I agree the descriptions of the plagues are very detailed. I know there are Preterist who have tried to tie a literal interpretation to events in Jerusalem up to 70AD. I’ve looked at some of their explanations and I can only see where there are similarities but I’m not convinced of a fulfillment. As you say the plagues have detailed and precise descriptions.
Have you read Sir Isaac Newton's
Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John?
Here it is if you want to:
Best known for his advancements in scientific thought Sir Isaac Newton was also big into his apocalyptic prophecy.
publicdomainreview.org
I think this book is a great example of a man seeking spiritual interpretations of prophecies. Perhaps one of the smarter men who have lived, maybe. He is said to have written a million pages of commentary on Scripture. This book is a very detailed interpretation of each passage, showing historical fulfillments of the beasts and the plagues and all. This pope was this, and that war was that.
To me, fascinating, but unintelligable, as to why it would be this pope and not that pope, or this war but not that war, do you know what I mean? To me interpretations like these seem arbitrary if not linked to something direct in Scripture. For me, narrative prophecy needs to be understood that way, but bringing us to the next point:
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
I think this verse is one of the best verses that show a plague of famine isn’t necessarily a literal plague.
I agree. But I'd like to point out that this passage tells us it doesn't mean a literal famine of food or water, but of the Word of the LORD. We re told this, so this interpretation has Biblical Authority. No guesswork, no unsubstantiated interpretations.
And I'm not going to come outright and say that such kind of interpretation - "I just know this water isn't literal water" - is false, only, if it doesn't come from the actual text, then it simply lacks Biblical Authority.
There are other well known spiritual meanings for things such as water, where Jesus tells the woman at the well that He will give her living water.
Yes, however, what is the rule by which we know when we are talking about literal water and when we are not?
So, for example, if we look at the third bowl being poured out on the rivers and fountains of water and they became blood, a spiritual interpretation would involve the gospel or water being contaminated with blood, the blood of bulls and goats that was not possible to take away sins. Put another way, the new covenant gets contaminated with the old covenant rituals.
That's an interesting idea. On a side note, what are your thoughts on this passage:
Revelation 15:2-4 KJV
2) And I saw as it were a sea of glass
mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
3) And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
4) Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.
What does it mean that the sea of glass is mingled with fire? But not to detract from our current conversation! I'm just interested in your thoughts on that.
Back to the plagues:
Revelation 16:4-7 KJV
4) And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.
5) And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
6) For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.
7) And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.
On the face of this passage, those who shed the blood of God's people are now given blood instead of water to drink, God's righteous judgment.
Your suggestion is waters mixed with blood show New Covenant and Old Covenant mixed, that is, turning new covenant believers legalistic. Is that the idea? How does that fit with them having shed the blood of saints and prophets?
The life is in the blood. This is the blood of the new covenant. From His side came water mixed with blood. Do not eat animals with their blood. You shall poor the blood at the base of the altar. There are many many references, how do we know which is appropriate, if we don't have something specific to go by?
It seems to me that this is how we've come to so very many different interpretations of the Bible. Those who say, No, it's a real, literal plague, God turns the rivers of water to blood, to give these bloodthirsty murderers blood for their thirst, these will all agree on what it means. Those who say, the water means this, and the rivers mean that, and the blood means this, and so on, these will each need to determine what the elements refer to, and by what I've seen, for the most part, the answers are all different.
So how do we all get on the same page?
Much love!