Wormwood
Chaps
I just don't think it is possible not to have one's interpretation laden with assumptions when the primary means of viewing a text is allegory. I think all of the churches in Revelation reflect characteristics of churches and nations in every age. To assign one church per one "age" (however one defines those parameters) is just creating categories that simply do not exist in the book of Revelation. Nothing suggests that the book of Revelation is to be interpreted as an allegory. It is apocalyptic literature, which is quite different from a parable or allegory. Even if we were to agree that modern western churches are materialistic and weak in faith as a whole, this does not mean that the references to the church in Laodecia is a message directed at an era 2,000 years removed from the original readers. The Bible cannot mean what it never meant. If the first readers would not have understood it that way, then its likely an errant interpretation.It is not true that it is just my interpretation/reflections/assumption/creating, i always as-objectively-as-possible try to see whatever True historical matches/evidences between the text and history there are. It is true that i could be wrong, but there doesn't seem much doubt that the churches evidently also match ages (as well as the time of John and maybe some other things too). The 10 days surely matches the 10 years. The Laodiceans certainly matches the modern western church(es) (commerical, manufacturing, lukewarm, loas + dike, medicine worship, large jewish popn, in order with the other 6 before, etc).
I am not looking for "proof." I am looking for a consistent hermeneutic that appropriately deals with the nature of the genre. There was a first century church that was reading this letter. I believe the entire letter was meaningful to them and we draw our meaning out of that meaning. When we first try to make the text meaningful to us with no regard to the original audience, we are ripping the letter from its context and assigning dates and nations to things John wrote that likely never even crossed his mind. So, I guess my "proof" would be, "Would the church in Laodecia have recognized how you are interpreting the text?"I had similar debates about Arthur's 9 battle sites and they also try to claim it is all just artificial preconculsion theory and ignore all the stark accidentally discovered stark evidences/proofs. What would you accept as Proof?
You make a very good point here and one that needs to be examined. Yes, the NT writers often employed typology as they looked at the OT and how it related to what God was doing in the NT. Yet, there are some important things to keep in mind as we understand how they interpreted the OT Scriptures.The bible has lots of cases/examples of alternative/additional layers of meanings/interpretations or analogus types (eg Abraham sacrificed Isaac). Jews have the [prds?] system. How strange this is that usually we are having to argue for "literal" true bible not just figurative/etc, now it is the opposite extreme. How can we "let the text speak for itself" (which i do actually try to do) if we don't study the text, study any/all related history, footnotes, other related texts/parts, the meanings of the names.
1) These NT writers did not ignore the original meaning of the OT Scriptures. Rather, they based the NT fulfillments out of the OT examples or promises. Since you brought up sacrifice, lets examine that. The NT writers did not completely ignore the OT sacrificial system in their interpretation. They recognized the value and legitimacy of the old covenant. Yet, they claimed that those covenant practices foreshadowed a greater covenant. The OT sacrifices pointed to a greater and more complete sacrifice. Thus, the understanding of the new was based in the understanding of the old. Another example: Matthew says, "out of Egypt I have called my son" in reference to Jesus coming out of Egypt. Yet the text he is using is clearly referring to Israel coming out of slavery in Egypt. Matthew is not ignoring the context of that passage. Rather, he is claiming that Jesus is the true Israel. Thus, the events that transpired with Israel were meeting their true purpose and fulfillment in Christ.
2) These NT writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus, they were not going by what seemed right to them, but they were guided in their interpretation by the Spirit of God. We are getting God's insight into these texts, not an individuals personal gut feelings.
3) Allegory is not the same as typology. Typology says, "antitype - type" Christ was an antitype of Moses. Christ was an antitype of Adam. Christians escaping a world of sin is an antitype of Israel escaping slavery in Egypt. The cross was an antitype of animal sacrifice (specifically the Day of Atonement). Typology is showing how the past paved the way to what God is doing in the future.
Allegory is much different. Allegory ignores the original context and purpose of a text and claims that the language is merely symbolic of something completely different than what the text is actually saying. Your examples are: Laodecia = Western Church. 10 days of tribulation = 10 years of Diocletian. This approach completely ignores the original readers and the original events in the first century and simply claims the language is code language to mean something completely different. I think this approach is laden with assumptions and really strips away the original intent of the letter, and thus the true meaning of the letter. Some early church scholars were often quite terrible about this use of allegory. Augustine allegorized the parable of the Good Samaritan and came up with the following:
The man going down to Jericho =Adam
Jerusalem, from which he was going =City of Heavenly Peace
Jericho =The moon which signifies our mortality (this is a play on the Hebrew terms for Jericho and moon which both look and sound alike)
Robbers =Devil and his angels
Stripping him =Taking away his immortality
Beating him =Persuading him to sin
Leaving him half dead =Because of sin, he was dead spiritually, but half alive, because of the knowledge of God
Priest =Priesthood of the Old Testament (Law)
Levite =Ministry of the Old Testament (Prophets)
Good Samaritan =Christ
Binding of wounds =Restraint of sin
Oil =Comfort of good hope
Wine =Exhortation to spirited work
Animal =Body of Christ
Inn =Church
Two denarii =Two commandments to love
Innkeeper =Apostle Paul
Return of the Good Samaritan =Resurrection of Christ
As you can see, while it makes for an interesting reflection, it clearly has nothing to do with the actual story and what Jesus was trying to communicate when he told it. Augustine created his own meaning that was quite different from what Jesus or the Luke were trying to communicate (namely, that we should love our neighbors). I think you are doing a similar disservice to Revelation. The letter is laden with incredible meaning and significance that would have challenged a struggling, suffering, and sometimes compromising church in first century and continues to challenge and encourage believers today. The message is pretty simple: Don't compromise with the world. Christ is on the throne and we will all give an account to him. Be faithful even to death, and you will receive a crown of life.
When we turn Revelation into a crystal ball to predict particular church ages and so forth with a view of trying to determine the end of time, we are really missing the point (in my estimation). The early Christians weren't concerned about various eras of the church age. They were concerned with how they were going to feed their families if they stayed faithful to Christ, or whether or not they would have their heads lopped off for not offering incense to the Roman gods.