Why don't we interpret the Revelation literally?

[Edial]

Why do we interpret entire Bible literally, including Communion and Baptism, but do not interpret the Revelation literally?

It is so easy to read the Revelation as a futuristic event and interpret it as actual events that would be happening in Heaven and events that would be happening on Earth.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Kingdom Cross]

We don't interpret the whole Bible literally. Why should this be assumed? Must get syllogisms correct from the start.

Anyway, the writer is quite clear that he was "in the spirit on the Lord's Day" when he saw the many visions. We don't know whether this was an ecstasy, a dream, or something else. It's the only part of the New Testament that isn't just a history or a letter. That alone is grounds to interpret it differently, I think.

The fact that much of the vision is about the worship of the faithful in Heaven has led many Roman Catholics to say that it's primarily a "mystical liturgical book". The parts after Chapter 12 don't really lend themselves to that, though......

 

[Edial]

We don't interpret the whole Bible literally. Why should this be assumed? Must get syllogisms correct from the start.

Anyway, the writer is quite clear that he was "in the spirit on the Lord's Day" when he saw the many visions. We don't know whether this was an ecstasy, a dream, or something else. It's the only part of the New Testament that isn't just a history or a letter. That alone is grounds to interpret it differently, I think.

The fact that much of the vision is about the worship of the faithful in Heaven has led many Roman Catholics to say that it's primarily a "mystical liturgical book". The parts after Chapter 12 don't really lend themselves to that, though......

But vision is a true event.
It is just a window into another world or place. We often treat visions are something that is not real.

Besides, when Jesus appeared in chapter 1 and John turned around at the sound of His voice and passed out from fear, the Bible says Jesus touched him. Visions do not touch.

I think we are doing it all wrong.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[filosofer]

There is a difference between literalistic and literal. Literalistic does not take into account various forms of expression. Thus, it becomes rigid, flattening the texts to be all alike. That does not serve well in communication and interpretation. Sadly a literalistic approach most often demands literalistic in the portions that are symbolic (Revelation), and often symbolic in portions that are literal (Lord's Supper).

Literal means that we take seriously the kind of literature/expressions and the distinctions. Thus, a parable taken literally means to understand parables as intended, not to literalistically as if it were historical narrative. Likewise, poetic sections are taken literally meaning that we understand that the structure and patterns and sometimes images are not taken literalistically. Thus, "the trees clapping their hands" is understood not to mean that the trees have actual hands and they clap, but that the movement expresses something through imagery.

So, we are literal, taking each method of writing as its own form, style, manner, and language.

Sorry for the brevity. I am trying to summarize a seminary 10-week course I teach on Hermeneutics.

 

[Edial]

There is a difference between literalistic and literal. Literalistic does not take into account various forms of expression. Thus, it becomes rigid, flattening the texts to be all alike. That does not serve well in communication and interpretation. Sadly a literalistic approach most often demands literalistic in the portions that are symbolic (Revelation), and often symbolic in portions that are literal (Lord's Supper).

Literal means that we take seriously the kind of literature/expressions and the distinctions. Thus, a parable taken literally means to understand parables as intended, not to literalistically as if it were historical narrative. Likewise, poetic sections are taken literally meaning that we understand that the structure and patterns and sometimes images are not taken literalistically. Thus, "the trees clapping their hands" is understood not to mean that the trees have actual hands and they clap, but that the movement expresses something through imagery.

So, we are literal, taking each method of writing as its own form, style, manner, and language.

Sorry for the brevity. I am trying to summarize a seminary 10-week course I teach on Hermeneutics.

Not bad for a 10-week course summary.

 

[Tetzel]

How do we read it?

Why do we read it?

Can you even read prophecy in a figurative manner? Doesn't that render the prophecy unfalsifiable?

 

[ContraMundum]

One reason why is that verse 1 sets the tone:

Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

It literally reads:

Rev 1:1 A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves things which must occur quickly. And He signified by sending through His angel to His slave, John,

The word εσημανεν there is to "give a sign or token". A related word σημειον is translated as "sign" as in Rev 12:1. A lot of Reformed types will argue against this (but let's face it, people argue about anything and everything in religion) but I found that the older Lutheran books that I have that deal with the OP present this position.

 

[Edial]

One reason why is that verse 1 sets the tone:

Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

It literally reads:

Rev 1:1 A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to show to His slaves things which must occur quickly. And He signified by sending through His angel to His slave, John,

The word εσημανεν there is to "give a sign or token". A related word σημειον is translated as "sign" as in Rev 12:1. A lot of Reformed types will argue against this (but let's face it, people argue about anything and everything in religion) but I found that the older Lutheran books that I have that deal with the OP present this position.

Well, this is what it says ...

REV 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, ...

"Made it known" means "signified".
The Angel who was sent to John is a sign, a confirmation, that this indeed is a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Sign is a true event that signifies something else.

From what I see, the point of the Revelation is that we are to take it literally. All we need to understand where events take place, in spiritual world or natural world?

In Rev 12, the woman giving birth and dragon trying to devour the child, is a sign of something else. We understand woman is Israel, child is Jesus and dragon is the devil ... down here.
Up there it is a woman, child, dragon.

For some reason we do not see that WE are the shadow of the Heavenly world and not the other way around.

We are the symbol, not them.

 

[Edial]

How do we read it?

Why do we read it?

Can you even read prophecy in a figurative manner? Doesn't that render the prophecy unfalsifiable?

But this is not a prophecy in a context of every prophecy of the OT.

John is taken up and told to write what he sees.

He saw the creatures with wings and eyes all over ... do they really look like that? someone might ask - of course.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'd argue that it's a good idea to understand Scripture in context, and that includes literary context. We read the epistles as epistles, the Psalms as psalms, the histories as histories. And so we also read apocalypses as apocalypses. The Apocalypse of St. John is an apocalypse, its literary genre is apocalyptic. We don't read apocalyptic texts literally because that isn't the sort of text it is. The text, on many occasions, is clear that what is being described are symbols. For example it describes a harlot riding upon a scarlet beast, the harlot is called Babylon and is said to be a city; the beast is described as having many heads and many crowns, representing a series of kings.

These are clear internal clues to how the text is supposed to be read, and evidence of it being an apocalyptic text.

We don't read it literally because the text isn't supposed to be read literally, because reading it literally is wrong, and would result in all manner of weird interpretations--evidenced already by the number of cults and sects who have used this text to say all manner of bizarre positions over the years. Not least of which being the strange creature that is Dispensationalism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ContraMundum]

Well, this is what it says ...

REV 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, ...

"Made it known" means "signified".
The Angel who was sent to John is a sign, a confirmation, that this indeed is a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Sign is a true event that signifies something else.

From what I see, the point of the Revelation is that we are to take it literally. All we need to understand where events take place, in spiritual world or natural world?

In Rev 12, the woman giving birth and dragon trying to devour the child, is a sign of something else. We understand woman is Israel, child is Jesus and dragon is the devil ... down here.
Up there it is a woman, child, dragon.

For some reason we do not see that WE are the shadow of the Heavenly world and not the other way around.

We are the symbol, not them.

That's one way of looking at it and I think it's quite agreeable. I think it's important to remember that signs and symbols can still be true- but not literally so. For example, the Psalms describe God as having wings- like a typical depiction of the ancient pagan gods- but that doesn't mean He does have real wings complete with feathers. It's a symbolic representation of a spiritual truth. So it's still absolutely true, but it's given through signs and symbols.

 

[Cjwinnit]

If I may venture a suggestion...

We can read all the other letters and books of the Bible in their context in history. We can't do that with Revelation because most of it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Edial]

That's one way of looking at it and I think it's quite agreeable. I think it's important to remember that signs and symbols can still be true- but not literally so. For example, the Psalms describe God as having wings- like a typical depiction of the ancient pagan gods- but that doesn't mean He does have real wings complete with feathers. It's a symbolic representation of a spiritual truth. So it's still absolutely true, but it's given through signs and symbols.

OK, but Psalms is a poetic language ...
PS 91:4 He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

I do not see anything poetic in the Revelation in that context.
A lot of it is a very technical and descriptive language of creatures from another world.
Even as an atheist I assumed that aliens from another planets would not look like me.

 

[Edial]

I'd argue that it's a good idea to understand Scripture in context, and that includes literary context. We read the epistles as epistles, the Psalms as psalms, the histories as histories. And so we also read apocalypses as apocalypses. The Apocalypse of St. John is an apocalypse, its literary genre is apocalyptic. We don't read apocalyptic texts literally because that isn't the sort of text it is. The text, on many occasions, is clear that what is being described are symbols. For example it describes a harlot riding upon a scarlet beast, the harlot is called Babylon and is said to be a city; the beast is described as having many heads and many crowns, representing a series of kings.

These are clear internal clues to how the text is supposed to be read, and evidence of it being an apocalyptic text.

We don't read it literally because the text isn't supposed to be read literally, because reading it literally is wrong, and would result in all manner of weird interpretations--evidenced already by the number of cults and sects who have used this text to say all manner of bizarre positions over the years. Not least of which being the strange creature that is Dispensationalism.

-CryptoLutheran

Yet the harlot on the beast is indeed literal.

This is what I mean.

The Bible teaches that we are a shadow of the Heavens.

For example, we know that the Temple on earth is an exact representation of the temple in Heaven.

HEB 8:5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."
​

In Heaven there is a Woman ... on Earth it is the Israel
In Heaven there are trees. A tree comes down up-there, a nations gets wiped out down here.

So the Harlot on the Beast with many heads is a real demoness who leads the whole world astray with her adulteries (spiritual adulteries mean any type of betrayal, politics, etc)

 

[Edial]

If I may venture a suggestion...

We can read all the other letters and books of the Bible in their context in history. We can't do that with Revelation because most of it hasn't happened yet.

Very true.

And if we read it literally and use some deductive reasoning we have in a number of places that artificial life-forums would become a normal way of life. Medical advances would be incredible, space exploration as well ...

I am teaching it from beginning to the end for the 3rd, 4th time now.
Very literal interpretation. Each time it is more and more amazing how the Scriptures add up in a most literal way.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[ViaCrucis]

OK, but Psalms is a poetic language ...
PS 91:4 He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

I do not see anything poetic in the Revelation in that context.
A lot of it is a very technical and descriptive language of creatures from another world.
Even as an atheist I assumed that aliens from another planets would not look like me.

Why would you take the poetic language of the Psalms non-literally but insist that the apocalyptic language of the Revelation must be literal?

Why is there a literal prostitute who rides upon a hydra-like monster, but yet God doesn't have wings or feathers? On what basis do you make such a determination?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Edial]

Why would you take the poetic language of the Psalms non-literally but insist that the apocalyptic language of the Revelation must be literal?

Why is there a literal prostitute who rides upon a hydra-like monster, but yet God doesn't have wings or feathers? On what basis do you make such a determination?

-CryptoLutheran

On the context of the text.

If you read it John describes in the minutest details how these creatures look like. Context.
We do believe in demons and other beings yet strangely enough do not believe their description.

What I am saying is that we are so used to our understanding that the world revolves around us and around our world we have difficulties accepting other life forms even if they are described as clear as day.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[grayheavens1]

Very true.

And if we read it literally and use some deductive reasoning we have in a number of places that artificial life-forums would become a normal way of life. Medical advances would be incredible, space exploration as well ...

I am teaching it from beginning to the end for the 3rd, 4th time now.
Very literal interpretation. Each time it is more and more amazing how the Scriptures add up in a most literal way.

Thanks,
Ed

So do you yourself find Revelation to be a literal book?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why do we interpret entire Bible literally, including Communion and Baptism, but do not interpret the Revelation literally?

It is so easy to read the Revelation as a futuristic event and interpret it as actual events that would be happening in Heaven and events that would be happening on Earth.

Thanks,
Ed

Some portions of Revelation tell the reader that what is written in that part is a vision. Should one take a vision of a beast rising from the sea, a great red dragon, and a talking image of the beast literally when they are said by the author to be visions?

 

[Edial]

So do you yourself find Revelation to be a literal book?

Yes, I do.
Once we understand where events takes place (heaven or earth), once we accept the reality of events in a spiritual realm to be as real as described - it is a literal book.