Leading a Revelation study

[Scribe]

I would think the approach of a Bible study would not be to look at the two major views as to their private interpretations .

It would provide no information on how we personally hear what the Spirit is saying. The bible is a closed book, completely sufficient to reveal the will of God in its entirety..

Bible studies that compare; what did he say or what did the other say ? They are not bible studies .They are commentary studies or studies of the way one particular sect understands . Study what tools makes the groups divide "how" or how those two groups divide? What are the tools as part of the scriptures they used to divide which says how they hear God.

Not what is their personal conclusion . Or who is their favorite teacher .

The Holy Spirit is the only teacher who commands us to study rightly dividing His word that we might seek his approval and not the approval of each other.

I think would depends on how they view verse one of the book of Revelation 1 it sets the hermeneutics needed to rightly divide . Not how do we compare the understanding of one group to another and call that rightfully diving.?

Any comment on Rev 1 IS a commentary. Claiming it is the Holy Spirit interpretation is still your commentary that that is so.

The chief goal should indeed be to disvover what is the best hermeneutic (agreed upon rules of interpretation of scriptures) presented by all those how have written or presented an interpretation besides you and your own claim of Holy Spirit inspiration. The one who does the best hermeneutic presentation is the one who is identifying what the Holy Spirit intended for us to understand.

There is no contradiction between Holy Spirit understanding and correct hermeneutic. They are one in the same. If your hermeneutics are not what the Holy Spirit intended you made a mistake in one of the rules of hemerneutics. Find it and correct it.

Authorial intent is the chief objective, howbeit prophecy of mysteries is a bit more challenging as we are not sure how much the author understood about what he wrote, nevertheless it is still a true statement that if we discover the authorial intent we discover the Holy Spirit intent as well.

There is great value in gleaning from all bible believing scholars that have gone before us and presented a sound hermeneutic for us to consider. Contradictory interpretations cannot all be correct but it is up to us to discover which has made the best presentation and followed the rules of interpretation. The Holy Spirit will show you where the mistakes of interpretation are made if you are willing to put the work into the study of the scriptures but if you reject that there are any rules of interpretation then your interpretation will have no authority and will be of a private interpretation and not what the Holy Spirit intended.

If one considers commentaries off limits to discovering the Holy Spirit intended interpretation it is the same as saying no one has ever discovered the Holy Spirit intended interpretation before now and you are the only one how can discover it.
Belligerency is not one of the rules of interpretation. LOL

 

[biker]

I am wondering if you seek advice from STRANGERS, albeit, strangers who are Believers, that God is not actually encouraging you to lead. I would not read a single Book, watch a single video, take a single piece of advice until God Himself made it known how He wants this done. Good Luck!

 

[Scribe]

I agree about not presenting my personal view until the end; that's what I was thinking. I don't want my personal view to hold any more weight than anyone else's just because I was chosen to lead it.

Your plan to discover the best heremeutic should be the goal. Once it is agreed upon that a particular interpretation is the best hermeneutic then you should adopt that personal view.

It is not then your personal view anyone will be taught rather it will be a fruitful bible study of discovering the best interpretation based on the rules of hermeneutics.

If done carefully and methodically most errors in interpretation will be exposed in the process and can be easily abandoned by the majority.

Adopting a personal view based on the results of this bible study that applies the rules of heremeutics will be the inevitable outcome. It will be unavoidable.

 

[Scribe]

the Seven Thunders (Revelation 10). John is not allowed to write down what the Seven Thunders say. So why did John write it down at all? In grade school, did you ever have a friend try and annoy you by saying, "Hey, I have a secret. And I'm not going to tell you what it is"? Then why even bring it up?? We explicitly see--in a book called "Revelation", ironically enough--God NOT revealing something to us. Revealed to John, but not to us. So we know, for a fact, of at least one passage in Revelation which everyone is NOT supposed to understand. .

There are seven seals, seven trumpets, seven bowls, ..... these seven thunders were most likely significant events that were to happen during the tribulation like those other sevens were, but he was told not to reveal it. There are going to be things that happen during the tribulation that are significant that are like these other events but are not revealed to us. They are not in the "End Time Charts" because no one knows about them. When these events occur people will be trying to figure out why that was not in the book of Revelation. This is why it is written here. To make us realize that we do NOT know everything that is going to happen so don't get too cocky with your Revelation charts. LOL.

 

[acts5_29]

Begin with the 7 Churches of Asia Minor and relate them to your current Church body.

It's amazing how Christ begins each Church with a complement and then ends with, but I have this Against You!

You might discover what your current Church has in common with these 7 Churches both good/bad.

That can lead to improving/restoration/what needs to be fixed/where you are are solid at.


Personally, I think if every Church did this and was honest to themselves, we might get that last big Revival we are hoping for!

Once I begin the actual Revelation part, it makes perfect logical sense to begin with the 7 churches. It's the easiest to interpret, and besides, it's first in the book.

There is some study in hermeneutics about how some books--including some of John's books--are part epistle, and part letter. I would say that Revelation is part letter, and part apocalyptic. Also, I have an assignment for one group member to give a brief study on the Nicolaitans. What's interesting is, in Acts 18 and in I Corinthians 1, Paul refers to divisions in the Church of Corinth in the names of their leaders. In this case, the Nicolaitans were followers of Nicholas. So here we have a letter of John cross-referencing a letter of Paul's. It's a cool insight on how the canon comes together.

 

[biker]

Once I begin the actual Revelation part, it makes perfect logical sense to begin with the 7 churches. It's the easiest to interpret, and besides, it's first in the book.

There is some study in hermeneutics about how some books--including some of John's books--are part epistle, and part letter. I would say that Revelation is part letter, and part apocalyptic. Also, I have an assignment for one group member to give a brief study on the Nicolaitans. What's interesting is, in Acts 18 and in I Corinthians 1, Paul refers to divisions in the Church of Corinth in the names of their leaders. In this case, the Nicolaitans were followers of Nicholas. So here we have a letter of John cross-referencing a letter of Paul's. It's a cool insight on how the canon comes together.

The beauty concerning the 7 Churches are that everyone involved in your group can read what God complemented and then held against each Church, then your members can compare that against the Doctrine of their current Church and Churches they are familiar with, plus give their own plan of action how they would go about correcting the wrongs that Christ points out.

The 7 Churches definitely are the easiest portion of Revelations to get all involved. That way, when you move forward to the next topic, they are eager to be more involved.

Have fun!

You are in my prayers hoping that all will be encouraged to find another way to grow even closer in God!

 

[garee]

Any comment on Rev 1 IS a commentary. Claiming it is the Holy Spirit interpretation is still your commentary that that is so.

The chief goal should indeed be to disvover what is the best hermeneutic (agreed upon rules of interpretation of scriptures) presented by all those how have written or presented an interpretation besides you and your own claim of Holy Spirit inspiration. The one who does the best hermeneutic presentation is the one who is identifying what the Holy Spirit intended for us to understand.

There is no contradiction between Holy Spirit understanding and correct hermeneutic. They are one in the same. If your hermeneutics are not what the Holy Spirit intended you made a mistake in one of the rules of hemerneutics. Find it and correct it.

Authorial intent is the chief objective, howbeit prophecy of mysteries is a bit more challenging as we are not sure how much the author understood about what he wrote, nevertheless it is still a true statement that if we discover the authorial intent we discover the Holy Spirit intent as well.

There is great value in gleaning from all bible believing scholars that have gone before us and presented a sound hermeneutic for us to consider. Contradictory interpretations cannot all be correct but it is up to us to discover which has made the best presentation and followed the rules of interpretation. The Holy Spirit will show you where the mistakes of interpretation are made if you are willing to put the work into the study of the scriptures but if you reject that there are any rules of interpretation then your interpretation will have no authority and will be of a private interpretation and not what the Holy Spirit intended.

If one considers commentaries off limits to discovering the Holy Spirit intended interpretation it is the same as saying no one has ever discovered the Holy Spirit intended interpretation before now and you are the only one how can discover it.
Belligerency is not one of the rules of interpretation. LOL

Thanks Great way of putting it. Keep up the faith.

 

[acts5_29]

I finished Gordon Fee's book on Reading the Bible for All It's Worth. Of particular interest, this being a Revelation study, was the last chapter. Gordon's interpretation of Revelation based on his own set of hermeneutics was interesting: it's kind of a form of preterism (possibly historicism), but he has the events of Revelation terminating with the Fall of Rome--not the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ad.

Gordon notes that the book of Revelation is both a letter and an apocalyptic book, both beginning and ending with a greeting and a closing, following a letter form. John is writing to the seven churches in Asia Minor, thus leading Gordon to believe that John's intended audience for the apocalyptic section of Revelation is intended for the seven churches as well. This, I think, is a perfectly fair conclusion.

Gordon makes the particularly interesting observation that, unlike other works of Apocalyptic literature (none of which are canonized other than Revelation), John never writes to seal up the writings of this book until the time comes. All other apocalyptic works said that. John believes that the end times had already started, beginning with Jesus' first coming. Thus he did not say to seal Revelation up--for the time was already upon them.

Gordon draws a sharp distinction between Tribulation and Wrath. Tribulation is the time of persecution that the Church *will* face. That comes from Satan. Wrath comes from God, and is God's judgment for those who bring persecution on the Church. The Church is spared the Wrath, but not the Tribulation. He furthermore points to chapters 4 and 5 (notably located before either the Tribulation or the Wrath happens) likening the Lamb of God to the Passover Lamb, and saying that God's believers are clothed in the blood of the Lamb. Thus God's believers are present during the Wrath, but the Angel of Death basically passes by them unharmed, because they are clothed with the blood of the Lamb.

Gordon furthermore points out that his intended audience would have been familiar with the Old Testament writings (such as Moses), but there was no New Testament at the time (such as 2 Thessalonians). So, things like Passover his audience would have well understood, but things like the Antichrist and Rapture mentioned in 2 Thessalonians would not be familiar to them. However, Gordon does not rule out the possibility of a future, one-world Antichrist.

Gordon warns us to be particularly wary of commentaries which claim that Revelation is easy to explain. Revelation is not easy. However, he says that certain things are easy to understand--such as the 7 lampstands being the 7 churches of Asia Minor, the Dragon of Revelation 12 is Satan, the woman of Revelation 12 is clearly good, but the woman of Revelation 17 is a different one and very bad. He then goes on to say that Babylon is "clearly" Rome. His reason being that the intense persecution the churches were currently facing were coming from Rome. John was making clear to them that Rome would face its judgement.

I don't know that I agree with Gordon on this Rome thing. However, his perspective is interesting. Rome did not fall in one hour at all. Rome did not face judgement--it converted. I would say it actually avoided judgement Nineveh-style. However, Rome and the Catholic church eventually decayed from within, the same way the 7 seven churches were being called out for decay from within during the first 4 chapters of Revelation. I also find it interesting that if you date Revelation's writing +1000 years, that puts you just about around the Fall of Rome. And the Crusades. And the Romans were preaching the message of Pax Romana (Roman peace) before the time of Jesus, so John's intended audience would have been familiar with that. So there does seem to be a component of 1000 years of peace there. Albeit one more from a historicist point of view.



Just so everyone knows (because I know I will be asked...), I am not putting all my eggs in the Gordon Fee basket. It's just Scribe recommended this book, and he provided a lot of new, different angles to look at this from. Plus, Gordon himself strongly urged us that, when you consider studying any given commentary, one of the most important things to look for is whether the commentary offers up all the different possible interpretations, where multiple interpretations exist. Along with arguments, pro's/con's to each, and the author's final opinion on which is the right one. Which is more-or-less how I'm doing Revelation.

 

[Scribe]

I finished Gordon Fee's book on Reading the Bible for All It's Worth. Of particular interest, this being a Revelation study, was the last chapter. Gordon's interpretation of Revelation based on his own set of hermeneutics was interesting: it's kind of a form of preterism (possibly historicism), but he has the events of Revelation terminating with the Fall of Rome--not the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ad.

Gordon notes that the book of Revelation is both a letter and an apocalyptic book, both beginning and ending with a greeting and a closing, following a letter form. John is writing to the seven churches in Asia Minor, thus leading Gordon to believe that John's intended audience for the apocalyptic section of Revelation is intended for the seven churches as well. This, I think, is a perfectly fair conclusion.

Gordon makes the particularly interesting observation that, unlike other works of Apocalyptic literature (none of which are canonized other than Revelation), John never writes to seal up the writings of this book until the time comes. All other apocalyptic works said that. John believes that the end times had already started, beginning with Jesus' first coming. Thus he did not say to seal Revelation up--for the time was already upon them.

Gordon draws a sharp distinction between Tribulation and Wrath. Tribulation is the time of persecution that the Church *will* face. That comes from Satan. Wrath comes from God, and is God's judgment for those who bring persecution on the Church. The Church is spared the Wrath, but not the Tribulation. He furthermore points to chapters 4 and 5 (notably located before either the Tribulation or the Wrath happens) likening the Lamb of God to the Passover Lamb, and saying that God's believers are clothed in the blood of the Lamb. Thus God's believers are present during the Wrath, but the Angel of Death basically passes by them unharmed, because they are clothed with the blood of the Lamb.

Gordon furthermore points out that his intended audience would have been familiar with the Old Testament writings (such as Moses), but there was no New Testament at the time (such as 2 Thessalonians). So, things like Passover his audience would have well understood, but things like the Antichrist and Rapture mentioned in 2 Thessalonians would not be familiar to them. However, Gordon does not rule out the possibility of a future, one-world Antichrist.

Gordon warns us to be particularly wary of commentaries which claim that Revelation is easy to explain. Revelation is not easy. However, he says that certain things are easy to understand--such as the 7 lampstands being the 7 churches of Asia Minor, the Dragon of Revelation 12 is Satan, the woman of Revelation 12 is clearly good, but the woman of Revelation 17 is a different one and very bad. He then goes on to say that Babylon is "clearly" Rome. His reason being that the intense persecution the churches were currently facing were coming from Rome. John was making clear to them that Rome would face its judgement.

I don't know that I agree with Gordon on this Rome thing. However, his perspective is interesting. Rome did not fall in one hour at all. Rome did not face judgement--it converted. I would say it actually avoided judgement Nineveh-style. However, Rome and the Catholic church eventually decayed from within, the same way the 7 seven churches were being called out for decay from within during the first 4 chapters of Revelation. I also find it interesting that if you date Revelation's writing +1000 years, that puts you just about around the Fall of Rome. And the Crusades. And the Romans were preaching the message of Pax Romana (Roman peace) before the time of Jesus, so John's intended audience would have been familiar with that. So there does seem to be a component of 1000 years of peace there. Albeit one more from a historicist point of view.



Just so everyone knows (because I know I will be asked...), I am not putting all my eggs in the Gordon Fee basket. It's just Scribe recommended this book, and he provided a lot of new, different angles to look at this from. Plus, Gordon himself strongly urged us that, when you consider studying any given commentary, one of the most important things to look for is whether the commentary offers up all the different possible interpretations, where multiple interpretations exist. Along with arguments, pro's/con's to each, and the author's final opinion on which is the right one. Which is more-or-less how I'm doing Revelation.

Thank you for the synopsis and if you were not already aware, Gordon Fee has a commentary on Revelation "Revelation A New Covenant Commentary" He does make a case for Rome being Babylon and for the audience being the present church of Asia minor. He has not convinced me of his interpretation of Revelation but I am reading his commentary along with several others from several authors so that I can review each interpretation presented and determine which is using the best hermeneutic. I may have posted this before, I cannot remember.

Stanley M Horton "Our Destiny" (Pretrib)
Craig Blomberg "A Case for Historic Premillennialism" (Posttrib)
Gordon D Fee "Revelation" (Preterist/Postrib?)
George Eldon Ladd "The Blessed Hope" (PostTrib)
George Eldon Ladd "Commentary on the Revelation of John" (PostTrib)
Joseph A Seiss "The Apocalypse; Lectures on the book of Revelation" (Pretrib) MY FAVORITE SO FAR simply because it is such a good read. Available in public domain for download 800 page verse by verse commentary. Very scholarly, very wordy.
James Stuart Russell "The Parousia" (amillennialism) A highly recommended presentation on amillennialism
Herman A Hoyt "The End Times" (PreTrib)
Stanley Horton: "The Ultimate Victory: An Exposition on the book of Revelation" (PreTrib)

I am sure that there are even better books than these and I would welcome any suggested commentaries that have been instrumental in persuading people on their views of Revelation. Not interested in videos or sermons, just scholarly books on interpretations using sound hermeneutics. Long winded presentations of what the church fathers believed, or how the Roman Catholic system fits into prophesy are not very helpful. I am looking for those excellent scholarly books that help me discover scriptures that apply to the subject of eschatology and interpretations that follow rules of hermeneutics.

 

[acts5_29]

I think I am leaning more toward an idealistic view of Revelation. That is certainly not the fad nowadays (futurist is "in"). John's intended audience was Asia Minor, who were actively undergoing persecution. We should read that similarly to the other letters: that they were occasional texts, but we can draw normalized meaning from it. In this case, it says you will face tribulation, but he who perseveres will be spared God's wrath and will surely gain a robe of white. Maybe as the Church and the world face future tribulation, God will bring up new prophets with new messages--and that Church will be already familiar with Revelation, the same way Asia Minor was already familiar with the Old Testament. So both the prophets and God will make references back to Revelation at that and/or this time. Maybe--just maybe--other apocalyptic works will go unsealed after all when the time is right. Who knows. They're sealed, you know? We all have this need to know the future and how it will unfold, but that is not to be. Revelation tells us what we need to know, and what we don't...it doesn't.

 

[Scribe]

I think I am leaning more toward an idealistic view of Revelation. That is certainly not the fad nowadays (futurist is "in"). John's intended audience was Asia Minor, who were actively undergoing persecution. We should read that similarly to the other letters: that they were occasional texts, but we can draw normalized meaning from it. In this case, it says you will face tribulation, but he who perseveres will be spared God's wrath and will surely gain a robe of white. Maybe as the Church and the world face future tribulation, God will bring up new prophets with new messages--and that Church will be already familiar with Revelation, the same way Asia Minor was already familiar with the Old Testament. So both the prophets and God will make references back to Revelation at that and/or this time. Maybe--just maybe--other apocalyptic works will go unsealed after all when the time is right. Who knows. They're sealed, you know? We all have this need to know the future and how it will unfold, but that is not to be. Revelation tells us what we need to know, and what we don't...it doesn't.

I think Gordon Fee brings an important aspect that should be INCLUDED to interpreting Revelation. It had a present day application when it was written but so did Daniel. And yet Daniel included future prophesy all the way down to the establishment of the everlasting kingdom that would fill the world. Still future.

 

[acts5_29]

Where I think Gordon Fee might fall short from a futurist point of view is that maybe John REALLY WAS snatched to Heaven and simply wrote down the things he saw, about things to come. At that point, the hermeneutic is really no different from reading a newspaper article. See many-eyed creature, write down many-eyed creature. Even so, he was writing to Asia Minor. Writing to Asia Minor about things God told him would happen in the 21st century may pique believers' curiosity, but it gives them little of what they really need when they were actively in the middle of facing persecution.

 

[Scribe]

Where I think Gordon Fee might fall short from a futurist point of view is that maybe John REALLY WAS snatched to Heaven and simply wrote down the things he saw, about things to come. At that point, the hermeneutic is really no different from reading a newspaper article. See many-eyed creature, write down many-eyed creature. Even so, he was writing to Asia Minor. Writing to Asia Minor about things God told him would happen in the 21st century may pique believers' curiosity, but it gives them little of what they really need when they were actively in the middle of facing persecution.

If the interpretation of the four faced creatures were that of glorified saints inheritance then it would motivate both them and every believer who has read it since that time. The motivation being to endure because many things are promised to the overcomer seems to be the same message if the four faced living creatures are redeemed saints as they say they are when they sing in Rev 5:9-10

 

[acts5_29]

"If you hold true to the faith to very end, you will be transformed into a floating many-eyed creature in Heaven."

Maybe exactly 4 people in Asia Minor found that thought appealing.

 

[Scribe]

"If you hold true to the faith to very end, you will be transformed into a floating many-eyed creature in Heaven."

Maybe exactly 4 people in Asia Minor found that thought appealing.

LOL... well we don't know if they even understood it. It requires knowing scripture especially the prophets. The symbolism is of Great Concepts concerning things like perfect knowledge whereas now we see in part. The four faced living creatures say they are redeemed out of every tribe, nation, people etc, and they are washed in the blood. So we know they are not cherubims but why are they shown symbolicaly in a way that reminds us of the cherubims that sang Holy Holy Holy in Isaiah's vision of the Glory of God? Because they have inherited that position of being able to be in the face to face glory of God as those cherubims in Isaiah's vision. The symbolism suggests that we inherit this kind of proximity to the very throne of glory once reserved only for these special cherubims and so Johns see them in symbolic representation and yet is made to have understanding later that they are redeemed saints because that is who they say they are redeemed from every nation, not just 4. The 4 is symbolic of bigger picture concepts. The same with the 24 elders, they also sing the same song which means they are more than 24 but the symbolism is that we inherit a priesthood. The 24 being symbolic of the 24 elder priests who governed the entire levitical priests made of of tens of thousands. 2 Chron 24. Both the 4 living creatures and the 24 elders sing that they are redeemed by the Blood from every tribe, tongue, nation, people etc and will reign as kings and priests on the earth. They are glorified saints in heaven who have inherited rewards that are being displayed to John in symbolic representations. Overcomers. And this is highly motivational.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

It looks like I will be leading a Bible study series on Revelation soon at my church. I thought I would try and draw from the collective wisdom of this board, and see what do you think are good ideas for leading a Revelation Bible study series? I figured that is what a Christian chat board is all about. Do you know of good Revelation study resources for leaders? Any thoughts on how to engage the group, or ground rules for social dynamics? This is supposed to be a small group, but with all the renewed interest in Revelation of late with the Covid crisis going on, I'm not so sure how "small" this group will really be.

I wish you all the best in what you want to do. Revelation is easy to understand for me, but it look a lot of research and insight. Just make things sound as easy to understand as possible. Put emphasis on End time events, because that is what is mainly about.

 

[acts5_29]

This study actually gained more traction than I expected. I guess it's because I put in more homework than most people do for a Sunday School type study (normally the teacher might read a book for an hour-and-a-half the night before). Since the study turned more into a study of How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth, I've got interest from the broader church to somehow study this church-wide. Hasn't been decided yet. I had intended this for more of a small group-type of setting, but we're looking at attendance of more than 50. That doesn't lend itself to open discussion quite so much. Need to re-strategize.