Revelation discussion - 1 of 2

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Dee Goepel wrote:

> MF Blume responded:
> > Still, though, John received VISIONS as the means for
> > things that would shortly come to pass.  That means we must
> > study other visions in the Bible and compare them with Rev.
> > in the interpretation.
> >
> > Even Ezekiel's experience of eating a scroll was a vision.
> >
> > For example, if we say that literal "marks" (computer chips
> > or whatever) are to come in days ahead due to Rev 13,
> > then why cannot we say that an actual beast with seven
> > heads is not going to arise out of the sea?  SOME
> > is certainly symbolic.  What visions in the past contained
> > SOME symbolism and literalism?
> >
> 
> What about when God gave Peter the vision of all those
> "unclean" animals on the sheet.  There was both a symbolic
> and literal message there, no?  Symbolically, Peter was
> being told to go preach to and baptize the gentiles.  That
> which was outcast/unclean, was now acceptable to God.  Yet,
> literally those animals/foods were now permissable to be
> eaten as well.  There was a literal, as well as a symbolic
> message in the vision.

Excellent question.  Thanks!

And I think your thinking is correct in part, but inapplicable
to Revelation.  God was not teaching Peter that
he could then eat unclean animals AS WELL as baptize
gentiles, although grace said, "Eat anything you want except blood."  
This was not a lesson on what is edible and what is not.  But 
what God did was He used an actual reality of allowance for food
to distinctively show forth a message solely about the Gentile 
inclusion into the Church.  Gentiles were unclean in OT times, 
like the unclean animals.

And in Revelation, the visions, even if they did involve
literal things, those literal things would be just as much  a set of
object lessons, and the real point God would have been trying to 
get across, like the case with Peter, would have nothing to do 
with the object lessons, themselves.

Please give an example of what you are saying being applied to 
something in Revelation.

If this is true with the mark on the right hand, then using your 
illustration for a guideline as to how to handle the "mark" issue,
we could say, "Yes, there are marks on hands, but God is using that
'object lesson' to get across the main point He is referring to, which
is that 'such-and-such' will happen.  God is not primarily pointing us
to a literal mark on the right hand to avoid, but rather something
which that mark symbolizes, just as Peter's unclean animals symbolize
gentiles."

At any rate, no vision was literally fulfilled in the sense of
the MAIN POINT God was bringing forth.  In Peter's case, the main
point was to accept the Gentiles.

-- 
In Christ,
Mike Blume
mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm