You ever consider this?

[Willie T]

In the very first verse of Revelation, John provides us with an important interpretive key: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must shortly take place; and He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John" (Rev. 1:1). The use of the term signify tells us that the prophecy is not simply to be taken as "history written in advance." Instead, it is a book of signs: symbolic representations of the coming events. The symbols are not to be understood in a literal manner. We can see this by John's use of the term in his Gospel (see John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19). In each case, it is used of Christ signifying a future event by a, more or less, symbolic indication, rather than by a clear and literal description. And this is generally the form of the prophecies in the Revelation. This does not mean the symbols are unintelligible; the interpretation is not up for grabs. On the other hand, I am not saying that the symbols are in some kind of code, so that all we need is a dictionary or grammar of symbolism to "translate" the symbols into English. Prophecy is poetry, not naive or static allegory. The only way to understand its symbolism is to become familiar with the Bible. The Biblical standard for interpretation is the Bible itself.

 

[brakelite]

Yet the symbols represent literal events/entities yes? Could we also assume that because God had been gracious enough to reveal the things in the first place, they weren't intended to be misunderstood by those to whom they were given... But to the superficial reader and the careless, then they were a 'mystery'. So for those who search intently the meaning of prophecy, with a true heart of faith and desire to know Him, could we say that God, being consistent, would use symbols consistently? He would not use a symbol for one thing in one chapter, and another thing in the next chapter would He?
Therefore, discovering what the Bible says of one symbol we may consistent use that interpretation without fear of straying. One example is water, which you alluded to in another thread . When Jesus said He was living water, that was not prophetic. But in revelation when we see the whore sitting upon many waters, revelation 17 tells us that many waters can be safely interpreted as being nations tongues tribes and people s... In other words, most of the world.
In Daniel, we see beasts coming up out of turbulent waters... Seas driven by wind. The people's and nations in this case would be at strife with one another... War... Violence... Those nations or empires that the beasts represent, rise up as a result of war... This is consistent with the vision itself, the beasts being predatory animals. And again with revelation 13, the beast comes up out of the sea. And being a composite of those previous beasts from Daniel, we may safely conclude I think that this later beast inherited many of the same characteristics of the former powers... In particular their predatory nature and their proclivity for violence.
Being consistent allowing the Bible to interpret itself makes prophecy so much more simple and relieves so much of the mystery.
By the way, wind is used often throughout prophetic literature as a symbol for war and strife.

 

[quietthinker]

In the very first verse of Revelation, John provides us with an important interpretive key: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must shortly take place; and He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John" (Rev. 1:1). The use of the term signify tells us that the prophecy is not simply to be taken as "history written in advance." Instead, it is a book of signs: symbolic representations of the coming events. The symbols are not to be understood in a literal manner. We can see this by John's use of the term in his Gospel (see John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19). In each case, it is used of Christ signifying a future event by a, more or less, symbolic indication, rather than by a clear and literal description. And this is generally the form of the prophecies in the Revelation. This does not mean the symbols are unintelligible; the interpretation is not up for grabs. On the other hand, I am not saying that the symbols are in some kind of code, so that all we need is a dictionary or grammar of symbolism to "translate" the symbols into English. Prophecy is poetry, not naive or static allegory. The only way to understand its symbolism is to become familiar with the Bible. The Biblical standard for interpretation is the Bible itself.

Yes, this is correct.... it's been there all this time.....I'm surprised it isn't obvious to the reader.

 

[Nancy]

In the very first verse of Revelation, John provides us with an important interpretive key: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must shortly take place; and He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John" (Rev. 1:1). The use of the term signify tells us that the prophecy is not simply to be taken as "history written in advance." Instead, it is a book of signs: symbolic representations of the coming events. The symbols are not to be understood in a literal manner. We can see this by John's use of the term in his Gospel (see John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19). In each case, it is used of Christ signifying a future event by a, more or less, symbolic indication, rather than by a clear and literal description. And this is generally the form of the prophecies in the Revelation. This does not mean the symbols are unintelligible; the interpretation is not up for grabs. On the other hand, I am not saying that the symbols are in some kind of code, so that all we need is a dictionary or grammar of symbolism to "translate" the symbols into English. Prophecy is poetry, not naive or static allegory. The only way to understand its symbolism is to become familiar with the Bible. The Biblical standard for interpretation is the Bible itself.

I love the simplicity here, especially since it is Rev. you are speaking of. The contrast against some of the Rev. posts I have read on here is glaring! I'm not ashamed to say that I'm simple and, that is what keeps me in the Word...on it's face, simplest of terms. Nothing to compare itself to BUT itself!
Good post Willie.

 

[Enoch111]

The symbols are not to be understood in a literal manner.

However the symbols are to be INTERPRETED in order to understand what God is revealing to us.

Therefore eventually we must discover what is the reality presented in the symbol or metaphor. And in the book of Revelation, we are generally given the correct interpretation. But if it is not there, we are to go through the Bible to see what is the meaning from a spiritual perspective.

Jesus is called "the Lamb of God" in the Bible, and this image is presented in Revelation several times. But we know from the rest of Scripture that this presents Him as the supreme sacrifice for sins which was totally acceptable to God. And so it is with most of the symbols.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:"

Not only is the language John writes symbolic, he also writes about things that "must shortly come to pass"...…. "Time is near" Revelation 1:3.

This is why, for example, I reject the interpretation some have of a literal thousand year reign of Christ on earth.
The key, the chain, the bottomless pit, the seal are all figurative but the 1000 years is literal? Not a good interpretation.

Actually, the context of Rev 20:1-6 does NOT even mention:
-Christ's return
-no reign of Christ on earth
-no bodily resurrection
-no literal throne of David
-no mention of Christ bein on earth

Or in Revelation 5:8, the harps are no more literal than the bowls of prayers is literal.
​

 

[marks]

In the very first verse of Revelation, John provides us with an important interpretive key: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants what must shortly take place; and He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John" (Rev. 1:1). The use of the term signify tells us that the prophecy is not simply to be taken as "history written in advance." Instead, it is a book of signs: symbolic representations of the coming events. The symbols are not to be understood in a literal manner. We can see this by John's use of the term in his Gospel (see John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19). In each case, it is used of Christ signifying a future event by a, more or less, symbolic indication, rather than by a clear and literal description. And this is generally the form of the prophecies in the Revelation. This does not mean the symbols are unintelligible; the interpretation is not up for grabs. On the other hand, I am not saying that the symbols are in some kind of code, so that all we need is a dictionary or grammar of symbolism to "translate" the symbols into English. Prophecy is poetry, not naive or static allegory. The only way to understand its symbolism is to become familiar with the Bible. The Biblical standard for interpretation is the Bible itself.

Actually I think the word is more "to show", "to indicate", like that.

Jesus told Peter that when he was old, he'd be taken where he did not want to go. This meant something to Peter, because it signified - indicated - to Peter how he would die. There's a whole sermon there.

Just the same, Jesus spoke to express something Peter would understand, this world being used here by John.

Jesus, in John 12, said that "If I be lifted up from the earth", and He said this to signify, or indicate what death He would die, the same as Peter, crucified.

But Jesus didn't say this to hide the way He would die in mysterious symbols, He said this so that the people would know. They would say "lift up" like we would say "go to the chair".

Of course, with that all being said, I think Revelation has a great many symbols, and to the degree we understand the rest of the Bible is the degree I think we will understand Revelation.

Much love!

 

[marks]

The key, the chain, the bottomless pit, the seal are all figurative but the 1000 years is literal? Not a good interpretation.

Who said anything about these being figurative? And if not a chain of steel, with a nice brass Master Padlock, then something we'd understand to be binding in the same way appropriate to the creature being bound?

If God had wanted to say that there would be a 1000 year kingdom, I'm curious, how would He say it, would you suppose?

Much love!

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Who said anything about these being figurative? And if not a chain of steel, with a nice brass Master Padlock, then something we'd understand to be binding in the same way appropriate to the creature being bound?

If God had wanted to say that there would be a 1000 year kingdom, I'm curious, how would He say it, would you suppose?

Much love!

Hello,

As pointed out in the OP, the language John uses is figurative and John writes of events that are to shortly come to pass. So I have no reason to believe that a spirit being as Satan can be bound by literal physical, metal chains, locks or contained in a literal abyss. The thousands years is just as figurative. A 'thousand' is sometimes used in the Bible to symbolize completeness or totality. So Christ's reign will be complete, total not a literal thousand years. Psalms 50:10 does not mean a literal thousand hills but 'thousand' symbolizes the completeness, totality of God's ownership of all.

Also, as I posted in post #6 it it's sometimes important to note what a verse/context does NOT say. The context in Revelation says nothing at all about Christ on earth, Christ on David's literal physical throne, no bodily resurrection. Many people add these ideas to that context, ideas that are not there. An event as a thousand year reign would be a very important, epic event but is not mentioned anywhere in the NT. The idea is culled from highly figurative language from a single verse in a highly figurative book. It also contradicts other verses in the Bible that show Christ is NOW reigning over His kingdom from heaven.

 

[brakelite]

And if not a chain of steel, with a nice brass Master Padlock, then something we'd understand to be binding in the same way appropriate to the creature being bound?

Do we not say today that people, even ourselves, can be bound by circumstance? How much more a spirit who cannot be bound by anything physical?

 

[marks]

Do we not say today that people, even ourselves, can be bound by circumstance? How much more a spirit who cannot be bound by anything physical?

Hi bl,

I'm not sure what you're saying here . . .

 

[Helen]

Also, as I posted in post #6 it it's sometimes important to note what a verse/context does NOT say. The context in Revelation says nothing at all about Christ on earth, Christ on David's literal physical throne, no bodily resurrection. Many people add these ideas to that context, ideas that are not there. An event as a thousand year reign would be a very important, epic event but is not mentioned anywhere in the NT. The idea is culled from highly figurative language from a single verse in a highly figurative book. It also contradicts other verses in the Bible that show Christ is NOW reigning over His kingdom from heaven.

Amen...well said.

 

[brakelite]

Hi bl,

I'm not sure what you're saying here . . .

The scripture says that Satan is bound by a chain, and that binding effectually removes his power to influence and tempt the nations right? Now most Christians believe that during the millennium Satan is bound in some way (physically or geographically or whatever) that he cannot tempt. Of course the argument then goes to when is the millennium and is Satan bound now, was bound but now released etc etc. My contention is that during the millennium, the nations no longer exist. The earth is empty and devoid of all life, except for Satan and his demons, who are bound by that particular circumstance. He cannot tempt what is no longer there. (BTW, there are very good reasons for my thinking regarding the empty earth thing. ) But that whole scenario removes the need to explain how a spirit can be bound by a literal physical chain.

 

[marks]

My contention is that during the millennium, the nations no longer exist. The earth is empty and devoid of all life, except for Satan and his demons, who are bound by that particular circumstance. He cannot tempt what is no longer there. (BTW, there are very good reasons for my thinking regarding the empty earth thing. ) But that whole scenario removes the need to explain how a spirit can be bound by a literal physical chain.

I have no problems with God having some sort of chain that will hold the devil. But the passage also talks about him being kept on the abyss, which cannot be the earth itself, since the locust things come out of it to torment those who live on the earth.

Question, if the millennium is a time when earth is devoid of human life, where is this kingdom age happening?

Much love!

 

[Helen]

I have no problems with God having some sort of chain that will hold the devil. But the passage also talks about him being kept on the abyss, which cannot be the earth itself, since the locust things come out of it to torment those who live on the earth.

Question, if the millennium is a time when earth is devoid of human life, where is this kingdom age happening?

Much love!

Love your post here...

My Eyes wide open for this space to read all the wise responses...

And we know that any responses from any of us is just 'an opinion'....but even opinions are fun.

God bless.

 

[101G]

Addressing the OP only. the book of Revelation is Just that, a REVEALING .... of Jesus the Christ. and the signification of him point to three places, Past, Present, and future. scripture, Revelation 1:19 "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter". so the book is a three fold book of History. "the things which thou hast seen", past. "the things which are", present. and "the things which shall be hereafter", future.
other words, this book is a signification of God throughtout linear time, from the beginning of Christ, the present, (at the time of the writting) and the End, which is to come, "the things which shall be hereafter".
the things signified, just simply means to indicate or to point to literal events by symbology. for example Revelation Chapter 12. all of the signification there, is found in matthews Chapter 2, his, Christ birth. and really this is where the book of Revelation should be first read at, the beginning of "Christ", at his birth, after the preface .

PICJAG.

 

[Willie T]

Addressing the OP only. the book of Revelation is Just that, a REVEALING .... of Jesus the Christ. and the signification of him point to three places, Past, Present, and future. scripture, Revelation 1:19 "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter". so the book is a three fold book of History. "the things which thou hast seen", past. "the things which are", present. and "the things which shall be hereafter", future.
other words, this book is a signification of God throughtout linear time, from the beginning of Christ, the present, (at the time of the writting) and the End, which is to come, "the things which shall be hereafter".
the things signified, just simply means to indicate or to point to literal events by symbology. for example Revelation Chapter 12. all of the signification there, is found in matthews Chapter 2, his, Christ birth. and really this is where the book of Revelation should be first read at, the beginning of "Christ", at his birth, after the preface .

PICJAG.

Only one problem with that approach is that "the things to come hereafter" are never categorized as happening 2,000 years, or more, off into the future, nor are they said to all happen within a particular tiny span of time. "We" have added those things we now consider "facts" to the book. Also, "Hereafter" would have begun the moment the Apostle came to himself and began recording events... long before the first letter was ever delivered to the first of the seven churches it was written to.

 

[101G]

Only one problem with that approach is that "the things to come hereafter" are never categorized as happening 2,000 years, or more, off into the future, nor are they said to all happen within a particular tiny span of time. "We" have added those things we now consider "facts" to the book. Also, "Hereafter" would have begun the moment the Apostle came to himself and began recording events... long before the first letter was ever delivered to the first of the seven churches it was written to.

well it took seventy weeks of Years for the Messiah to come. and now unders Grace, much is yet to come. and as for the things to come no man really knows. we can tell by all the ill guessing.

PICJAG.

 

[Willie T]

well it took seventy weeks of Years for the Messiah to come. and now unders Grace, much is yet to come. and as for the things to come no man really knows. we can tell by all the ill guessing.

PICJAG.

Then why in the world try to act like it is a known fact that all the latter part of Revelation was intended to mean the early part of the 21st Century?

 

[101G]

Then why in the world try to act like it is a known fact that all the latter part of Revelation was intended to mean the early part of the 21st Century?

who said that? just as the OT was much of the NT to come. much is still yet to come.

PICJAG.