News-Record.com

Hey Nancy- you got a loop going on.

i can't figure this out !! ??

You might get some help if you get a better link.

Hope this helps facilitate discussion.

"Revelation 17:6, for example, reads, "And I saw a woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration."

Rev. Harold Cox: "this verse speaks of the Antichrist and "how the world will worship him in confusion."

I do not in any way question Rev. Cox's faith and sincerity, but his interpretation of Revelation seems to be the usual faulty dispensational version, which sees most of Revelation as future, and centered on a supposed 7-year tribulation period. This view is generally just picked up from popular books, such as Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth or from seminaries that have also bought into it.

One problem with exponents of this pop interpretation of Revelation is that they are always setting new dates for the “rapture.” There were dates set for 1988, 1994 and 2000 – among MANY others. This shows the error of this approach, which has led many astray interpretively.

The proper interpretation of this great book is one that takes its time setting for face value. These are things that “must quickly come to pass.” In fact, the entire internal evidence of the book points to a first-century fulfillment of its prophetic imagery.

In this particular passage, the “woman drunken with the blood of the saints” is Jerusalem. The imagery may lead one to think of Rome or some modern entity, but if the Old Testament connections and allusions are applied, the apostate, anti-Christian zealots of the first-century Jewish enemies of the Church come clearly into focus. Most of the book of Revelation is about God’s covenant lawsuit against apostate Israel which gone a-whoring after pagan Rome, and God’s righteous judgments against her for persecuting His New Covenant Spouse, the Church - and the glorious victory of Messiah and His people, composed of both the Jewish and Gentile elect.

The dispensationalist interpretation is fraught with a plethora of problems and inconsistencies and is greatly in need of rejection. The year 2000 debacle is just another example of this fact. Rev. Cox needs to read David Chilton’s Days of Vengeance for a good (though not perfect – none are) of this easily interpreted book – if its OT connections and first century fulfillments are properly understood.

What must be completely and totally recalled is that Revelation was written in metaphorical language. John wrote it while exiled for being a follower of Jesus the Christ. Therefore, he had to write in cryptic form so as not to arise concern.

Now, with that in the forefront, we have to contend now with interpretation. As can be noted from the previous post, there are differing views of interpretation. There is nothing to prove unequivocally and beyond any shadow of a doubt which interpretation is correct.

As for myself, I consider Revelation interesting and intriguing reading. Other than that, I tend to not delve into the interpretative aspects even with my own views considered.

What I do present is that people of Christian faith should care more about living the TWO greatest commands given. Why worry about things that are to come if one has prepared to not be present for those events?

Shalom

I find this fascination with godly fortune-telling more than a little bothersome. Ever since the beginning of the Christian era, when the religion took over Rome, there have been people basing their decisions in life on what they think the Bible predicts. So far, every expectation of imminent world-ending has proven false, yet even today, when Christ's return is nearly 2000 years overdue, people can still be found holing themselves up in caves, selling all their property, and wasting away their lives waiting for an apocalypse that never comes.

It seems to me that there is a basic question to be asked when it comes to the idea of telling the future: free will. How can that exist if the future is in fact known? If free will doesn't exist, how just can a god's "judgment" against sinners really be?

“Revelation was written in metaphorical language.” Darryl

Thanks guys, these are worthy, non-ad hominem, more-than-sound byte comments. Yes, Revelation IS written in what is known as “apocalyptic language.” The imagery used, however, was “cryptic,” or unintelligible, only to those who were not steeped in OT symbolic terminology. To any contemporary Jew, familiar with the Prophets (Naviim), ceremonial/sacrificial laws, and the layout of the Tabernacle and Temple, it would have been at least decipherable, if not fully understandable.

The term, “serpent” was used in both Genesis and Revelation for Shaitan (Deceiver). The term connotes a sneaky, slimy creature that hides and strikes suddenly and possibly mortally. It does NOT mean that Satan WAS a snake, either in Revelation or Genesis. This was simply the way ancient religious writers communicated their message. We are news print, blogified straight talkers – unidimensional if you will – for whom Revelation, and many other biblical passages, seem impenetrable.

“Therefore, he had to write in cryptic form so as not to arise concern.”

Possibly, although it is generally understood that any curious Roman or Greek could easily enlist the local rabbi to to explain the symbolism. There are NO military or political plans in Revelation that would threaten Roman authority. The Epistles were much more open and strategic in this regard. John used OT imagery because it was a ready-made source of rich, meaningful imagery that not only tied the NT to the OT, but created a multi-dimensional matrix upon which the theological and prophetic message of Revelation could be more powerfully communicated.

“There is nothing to prove unequivocally and beyond any shadow of a doubt which interpretation is correct.”

While no individual interpreter can claim infallibility regarding such a complex array of symbolic text, one can easily show that the pop dispensational tack is definitely a wrong turn, driven by a futuristic interpretive MO that impels faulty conclusions: date-setting and quirky behavior.

The more reasonable and logical interpretation is called the partial (NOT full) preterist approach. This view takes the language of the text and applies it to the events and personages of the first century. This does proper justice to the OT symbolism and purpose of the book, which was to give the NT Christians a handle on the cataclysmic events of their time, in a truly Messianic context. When you open it up to the future you can assign any meaning you want to the apocalyptic language of the text. Thus, locusts become Apache helicopters for Hal Lindsay, and the “Antichrist” becomes any number of modern figures, from Hitler to the Pope. When I discovered the postmillennial, preterist approach it caused all the pieces of the puzzle to come together and Revelation became a useful, de-mystified addition to the NT.

Other views are: classic premillenial, historicist, amillenial, and “spiritual.”

Namtac, I hope this addresses your “bothersome” response to Revelation, which is promulgated by faulty dispensational sensationalism, rather than a sensible, text-based exegsis. This deletes any “godly fortune-telling” from the page, and shows the true purpose and content of this powerful book of covenantal theology. It IS, however, prophetic, since written (according to some) before 70 A.D., thus setting the stage for the covenantal judgments of God on the apostate religious elite of Messiah-rejecting Israel. Of course, most early Christians were faithful, believing Jews.

Sorry I wrote so long. But, as you can see, a responsible and in-depth treatment of this great text is the ONLY way to make sense of it. And my brief musings only scratch the surface. A good treatment of this view is David Chilton’s Days of Vengeance. Also look up “preterist” online. A sound-byte MO is totally insufficient to treat this genre of literature, and conveys false and superficial impressions as to its purpose and content.

"Why worry about things that are to come if one has prepared to not be present for those events?"..........
paul said this. ...Phil 3:13 No, dear brothers, I am still not all I should be, but I am bringing all my energies to bear on this one thing: Forgetting the past and looking forward to what lies ahead.
now i realize that you do not hold pauls wittings as scriptural, many of us do - having said that, paul tells us to look ahead - some of scripture talks about events in the future, it gives us signs and times to be on the lookout for - if we relegate scripture worhtless that speak of things ahead, imo we do great disservice to Gods word and to our intended walk with Him. i echo pauls words for my own life...."I am still not all I should be".