tulsa 2011
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2010
- Messages
- 354
The Meaning of the Metaphors In Revelation 11 and "Hermeneutics"
The endless arguments over who literally are the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 is not the central issue for this chapter. The Book of Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ "to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass..." Revelation 1: 1. End time prophecy is given as knowledge, and in the Book of Revelation this knowledge is very often given in the language of metaphor, some of which is fairly easy to understand and some not as easy. God opens up these more difficult metaphors when and to whom he decides to open them. What is important in determining what one makes of Revelation 11 is one's "hermeneutic," from the pagan god Hermes. And if one's "hermeneutic" leads him to an interpretation that is wrong, what he is teaching about the metaphoric text is fable (I Timothy 1: 4, II Timothy 4: 4, II Peter 1: 16) and not knowledge from God.
The "hermeneutic" that Origen (184 – 253 A.D.) developed and was taken up by Augustine was based in part on Greek philosophy and it was a system of broad sweeping allegories to interpret many end time Bible prophecies. The Catholic Church used this system, but it also claimed that the Church itself has authority to interpret scripture, and in effect to create doctrine. Origen's "hermeneutic" changed Christianity and was one mark of the end of the period of early Christian Fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp and Irenaeus.
During the Reformation Luther and Calvin taught that scriptura sui ipsius interpres, or scripture interprets scripture, and that scripturam ex scriptura explicandam esse, scripture is explained from scripture. Calvinism is, to some extent, a tradition of men, and its amillennial method of end time Bible prophecy interpretation is false. But the use of scripture to interpret Bible texts that are hard to understand is valid. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:" Isaiah 28: 10 This verse says we should add knowledge from one Bible verse to that of other verses and implies that the understanding we have from one verse can be used to help interpret another verse when that knowledge is relevant.
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2: 12-14
The person who is in Christ, who does not walk after the flesh and is led by the Spirit (Romans 8: 1) is able to use scriptures he understands to help open up to him those scriptures he does not fully understand.
When the several 19th century cults came along and dispensationalism took over a majority of Christian denominations, the older Reformation "hermeneutic," that scripture interprets scripture, was in large part lost and key scriptures came to be spun to fit dispensationalism.
The main six 19th century cults were dispensationalism, Christian Identity, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism, Scientology and the Mormons. Christian Identity is the belief that the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic Caucasian peoples are descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and are therefore the "chosen" people.
After dispenationalism had taken over a majority of the denominations by the mid 20th century, then scripture, and especially end time Bible prophecy, came to be interpreted by dispensationalism and its "hermeneutic." Over the decades since the late 19th century in the U.S. dispensationalism became a tradition of men (Matthew 15: 6, Mark 7: 8).
In addition, the more recent tradition of men encourages people to consider one scripture at a time and not to bring up a number of scriptures all at once. The reason for doing this, in part, is to make it easier to promote an interpretation of a scripture that is along the lines of a particular tradition of men. Bringing up several end time scriptures all at once to help interpret a heavily metaphoric end time prophecy might lead people to return to the old Reformation idea that scripture interprets scripture.
The tradition of men called dispensationalism, Christian Zionism, separation theology, postponement theology or the rapture cult starts from two basic assumptions, the first stating that God now has two peoples, Old Covenant Israel and something called the church, a word originally referring to a pagan goddess and pagan places of worship, circe, or chirche pronounced Kirchee. For dispensationalism physical Israel stands alongside the capital C Church, which is the Kirchee. The second starting assumption of dispensationalism is its own "hermeneutic," or system of Bible interpretation.
On http://www.realapologetics.<wbr>org/blog/...lism/#_ftnref3
"[Prophecy is] the ground of absolute literalness."[5]
"Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel always Israel, Zion always Zion…Prophecies may never be spiritualized, but are always literal.[6]" Quotes from C.I. Scofield, the first classical American dispensationalist.
In 1936, Lewis S. Chafer, a classical dispensationalist who founded the Dallas Theological Seminary, defined Scofield's literalism as "The outstanding characteristic of the dispensationalist is ... that he believes every statement of the Bible and gives to it the plain, natural meaning its words imply."
From: L. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93, October (1936), pp410, 417.
Charles C. Ryrie says "This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation. Therefore, the second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is the matter of historical-grammatical hermeneutics. The word literal is perhaps not as good as either the word normal or plain, but in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation often does. The spiritualizing may be practiced to a lesser or greater degree, but its presence in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach." From: Dispensationalism. Charles C. Ryrie. Moody Press, Chicago. 1995.
The endless arguments over who literally are the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 is not the central issue for this chapter. The Book of Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ "to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass..." Revelation 1: 1. End time prophecy is given as knowledge, and in the Book of Revelation this knowledge is very often given in the language of metaphor, some of which is fairly easy to understand and some not as easy. God opens up these more difficult metaphors when and to whom he decides to open them. What is important in determining what one makes of Revelation 11 is one's "hermeneutic," from the pagan god Hermes. And if one's "hermeneutic" leads him to an interpretation that is wrong, what he is teaching about the metaphoric text is fable (I Timothy 1: 4, II Timothy 4: 4, II Peter 1: 16) and not knowledge from God.
The "hermeneutic" that Origen (184 – 253 A.D.) developed and was taken up by Augustine was based in part on Greek philosophy and it was a system of broad sweeping allegories to interpret many end time Bible prophecies. The Catholic Church used this system, but it also claimed that the Church itself has authority to interpret scripture, and in effect to create doctrine. Origen's "hermeneutic" changed Christianity and was one mark of the end of the period of early Christian Fathers like Ignatius, Polycarp and Irenaeus.
During the Reformation Luther and Calvin taught that scriptura sui ipsius interpres, or scripture interprets scripture, and that scripturam ex scriptura explicandam esse, scripture is explained from scripture. Calvinism is, to some extent, a tradition of men, and its amillennial method of end time Bible prophecy interpretation is false. But the use of scripture to interpret Bible texts that are hard to understand is valid. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:" Isaiah 28: 10 This verse says we should add knowledge from one Bible verse to that of other verses and implies that the understanding we have from one verse can be used to help interpret another verse when that knowledge is relevant.
"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." I Corinthians 2: 12-14
The person who is in Christ, who does not walk after the flesh and is led by the Spirit (Romans 8: 1) is able to use scriptures he understands to help open up to him those scriptures he does not fully understand.
When the several 19th century cults came along and dispensationalism took over a majority of Christian denominations, the older Reformation "hermeneutic," that scripture interprets scripture, was in large part lost and key scriptures came to be spun to fit dispensationalism.
The main six 19th century cults were dispensationalism, Christian Identity, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism, Scientology and the Mormons. Christian Identity is the belief that the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic Caucasian peoples are descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and are therefore the "chosen" people.
After dispenationalism had taken over a majority of the denominations by the mid 20th century, then scripture, and especially end time Bible prophecy, came to be interpreted by dispensationalism and its "hermeneutic." Over the decades since the late 19th century in the U.S. dispensationalism became a tradition of men (Matthew 15: 6, Mark 7: 8).
In addition, the more recent tradition of men encourages people to consider one scripture at a time and not to bring up a number of scriptures all at once. The reason for doing this, in part, is to make it easier to promote an interpretation of a scripture that is along the lines of a particular tradition of men. Bringing up several end time scriptures all at once to help interpret a heavily metaphoric end time prophecy might lead people to return to the old Reformation idea that scripture interprets scripture.
The tradition of men called dispensationalism, Christian Zionism, separation theology, postponement theology or the rapture cult starts from two basic assumptions, the first stating that God now has two peoples, Old Covenant Israel and something called the church, a word originally referring to a pagan goddess and pagan places of worship, circe, or chirche pronounced Kirchee. For dispensationalism physical Israel stands alongside the capital C Church, which is the Kirchee. The second starting assumption of dispensationalism is its own "hermeneutic," or system of Bible interpretation.
On http://www.realapologetics.<wbr>org/blog/...lism/#_ftnref3
"[Prophecy is] the ground of absolute literalness."[5]
"Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel always Israel, Zion always Zion…Prophecies may never be spiritualized, but are always literal.[6]" Quotes from C.I. Scofield, the first classical American dispensationalist.
In 1936, Lewis S. Chafer, a classical dispensationalist who founded the Dallas Theological Seminary, defined Scofield's literalism as "The outstanding characteristic of the dispensationalist is ... that he believes every statement of the Bible and gives to it the plain, natural meaning its words imply."
From: L. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93, October (1936), pp410, 417.
Charles C. Ryrie says "This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation. Therefore, the second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is the matter of historical-grammatical hermeneutics. The word literal is perhaps not as good as either the word normal or plain, but in any case it is interpretation that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational interpretation often does. The spiritualizing may be practiced to a lesser or greater degree, but its presence in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach." From: Dispensationalism. Charles C. Ryrie. Moody Press, Chicago. 1995.
Last edited:
