Leading a Revelation study

[Nehemiah6]

...but I thought attaining knowledge was always beneficial.

Not really. It depends upon where that knowledge comes from.
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. (2 Tim 2:16)

Getting back to the book of Revelation. It is generally chronological, and most of the symbols are explained, as in this example: The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. (Rev 1:20)

Those angels were literally angels -- angelic messengers sent to those seven churches. And the lampstands (candlesticks) represented the seven churches, since the light of the Gospel and the light of God's truth was to emanate from each church. As we know, almost all those churches had been corrupted with the leaven (another metaphor) of false doctrines and false practices.

 

[Hungry]

Not really. It depends upon where that knowledge comes from.
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. (2 Tim 2:16)

Getting back to the book of Revelation. It is generally chronological, and most of the symbols are explained, as in this example: The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. (Rev 1:20)

Those angels were literally angels -- angelic messengers sent to those seven churches. And the lampstands (candlesticks) represented the seven churches, since the light of the Gospel and the light of God's truth was to emanate from each church. As we know, almost all those churches had been corrupted with the leaven (another metaphor) of false doctrines and false practices.

I understand why you assume the stars are heavenly messengers but it could also just mean pastors, no?

the] angels
ἄγγελοι (angeloi)
Noun - Nominative Masculine Plural
Strong's Greek 32: From aggello; a messenger; especially an 'angel'; by implication, a pastor.

This is why there can be confusion. It’s all how one interprets it. In the second chapter he addresses the letter to the “angel”. If it was a heavenly angel and not a pastor why would John have to write a letter to tell him what Jesus says. If it’s a devine protector you would assume he knows.

However your correction regarding all knowledge being beneficial is duly noted. It doesn’t rebuke studying it, just repeating it. I thought vain babbling was just the status quo here at CC.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I understand why you assume the stars are heavenly messengers but it could also just mean pastors, no?

In that case the term would have been "chief elder" (since there was always a plurality of elders in NT churches, and probably on of them would be a leading elder).

 

[DorothyMae]

Sorry for any extra work my writing skills do suffer.

Yes he is much better at helping us to understand his signified tongue . Nothing needs to be added to His word. we offer what we think he is teaching us. One is our Master teacher in heaven

The prescription to mix with faith so that we can receive the hidden signified gospel I
We do not wrestles against flesh and blood the temporal things seen and neither or do we derive any power from the corrupted flesh and blood.

Revelation 1;1 reveals the interpreting tool or prescription needed to rightly divide the parables. Like the Revelation 20
parable. Using the temporal to signify the eternal vison not seen. (2 Corinthians 4:18) The vision of faith the golden measure

.Many say God is a man popular in many Christian circles. . A creature as us having a beginning. God is not a man and neither is there a fleshly infallible teacher set between God not seen and man seen

No problem with the writing skills. I sometimes read my own afterwards and cring. The basic problem is that I am a very practical person and struggle with the language used to convey ideas is somewhat etheral. I have no idea what a hidden signified gospel understanding is. I do know what forgiveness of real sins is. I do wrestle against the enemy and his whiles at times. Sometimes a winner but even winners can get wounded in the fight. I am not sure why Revelation anything gives us tools to "rightly divide" the parables. I think Jesus explained all the parables very nicely.

Dear Garee, I don't doubt your faith or walk with Him or anything about you. But I think we are not a good match for a discussion. I am down to earth practical although my walk with Him is deeper than most although not as deep as some. I will give you an example so you see I understand spiritual matters and know they are more real than material, but I do not speak or think in terms that do not have a practical application.

It has become my habit when walking through difficult times, materially, I ask God what I am to do. I am asking HIm for a real and practical answer as to how to deal with my difficult situation. He always gives me measurable and practical answers. With time understanding of his ways has come to me through this method of practical obedience, more so that those who learned Greek and/or Hebrew or studied theologians' teachings in detail.

So I wish you well but I am likely just too practical for a discussion. Doesn't mean better, just different..maybe too different for a discussion with you.

 

[DorothyMae]

To the three of you who said this, I will just quote what one person in my group said:

If someone tells me they have a pretty good grasp of Revelation, that is a telltale sign that they do NOT have a good grasp of Revelation.

So no one can ever have a good grasp of Revelation? It actually says in Revelation that is it written so that his people will understand and your position is anyone who says they do does not because they said they do? Does this really make sense? Does this do the One who inspired the book justice?

 

[DorothyMae]

If I were to lead a study in Revelation I would present the two major views (with labels) which divide mainly into "it is in the future" and "it is in the past" without bias.

I would also present all the scriptures that speak of the same events discussing how each view interprets those scriptures.

I would try very hard not to present my own personal view until the end at which time I would ask the others to share their personal view if they have or had decided upon one.

 

[Hungry]

In that case the term would have been "chief elder" (since there was always a plurality of elders in NT churches, and probably on of them would be a leading elder).

So you are sticking with the assumption that John is writing to heavenly beings?

 

[Hungry]

If I were to lead a study in Revelation I would present the two major views (with labels) which divide mainly into "it is in the future" and "it is in the past" without bias.

I would also present all the scriptures that speak of the same events discussing how each view interprets those scriptures.

I would try very hard not to present my own personal view until the end at which time I would ask the others to share their personal view if they have or had decided upon one.

That’s an exciting way to teach Revelation. If the class is as confident to share their opinions as we all are, the lectures or a 10 week study should conclude about week 5 then they can share the last half arguing about pre/post tribulation rapture, the mark of the beast and which world leader may be the antichrist.

 

[garee]

No problem with the writing skills. I sometimes read my own afterwards and cring. The basic problem is that I am a very practical person and struggle with the language used to convey ideas is somewhat etheral. I have no idea what a hidden signified gospel understanding is. I do know what forgiveness of real sins is. I do wrestle against the enemy and his whiles at times. Sometimes a winner but even winners can get wounded in the fight. I am not sure why Revelation anything gives us tools to "rightly divide" the parables. I think Jesus explained all the parables very nicely.

Dear Garee, I don't doubt your faith or walk with Him or anything about you. But I think we are not a good match for a discussion. I am down to earth practical although my walk with Him is deeper than most although not as deep as some. I will give you an example so you see I understand spiritual matters and know they are more real than material, but I do not speak or think in terms that do not have a practical application.

It has become my habit when walking through difficult times, materially, I ask God what I am to do. I am asking HIm for a real and practical answer as to how to deal with my difficult situation. He always gives me measurable and practical answers. With time understanding of his ways has come to me through this method of practical obedience, more so that those who learned Greek and/or Hebrew or studied theologians' teachings in detail.

So I wish you well but I am likely just too practical for a discussion. Doesn't mean better, just different..maybe too different for a discussion with you.

Thanks for trying . The phrase, "hidden signified gospel understanding" is is simple the signified understanding that comes from parables . In the first verse in the book of Revelation we are infromed without parables the signified understanding Christ spoke not.

Many ignore the law of interpreting and literalize the language of Revelation.

Makes a bad start for a Bible study if the spiritual understand is lacking.

 

[garee]

If I were to lead a study in Revelation I would present the two major views (with labels) which divide mainly into "it is in the future" and "it is in the past" without bias.

I would also present all the scriptures that speak of the same events discussing how each view interprets those scriptures.

I would try very hard not to present my own personal view until the end at which time I would ask the others to share their personal view if they have or had decided upon one.

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.?

 

[DorothyMae]

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.?

Both sides insist the Holy Spirit taught them. Now what?

 

[DorothyMae]

Thanks for trying . The phrase, "hidden signified gospel understanding" is is simple the signified understanding that comes from parables . In the first verse in the book of Revelation we are infromed without parables the signified understanding Christ spoke not.

Many ignore the law of interpreting and literalize the language of Revelation.

Makes a bad start for a Bible study if the spiritual understand is lacking.

I think adding the adjective signafied is confusing.

 

[garee]

I think adding the adjective signafied is confusing.

Thanks.

In the passage below what makes signified less confusing ? That he inspired it?


Revelation 1 King James Version (KJV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

 

[garee]

Both sides insist the Holy Spirit taught them. Now what?

I would suggest Look to the tools available . The first tool. What does the opening verse say as to how we can hear ?

Do we need the tools like below in order to mix faith and receive the signified understanding? or literalize it .

Like the tool given below for rightly dividing the parables. If we do not use it .We are left with the temporal vision or historical.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

 

[DorothyMae]

I would suggest Look to the tools available . The first tool. What does the opening verse say as to how we can hear ?

Do we need the tools like below in order to mix faith and receive the signified understanding? or literalize it .

Like the tool given below for rightly dividing the parables. If we do not use it .We are left with the temporal vision or historical.

2 Corinthians 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

First you say listen to the Holy Spirit and if that doesn’t work, look at the (man) tools available?? Give an example of applying that scripture please.

 

[DorothyMae]

Thanks.

In the passage below what makes signified less confusing ? That he inspired it?


Revelation 1 King James Version (KJV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

That’s used as a verb not an adjective. He signified X not a signified X which does tell me who or what did the action. The power of the verse is in HE did the action. The adjective doesn’t tell us who which is everything. Far as I know, some theologian decided X was signified. Do you see what I mean?

 

[Dino246]

The word translated, "signified" in Revelation 1:1 is used in the sense of "indicated" (made clear) elsewhere in Scripture (John 12:33, 18:32, and 21:19; Acts 11:28 and 25:27). It is not used to mean 'turned into symbolic language', so Garee's entire premise is based on misunderstanding.

 

[acts5_29]

If I were to lead a study in Revelation I would present the two major views (with labels) which divide mainly into "it is in the future" and "it is in the past" without bias.

I would also present all the scriptures that speak of the same events discussing how each view interprets those scriptures.

I would try very hard not to present my own personal view until the end at which time I would ask the others to share their personal view if they have or had decided upon one.

I actually see three major views, maybe four: it is in the future, it is in the past, and it is symbolic. Amill, for example, is neither future nor past--it is present, and symbolic. This makes Revelation relevant to our Christian life today, end times or no end times.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that no one can understand Revelation. After all, then why write it? But we do have one highly underrated passage in Revelation to highlight my point: 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. My goal at the end of the study is that, if people still do not understand Revelation (or parts of it) at the end of it, that it be because God did not choose to reveal it to us--not because we were not listening. I think that's the important thing: that we listen to God. And if God speaks, then He speaks. If He doesn't, then He doesn't. And if He changes the subject, then we listen to what He says about the new subject.

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.

p.s. the fourth "major" view, which is not major at all, really, is the possibility that Revelation is, in fact, fallible. And/or that we are simply not the intended audience. Put another way: there is no Millennium, that is an error. This dives more into apologetics, or why do we believe what we believe? Why do we believe that the Bible in its present Protestant canonical form is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God? I don't think I will spend any time on this one, because that could rabbit-trail into a different topic. Studying apologetics is not the same as studying Revelation. Related, but not the same.

 

[garee]

That’s used as a verb not an adjective. He signified X not a signified X which does tell me who or what did the action. The power of the verse is in HE did the action. The adjective doesn’t tell us who which is everything. Far as I know, some theologian decided X was signified. Do you see what I mean?

Thanks for the reply.

I Think I understand what you are saying . He sent the hearing of His faith as a labor of his love. It worked and gave the understanding to another. Hiding that understanding from natural unconverted mankind . Also called the hearing of faith or work of faith .

It would seem the foolish Galatian Christians were walking by sight after the literal historical view as if the kingdom of God did come by observation (No faith needed) .By literalizing the signified work they as it seems became foolish.

Galatians 3 King James Version (KJV) O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Building on the signified understanding of verse 1 Chapter, 1 . Chapter 2 of Revelation refers to the hearing of the faith X as having the signified understanding of another. "The hidden Manna" . Manna literally meaning. What it is ? Used to show it is not of us. Giving meaning to the phrase hear what the Holy Spirit says to the churches according to the hidden manna X

Revelation 2: 17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, (X) and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

 

[DorothyMae]

I actually see three major views, maybe four: it is in the future, it is in the past, and it is symbolic. Amill, for example, is neither future nor past--it is present, and symbolic. This makes Revelation relevant to our Christian life today, end times or no end times.

The verses that say the purpose is so his servants understand what will soon take place are regendered useless if we make it about no time.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that no one can understand Revelation. After all, then why write it? But we do have one highly underrated passage in Revelation to highlight my point: 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?

He was obedient and wrote what he was told to write.

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.

Wasn’t written to us but the christians then.

So we know, for a fact, of at least one passage in Revelation which everyone is NOT supposed to understand. My goal at the end of the study is that, if people still do not understand Revelation (or parts of it) at the end of it, that it be because God did not choose to reveal it to us--not because we were not listening.

You need to consider why He doesn’t reveal it to your group. He always has reasons.

I think that's the important thing: that we listen to God. And if God speaks, then He speaks. If He doesn't, then He doesn't.

Sometimes we need to find out why He doesn’t or if we’re not listening.

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.

very good

p.s. the fourth "major" view, which is not major at all, really, is the possibility that Revelation is, in fact, fallible. And/or that we are simply not the intended audience. Put another way: there is no Millennium, that is an error. This dives more into apologetics, or why do we believe what we believe? Why do we believe that the Bible in its present Protestant canonical form is the inerrant, divinely inspired Word of God? I don't think I will spend any time on this one, because that could rabbit-trail into a different topic. Studying apologetics is not the same as studying Revelation. Related, but not the same.

Well I think it matches history and the rest of the Bible perfectly.