|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Apocalyptic literature
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: All I am suggesting is that for the man on the Clapham Omnibus, so to speak, introducing the idea of an apocalyptic genre - however slippery that term might be, as N T Wright observes, does, at the very least, put us on our guard against the kind of elaborate eschatological speculations found in some traditions.
But really you are suggesting more than that. You are suggesting that the label 'apocalyptic' is a mental barrier against theology that you believe has led to futurist interpretations that you see as damaging.
The problem I have with that, (despite being one of those nutty people,) is that you do not discriminate almonds from cashews. Your thinking leads to a generalised dismissal of any scripture you choose to define like that eg Daniel ch 7-12..
" Oh well, lets forget what it means or what is intended by the author .. probably it's redacted anyway..too hard basket .. etc"
But if that is the case why is it in the Bible in the first place?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Propaganda.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: All I am suggesting is that for the man on the Clapham Omnibus, so to speak, introducing the idea of an apocalyptic genre - however slippery that term might be, as N T Wright observes, does, at the very least, put us on our guard against the kind of elaborate eschatological speculations found in some traditions.
But really you are suggesting more than that. You are suggesting that the label 'apocalyptic' is a mental barrier against theology that you believe has led to futurist interpretations that you see as damaging.
The problem I have with that, (despite being one of those nutty people,) is that you do not discriminate almonds from cashews. Your thinking leads to a generalised dismissal of any scripture you choose to define like that eg Daniel ch 7-12..
" Oh well, lets forget what it means or what is intended by the author .. probably it's redacted anyway..too hard basket .. etc"
But if that is the case why is it in the Bible in the first place?
No, I am not suggesting that it's a 'mental barrier' against the kind of theology you espouse, rather that - alongside other considerations such as those eloquently outlined by both Nigel M and Thunderbunk - it can help us understand:
- The author's intentions.
- Why it's there.
- How we can go about interpreting it.
Namely, not how you do ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
You've yet to show me how I've failed to engage with the passages you cite. I've done that in the Daniel 9 thread.
Because my approach and conclusions don't conform to yours you dismiss them out of hand ... whilst accusing me of doing the same simply by the expedient of referring to them as 'apocalyptic literature.'
If you actually bothered to read my posts properly you'll see that I am actually engaging with the texts and not switching my brain off as you allege.
I wouldn't completely rule out a 'futurist' approach, but would add certain caveats. Nigel M has done a good job of outlining what those might be.
'Of that day and of that hour ...'
I really don't see the point of interpreting these things in a way off, futurist way. What possible value would that have had for the first hearers/readers?
Why are passages like Daniel chapters 7-12 in the Bible in the first place?
Same reason as why Malachi is in there, or Song of Songs, or Esther or Job, Jonah, Amos, Obadiah, Proverbs or Deuteronomy, or Hebrews or Jude or the Epistle of James ...
Because it was agreed to 'canonise' them at some point.
Are they profitable to read and useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training in righteousness?
Yes, most certainly.
That doesn't mean that they are there to provide us with some kind of tour-guide to the end of the world.
Why do you think the Eastern Churches were late and reluctant in accepting Revelation into the canon?
Precisely because they realised that people would read all sorts of whacky theories and forecasts into it, which is exactly what has happened at your end of the spectrum.
One way of guarding against that is to categorise such writings as 'apocalyptic' and therefore subject to other rules of interpretation to some extent than those that might be applied to other parts of scripture.
It ain't the only way, but it is one way of setting a marker. 'Watch out folks, don't try this at home ...'
I fully accept that there are dangers associated with applying that label - and Nigel M has made out a strong case for that.
Fine.
But surely treating these passages with caution and applying an 'apocalyptic' label to them, however slippery the gum on that adhesive label might be - is eminently preferable to opening the bottle, drinking it all down without reading the label and then wondering why you've got a tummy ache ...
Bottles of medicine and bottles of aspirin have safety labels on for a reason.
Some of the more 'spaced-out' sounding biblical passages can go to people's heads. People do daft things with them ... think Munster ... think millenarian sects taking themselves off to the hills ...
Of course, there are dangers with everything, but at least by labelling something 'apocalyptic' we are making some attempt to provide a warning.
If you choose to ignore such warnings and end up with your head in the clouds, then that's up to you.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: why are passages like Daniel chapters 7-12 in the Bible in the first place?
Same reason as why Malachi is in there, or Song of Songs, or Esther or Job, Jonah, Amos, Obadiah, Proverbs or Deuteronomy, or Hebrews or Jude or the Epistle of James ...
Because it was agreed to 'canonise' them at some point.
Are they profitable to read and useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training in righteousness?
Yes, most certainly.
That doesn't mean that they are there to provide us with some kind of tour-guide to the end of the world.
Why do you think the Eastern Churches were late and reluctant in accepting Revelation into the canon
There are a few points here.
‘canonising’ is not an explanatory term unless you unpack who did it and their authority to do it.
If it was an agreed canonisation by generations of Jewish scholars scribes and Rabbis, then what value did they see in the documents if they were NOT a ‘tour guide’ to the establishment of God’s kingdom and fulfilment of his covenants made with the patriarchs..which when you boil it down means the end of the age at least though not the end of the world.
I have no knowledge of the Eastern churches and am not sure why you think they are relevant to the discussion.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Then you are simply displaying your own ignorance.
The reason I cite the reluctance of the Eastern Churches to accept Revelation into the canon until quite late on - around the 5th century - was to indicate that consensus came quite late and was only achieved over time.
The fact that some sections of the Christian church were initially reluctant to unequivocally accept part of what we now call the New Testament tells us a number of things. It tells us something of how the process of canonisation worked and demonstrates that there were concerns about how literature of this kind might be interpreted.
Of course the Eastern churches read Revelation and treat it as canonical but even today they don't use it liturgically, it's not read in church.
Whatever else that tells us and whether they were right or wrong to do so it at least demonstrates concerns about how these things should be handled.
You mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls earlier. Whilst they contain all the canonical OT books apart from Esther they contain all sorts of other material we wouldn't consider canonical today. There's some dispute as to when the Jews actually agreed on a fixed canon for their sacred writings but it seems to have taken place sometime into what we'd call the Christian era.
Anyhow, my point is that the process of canonisation happens in community and through discussion and debate until some kind of consensus emerges. That doesn't obviate the divine element of course.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course the Rabbis saw these texts as significant and that's why they canonised them.
How they regarded / regard them, I don't know as I'm not Jewish but you'll know as well as I do that there are a wide range of views within contemporary Judaism as there are within Christianity.
I used to live within easy walking distance of 4 synagogues and they all had their own flavour, whether Orthodox, Reform or somewhere in between.
I don't know enough about Jewish eschatology to comment on how they see things panning out 'at the end of the age' but I'd imagine there's a range of views there just as there are among Christians.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course the Rabbis saw these texts as significant and that's why they canonised them.
How they regarded / regard them, I don't know as I'm not Jewish but you'll know as well as I do that there are a wide range of views within contemporary Judaism as there are within Christianity.
I used to live within easy walking distance of 4 synagogues and they all had their own flavour, whether Orthodox, Reform or somewhere in between.
I don't know enough about Jewish eschatology to comment on how they see things panning out 'at the end of the age' but I'd imagine there's a range of views there just as there are among Christians.
So now that’s off your chest why aren’t these so called apocalyptic narratives ‘tour guides’ to the end of the age given they are in the canon and the intent of the authors was to pass on divine information about how history will wrap up?
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
I also like what Nigel M said but would put the warnings about not trying to date when the end will come much stronger than Nigel does.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How they regarded / regard them, I don't know as I'm not Jewish but you'll know as well as I do that there are a wide range of views within contemporary Judaism as there are within Christianity.
As far as the book of Daniel is concerned there are many interpretations, but they fall into two main groups. Those who say that Daniel is included when the Talmud says "48 prophets and 7 prophetesses prophesied to Israel" and those who do not.
Sorry, I about whyhave not gone in to this far enough, so I may not be of further help, but there is a view that visions can either be prophesy or ruach ha-kodesh, divine inspiration.
Ruach ha-kodesh is the type of inspiration that inspired poets to write Psalms/Proverbs/Job rather than directly prophesy, and Daniel is put into that category.
This partly contradicts what I said upthread about why Daniel is not in the Prophets in the Jewish ordering, but, as you said, there are a range of interpretations within Judaism.
However, it isn't a large step from saying that the inspiration behind Daniel is ruach ha-kadesh and saying that early Jewish Christians would have understood Revelation to be of divine inspiration and not prophesy.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I have no knowledge of the Eastern churches and am not sure why you think they are relevant to the discussion.
Ain't that just the way?
quote:
So now that’s off your chest why aren’t these so called apocalyptic narratives ‘tour guides’ to the end of the age given they are in the canon and the intent of the authors was to pass on divine information about how history will wrap up?
Was that their intent? You haven't demonstrated that. Others have given other interpretations that are just as prima facie plausible as yours.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
You’d been adopting the genre labelled ‘sarcasm’, which was unnecessary and needed to be challenged.
Sarcasm isn't successfully challenged by assholery.
quote:
In major part this is because although the text is in the public arena (it’s out there), control is maintained by the fact that the author has written what he/she wrote, using the words he or she used in the way he or she used them, to effect an affect on an audience.
This adds no argument to effect your case. "It belongs to the author because the author wrote it." That's just tautological. Yes, the author wrote it. But if the words themselves don't do the work the author intended, then sucks to be that author. Because what we have are the words.
quote:
“…this term has proved so slippery and many-sided in scholarly discourse that that one is often tempted to declare a moratorium on it altogether.”*
This quote shows confusion in the academy. I already admitted confusion in the academy, and was challenging confusion in the ignorant. As such this quote is irrelevant to the point I was making.
quote:
That leads me (obviously we are doomed to lengthy posts) to the question of just how useful the genre label is when we get into the text.
But I've already mentioned this. It is more useful, to someone who wants to understand the crazy bits of Revelation, to compare it to the crazy bits of Daniel than to compare it to Love's Labour's Lost. Why? Because the relevant bits of Daniel and the relevant bits of Revelation share something that is encapsulated by saying they are both apocalyptic literature. The genre label picks out a group of writings and says, "These have stuff in common, and it can be useful to compare and contrast them to learn more about either/both." That's a huge part of what genre does. You could argue that when discussing Scripture, it's its most important job.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The intent of the authors seems to have been primarily to comment on contemporary developments and concerns using particular rhetorical, allegorical and prophetic / poetic devices.
Given their context they were also concerned about the ultimate fulfilment of all things too - 'all will come right in the end.'
So, yes, I accept an eschatological dimension.
What I don't accept is the use of these apocalyptic texts to construct an elaborate schema to predict, forecast or delineate a blue-print sequence of events to chart the end of the world.
That's not the point, not the purpose nor is it how texts of this kind work.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
What I don't accept is the use of these apocalyptic texts to construct an elaborate schema to predict, forecast or delineate a blue-print sequence of events to chart the end of the world.
It’s also not something You have proved futurists do though you assert it often enough!
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The EschatonЯus, it's about our yearning, our psychology. Or is Jesus going to land on the Mount of Olives and clave it in twain any day now then? Or in a hundred, thousand, hundred thousand years?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Then you are simply displaying your own ignorance.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat
So now that’s off your chest...
Host hat on
Please try to keep personal feelings out of this.
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
What I don't accept is the use of these apocalyptic texts to construct an elaborate schema to predict, forecast or delineate a blue-print sequence of events to chart the end of the world.
It’s also not something You have proved futurists do though you assert it often enough!
Yes, I have asserted it often enough because my perception is that this is exactly what they do.
But then, I'm not a Futurist.
You are, so your perception is going to be different to mine.
What looks to you like a straight-forward extrapolation from the text doesn't look that way to me. To me it looks like an attempt to create an elaborate schema by working out the 'weeks' in Daniel or by counting the number of heads on the beasts of Revelation ...
And so on and so forth.
One man's 'plain reading of scripture' looks like another man's convoluted and contrived eschatological speculation.
I don't mean that as an insult. I'm speaking as I find. And I find that Futurists do engage in futile speculations. From my point of view, that is.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
One man's 'plain reading of scripture' looks like another man's convoluted and contrived eschatological speculation
Do you not think it is time to dispense with generalities?
What specifically do you see as convoluted and contrived speculation.
If you reply date setting and survivalism and other kinds of escapism rather than dealing with life’s realities, then I think I’d agree. But surely, these are straw men and excuses for people to talk past one another.
Looking for the Lord’s coming as a motivation for holy living is more what I am about. To me, study of prophecy, as part of what the Lord said about his return, cannot be ignored but certainly, it is an area fraught with difficulties which, incidentally, do not go away by ignoring them or throwing up the hands in despair of understanding them.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, constructing tiered and multi-layered accounts of the Eschaton involving multiple returns of Christ and a literal Millennium and Raptures and goodness knows what else falls into the category of unhelpful speculation as far as I can see ...
But our mileages will vary.
I'm not 'ignoring' anything.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, constructing tiered and multi-layered accounts of the Eschaton involving multiple returns of Christ and a literal Millennium and Raptures and goodness knows what else falls into the category of unhelpful speculation as far as I can see ...
But our mileages will vary.
I'm not 'ignoring' anything.
But if you toss out a literal future kingdom, then you are allegorising. One end of that is Gnosticism and the other a kind of alternative that substitutes human speculation for the
Clear’I will return and receive you unto myself’ Jn 14 teaching of the Lord.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Where have I said that I don't believe in a future fulfilment of the Kingdom?
You seem to think that the only alternatives to a pre-millenialist, Dispensationalist schema is some form of Gnosticism on the one hand or a kind of Spong-like liberalism on the other.
You also seem unwilling or unable to recognise elements that are clearly allegorical. If many-headed beasts and strange, surreal creatures aren't allegorical then what are they?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
You also seem unwilling or unable to recognise elements that are clearly allegorical. If many-headed beasts and strange, surreal creatures aren't allegorical then what are they?
No That is a generalisation. If I look at the beasts of Daniel it is clear that each represents an earthly kingdom. They are not seen as real leopards or bears. The text clearly shows us how to interpret them.
If you are referring to angelic beings that speak to Daniel or John and administer the judgements of God, then these are known only by their appearance to Daniel eg man-like, or by their function as oracles and transmitters of God’s Judgements.
If you assume the ancient texts are written by simpletons then you tend to judge them from a position of superiority. Apart from technologies, why is this fair?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Nobody is saying the ancient texts were written by simpletons. They are very sophisticated.
I've seen you take references in Revelation literally that I wouldn't interpret that way. That says something about us, not about the original authors.
I don't mean that performatively either. It simply means that we are using somewhat different interpretative tools in some me instances.
In other instances our interpretations would be identical or broadly similar.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
If we assume that God is the ultimate author of this literature, then I would think that we would assume that it is about what He is interested in. Not about kingdoms or political events, or even about events that can be physically observed. It is about the spiritual progress of humanity.
Isn't it reasonable to read these curious texts as saying simply that there are spiritual threats and serious bumps in the road in humanity's future, but that all will be well in the end? ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: nobody is saying the ancient texts were written by simpletons. They are very sophisticated.
I've seen you take references in Revelation literally that I wouldn't interpret that way. That says something about us, not about the original authors.
It seems to be a fair assumption. The reasoning goes thus:
Ancient docs reflect unevolved, non technological thinking.
This was fraught with superstition, super religious belief that the god’s pulled the strings and one needed to placate them.
Nowadays this superstition is regarded as silly. We know way more about the universe and time will continue to uncover further causes rendering religion irrelevant.
So when you look at the Bible, you have to realise and allow for the the Bronze Age mind and not expect too much.
It is unsurprising to find errors in scripture..get with the programme.
By the way, please refer to specific comments rather than..
‘I’ve seen you do this or that in past discussions’...
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'll thank you not to second-guess what my reasoning is and allow me to speak for myself rather than you imposing assumptions about what I'm saying based on what strikes me as broad brush generalisations.
You accuse me of not being specific enough but your posts often strike me the same way, a rehashing of entrenched Pre-millenialist Dispensationalist positions in a way that dismisses any other view as a slippery slope towards apostasy.
If you want a specific example, I once read a post of yours in which you appeared to believe in literal humanoid 'locusts' with poisonous stings in Revelation 9.
I'm not making any value judgements about our ancestors in terms of their cosmology,world-view or anything else.
All I am saying is 'apocalyptic' narratives operate on a different wavelength to what we might regard as more conventional narrative forms. They are often less linear, for one thing and they often fuse symbolic, allegorical and more naturalist elements - a bit like 'magic realism' in late 20th century novels.
Although, like any analogy that only takes us a short way down the track.
I'm not saying that certain biblical writers wrote that way because they were stupid or ignorant. Rather, I'm saying they wrote that way because it suited their authorial purpose and it helped them get their point across.
These texts are sophisticated, multi-layered and intriguing. They operate on different levels. Like poetry you don't have to grasp all the details in order to experience the overall effect.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't get to grips with the details, of course, but we run the risk of category error if we seek to decode them as blow-by-blow linear projections and forecasts about the end of the world.
In his Apocalypse, John was reaching back into the literary heritage of his own people and applying tropes, imagery and themes from that to the immediate problems and issues of his own age. I don't have an issue with there being foretastes,if you like, of future fulfilment and the consummation of all things.
But let's understand the genre and how these texts work.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I'll thank you not to second-guess what my reasoning is and allow me to speak for myself rather than you imposing assumptions about what I'm saying based on what strikes me as broad brush generalisations.
You accuse me of not being specific enough but your posts often strike me the same way, a rehashing of entrenched Pre-millenialist Dispensationalist positions in a way that dismisses any other view as a slippery slope towards apostasy.
If you want a specific example, I once read a post of yours in which you appeared to believe in literal humanoid 'locusts' with poisonous stings in Revelation 9.
Host hat on
Gamaliel, cool it.
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: ..not saying that certain biblical writers wrote that way because they were stupid or ignorant. Rather, I'm saying they wrote that way because it suited their authorial purpose and it helped them get their point across
Apologies Moo..Gamaliel, no personal inference was intended.
The issue though is what that POINT is. You can judge by its subject matter that the texts that involve predictive visions like Revelation and Daniel and parts of many others, are often about the way God intends to resolve human affairs in the final wash-up. In trying to deal with this subject matter you do have an interpretive mine field.
My point above is that one can tend to be dismissive of their cogency and connectedness if one assumes they are primitive in conception and it is tempting to do this.
Regarding the creatures referred to in Rev 9:19, as the judgement released here is future, I have no idea what these horses are. They are nothing like anything that corresponds to our current realities so are probably demonic creatures. If you ask me if I think they are literally true, I think I would say John saw something as part of his vision that was but as he did not fully understand what he saw, how can we? Like a lot of stuff in the Bible, we are told only what we are told and speculation just confuses matters.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
But why do you have to interpret them as literal, physical entities at all, Jamat?
We are dealing with dreams and visions here, with 'picture language'.
I'm not so 'liberal' that I don't believe in the Devil or in demons, but I don't envisage them as actual physical beings in the sense that we are accustomed to - only with pointy tails and horns and so forth.
Why do you feel the 'need' to interpret the creatures in Revelation 9 in a literal or physical sense?
Whether as hybrid horse/locust/human beings or some kind of demon?
Why not take them in some kind of figurative sense as conveying something of the seriousness of the nature of sin and judgement?
I can't offer any particularly wise insights into what these creatures represent whether the 'locusts' from Rev:9:3-10 or the 'horses and riders' in Rev:17-19.
However, in terms of imagery and bearing in mind the genre - 'apocalyptic literature' - then I'd argue that it's possible to derive some insight from the kind of tropes and pictures painted.
After all, when it talks of Jesus as having a 'sharp double-edged sword' coming out of his mouth (Rev:1:16) we don't interpret that to mean that his tongue is actually some kind of blade, do we?
No, we look at other biblical images about swords and so on - and that helps us to understand this particular word-picture: cf. Hebrews 4:12
http://biblehub.com/hebrews/4-12.htm
Both the 'locusts' and the 'horses' in Revelation 9 have poison in their mouths and in their tails - they sting at both ends as it were. The 'locusts' wear crowns - 'principalities and powers'? They look a bit like people - and yet have lions' teeth. The 'horses' later on have the heads of lions - what does that remind us of?
Our enemy, the Devil, we are told in 1 Peter 5:8 prowls around 'like a roaring lion' seeking whom he may devour:
http://biblehub.com/1_peter/5-8.htm
We're dealing with 'picture-language' that describes embodiments of evil. It's a bit like heraldry.
I'm not suggesting that John didn't have dreams and visions, that he simply wrote Revelation in the way that Milton wrote Paradise Lost, say or Bunyan wrote Pilgrim's Progress (presenting it as some kind of dream for literary effect).
It's more than a work of imagination in that respect. But the issue isn't whether John had actual visions but what he intended his visionary descriptions to convey.
They will have had resonance and meaning for the people he was addressing in the immediate circumstances they were facing.
It's application for us isn't to warn us that one day we'll see some whacky demonic creatures chasing around and stinging people, rather that this current world-order will pass away and that we can expect nasty things to happen - judgements, poison etc etc until it does.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
However, in terms of imagery and bearing in mind the genre - 'apocalyptic literature' - then I'd argue that it's possible to derive some insight from the kind of tropes and pictures painted.
<snippety snip>Both the 'locusts' and the 'horses' in Revelation 9 have poison in their mouths and in their tails - they sting at both ends as it were. The 'locusts' wear crowns - 'principalities and powers'? They look a bit like people - and yet have lions' teeth. The 'horses' later on have the heads of lions - what does that remind us of?
Our enemy, the Devil, we are told in 1 Peter 5:8 prowls around 'like a roaring lion' seeking whom he may devour:
http://biblehub.com/1_peter/5-8.htm
We're dealing with 'picture-language' that describes embodiments of evil. It's a bit like heraldry.
I beg to differ on that. When interpreting Revelation I'd first look at the imagery used elsewhere in Revelation. In 5:5 we have "Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals" In Revelation 5 the lion is Christ, with the imagery going back to the lion being the symbol of the tribe of Judah in Genesis.
The very next verse after the one Jamat quoted says that despite the action of the horses people still continued to worship demons. So in context I would say the horses representing demons or the devil seems unlikely.
If you look at the wider context, this happens after the 6th angel has blown a trumpet. The 7 angels with trumpets passage, starting in Chapter 8, are judgements not on those with the mark of God.
My interpretation is the judgement of Christ on those who reject him. As always other interpretations are possible, but this one works for me. Is Satan waging war on his own followers?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, the 'Aslan isn't safe' thing ...
I think that's a good point about comparing imagery within a book - be it Revelation or any other scriptural book - before referring to other texts from other parts of scripture - as I did.
I was thinking aloud. I don't really have any firm or fixed idea on what the 'locusts' and the 'horses' are meant to represent but I think the features are interesting and I think it's an interesting point you've made ...
You could argue that it shows that people still continue to 'follow evil' despite the harm it causes.
There are various possible applications.
Good one. Food for thought.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
But why do you have to interpret them as literal, physical entities at all, Jamat?
I didn't. What I said was John saw something literal..nothing about physical but real in effect if you like in the power to inflict pain.
It seems to me that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions in categorising.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In what way? Jumping to a lot of conclusions about you or about Revelation?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
How can it be literal when it's a dream or vision?
The whole point about dreams and visions is that they aren't 'literal' but act like visual metaphors.
That's the whole point of them.
It'd be like saying that 'My loves is like a red, red rose' means that the author's beloved is some kind of garden plant ...
Sin, evil etc causes all kinds of pain, emotional, psychological, physical ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How can it be literal when it's a dream or vision?
The whole point about dreams and visions is that they aren't 'literal' but act like visual metaphors.
That's the whole point of them.
It'd be like saying that 'My loves is like a red, red rose' means that the author's beloved is some kind of garden plant ...
Sin, evil etc causes all kinds of pain, emotional, psychological, physical ...
John saw something ..he literally did! Seems to me you are being a bit literal here in your definition of literal. Realities come in other forms than the physical.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Of course.
But literally seeing something and seeing something literally are quite differeny things ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course.
But literally seeing something and seeing something literally are quite differeny things ...
Sounds like progress.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You could argue that it shows that people still continue to 'follow evil' despite the harm it causes.
The "Satan waging war on his own followers" phrase I lifted straight from the ESV Study Bible, but it didn't seem to ring true. Especially as this was the 6th trumpet, and the 7th trumpet announces [cue orchestral introduction and Baroque choir] The kingdom of this world is become the kingdom of our God and of his Christ, and He shall live for ever and ever. [I am now responsible for your Hallelujah Chorus earworm].
The Judgement of Christ just fits better IMO.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Seeing that the inspiration of Apocalyptic literature is seen by the Jews as less direct than prophesy, and in line with the poetry of Job, Psalms or Proverbs, I will try to sum up my position in a poem. I choose Haiku.
Apocalyptic:
No matter how bad things seem
judgement comes. God wins.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Apocalyptic:
No matter how bad things seem
judgement comes. God wins.
Sums it up perfectly. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, and I think it's been observed on these threads that the Jews classify Daniel among the 'Writings' rather than among 'The Prophets'.
I wouldn't make too fine a distinction between prophetic and apocalyptic writings/genres, but I think the Jewish categorisation is instructive.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Also, I'd have thought the whole 'point' of biblical prophecy and NT apocalyptic is to act as a, 'revelation of Jesus Christ', as the Book of Revelation puts it.
Whatever else it might be there for, the prime reason is to tell us something about the Lord Jesus Christ.
Trying to concoct some kind of blue-print for the Eschaton based on snippets and passages in the scriptures - both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament - strikes me as being of a way, way, way, way lower order of priority.
It descends into the realm of pure speculation however much certain kinds of highly-literal Millenialists and Dispensationalists go in for their elaborate and self-referring hermeneutics.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, their prime reason. Men who lived two to two and a half thousand years ago. But God's? May be. To us? May be. I always liked Ezekiel's style, 'Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God'. I can see that happening to John of Patmos too, down on the beach. Wonderful, strange, harmless, encouraging stuff of its time and all times I'm sure.
[ 05. January 2018, 16:31: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It descends into the realm of pure speculation however much certain kinds of highly-literal Millenialists and Dispensationalists go in for their elaborate and self-referring hermeneutics.
While I fully agree with this I find the opposite speculation, the Pretorist everything has already happened approach even less helpful.
Scripture often has more than one meaning, but for the primary purpose of this style I look at what the persecuted Church is saying. Anything else is secondary.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, the persecuted believers will relate to these texts in an analogous way to how the first readers would - as something that 'speaks to their condition' to use a Quaker phrase.
It's the rest of us who have the luxury of armchair speculation.
That said, the reality, of course is that whatever persecuted believers are going through they'll respond using the resources of their own tradition. If they are Catholics they'll respond in a more Catholic flavoured way, Orthodox in an Orthodox way, if evangelical Protestants in an evangelical Protestant way.
So if they are into the kind of pre-millenialist and Dispensationalist schemas that Jamat favours, then they'll apply those.
If not, they won't.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So if they are into the kind of pre-millenialist and Dispensationalist schemas that Jamat favours, then they'll apply those.
If not, they won't.
I don't see much evidence of them doing that. Others are saying that supposedly on their behalf though.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Perhaps. My point was that if you were some kind of fundagelical given to end-time speculation and lived somewhere where Christians were routinely persecuted, then you reaction would presumably draw on that.
As it happens, Christians of all stripes routinely face persecution in various parts of the world, so no, we aren't getting a chorus of end-time speculation from them because they aren't all given to it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What you do get here, in low Anglicanism, is the near orgasmic thrill of martyrdom by proxy.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
Previously stated on thread
The Hebrew understanding had relatively little to do with foretelling future events and much more to do with conveying the divine message to people now. The prophet was the spokesperson of God. In traditional Jewish understanding, Torah and the Writings were also written by prophets, such as Moses, David and Solomon. What distinguishes the books classified as Prophets is a focus on calling Israel to faithfulness, on challenging Israel's unfaithfulness, and on describing what God intends for Israel.
This is a good working rule to have in mind whenever reading the apocalyptic genre. Jesus is presented in NT scripture as THE Prophet that Moses predicted, (according to scripture), and the one that Moses had instructed future Israelites to 'listen to'. Deut. 18:15.
Moses's advice then gets interpreted as the prophetic statement of a seer.
quote:
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. Acts 3:19-26
There is nothing in the original statement by Moses to indicate that he had definite foreknowledge that his words would be taken by Peter to refer to Jesus Christ as The expected Prophet. Moses merely wanted to lay out exactly how the people he was adressing should recognise a person claiming to be speaking with a voice of authority regarding how they should behave in God's sight.
But it certainly came to pass that Moses's words turned out to be a prediction.
So the principle seems clear that prophesy has two distinct elements. The original meaning understood by the originator of the prophesy, (i.e. the teaching), and the subsequent interpretation in hindsight placed upon it. Both are now in scripture and both are supposedly equally 'inspired'.
Another important point is that the Moses 'prophesy' in this case is not a 'prediction' at all. It is a set of rules whereby they may recognise and ignore false leadership or recognise and obey legitimate authority. It is definitely not the prediction of a seer regarding a messianic figure in future time.
However, very little indeed of what Jesus Christ taught and has been recorded, is in fact apocalyptic. The vast majority of his words were about human conduct in the present, here and now. The main objective in his teaching was to establish the Kingdom of God 'on earth'. It was his first objective stated in the Lord's prayer, and enjoined on his disciples, after stating God's credentials and recognising God's authority. "They Kingdom come, They will be done."
So even though Peter presented Christ as THE PROPHET predicted by Moses, Christ in fact was primarily a legislator for the New Order of Conduct for God's people, rather than a seer and predictor of the future per se.
quote:
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began
It is clear that the present conduct of believers and their eschatological hopes of the future are inseparable but that is what fundyjelicals are inclined to do, separate them, majoring on the supposed predictive future element, (Luv our SUV's and Bring on Armageddon), to the detriment of the practical application of Christian ethics to the current situation. (Love your neighbour, e.g. in Islands threatened by GW inundation, as your Good ol boy American self).
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Very good.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
