The Book of Revelation: Mystery Or Profitable?
- Thread starter Arial
- Start date
Bible Project overview of Zechariah:
8 minute video
I'm not sure the colors are representative of anything in particular in Revelation anymore than the colors in Zechariah, but that the different colors are used to distinguish one from another.
Almost all scholars agree that Zec 1 and Zec 6 are the images John has in mind when writing of the horses in Revelation.
Consider the Red Sea and the Black Sea as locations. The Mediterranean is know as the white sea and I have Constantine coming from there. Islam from the Red Sea and Communism from the Black Sea.
Arial
Active member
Good video. The Bible truly is a tapestry, interwoven, and breathtaking when we begin to see more and more of it.
I don't know that the colors are necessarily representing anything either, and may be for a distinction. Some say yes, some no, and I don't think it is particularly necessary to get it even if it is there. I do know this, that the colors were chosen, an chosen by God, so there is nothing arbitrary about it, even if it is for a distinction. They are supposed to be the color that they are. Certainly each represented a particular aspect of the judgment, and God's control over it.
This is a thread where someone brought up the seven churches and made a unsubstantiated claim that these churches were somehow both Jewish and Gentile, which is not true and which I proved was not true by directly quoting the very scripture that was brought up and which you have no completely ignored TWICE!!
Arial
Active member
I have GD. That was what presented not only confusion and some of the contradictions I encountered in my thinking in Revelation, but also contradictions to other parts of the Bible. That is why I am investigating other schools of thought.
It's directly related to what was said in the opening post, Ariel. You simply don't have a response to any of it and are looking for excuses to go on posting one post after another after another after another as though you're some sort of bible scholar and TOL your private blog site.
This was a lie. The previous "three steps forward and two steps back" comment is proof enough to anyone who knows anything about dispensationalism that you haven't the faintest clue about what it teaches or why it teaches it.
What's more is that you don't care what it teaches or why and aren't interested in even discussing the possibility that your understanding of Revelation is incorrect.
Incidentally, it is ONLY dispensationalists who are likely to be able to disagree with your understanding with any degree of consistency. Anyone else would simply be stating their person opinions the same way you are.
Arial
Active member
Substantiated
Substantiated
None of these passages indicates that John is speaking to only Jews. You simply, with no substantiation whatsoever, assume that they are simply because of the words used I guess. They do not say that to me and not even close.
kings and priests. Though Israel was a nation of kings and priests, they failed to be faithful to the covenant, and they rejected their King when He came. Salvation was given to faithful believing Jews (those who did not reject Him) and to the believing Gentiles. This can be found in Romans and I am not going to post it all here. That all believers are now a kingdom of priests is seen in 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:9;Rev 5:9-10; Rev 20:6.
A thousand years represents a long unspecified period of time, in some instances, forever. In Rev 20:6 The second death has no power over any believer so it is not talking about Jews only. Not to mention the churches John was writing to were all in Asia, and had Paul preaching to them, so were not exclusively Jewish and these scriptures you used to say they were, don't say that at all. Try a bit of history or the book of Acts and the travels of Paul, and then substantiate your claim.
I know your works. These are the works mentioned: deeds, perseverance, testing of those who claim to be apostles, endured hardships for His name, and have not grown weary.
Repent and do the first works. These were the first works. The love they had at first.
Those who say they are Jews and are not but are a synagogue of Satan. Do you really think that because it uses the words Jew and synagogue that means the audience is all Jewish? Here is some history. The Jewish synagogue in Smyma was composed of Jews who rejected the message concerning the Messiah. They professed to worship God but their opposition to Christians showed that they were really under the power of Satanic darkness (2 Cor 4:4)
stumbling block before the children of Israel. Yup Baalam did that to the children of Israel/
I will give to each according to the work that you do. Sure. How does that say only Jews received John's letter?
Now. Can I get back to the topic of the OP?
Arial
Active member
I haven't looked at these two on Revelation yet but I will. The one on Ezek. was maaavelous dawling. The person who does them has his act together on how to present it so it is encompassing but brief, easy to follow, and easy to retain. In addition Ez showed me things that I have not put together in just that way, but shows so vividly that interweaving and perfect consistency and importance of every word in the Bible. It gave me yet a deeper and larger picture of God. And that is my greatest desire of all.
You know I have.
That's what every doctrinal stance claims, and they all use scripture to do it.
They don't give answers that satisfy you, and you don't give answers that satisfy them.
To me it's not only good to question the viewpoint of the opposing crowd, but to question my own viewpoint as well.
You made claims. That's not the same as substantiating anything.
I make no such assumption. God's word tells us EXPLICITLY that Peter, James and John agreed that they would minister to Israel while Paul ministered to the Gentiles. One test of whether that is true is to read things written by John to see if they seem to be consistent with that. And, low and behold, that's exactly what we find.
True!
True but, prior to Paul, believing Gentiles had to become proselytic Jews (i.e. they had to be circumcised and submit to the law of Moses (there were exceptions to this generality, like the suspension of animal sacrifices for example (See the book of Hebrews))).
Romans is written by Paul to believers under Paul's gospel and it could not possibly be any clearer about NOT submitting to the law and that salvation is by faith alone apart from works.
These epistles were written by Peter and John, who agreed with Paul to minister to the Circumcision. Thus, of course they would talk in terms of the kingdom and priesthood because they were writing to what we dispensationalists refer to as "Kingdom believers". That is, they were writing to those who were saved while the now previous dispensation was still in effect. Such believers would not convert over to the new dispensation but would rightly remain as they were when they were called (see Romans 11:9).
Your ignorance of dispensationalism is showing here. Paul preached to Jews first wherever he went, particularly early in his ministry. There were Jewish churches (i.e. synagogues) all over Asia.
As for the latter portions of Revelation, it does indeed talk about times that happen, not only after the Body of Christ is raptured away but after the Time of JACOB'S (i.e. ISRAEL'S) Trouble (a.k.a. the Tribulation) and after the thousand year reign of Christ FROM JERUSALEM (that's in Israel, by the way) as the King of Kings. After which time, God will destroy Satan and all those who are evil in the Lake of Fire as well as the current Heaven and Earth. He'll then make a brand new Earth where the NEW JERUSALEM will descend from the New Heaven and then believing Israel will inherit the Earth just as was promised to them (i.e. not the Body of Christ who citizenship is not on Earth but in Heaven (Philippians 3:17 & Philippians 3:20)). I mean just how much more Jewish can this book get? There's references to Israel from beginning to end!
Precisely! Just the things that are a part of the law and not of grace. (Romans 4:5, II Timothy 2:13).
Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles) 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Not in dispute and not relevant to the point.
Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
Still think this isn't relevant to your post? I mean, we are now talking about the very gospel itself!
The OP is all we've been talking about, Ariel. Just because someone took it in a direction you didn't expect doesn't mean they've changed the subject. The bottom line is that if one fails to see that John's ministry was to Israel then they have no hope of understanding the book of Revelation or most any other book of the bible for that matter.
Context is everything and perhaps the most important aspect of context has to do with WHO is speaking and WHO is being spoken to. In many respects, its not even possible to understand what is being said unless and until you understand who is speaking and to whom. It this all important context that the OP misses.
Clete
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yes, I know you have. When I first came to this forum the dispensational people really helped me figure a lot of things out that I couldn't before. I realize now the mid-acts might be considered hyper-dispensational, but the regular dispensationalists still miss some things that the folks here catch. Like the bride vs. body of Christ. It makes a lot of difference, especially when you get to Revelation. I just find it all very fascinating.
I figure there is no better way to spend my old age than studying the word of God. And you're one of my favorite people to do that with.
Arial
Active member
That is why I am looking at and presenting a different view, one I am just beginning to look at. It was my hope, and still is, that this could be a discussion on this view with insights and questions and understandings and discoveries, that we, the participants find together as we look into it. Most of all pulling the purpose and beauty of Revelation into our wheelhouse, irregardless of the different ways of interpretation. So far in my own study on this idealist view, though it may not be accurate on all accounts it is not untruthful in the message it discloses in Revelation. It's purpose in our Bible and for believers. That is really why I am presenting it.
It is not so much that I do not listen to opposing views. There is one opposing view that has arrived in the thread, that of dispensationalism. The opposition from some (ok one) has been a complete derailment from my purpose, and become a debate between the dispensationalism/ futurist/premillennialism school of interpretation and anything that dares not agree. And then a sub derailment that becomes personal. I might as well have started a thread to discuss the Trinity on a forum full of unitarians.
I thank you that even though, according to my gleanings over time, you are a dispensationalist, you are sticking to the exploring and presenting. I am not wedded to any school of thought. I am exploring. At the moment, and in this thread, I am exploring and looking for those treasures that can be found in Revelation through the idealist view that make that book relevant to Christians of all times---as it was meant to be----and not simply a book that tells the future and is so scary that rather than being strengthened and encouraged by it in our everyday trials and troubles, and hopeless and discouraged by what is going on in the world around us now, we look for a hope of being able to escape trials and tribulations. As though they are not occurring right now and have been through all history and will continue until the last day, but all occur in a short span of time, usually deemed the Tribulation.
Arial
Active member
That pretty much does what I have been trying to do. Give another perspective. I like too that the presentation reminds us that Revelation is written to the seven churches---all of it and not just those first chapters that mention the seven churches directly. It is real easy to lose sight of that in what follows. I did and do for sure, but remembering that one thing can help us keep the proper perspective. And like all the other letters we have in the NT, it is also for us, and all believers of all time, and for the same reasons.
I'm not wedded to any system either.
I am a dispensationalist as far as the Church not "replacing" Israel.
But I am not a hyper dispensationalist.
Arial
Active member
I am aware that there are several "branches" of dispensationalism as there are many branches of almost everything, and I of course do not discount dispensationalism as a whole, and never everything they may believe (depends on what it is, ha, ha.) What I do disagree with definitively, is a school of thought that says the millennial reign is a literal thousand years in which God is dealing separately with the nation of Israel after the second coming of Christ, And that during this time all the OT covenant law and sacrifices (the things the Bible tells us point to Christ and are fulfilled in Him, and were temporary and a part of the old covenant) are reinstated. Neither the whole of the NT nor Revelation itself support this in my opinion. For one, only two ages are mentioned. This age and the age to come. The last days and then the last day. There are not two ages to come.The millennial age and the new heaven and the new earth, unless the millennial age is somehow misunderstood as to its meaning. I will present the different views on the millennial reign in a separate post and would appreciate your own input.
Having said that, I do not believe the Church replaces Israel. I believe that God, in Christ, adopted believing Gentiles into Israel. And Israel itself is adopted by God Rom 9:2-5. In that chapter Paul is grieving over his countrymen btw and also offering them hope by preaching the gospel. Israel is very important to God, He made them a people and a nation, He chose them as His people. He chose Jerusalem to dwell as a meeting place for the people with Him. He entered into covenant with them. He sent the Savior through them. This is what the Gentile is adopted into---this relationship---not replacing it but adding to it. So in a very real sense, and not at all discounting the unique relationship God has with and to Israel, both the nation (land mass) and the people, Israel, the word or category, also has an application to the phrase, "God's people." Even the OT Jews were not all saved as they were disobedient in the worst of ways and over and over again. That is how unredeemed humanity is. Full and eternal salvation, even them, was the same way it is now---through faith.
And because of God's relationship to Israel, Israel is much beloved and treasured by me also. So much so that nearly all by many dogs since my conversion had Hebrew names, chosen for their meaning. The Airedale Mercy being an exception---but close enough. Even to the one I have now all those years since the first two Sarah of Canaan and Israel v Tanker and their son Baruch Avigdor (Rotties), Boaz.
Last edited:
Yeah, 1000 years can mean "all encompassed".
Example of this is when scripture says:
Psalms 50:10-11 ESV
(10) For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.
(11) I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine.
Obviously all cattle on all hills are the Lords, so 1000 is an idiom for all.
However, scripture does say that AFTER the 1000 years Satan will be released.
So the 1000 years it is speaking of cannot mean "all" of time.
It is speaking of Satan being released after 1000 years, so if it's not a literal 1000 years then how long is it after the reign of Christ does it happen?
Thanks, I look forward to it.
I don't buy into the "adoption" theory, but I leave my options open.
And where I depart from mainstream dispensationalist is that I do not believe Peter, James, and John were teaching another gospel.
Mainly because Paul says that if anyone teaches another gospel than the one he teaches it should be anathema.
I find it very difficult to believe that Paul would say that of the gospel Peter, James, and John were teaching.