Why don't we interpret the Revelation literally?

[Edial]

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?

Great question.
Visions are not dreams and need to be interpreted.
(Some dreams are visions while being asleep, but that's another topic).

Visions are actual events seen in a spiritual realm.
A window. A portal.
- Elijah's spiritual eyes were opened and he saw the chariots of fire and horses surrounding him. Then they disappeared. Spiritual eyes closed.
- Stephen saw the Heavens open and Christ standing at the side of the Father.
Then they killed him.

Visions are ALSO signs. This means this actual event also points to something else.

Visions are actual events occurring in the spiritual realm.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[MoreCoffee]

Great question.
Visions are not dreams and need to be interpreted.
(Some dreams are visions while being asleep, but that's another topic).

Visions are actual events seen in a spiritual realm.
A window. A portal.
- Elijah's spiritual eyes were opened and he saw the chariots of fire and horses surrounding him. Then they disappeared. Spiritual eyes closed.
- Stephen saw the Heavens open and Christ standing at the side of the Father.
Then they killed him.

Visions are ALSO signs. This means this actual event also points to something else.

Visions are actual events occurring in the spiritual realm.

Thanks,
Ed

Where is the sea that the beast rises out of then? Is it an earthly sea or a sea in a spiritual realm?

 

[Edial]

Where is the sea that the beast rises out of then? Is it an earthly sea or a sea in a spiritual realm?

Earthly.
It happened after Satan was cast down to earth together with his angels.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Earthly.
It happened after Satan was cast down to earth together with his angels.

The beast rising out of the sea is called a vision, right?

 

[Edial]

The beast rising out of the sea is called a vision, right?

Right. Spiritual beast coming out of the sea.

At that time the spiritual and physical would start intermingling a lot more than today, since the kingdom of heaven is nearing the earth.

Eventually some of the artificial life forms would include demons (spirits) in artificial bodies. Science would be involved in that as well.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Right. Spiritual beast coming out of the sea.

At that time the spiritual and physical would start intermingling a lot more than today, since the kingdom of heaven is nearing the earth.

Eventually some of the artificial life forms would include demons (spirits) in artificial bodies. Science would be involved in that as well.

Not spiritual beast rising out of spiritual sea?

 

[Edial]

Not spiritual beast rising out of spiritual sea?

No, the same way as the 2nd beast would rise from earth.

The point of a vision is that it shows actual event in either the spiritual or physical worlds.

Dreams need to be interpreted. That is different.
Some dreams are not actual events, but need to be interpreted.

There are however also vision/dreams (like Gabriel telling Joseph to take Mary as his wife). Seeing actual events while you are asleep.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, the same way as the 2nd beast would rise from earth.

The point of a vision is that it shows actual event in either the spiritual or physical worlds.

Dreams need to be interpreted. That is different.
Some dreams are not actual events, but need to be interpreted.

There are however also vision/dreams (like Gabriel telling Joseph to take Mary as his wife). Seeing actual events while you are asleep.

It's a mixed vision then; spiritual and earthly?

 

[Edial]

It's a mixed vision then; spiritual and earthly?

Vision is a window, a TV set that shows events of real life.
That real life might be physical or spiritual in nature.

The point of a vision is that it shows reality in exact shape and form as they really are.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Vision a window, a TV set that shows events of real life.
That real life might be physical or spiritual in nature.

The point of a vision is that it shows reality in exact shape and form as they really are.

So it is mixed then, right?

 

[Edial]

So it is mixed then, right?

Yes, it may include the realities of physical as well as spiritual worlds.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, it may include the realities of physical as well as spiritual worlds.

What of the Great red dragon, spiritual or earthly?

 

[Edial]

What of the Great red dragon, spiritual or earthly?

I would like to know what your point is please, since we already addressed the Beast.
If you make the point with relevant example it could be easier to handle?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I would like to know what your point is please, since we already addressed the Beast.
If you make the point with relevant example it could be easier to handle?

The point I am making is that claims to read the Apocalypse "literally" - by which it appears is meant that one reads it as applicable to earthly things that really exist - is a very fraught claim to support. It appears that as soon as the claim is made numerous exceptions must also be made to cater for the visions and the creatures in the visions.

If one reads the Apocalypse of saint John the theologian with the same care as the church fathers then the issue of being "literal" disappears. The books is a book of visions of heavenly things and their earthly counterparts are to be found in the church and in her enemies.

The book is not, as some suppose, a timetable for future persecutions, wars, miracles, and world shattering wrath. But that is rather obvious I think. So when one reads it is it helpful to read the church fathers with it and to examine the liturgy of the church as well.

 

[Edial]

The point I am making is that claims to read the Apocalypse "literally" - by which it appears is meant that one reads it as applicable to earthly things that really exist - is a very fraught claim to support. It appears that as soon as the claim is made numerous exceptions must also be made to cater for the visions and the creatures in the visions.

If one reads the Apocalypse of saint John the theologian with the same care as the church fathers then the issue of being "literal" disappears. The books is a book of visions of heavenly things and their earthly counterparts are to be found in the church and in her enemies.

The book is not, as some suppose, a timetable for future persecutions, wars, miracles, and world shattering wrath. But that is rather obvious I think. So when one reads it is it helpful to read the church fathers with it and to examine the liturgy of the church as well.

But what makes you say that a word 'literally' means "real life in the physical world". 'Literally' means real life in a physical OR spiritual world.
Yes, the beast looks exactly as described in the spiritual world. So do the creatures by the throne of God with 6 wings and eyes all over even under the wings.
My uncle, who passed away, was archbishop of Armenian Apostolic church.
Really good man. He loved me very much.
I asked him about the Revelation. He said they do not understand it.
It was a great and honest answer.

Any books has a liturgical aspect, OK. But any book also is written to be understood for what it was intended.

The book is definitely about the wrath that is upcoming, the Apocalypse, anti-Christ, 2nd Coming, world events of the future and the Great Judgment.

If we choose to symbolize that, let's do so. But at least let's agree, like my uncle did, that the ones who symbolize it do not understand the book.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But what makes you say that a word 'literally' means "real life in the physical world". 'Literally' means real life in a physical OR spiritual world.

I didn't say that. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word thus: In a literal manner or sense; exactly: the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the roundabout.

If you do not intend to read the Apocalypse literally then say so.

Yes, the beast looks exactly as described in the spiritual world. So do the creatures by the throne of God with 6 wings and eyes all over even under the wings.

And the lamb of God has seven eyes?

My uncle, who passed away, was archbishop of Armenian Apostolic church.
Really good man. He loved me very much. I asked him about the Revelation. He said they do not understand it. It was a great and honest answer.

Any book has a liturgical aspect, OK. But any book also is written to be understood for what it was intended.

The book is definitely about the wrath that is upcoming, the Apocalypse, anti-Christ, 2nd Coming, world events of the future and the Great Judgment.

If we choose to symbolize that, let's do so. But at least let's agree, like my uncle did, that the ones who symbolize it do not understand the book.

I see no reason to agree with what you say your uncle said.

 

[filosofer]

It appears as if there is some confusion about the term “literal.” What some call “literal” is really “literalistic.” This latter term is what happens when we try to flatten out a passage and demand that it be understood only in one sense, which would mean there is no difference between poetic, narrative, symbolic, etc.

Understanding a text as “literal”means that we interpret a text within the genre that it was written. So, we don’t impose on poetic texts a literalistic sense (God has to have feathers), nor do we take symbolic imagery as absolutes in a literalistic sense (the chain binding Satan has to be iron).

People do not interpret our situation in a rigid literalistic manner. ”My wife is a rose” does not mean that she is red, is about three feet high, and has thorns sticking out from her. Rather, by such a phrase I want to take some of the characteristics of a rose to illustrate a specific point about my wife (beauty, etc.). Yet when approaching the Bible people forget all about that, and demand everything be literalistic. Leads to very poor understanding, and worse, teaching about what the Bible does teach.

Interestingly I find that those who demand literalistic interpretation of Revelation usually want to demand non-literalistic interpretation of the Gospels or the Epistles.

Thus, when I teach hermeneutics (in seminary and in the congregation) I spend most of the time looking at various genre and have people begin to interpret the according to that genre. Obviously there is much more to this hermeneutical process, but at least they know that interpreting narrative involves something not found in poetic sections, etc.

 

[Edial]

dp

 

[Edial]

It appears as if there is some confusion about the term “literal.” What some call “literal” is really “literalistic.” This latter term is what happens when we try to flatten out a passage and demand that it be understood only in one sense, which would mean there is no difference between poetic, narrative, symbolic, etc.

Understanding a text as “literal”means that we interpret a text within the genre that it was written. So, we don’t impose on poetic texts a literalistic sense (God has to have feathers), nor do we take symbolic imagery as absolutes in a literalistic sense (the chain binding Satan has to be iron).

People do not interpret our situation in a rigid literalistic manner. ”My wife is a rose” does not mean that she is red, is about three feet high, and has thorns sticking out from her. Rather, by such a phrase I want to take some of the characteristics of a rose to illustrate a specific point about my wife (beauty, etc.). Yet when approaching the Bible people forget all about that, and demand everything be literalistic. Leads to very poor understanding, and worse, teaching about what the Bible does teach.

Interestingly I find that those who demand literalistic interpretation of Revelation usually want to demand non-literalistic interpretation of the Gospels or the Epistles.

Thus, when I teach hermeneutics (in seminary and in the congregation) I spend most of the time looking at various genre and have people begin to interpret the according to that genre. Obviously there is much more to this hermeneutical process, but at least they know that interpreting narrative involves something not found in poetic sections, etc.

Rich, can you tell me what word I should be using to explain what I mean?

What I mean is this. John describes exactly what he sees, like drawing a detailed picture of what he sees.
And what he sees is actually what things look like.

Now, MoreCoffee is asking if the Lamb actually has 7 eyes?
Yet we know that the Lamb is Jesus Christ while elsewhere in Revelation he looks like a Man.

The context says a lot.

You are a Pastor and you wear robes, stoles, each color means something and so forth.
What they do there, they do the same thing.
But they do not "wear" things, they become what their role is at that time.
During the Service, before the attack at the Rev 4,5 we saw many things.
Even on Earth, angels looked like men while rescuing Lot and so forth.

So what word should I use when I say that things are exactly as John describes them?

(I know we had similar discussion years back, and yes, I believe that the chains the Satan was bound with for 1000 years are literal chains, that look like chains, but not necessarily made of the earthly material).

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[Edial]

I didn't say that. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word thus: In a literal manner or sense; exactly: the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the roundabout.

If you do not intend to read the Apocalypse literally then say so.

But I do agree with Oxford - "the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the roundabout".

And the lamb of God has seven eyes?

Yes. Yet we know the Lamb is Jesus Christ.
In that world the beings can change appearance the way we put costumes on during the service or a stage play.
It was clearly shown when Angels appeared as men when rescuing Lot.

Here we have makeup and costumes and robes and colors and each one has a meaning of true events that are in Heaven.

WE are the shadow of Heaven and it is not the other way around.

I see no reason to agree with what you say your uncle said.

OK. Then we should agree that if a certain denomination or interpreters do not understand the Revelation is does not mean the book is meant to be not understood.
If someone does not understand the book they simply step aside and listen what others have to say instead of saying - since I do not understand it, no one can.