature, and the Greco-Roman world – in other words, in the common world of the original readers in the province of Asia…In other words, digging deeper into the book is going to take getting more familiar with the cultural background of the Bible. Here’s a handy study Bible > NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, Hardcover: Craig Keener, John Walton: 9780310431589 - Christianbook.com
so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love,
I dwell in, settle in, am established in (permanently), inhabit.
6
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
On 1/27/2023 at 6:42 AM, OldSkool said:
Heres on that causes serious issues with the concept of the administration of Grace, and administrations in general relative to our hope.
Revelation 10:7
But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
In Ephesians 3:2 Paul talks about the administration of God’s grace which he reveals in vs. 3 is the mystery. He goes on to talk about the mystery in vs. 4 (the mystery of Christ), vs. 6 and vs. 9 (the administration of this mystery). Verse 6 explains, This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
I understand that one of the main problems with the "administration" doctrine is that vp used it to teach "to whom it's written" which reduced the applicable portion of the Bible to just the Church epistles. Rev 10:7 above talks about how the mystery of God should be finished. I don't understand how this verse is a problem for the administration of Grace concept which I assume is a reference to Eph 32:2. Can you explain more about what you meant.
so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love,
I dwell in, settle in, am established in (permanently), inhabit.
6
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
In Ephesians 3:2 Paul talks about the administration of God’s grace which he reveals in vs. 3 is the mystery. He goes on to talk about the mystery in vs. 4 (the mystery of Christ), vs. 6 and vs. 9 (the administration of this mystery). Verse 6 explains, This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
I understand that one of the main problems with the "administration" doctrine is that vp used it to teach "to whom it's written" which reduced the applicable portion of the Bible to just the Church epistles. Rev 10:7 above talks about how the mystery of God should be finished. I don't understand how this verse is a problem for the administration of Grace concept which I assume is a reference to Eph 32:2. Can you explain more about what you meant.
Thanks,
Charity
Correct. He not only taught that the Church epistles were written specifically to those in the grace administration, which they werent, he also taught that the book of Revelation was a closed book and was written to the sixth administration. Revelation 10:7 leaves a gigantic problem to that theory.
Personally, I was hoping you guys had some insight in Revelation 10:7, Im still searching a lot of that sort of stuff out. Let me say that I no longer believe that Revelation is a closed book that was written to another administration. At this point, and it may change, I feel scripture follows two simple concepts: Old covenant that was eventually supersceded by the New Covenant that Christ ratified in his own blood. The new covenant is built on the Old Covenant so its not a replacement, the new covenant uses the Old Covenant as a foundation of sorts.
Recommended Posts
Charity
After thinking about this some more, I realize that claiming to know what "the truth" is was the foundation that twi was said to be built upon and we know that claim is a huge, fat lie and we all know the hurt and arrogance that lie brought into our lives. Claiming to know "the truth" has led in the past to persecution and even wars within the body of Christ. This is not what Christianity is.
Jesus spoke the truth and Christianity is about having a personal relationship with him and through him we come to know the Father. Personal means it's between the believer and Christ as we are led by the spirit he gave us. Our understanding of him and his words is meant to be a personal one and we are meant to walk in love towards each other as 1 Cor 13 defines it. All of this has been shared here many times before, even once or twice by yours truly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Thanks Chockfull, reading your analysis was easy on my brain cells which helps when delving into the book of Revelation for the first time. I'm sure there will be more food for thought as posts keep coming in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hey All,
I was reviewing one of my favorite commentaries - Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament): Osborne, Grant R.: 9780801022999: Amazon.com: Books and wanted to mention a few things the author said in the introduction:
Revelation is a symbolic book, but that does not mean the symbols do not depict literal events.
It is likely that God has chosen esoteric symbols from the common store of apocalyptic symbols in the 1st century in order to turn the reader away from exactly what he is going to do and toward the theological meaning of how he is going to do it. We do not know what is going to happen behind the pictures of locust plagues, meteor showers, volcanic eruptions, and horrible storms. Some may happen literally, many will not…One of my takeaways from what Osborne is saying here is that in general we might not be able to ‘decode’ the exact means of how God is going to make something happen – but we should recognize that God is sovereign – He is orchestrating the show.
~ ~ ~ ~
Grant Osborne mentions another theologian, G.K. Beale who spoke of the 4 levels of communication:
The linguistic level, comprising the exegetical study of the text.
The visionary level, considering John’s experience.
The referential level, centering each symbol in its historical referent.
The symbolic level, asking what is connotated by each symbol.
~ ~ ~ ~
Symbols are metaphorical utterances that are meant to be understood first pictorially and then referentially. There is a referential dimension to metaphor, but we find the meaning through the picture that is connoted. The sources for interpreting them come from the Old Testament, intertestamental literature, and the Greco-Roman world – in other words, in the common world of the original readers in the province of Asia…In other words, digging deeper into the book is going to take getting more familiar with the cultural background of the Bible. Here’s a handy study Bible > NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, Hardcover: Craig Keener, John Walton: 9780310431589 - Christianbook.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
3 17
so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love,
I dwell in, settle in, am established in (permanently), inhabit.
6
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
In Ephesians 3:2 Paul talks about the administration of God’s grace which he reveals in vs. 3 is the mystery. He goes on to talk about the mystery in vs. 4 (the mystery of Christ), vs. 6 and vs. 9 (the administration of this mystery). Verse 6 explains, This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
I understand that one of the main problems with the "administration" doctrine is that vp used it to teach "to whom it's written" which reduced the applicable portion of the Bible to just the Church epistles. Rev 10:7 above talks about how the mystery of God should be finished. I don't understand how this verse is a problem for the administration of Grace concept which I assume is a reference to Eph 32:2. Can you explain more about what you meant.
Thanks,
Charity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Correct. He not only taught that the Church epistles were written specifically to those in the grace administration, which they werent, he also taught that the book of Revelation was a closed book and was written to the sixth administration. Revelation 10:7 leaves a gigantic problem to that theory.
Personally, I was hoping you guys had some insight in Revelation 10:7, Im still searching a lot of that sort of stuff out. Let me say that I no longer believe that Revelation is a closed book that was written to another administration. At this point, and it may change, I feel scripture follows two simple concepts: Old covenant that was eventually supersceded by the New Covenant that Christ ratified in his own blood. The new covenant is built on the Old Covenant so its not a replacement, the new covenant uses the Old Covenant as a foundation of sorts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.