The Sweet and bitter little book of Revelation 10

[icxn]

I can agree with this although I don't think the lack of understanding on John's part happens as frequently as you seem to imply. Let's take Rev. 9:7-10 - "And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. 8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. 9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. 10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

I know many might not agree but what I see here is John's attempt to describe something in his own words that he couldn't possibly understand. Helicopters, flown by women with the helicopter's nose painted like they sometimes are, with rear firing "stinger" missiles.

If I may offer my 2 cents...

The demons are the spiritual locusts that destroy [1] the fruits of the Spirit; they eat our efforts, the leaves as it were, to practice God’s commandments through negligence and when they fail they attack the mature fruit through vainglory and by passing judgement on our neighbor. They are always hostile to us like horses prepared for battle. They tempt us through love for riches (gold crowns), and through people (faces of men) in the form of lust for the pleasures of the body (hair of women) and love of glory that agitates our souls towards hatred and murder of our neighbor (lion’s teeth) [2]. Our hardness of heart [3] is their iron breastplate and the high opinion of ourselves the wings [4] that allow them to war against us by means of the thoughts (sound of chariots) or tares [5] that they sow in our heart. The beginning of every sin is a thought, hence why the symbols of temptations are located at the head (crown, hair, teeth) but the actual harm comes from carrying it out in action, this is the end or tail. For this reason the demons are depicted as having stings in their tails like scorpions. As long as we are subject to our bodily senses, a non-literal period of five months as it were, the demons will have the power to hurt [6] us. But shod with the sandals [7] of the gospel of peace (Ephesians 6:15), the deadening of our members (senses) upon the earth (body) (Colossians 3:5) we will be able to trample upon the scorpions and over all the power of the enemy (Luke 10:19).


_____________
1. shape is not the only way to interpret a symbol, but also through its other properties and operations.
2. these three categories of temptations can be associated with the three temptations of Christ.
3. or lack of right judgement as an antitype of the breastplate of righteousness (Ephesians 6:14)
4. or because they are said to inhabit high places (Ephesians 6:12) though imo these ‘places’ are our prideful hearts and minds.
5. wheat is the good teaching of the Lord; tares the evil teaching of the Devil. Those who are shaped by each are also called wheat and tares respectively.
6. There’s bodily harm and there’s a spiritual harm. There’s bodily death and there’s spiritual death. I think the latter understanding should have priority when interpreting scripture.
7. sandals are made of dead skin, an apt symbol for putting to death the will of the flesh.

 

[Trekson]

When one depends on symbolism we can make anything mean anything and then the truth only becomes more subjective.

 

[Naomi25]

All literalists agree that symbolism is used and usually can be interpreted in a literal sense. Is John using symbolism or is he simply describing the way the things he is seeing look? A description shouldn't be classified as symbolism. In the passage in question John uses the phrases, "were like", "were as it were", comparative, "hair as women", "as it were", "like unto". These are all descriptive phrases, not symbolic ones. Imagine how would you, if you were from John's era, describe the look and sound of a helicopter in flight with the front glass shield showing the cockpit being piloted by a long-haired person with a weapon shooting out of the rear section using only the closest things you had knowledge of to describe them?

I would imagine it would be just as difficult for John to describe demonic beings as well. And considering the book consistently describes spiritual realities, I would prefer to take the 'literal symbolism' (if such a beast exists) of the image as that, rather than as helicopters with women flying them. Especially considering John probably had better words he could have used to described such a machine. The Romans had just utterly destroyed Jerusalem when Revelation had been written. The Romans had complicated siege machines. While, granted, a helicopter would be light years ahead, it's still clearly a machine, not an animal. But John applied none of the technical words available of his time, choosing, instead, to go with animal descriptions. You put this together with the spiritual component of the book itself, and I believe you have a much, much, more compelling argument.

 

[Trekson]

I would imagine it would be just as difficult for John to describe demonic beings as well. And considering the book consistently describes spiritual realities, I would prefer to take the 'literal symbolism' (if such a beast exists) of the image as that, rather than as helicopters with women flying them. Especially considering John probably had better words he could have used to described such a machine. The Romans had just utterly destroyed Jerusalem when Revelation had been written. The Romans had complicated siege machines. While, granted, a helicopter would be light years ahead, it's still clearly a machine, not an animal. But John applied none of the technical words available of his time, choosing, instead, to go with animal descriptions. You put this together with the spiritual component of the book itself, and I believe you have a much, much, more compelling argument.

And I think you're overlooking the obvious. Catapults weren't that complicated and they didn't fly around all by themselves, the concept of flying and even women engaging in warfare was quite rare for the region. The selection of "technical vocabulary" was really pretty limited to what, wood, rope, rocks. A catapult was really just an advanced atlatls plus the destruction of Jerusalem was at least a quarter of a century in the past and John wasn't around to witness it.

 

[Naomi25]

And I think you're overlooking the obvious. Catapults weren't that complicated and they didn't fly around all by themselves, the concept of flying and even women engaging in warfare was quite rare for the region. The selection of "technical vocabulary" was really pretty limited to what, wood, rope, rocks. A catapult was really just an advanced atlatls plus the destruction of Jerusalem was at least a quarter of a century in the past and John wasn't around to witness it.

And I think you're missing the obvious as well. As crude as the machines back then would have been, a woman was still a woman, and no animal ever operated with a person shoved inside it's hard, flat exteriors, peering out its eyeballs.

 

[Trekson]

And I think you're missing the obvious as well. As crude as the machines back then would have been, a woman was still a woman, and no animal ever operated with a person shoved inside it's hard, flat exteriors, peering out its eyeballs.

You are misunderstanding the word "animal" it was the term the Strong's used. It just means alive with ability to feel certain things like, pain, suffering, joy, pleasure.

 

[Naomi25]

You are misunderstanding the word "animal" it was the term the Strong's used. It just means alive with ability to feel certain things like, pain, suffering, joy, pleasure.

And we should expect those things from a helicopter?

 

[Trekson]

And we should expect those things from a helicopter?

You are deliberately tying to be insulting by taking things out of there known context, it is not becoming nor warranted for the conversation we are having.

 

[Naomi25]

You are deliberately tying to be insulting by taking things out of there known context, it is not becoming nor warranted for the conversation we are having.

I'm not trying to do anything except point out how...obviously ridiculous (sorry) this interpretation is. Not only does it go against your hermenutic, but it goes against logic and, apparently, your own description of what should be in that spot as well. I'm sorry if you think my pointing this out is insulting, but perhaps you need to actually take a step back and see that what you are trying to cram into that spot just doesn't fit.

 

[Trekson]

I'm not trying to do anything except point out how...obviously ridiculous (sorry) this interpretation is. Not only does it go against your hermenutic, but it goes against logic and, apparently, your own description of what should be in that spot as well. I'm sorry if you think my pointing this out is insulting, but perhaps you need to actually take a step back and see that what you are trying to cram into that spot just doesn't fit.

You are pointing nothing out because the helicopters and the "animal vitality" were completely different topics and had zero relationship to each other.

 

[Naomi25]

You are pointing nothing out because the helicopters and the "animal vitality" were completely different topics and had zero relationship to each other.

Well where on earth did the animal come from then? Or, more importantly, the machine? Let's look back at the passage in question:

Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth....
In appearance the locusts were like horses prepared for battle: on their heads were what looked like crowns of gold; their faces were like human faces, their hair like women's hair, and their teeth like lions' teeth; they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the noise of their wings was like the noise of many chariots with horses rushing into battle. They have tails and stings like scorpions, and their power to hurt people for five months is in their tails. -Revelation 9:3,7–10

Ok...these 'things' are described as "locusts" and are given power like "scorpions". Both of those are animal qualities and descriptions.
Unsurprisingly, we have locusts as: ἀκρίς, akris = Locust. And scorpion as: σκορπίος, skorpios = scorpion.
Animals.
2000 years ago the technologies were crude. Absolutely. But not so crude that John couldn't determine between living or not living. Organic or inorganic. Organic doesn't have hard, straight lines. It doesn't have people within them operating them. And it usually doesn't send forth its stinging barbs with a cloud of smoke as it launches.

The second point to consider is Johns consistent use of 'like'. If these things were really helicopters that had women in flying them, John wouldn't have said 'faces like humans' and 'hair like women'. He would have said 'human faces with womens hair', because those were easy things for him to see and recognize. If he was seeing such things on demoic frankensteins, that would give him pause. These creatures are not machine, but...they're like no animal he's seen, so he's pulling together images from every animal and living being he HAS seen to help him describe them. Millions of them, flocking over the land in plauge like proportions like locusts. Stinging people and causing pain like scorpions. Horrible human faces with long flowing hair. Horrifying teeth, hard exoskeleton. It is the demonic version of the bizarre images we see of the angelic beings around the throne. Words struggle to describe them. Are they, in reality, what John sees? Are these images but a representation of a spiritual truth? Who truly knows...but one truth is obvious...they are not being described as helicopters. The words being used and the passage itself doesn't allow that translation.

 

[Trekson]

Well where on earth did the animal come from then?

I looked at all of this one so it was probably from another thread and I'm not going to read them all.

John wouldn't have said 'faces like humans' and 'hair like women'.

I imagine they had uniforms and headgear that would make it hard to tell the difference but describing a guy as having long hair like a woman's is not unusual at all, just ask my fellow hippies from the 60's. John's not taking dictation, sometimes we have to let the authors be human with human expressions...He ran like a deer, she looks like that movie star, her hair was red like fire...it's just a simple comparison. That's the trouble with symbolism, when you look through that lens often enough it becomes hard to look at something at face value and just accept it as it seems w/o wondering if there could possibly some other symbolic meaning that might make it seem more meaningful.

 

[Naomi25]

I looked at all of this one so it was probably from another thread and I'm not going to read them all.

I imagine they had uniforms and headgear that would make it hard to tell the difference but describing a guy as having long hair like a woman's is not unusual at all, just ask my fellow hippies from the 60's. John's not taking dictation, sometimes we have to let the authors be human with human expressions...He ran like a deer, she looks like that movie star, her hair was red like fire...it's just a simple comparison. That's the trouble with symbolism, when you look through that lens often enough it becomes hard to look at something at face value and just accept it as it seems w/o wondering if there could possibly some other symbolic meaning that might make it seem more meaningful.

Uh,huh. Don't you think that's stretching it...just a bit? Your either going to great lengths to fit your hypothesis in there, or your doing John a fairly great disservice in his ability to describe stuff, I think.

 

[Trekson]

Uh,huh. Don't you think that's stretching it...just a bit? Your either going to great lengths to fit your hypothesis in there, or your doing John a fairly great disservice in his ability to describe stuff, I think.

It's interesting to hypothesize but since the church will be gone by then, imo, it won't effect us either way.

 

[Naomi25]

It's interesting to hypothesize but since the church will be gone by then, imo, it won't effect us either way.

It's interesting you say it like this. Let me perhaps flip the tables on you and ask you in return...will you be prepared if the Rapture is not pretribulational? How will you handle having to go through a time of terrible tribulation? Antichrist? Etc? Will it effect your faith? Will you be ready?

 

[Trekson]

It's interesting you say it like this. Let me perhaps flip the tables on you and ask you in return...will you be prepared if the Rapture is not pretribulational? How will you handle having to go through a time of terrible tribulation? Antichrist? Etc? Will it effect your faith? Will you be ready?

I am not pretrib, I am prewrath and that means we believe the GT is upon the church as a result of Rev. 12:17 and the 5th seal, so yes, I am as physically and spiritually prepared as I can be at this time!

 

[Naomi25]

I am not pretrib, I am prewrath and that means we believe the GT is upon the church as a result of Rev. 12:17 and the 5th seal, so yes, I am as physically and spiritually prepared as I can be at this time!

Cool. Actually...I'm not one of those who think even Dispenationalists will falter under such circumstances. First, we're promised that Christ holds us, not the other way around, and his grip is stronger than our troubles. Second, our (and their) hope is in something more than just the Rapture, even though it is a nice thought. I think they'll cling to Christ no matter what. We all do through various disappointments and trials.

 

[Trekson]

Cool. Actually...I'm not one of those who think even Dispenationalists will falter under such circumstances. First, we're promised that Christ holds us, not the other way around, and his grip is stronger than our troubles. Second, our (and their) hope is in something more than just the Rapture, even though it is a nice thought. I think they'll cling to Christ no matter what. We all do through various disappointments and trials.

Perhaps a perusing of Luke 8:12-14 would help. To be an apostate one has to be a true believer first, just like for a person to become a believer, they must have been an unrepentant sinner at one time.

 

[Naomi25]

Perhaps a perusing of Luke 8:12-14 would help. To be an apostate one has to be a true believer first, just like for a person to become a believer, they must have been an unrepentant sinner at one time.

Actually, I disagree with this (surprise! Sorry...I'm not deliberately disagreeing with you so much!). I think the bible is pretty clear that anyone who truly believes can be assured in that salvation. Jesus tells us that he will not loose any the Father has given him. The Paul tells us in Philippians that 'he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ'. And many other verses that talk of what we can know now. We can be sure, now.
I think the apostasy comes from those who seem to be, but are not. Those who may, even themselves, think they are, but are not. The ones who, similarly, will cry out 'Lord, Lord, did we not...?' And Jesus will tell them 'I never knew you.'
There are so many people out there who consider themselves Christians. They do everything right, say the right things, tithe right, attend right...but they miss the heart changing aspect of a relationship with Jesus. And so, when push comes to shove in ever-hardening times, they will just walk away, because when it comes down to it, Jesus won't mean as much to them as an easy life. For those of us who consider Jesus our Lord and Saviour, we'd rather loose our everything than our Lord!

 

[Trekson]

Actually, I disagree with this (surprise! Sorry...I'm not deliberately disagreeing with you so much!). I think the bible is pretty clear that anyone who truly believes can be assured in that salvation. Jesus tells us that he will not loose any the Father has given him. The Paul tells us in Philippians that 'he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ'. And many other verses that talk of what we can know now. We can be sure, now.
I think the apostasy comes from those who seem to be, but are not. Those who may, even themselves, think they are, but are not. The ones who, similarly, will cry out 'Lord, Lord, did we not...?' And Jesus will tell them 'I never knew you.'
There are so many people out there who consider themselves Christians. They do everything right, say the right things, tithe right, attend right...but they miss the heart changing aspect of a relationship with Jesus. And so, when push comes to shove in ever-hardening times, they will just walk away, because when it comes down to it, Jesus won't mean as much to them as an easy life. For those of us who consider Jesus our Lord and Saviour, we'd rather loose our everything than our Lord!

Just a little English lesson here - apostacy - from Webster's - " an abandonment of a former allegiance" - "falling away" - (from Strong's) G646 - "defection from truth", "forsake" - Webster's - defection - "to desert a previously espoused belief/cause.

What would cause many Christians to deny their faith? I have three possibilities and there may be more. Denying Christ because..1) an unwillingness to be a martyr or a misplaced desire to save a loved one from suffering. 2) Scientists claiming they have found the body of Jesus and have "proved" it with DNA evidence. 3) A visitation from seemingly advanced aliens because many Christians revel in the supposed truth that we are so special that God could not have possibly created someone else...ergo, no God. I believe the 3rd might be a possibility but they would be demons/fallen angels in disguise with the intention to deceive, something the devil excels at.