Ship of Fools: Kerygmania: Apocalyptic writings

Thread: Kerygmania: Apocalyptic writings Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001309

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

My Bible study group will be tackling Revelation in a month or two. I have studied Revelation twice before using Michael Wilcock's The Message of Revelation (original title, I Saw Heaven Opened). I couldn't have gotten anywhere without it, but I still don't get Revelation the way I do most of the rest of the Bible.

One thing I learned from Wilcock is that Revelation is like a description of an enormous picture. It's much to big to describe all at once, so it is described in pieces. This means that if something occurs several chapters after something else, this is not a chronological statement. The other useful thing I learned from Wilcock was that if something in Revelation is bewildering, the thing to do is see whether this occurs anywhere else in the Bible. If it does and the meaning in that other place is clear, try applying that meaning to the passage in Revelation.

I have read a commentary on Daniel which said that apocalyptic writing began when it became clear that the glory days of Israel were over. The apocalyptic writings made the statement that God was in charge and that everything would be all right in the end.

This is basically what I understand. Can anyone give me more information?

Moo

[ 28. May 2016, 01:59: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

I'd agree with all of that. The most helpful book I've read on Revelation is Eugene Boring's commentary in the Interpretation series. One of the things he stresses is that for all of the violence in the book, none of it is promoted as Christian action, but rather heavenly. The Christian response to persecution is martyrdom.

I'm currently reading Gordon Wenham's book on ethics in the Psalter, and he makes a similar point about the cursing psalms: while the psalmist asks God to wreak vengeance, the psalmist doesn't see any place for himself in that. His response is prayer.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

On the picture thing--

You can look at it as if you were scanning your way across a big, BIG picture like The Last Judgment (no, I didn't pick that one on purpose!), first at (say) 10 feet off the ground, the second time at 20, and so forth. That's what I do with the sevens--the trumpets, the bowls, and so forth. I suspect these are pictures of basically the same events but shown from very different angles.

Or think of it as someone drawing pictures of a sculpture/group of people. You stand in one place and do what you can, then move to a different side and start over (which may look very different indeed), then move again...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Two other things I keep in mind with any difficult piece of writing.
1. "What is this particular difficult piece trying to communicate?" For example, the bit about the elders, the living creatures, etc. around the throne--the focus is on the worship and honor of God, not on what a crown represents, or why a particular animal is incorporated into a living creature. Working backwards you can occasionally come up with something, i.e. "This is about glorifying God--who or what is doing that? Maybe the living creatures stand for nature/the animal creation, among other things"

2. Then ask yourself "What effect DOES this passage actually create on me/other readers?" Because sometimes the confusion/fear/ecstasy/whatever isn't simply because you don't have a fully-clued in reader. Sometimes that might actually be the intended effect.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Yes, I think those are all potentially useful tools in taking a broad view.

One of the most useful (albeit blindingly obvious) observations I've found is that apocalypic language does what it says on the tin. An apocalypse is a revelation. Not as in common parlance a lurid end-of-the-world discourse. Or in other words, it is a genre that seeks to explain the underlying eternal significance of things.

An obvious example is the churches being described as lamps on stands (not, n.b. like lamps on stands) because casting a light on things is what John wants you to understand their function to be in this bit of narrative.

Well, that one's easy because he actually explains it. Some of the others are more tricky. But it is a Jewish genre, and faithful Jews believed in The Age to Come. A lot of "end of the world" type imagery revolves around that. Jews didn't believe the earth was going to be destroyed!

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Adam wrote:

quote:
One of the things he stresses is that for all of the violence in the book, none of it is promoted as Christian action, but rather heavenly. The Christian response to persecution is martyrdom.

Hm. So, it's kinda like saying "Oh no, I'M not gonna beat the living hell out of you and slit your throat. The guy I work for is gonna do that."

I suppose there is a distinction to be made there. It still seems pretty clearly to be crowing about the fact that someone you hate is gonna get beat up and murdered. Hence a somewhat incongruous statement to situate within the same text as, for example, the Sermon On The Mount.

[ 19. June 2015, 17:15: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Hence a somewhat incongruous statement to situate within the same text as, for example, the Sermon On The Mount.

The Sermon on the Mount ends with the houses of those who ignore these words being violently destroyed. I don't think there's as much of a wedge here as we might like.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Hence a somewhat incongruous statement to situate within the same text as, for example, the Sermon On The Mount.
The Sermon on the Mount ends with the houses of those who ignore these words being violently destroyed. I don't think there's as much of a wedge here as we might like.

But it doesn't say that God himself will come down and destroy those houses. In fact, it doesn't say that any houses will actually be destroyed, just that people who ignore the words can be "likened" to people who build their houses in unsafe places. It's like saying "If you don't study hard at univeristy, you're dead."

With the BoR, I don't quite get the idea that the Battle Of Armageddon, for example, is meant to be understood as a metaphor for people messing up their own lives by ignoring good advice. I think it's pretty clear that God is actively inflcting violence upon people.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There is such a thing as justice--and rejoicing in justice. And no, it is not the same thing as wanting revenge.

Case in point: We are dealing right now with a case where a woman allegedly shook an infant to death (a child she was babysitting). The baby took several days to die of his injuries.

It is now five years on (her lawyers have been delaying and delaying and delaying the case) and just as they were ready to go to trial, suddenly all record of the case disappears from the online court system. It appears very much as if the case has been simply dismissed--and if so, probably because it's been so bloody long that they can no longer gather the evidence/witnesses.

I know the woman who is/was up for murder, and have known her for 30 years. I don't know whether she committed it, though my gut tells me not to rule it out. I don't hate her. I don't like her either, though I have been involved in her medical care at times. I am in fact about as neutral as I can be on the matter.

I want to see this case go to trial. I want to see her either acquitted, or found guilty, one way or another. I want this thing over--I want that baby's death to have some impact on the world, to be acknowledged, to have at least an attempt at justice made. Not just erased as if he had never lived, never suffered, never died. His death meant something. It shouldn't end this way.

I think those who cry out for justice, including the souls beneath the altar in Revelation, are feeling something similar. It is not revenge. It is a demand to have suffering and death matter--to have a screw-up in the universal equation rectified as far as that may be. Which in this world rarely happens. But in God's court, yes.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

The Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle I think describes the same events two or three times. It is largely figurative, as are most apocalyptic writings, and as such proves the Chiliasts wrong.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I see Revelation as the abstract canvas which incorporates the whole Bible. Its symbolism picks up echoes from every book.

I think it is meant to help God-loving people to hold on to their faith when living under persecution, to trust that God's justice will prevail.

It helps to have this in mind as it is being read, then it can be enjoyed, even revelled in.

That is, from chapter four onwards. The first three chapters stand alone, don't they?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I am not sure why anyone would want to study Revelation, unless they have already done the whole bible at least twice. Ok - the seven letters make for an interesting set of discussions, but after that you're into seriously apocalyptic imagery which most people will find utterly baffling.

I read Wilcock's book many years ago. I have to say that I found it very weak and didn't come away very enlightened. The only positive thing in its favour was that it wasn't as bad as some of the other books I had read on Revelation.

But if the group is insistent on studying Revelation, I would suggest a couple of ground rules. First of all, everyone needs to understand that Revelation is NOT about what is going to happen in the future and is totally about what was happening when the book was written. (As no-one can quite agree when that was - under Vespasian? under Domitian? under Nero? - this makes interpreting the book a little difficult)

If anyone suggests that the book is a timeline for the Endtimes (or that they have worked out who 666 (or 616) refers to), take that person outside and shoot them. It is kindest thing to do for all concerned.

The point about the visions in Revelation not being chronological is important to remember. Rather than understand them as glimpses of a bigger picture, another analogy which may help would be to understand them as visions of the same thing, seen from different angles - sort of like getting a 3D picture.

But overall, I think that there should be regular reminders to people in the group that there will be much they they do not (and will never) understand, and that there may be little which they find spiritually nourishing (other than the letters!).

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
But if the group is insistent on studying Revelation, I would suggest a couple of ground rules. First of all, everyone needs to understand that Revelation is NOT about what is going to happen in the future and is totally about what was happening when the book was written. (As no-one can quite agree when that was - under Vespasian? under Domitian? under Nero? - this makes interpreting the book a little difficult)

Apocalyptic imagery is baffling and presents some impossible scenarios when taken as a prediction of literal events, but the opening verses are rather explicit about it being about "the things which must soon take place" and apply the word "prophecy" to what follows, so I'm surprised by what you propose for ground rules.

I can't say that I read it with complete understanding, but I do find the whole book spiritually nourishing in a particularly satisfying way. As is so often stated explicitly in the letters to the churches, I think the whole book is all about perseverance and hope in the face of trials and adversity. God is promising to set everything right and make everything turn out well in the end, but we need to realize that God will do so only when the time is right.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

If the word "soon" is part of the prophecy, then it was wrong, wasn't it?

I have a friend who is sure that the book describes an asteroid impact, which could not have been in the experience of the writer or anyone he knew. I go for an extrapolation of a volcanic eruption, which could. We do not argue much on the subject.

My mother, who had a Bishop's Certificate, having trained at Brighton Diocesan College, passed on to me a piece of advice about theology. "Avoid," she told me, "any group which bases their teaching on Revelation, Daniel, or Matthew 24." So I do. I have passed this on to my friend. He has not listened.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If the word "soon" is part of the prophecy, then it was wrong, wasn't it?

I don't take the word "soon" to apply to literal time any more than I take a description of a dragon's tail drawing a third of the stars from the sky to apply to literal space.

I have no problem understanding why anyone would conclude that Revelation offers them nothing of value, but I do wonder why anyone would suggest that it's not even possible for me (or anyone else) to do so before knowing anything about how I approach it, let alone how I end up interpreting it. There are plenty of objectionable interpretations, but that doesn't mean every interpretation is guaranteed to be objectionable.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If the word "soon" is part of the prophecy, then it was wrong, wasn't it?
I don't take the word "soon" to apply to literal time any more than I take a description of a dragon's tail drawing a third of the stars from the sky to apply to literal space.

That's an interesting interpretation of the word "soon". And one that, ISTM, flies in the face of the evidence. I think you have to make your case that "soon" does NOT have a literal temporal meaning.

I would maintain (strongly) that John the Revelator was writing firmly for his contemporary context. The word "soon" is actually key to this, rather than being something that can be glibly swatted away.

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I have no problem understanding why anyone would conclude that Revelation offers them nothing of value, but I do wonder why anyone would suggest that it's not even possible for me (or anyone else) to do so before knowing anything about how I approach it, let alone how I end up interpreting it. There are plenty of objectionable interpretations, but that doesn't mean every interpretation is guaranteed to be objectionable.

No, but the fact remains that experience shows that it is very hard to mine something of value from Revelation, once you get past the letters to the churches. Quite apart from anything else, if (as I have suggested) the various visions are alternative ways of viewing the same thing, then studying the visions is likely to end up with a lot of going over the same ground. (Whether that ground is particularly edifying or not is another question!)

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

For an interesting and progressive approach, try The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation by Lutheran theologian Barbara Rossing.

quote:
[Rossing]places the Revelation in a tradition of apocalypse and prophecy that has less to do with violence or prediction than with vision. In so doing she argues powerfully against the fascination with violence characteristic of much dispensational thinking. For Rossing, the Revelation is "a rapture in reverse"--God raptured, so to speak, into the world as Immanuel, God-with-us. That, she says, is a vision of a new Jerusalem, a beloved community--a vision of peace and justice that has inspired a host of good stories and still inspires persistent hope in the face of oppression and violence.

(Excerpt from a review at the Amazon link above.)

[ 23. June 2015, 18:40: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I think you have to make your case that "soon" does NOT have a literal temporal meaning.

Yes, that's true, if I'm ever in a position of trying to persuade someone.

Naturally, I don't think of myself as glibly swatting away a key word, but I'll grant you that I am using a non-intuitive approach. However, I think it's clear that any attempt to make sense of the later chapters requires an approach that is non-intuitive and non-obvious.

A discussion ground rule that I would propose is that no one should try to come up with any definite conclusions or clear interpretations.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
A discussion ground rule that I would propose is that no one should try to come up with any definite conclusions or clear interpretations.

I would concur with that. Although quite what someone would get out of such a study is a little baffling. Perhaps (gasp!) some bits of the Bible aren't meant to be studied?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Perhaps (gasp!) some bits of the Bible aren't meant to be studied?

Then why are they there?

Moo

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Perhaps (gasp!) some bits of the Bible aren't meant to be studied?

I share Moo's surprise at this. Not every text (/book) is equally suitable for every Bible study group, but I don't think there's anything in scripture that should be out of bounds to studying.

Posted by Margaret (# 283) on :

Revelation is one of those books which, rather like the Nag Hammadi writings, make me think that this is something which must once have meant a great deal to some people but which really doesn't convey a lot now. Perhaps that's partly because of the various daft treatments end-of-the-world enthusiasts have given it, but I seem to remember that it had a tough time making it into the canon in the first place, and even now it isn't included in the lectionary of the Orthodox churches. I suppose it gives an interesting insight into the way some Christians round about the end of the first century were thinking,
though, and it's worth looking at for that reason.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Perhaps (gasp!) some bits of the Bible aren't meant to be studied?
I share Moo's surprise at this. Not every text (/book) is equally suitable for every Bible study group, but I don't think there's anything in scripture that should be out of bounds to studying.

Not "out of bounds" but just "not suited". The books of the Bible weren't brought together for the purposes of "Bible Study". The idea of "studying" books like Revelation is actually rather strange when you stop and think about it. That's not what they were originally written for. You could say the same thing about (for example) Leviticus or even the Psalms. When we "study" them, we ought at least to continually bear in mind that this is alien to their purpose. Would we "study" Hymns Ancient and Modern?

I guess that what I am saying is that Revelation was not intended for detailed analysis and decoding, with the aim of drawing inspirational insights.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
The books of the Bible weren't brought together for the purposes of "Bible Study". The idea of "studying" books like Revelation is actually rather strange when you stop and think about it. That's not what they were originally written for. You could say the same thing about (for example) Leviticus or even the Psalms. When we "study" them, we ought at least to continually bear in mind that this is alien to their purpose. Would we "study" Hymns Ancient and Modern?

I guess that what I am saying is that Revelation was not intended for detailed analysis and decoding, with the aim of drawing inspirational insights.

I think you and I have different definitions of 'studying'. I just want to understand what the author meant and how the people who first heard it were likely to have understood it. I don't believe in 'decoding' anything in the Bible.

Moo

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If the word "soon" is part of the prophecy, then it was wrong, wasn't it?

Depends on your viewpoint of time. In Geological time, soon is a few 100,000 years. If to God 1000 years is like a day, even to a literalist soon can be several thousand years away.

It's pointless to try to predict when Yellowstone will blow - some say it's overdue and can happen any time from today to 50,000 years from now.

If someone says Yellowstone will blow soon he's not wrong just because it doesn't blow this year.

Same with Jesus' return.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Admitting my ignorance, I have a question. Someone mentioned the notion that the book is in some sense referring to the depredations of Nero or another Roman emperor. I normally assume the books of the New Testament were written in Palestine. Would the people there have known in any detail what the emperors were doing? Would they have heard from travelers or from imperial proclamations?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Admitting my ignorance, I have a question. Someone mentioned the notion that the book is in some sense referring to the depredations of Nero or another Roman emperor. I normally assume the books of the New Testament were written in Palestine.

Well, the author says he's writing on the island of Patmos, which is in Greece, and he addresses churches throughout Asia Minor. Beyond that, I would suggest that the various books and letters of the NT suggest a general awareness of what is going on elsewhere in the Empire.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

Our bible study group looked at Revelation fairly recently and we tried to skim through it as quickly as possible - trying to get the big themes rather than getting stuck in the details. Many of which I still find deeply troubling.
However there was some good stuff in there about God calling time on injustice and oppression.
The main thing that helped was seeing that the middle sections of the letter keep circling back over the same themes and events but from different perspectives .
Personally in terms of preparation I found Tom Wright's Revelation for Everyone the most help (but not always totally satisfying).

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

You need a good, strong and well-read leader to study Revelations, otherwise you run the real risk of diversion into crackpot territory. I recall reading of a leading Puritan in the 1630's, who was convinced that the pouring out of the 4th vial was a reference to the forthcoming publication of his book. By comparison to many other interpretations, that is relatively sane.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Indeed - a friend of mine went to a women's group where they were worried that the rapture might come before they had time to collect their kids from school.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I can't recall any mention of the rapture in Revelation. The theory was cobbled together from 1 Thessalonians and Luke.

Moo

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

which shows how these Bible study groups get bits of stuff from all over the place rather than paying close attention to the text

Posted by Margaret (# 283) on :

Or perhaps some of them had been reading the Left Behind series, which manages to scramble together just about every idea about the eschaton in the NT, including (according to my husband who has somehow succeeded in reading the lot) a very, very long and literal account of all the events in Revelation.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I can't recall any mention of the rapture in Revelation. The theory was cobbled together from 1 Thessalonians and Luke.

Moo

True. But I think it was then linked to (cobbled into) a timeline trying to fit the events if Revelation into a linear sequence including a total of 7 years of tribulation followed by a literal 1000 years of Christ's rule (rev 20). I don't know enough about it but it may be based on the call to "come out of her" (Babylon) in Rev 18:4.

All highly dubious in my view but anyway.

In terms of how to approach Revelation the things I found helpful were:
1. Start from the question of how would the original recipients interpreted this? Difficult to know for sure but leads you pretty quickly to things like Babylon is symbolic of Rome.
2. Start with the assumption that the events being described have already happened rather than they are predictive (unless very strong evidence to the contrary)
3. Assume everything is symbolic not literal
4. Follow the links to the OT - so much of the imagery is drawn from there so does that shed any light? Particularly the OT Exodus story of salvation (parallels with the plagues, etc):

Rescue from slavery & oppression (through blood sacriﬁce)
Time of tribulation (wilderness wanderings)
Entry into the Promise (taking possession of the land)

5. Revelation is divided into scenes so for each scene, as mentioned upthread, ask is this a repeat of a previous scene from a different angle?

Having said all of that it is still hard work to figure out what is going on sometimes. The most disturbing question being: where is the grace?

[ 22. July 2015, 10:04: Message edited by: Jammy Dodger ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Margaret wrote:

quote:
I seem to remember that it had a tough time making it into the canon in the first place, and even now it isn't included in the lectionary of the Orthodox churches

Interesting that the city of Archangel in Russia(a decidely Orthodox country) has as its coat-of-arms this pretty direct reference to the Book Of Revelation.

Not that I'm doubting you at all, just that it's kind of an interesting incongruity.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Jammy wrote:

quote:
Having said all of that it is still hard work to figure out what is going on sometimes. The most disturbing question being: where is the grace?

I think it was Hal Lindsey, the epitome of pre-mil Revenge Theology, who said that: "God's love on the cross was for his enemies; in Revelation, it's for his friends."

In other words, there is no grace. The whole book is just a literary Two-Minute Hate.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

If anyone is interested, a couple of professors from Yale Divinity School chew the cud on the Book of Revelation in a series of shortish videos (10-15 mins each).

Just having read this thread, thought occurred: What would the impact be on the interpretation of the surreal parts (as the Yale couple call them!) of seeing the seven letters in chapters 1-3 as the defining framework?

I think those letters were intentionally placed where they are by the author, so I wondered whether the interpretation of the whole should be constrained and informed by what those letters say (i.e., we can't go off on one over the revelations)

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
In other words, there is no grace. The whole book is just a literary Two-Minute Hate.

Yes that is how some of it seems which is why I feel like Zi'm missing something!

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
If anyone is interested, a couple of professors from Yale Divinity School chew the cud on the Book of Revelation in a series of shortish videos (10-15 mins each).

Just having read this thread, thought occurred: What would the impact be on the interpretation of the surreal parts (as the Yale couple call them!) of seeing the seven letters in chapters 1-3 as the defining framework?

I think those letters were intentionally placed where they are by the author, so I wondered whether the interpretation of the whole should be constrained and informed by what those letters say (i.e., we can't go off on one over the revelations)

There may be something to this. Not sure if there is enough for a framework but certainly a number of the key ideas in the letters are developed in the later visions.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My Bible study group will be tackling Revelation in a month or two....
Moo

Given this was the original prompt for this thread Moo it would be great to hear about any questions that arise from the group - would you be happy to share some of these for discussion here?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

I'm not sure if this is still of interest, but one of the blogs I read has just given a strong recommendation of Peter Williamson's "Revelation", as an accessible and thorough MOTcathR commentary.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

What's MOTcathR?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I'm guessing "Middle Of The Catholic Road".

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My Bible study group will be tackling Revelation in a month or two....
Moo
Given this was the original prompt for this thread Moo it would be great to hear about any questions that arise from the group - would you be happy to share some of these for discussion here?

We haven't started yet, but I'll give an update when we do.

Moo

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
My Bible study group will be tackling Revelation in a month or two....
Moo
Given this was the original prompt for this thread Moo it would be great to hear about any questions that arise from the group - would you be happy to share some of these for discussion here?
We haven't started yet, but I'll give an update when we do.

Moo

Great thanks - I'm interested to know what crops up!

Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on :

If you are looking for a book to give you a handle on the book of Revelation, I would recommend Graeme Goldsworthy's "Gospel and Revelation" which is now bundled up with two other of his works in The Goldsworthy Trilogy. He suggests what he calls a 'sabbatical' structure of Revelation - namely seven cycles of seven (seven letters, seven plagues, seven trumpets etc) that are perspectives, or facets, of the theological age in which we live now (ie NOT some sort of predicted timeline of the end of the world), and culminating in the seventh section of the book which is the famous vision of the new heavens and earth (C21-22), the great sabbath rest.

My 2 cents worth of advice is there are three interpretive keys to be used in unpacking Revelation

The Gospel of Jesus - namely the narrative of his life, death and resurrection, and his return
The Immediate Context of the Original readers - outlined in the 'seven letters'. John's message is aimed at speaking a word to these churches and the situations that they find themselves in
Old Testament imagery - events such as Mt Sinai, the Exodus, the Babylonian exile etc etc

I've written some studies that I've used to take various bible study groups through Revelation. Would be happy to send them for you to read, handout, adapt, use as coffee cup coasters, whatever.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

Hey Moo - how did your group get on with Revelation? Any insights you can share?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jammy Dodger:
Hey Moo - how did your group get on with Revelation? Any insights you can share?

Actually, it has mostly deepened the understanding that I already had. See my OP. The one thing I noticed that I hadn't before was that all the spectacular bad stuff happens after the martyrs plead with God for justice.

Revelation is mostly a promise that they have not been forgotten.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Sheesh. I never noticed that. Thank you.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

One other thing I noticed is Revelation 7:9

quote:
After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands.

I hadn't realized that Heaven included people from every tribe, nation, and language. I had thought that Revelation was narrower.

Moo

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

My adult learning community will be working on Revelations in the next couple of weeks as well. I am looking forward to this and would hope to be able to use this forum to raise questions as they come up.

Frankly, I am struggling with the issue of eschatology myself. My Doubting Thomas bit gets into high gear when I approach Revelations.

The end of Revelations, for instance, predicts a new heaven and a new earth; yet my cosmological understanding is that in a few billion years our universe will basically burn itself out. I struggle with reconciling the two points of view.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

AIUI Revelation is not predicting the future. It is telling, in highly symbolic language, that God is in charge and he will take care of his people.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One other thing I noticed is Revelation 7:9
quote:
After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands.
I hadn't realized that Heaven included people from every tribe, nation, and language. I had thought that Revelation was narrower.
Moo

This has long been my favorite passage in the book, and it gets preached on pretty much every year. (Which you'd expect with missionaries!)

[ 03. November 2015, 02:45: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I spent much of last Sunday in the narthex explaining to my son that Revelation is not really in chronological order except in the broadest sense--that it is more like wandering through an art or photo gallery, where you get various shots from various perspectives of the same few events. If one makes no sense, move on to the next and see what you get out of it. And to beware of taking literally details and descriptions which were meant to be understood symbolically.

I think a book of paintings based on the chapters of Revelation would be very interesting, particularly if it had work from many different artists.

Posted by DonLogan2 (# 15608) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
...If anyone suggests that the book is a timeline for the Endtimes (or that they have worked out who 666 (or 616) refers to), take that person outside and shoot them. It is kindest thing to do for all concerned...

I assume this is tongue in cheek?

However, how would an inclusive group go about their study (all things biblical) with someone who believed it was about end times and the whole can of worms associated with conspiracies such as the illuminati, con-trails, RC church all dovetailing into each other?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Earlier in the thread someone raised the question of why prophecies would be preserved that would not take effect for at least two thousand years.

I think that's an excellent question.

Moo

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Earlier in the thread someone raised the question of why prophecies would be preserved that would not take effect for at least two thousand years.

I think that's an excellent question.

It is. And it's not without precedent if you think about Christian typology in the OT, for example, Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, Jonah in the belly of the fish, and many others.

Posted by Jammy Dodger (# 17872) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One other thing I noticed is Revelation 7:9
quote:
After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands.
I hadn't realized that Heaven included people from every tribe, nation, and language. I had thought that Revelation was narrower.
Moo
This has long been my favorite passage in the book, and it gets preached on pretty much every year. (Which you'd expect with missionaries!)

Indeed. And there is a great link to Matt 24:14 - that the end will only come after the gospel of the kingdom has been preached to the whole world, all nations - therefore making the statement in Rev 7:9 possible.

(I think it was Tom Wright that pointed out somewhere that this is the only criteria that indicates the end - all the others preceding it nation rising against nation, etc are NOT to be taken that way)

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Earlier in the thread someone raised the question of why prophecies would be preserved that would not take effect for at least two thousand years.

I think that's an excellent question.

It is. And it's not without precedent if you think about Christian typology in the OT, for example, Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness, Jonah in the belly of the fish, and many others.

Yes, an excellent question.

I think that the answer is that societal change takes place over long periods of time.

It's not that the prophecy won't take effect for over two thousand years. Rather it is that the processes that these prophecies describe take huge amounts of time to reach maturity. The reason for that is that they involve human free choice, not to mention such things as technological development. The world grows up.

The point is that, according to my belief anyway, Revelation describes the solution to all of humanity's problems. World peace. Not a quick fix. [Cool]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

There is a basic error going on here.

The assumption is that prophecy is foresight and prediction.

Essentially prophecy is insight, not foresight; it is forth-telling not foretelling.

We all too often confuse the baby with the bathwater.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
There is a basic error going on here.

The assumption is that prophecy is foresight and prediction.

Essentially prophecy is insight, not foresight; it is forth-telling not foretelling.

We all too often confuse the baby with the bathwater.

I agree that prophecy is not fortune-telling, as its use in common parlance implies.

But at the same time I think shamwari's post sets up too limiting a dichotomy. Prophecy is rooted in a sharp observation of what is happening in the present - Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and all those OT guys were speaking/writing within a particular context of time and place - but they weren't just critics. They were describing potential consequences as well.

[ 03. December 2015, 17:45: Message edited by: Mamacita ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
There is a basic error going on here.

The assumption is that prophecy is foresight and prediction.

Essentially prophecy is insight, not foresight; it is forth-telling not foretelling.

I agree that most of the writings of the prophets are insight, not foresight. Very little of it appears to deal with the future at all.

However, some of it does deal explicitly with the future, and claims the ability to foretell events. The gospels rely repeatedly on that understanding.

We live at a time when people don't believe that it is possible to know the future in any specific, miraculous sense. That skepticism was not shared by those who wrote the Scriptures.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

--The best book I've ever found on this topic is "The Coming Of God", by Sr. Maria Boulding. From what I remember, she goes all the way through the entire Bible narrative, all of God's purpose--and not in a glossing over way. She builds up to Revelation, the end of the world, and the end of the book.

When I discovered the book, I took a quick glance at the end. The last line was something like "We are unconditionally, irrevocably loved". I figured a book on the end of time that came to that conclusion was worth reading--and it was.

There are some quotes on the Witnesses To Hope blog. Admittedly, they're not specifically on Revelation. But they're part of the fabric of the book, and you can get a taste of her style.

--Julian(a) of Norwich's "Revelations Of Divine Love" also has good stuff on The End. "All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well. And all this shall we see in God, without end."

--IIRC, "Silent Voices, Sacred Lives: Women's Readings for the Liturgical Year" (by Barbara E Bowe (Editor), Kathleen Hughes, R.S.C.J. (Editor), Carolyn A Osiek (Editor)) has some examples of Judaeo-Christian apocalyptic literature by women--even from oracles (like the Sibyl).

YMMV.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
When I discovered the book, I took a quick glance at the end. The last line was something like "We are unconditionally, irrevocably loved". I figured a book on the end of time that came to that conclusion was worth reading--and it was.

I agree about the conclusion. I feel the same way.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
For an interesting and progressive approach, try The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation by Lutheran theologian Barbara Rossing.

Yes. I thought this book was great. Last time I studied Revelation I also found the Anchor Bible commentary very valuable. The author suggests that Revelation was a Jewish apocalypse written during/after the fall of Jerusalem that had Christian material added to it later. Whether or not you accept that thesis, there are clear connections to the destruction of the Temple, which I found it helpful to have pointed out.

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :

Al Eluia: That's fascinating. I will check it out. Thanks.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0