Conversations with a Post-Trib Rapture Advocate 5 Thus far I have shared a few thoughts from my post trib friend. Today I would like to share with you some of my responses to him. When he wrote, ““Revelation is a book of symbols and metaphors.” This was my response: Please allow me to begin by pointing out that those that reject a future millennial reign of Christ upon this good earth employ a figurative method of hermeneutics to come to their conclusions. Hermeneutics is the art and science of interpretation. The key factor for a hermeneutic is that it must have rigor, discipline, and consistency. How we approach language is foundational to how we determine meaning of texts, no matter if it is a newspaper article or biblical passages. So, why does hermeneutics matter when it comes to Revelation 20?? First, almost all communication in our lives is literal. Think about daily conversations. We talk about going out to dinner, about one of our hobbies, about what our children are doing, about ongoing projects, about what we’re reading, about what’s going on at church, about politics, about sports, about our job, etc. These communications are literal. Were it not so, we would find it impossible to communicate. This is true in the 21st century. It was also true in the 1st century. It must be noted that also in our daily conversations, we use figurative terms. These are not to be taken literally, but are designed to communicate something that is familiar to the listener. A new car is called a “nice set of wheels”. We use expressions such as, “She’s the apple of his eye”. In doing so we understand that we’re talking about a whole car and not just its wheels. We know that someone’s eye does not have an apple in it but that the apple stands as an object of appeal and favor. Figurative language is, in most cases, readily understood as such by its context. It can also be identified by the kind of literature that we may be referencing. For example, poetry lends itself to figurative language. But what is essential is to remember that figurative language always communicates literal truth. While it is true that the Bible does have figurative language, as do most text that we read, and while it is true that there is passages within Revelation does have figurative language, one cannot affirm that every word of every verse within the Bible or that every verse in Revelation is to be understood figuratively. It is by the usage of grammatical-historical method of interpretation that we comprehend every newspaper and magazine article, every tweet from a twitter, and every post on a Facebook page. One must employ the grammatical-historical principles of hermeneutics as one reads any passage of the Bible, just as one uses these same principles when one reads any written text. The principle of grammatical-historical interpretation is necessary since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. This simply means that as we read a text, we consider the how the audience of the writer would have understood the word in his day. The reason for this is quite simple. Words change their meanings over the years. For example, in ancient Rome, an aquarium was a place to water cattle, not a tank where we keep fish. Most difficulties arise in interpreting the Scriptures from neglecting a passages’ context. The guiding principle of sound interpretation is to take a passage literally (that is, in its normal sense) unless strong reasons are present not to do so. Without such discipline, interpretation of a passage becomes so elastic that it can mean almost anything. The result is erroneous or ridiculous interpretations. When the lack of discipline in the approach to hermeneutics, it is inevitable that disastrous results occur. Rather than trying to determine what the author actually meant, undisciplined interpreters will force their own biases upon the text. An example comes to mind is the many “interpretations” of the woman in Revelation 12. She has been identified as Israel and by others Mary the mother of Jesus. Some claim that it is the Church. Some claim she is Sarah, the wife of Abraham, and others Rachel, the wife of Isaac. One false teacher, Mary Eddy Baker, made wild claim that SHE is this woman of Revelation 12. I do not think that John had Mary Eddy Baker in mind while he penned the Revelation of Jesus Christ. The point that I make is that if one is to regard Revelation 20 as being figurative language that is not to be considered literally, then there are several factors, according to the rules of hermeneutics, that MUST be present before the passage can be rightfully considered to be figurative and not literal. When approaching a written text, including Revelation 20, the interpreter needs to ask the following questions: To whom was a passage written? What did it mean to its audience? When was it written? Under what circumstances was it written? What was the historical context? How does the passage compare with other passages the writer has written? What light do other passages shed on it? Other questions pertinent to interpretation include: What knowledge do the original languages shed on the passage? Do cognate languages offer insight into the meaning of the passage? What customs were in place? Are idioms or conventions present? Does archaeology shed linguistic or historical light on the passage? These are some of the many factors an interpreter must consider to determine meaning. The question before us is this: Did the apostle John intend his writing about Christ RULING (along with the newly resurrected tribulation saints) for 1000 years to mean that this ruling was to be a figurative reigning from heaven, or did he intend to convey that it was going to be a literal and physical rule upon this planet earth? In order to accurately determine this, one must ask the following questions: How did the Jewish apostle John regard the reign of the Messiah that was to sit on the throne of David? How did the Jews within the Church, who would later influence the thinking of those Gentiles that would come into the Church, understand about the reign of the Messiah? Did these Jews see the reign of their Christ to be figurative or to be literal? Would these Jews understand that John really was stating that Christ would not actually and physically sit upon the renewed throne of David, but rather a symbolic throne in an invisible kingdom? What proofs can I offer that would clearly show that John intended for all that would read Revelation 20 that he intended a literal kingdom on this earth that would last 1000 years?? What does history state that was the mindset of the Jewish apostle when it came to the reign of Christ as King? The gospel of Mark gives us an answer. Mark 10:35 Then James and John, sons of Zebedee, came to Jesus and said, “Teacher, we want to ask you to do something for us.” Mark 10:36 Jesus asked, “What do you want me to do for you?” Mark 10:37 The sons answered, “Let us share the great honor you will have as king. Let one of us sit at your right side and the other at your left.” Luke, in his historical account of the first century Church, also gives us an answer. Acts 1:6 The apostles were all together. They asked Jesus, “Lord, is this the time for you to give the people of Israel their kingdom again?” Clearly John’s view of the reign of Christ was that of a literal reign upon earth wherein he could have a coveted spot by the side of Christ! And equally clear is that, along with the other disciples, he believed that Israel would become a KINGDOM again, with Christ as the King. But what, may I ask, of John’s readers? How would THEY interpret something that the Jewish apostle had written about the reign of Christ in Revelation 20?? The Jews in the first century believed that their Messiah will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). They believed that He would be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He would be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15). All of these concepts point to a literal and physical reign of Christ upon the earth. They would have interpreted anything written regarding the reigning of Christ with this understanding. While I have pointed out the confusing morass of interpretive thought that stems from the undisciplined interpretation of scripture as applied to Revelation 12, please allow another example of interpretive confusion regarding the meaning of David’s throne. This is also critical to a proper understanding of Revelation 20. The first century Jew believed that Christ would one day sit upon the throne of David in a restored Israeli kingdom. (Acts 1:6) Great controversy has resulted about this subject of David’s throne. The controversy is whether Jesus will occupy David’s throne literally in a future day or whether he is occupying it now figuratively or symbolically. A literal or normal reading of the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7.8-17), indicates that God promised to establish the throne of David forever. The Davidic Covenant was unconditional. God made the promise to David sovereignly without qualification or consideration of the failures and weaknesses of men and promised that David’s house, throne, and kingdom would endure forever. We know from history that no son of David occupied the throne of Israel since the time of Nebuchadnezzar. We also know that both Mary and Joseph were members of the tribe of Judah and descendants in the royal line of David. The angel Gabriel announced to Mary that God would give her son the throne of David. He said, “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1.32-33). A normal reading of the prophecy is that Jesus, Mary’s son, would receive the Davidic throne. His reign would be over the house of Jacob, i.e., Israel, and it would last forever. Thus, the promise was wholly and totally Jewish. How would Mary have interpreted the words of the angel? She would have remembered the David covenant and the prophecies that had been made for hundreds of years that promised Israel a Messiah-King who would reign. The context indicates that Gentiles or the Church were not in view. An interpretation that denies this is an erroneous interpretation. Jesus was a Jew. He was from the tribe of Judah and his ancestor was King David. Herod occupied David’s throne during Jesus’ time on earth. Herod was not from the tribe of Judah. Herod was a Gentile, an Idumean. Jesus never occupied David’s throne during his life on earth. Is he now sitting on it? Can one visit Jerusalem and find Jesus sitting on a throne there? No, Jesus is seated presently at the right hand of his Father’s throne (Psalm 110.1). Certainly David did not rule Israel from HEAVEN, nor was his throne removed from the earth at the destruction of Jerusalem by a couple of stout angels! Therefore, we can conclude that the prophetic promise awaits fulfillment. A future day remains in which Jesus will rule from Jerusalem on David’s throne and fulfill God’s promise to David as reiterated to Mary (Daniel 7.14; Zechariah 14.9; Isaiah 9.6-7, 16.5; Jeremiah 33.17, 20-22, etc.). Some maintain this throne is not literal but symbolic. This is where one’s hermeneutic comes in. What is the normal reading of the passage? Those who maintain that the throne is symbolic have abandoned the discipline of a literal, grammatical, and historical hermeneutic. The question we must always address is “Do the Scriptures govern theology or does theology govern the Scriptures?” If the former, then we have an inductive, scientific method of interpretation with rigor and discipline. If the latter, then we have a deductive system in which the Scriptures become so elastic that the interpreter can mold them to mean whatever he wishes. That is what has happened in most of Christendom.
Posted on: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 05:45:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015