Thursday, December 19, 2024

Bible Hermeneutics (ix)




"1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. 3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days." (Rev. 12: 1-6 nkjv)

J.A. Seiss, the well known author of many books, and of "The Apocalypse," wrote this about these "signs" ('wonder' kjv) of Revelation chapter eleven (some emphasis mine):

"This, the Apostle tells us is a sign, σημεῖον a word which he here uses for the first time in the Apocalypse, and which serves to show that the apparition is not simply a "wonder" as our version has it, but a wonder intended to bring before us something beyond itself. I have repeatedly remarked, that when the Scriptures use figures or symbols, or speak in a way not intended to be taken literally, like all serious writings they always give some intimation of it, in one way or another. The text is a case in point. What is described, is said to be a sign a representation or picture of something else — a symbol. And the fact that we are here told that this is a sign goes far to prove that the Apocalypse in general is to be taken literally, except where indication to the contrary is given. It would be quite superfluous to tell us that this thing is a sign, and that certain things mean certain other things, except upon the assumption that whatever is not so labelled is to be taken just as it reads, a woman for a woman, a star for a star, a mountain for a mountain, and so on. But, whatever else is literal in this book, the case of this woman is not; for the Apostle says it is a sign — a picture — a symbol of something else, which is the true subject of contemplation. He further tells us that it is "a great sign." In itself it was something very imposing and sublime to the eye which beheld it. But the greatness cannot be well understood, except with reference to the thing signified. It was a great sign as indicating something great, remarkable, momentous. The whole picture is itself so marvellous and extraordinary as to necessitate the idea of something of the greatest excellence, conspicuity, and importance. And when it is yet added, that the sign is a "great" one, that to which it refers must needs be of the utmost consequence and consideration, and no trifling object or ordinary event can be admitted as fulfilling the majesty of such a picture." (pgs. 272-273 - See here)

This is an eloquent and powerful defense of the literal interpretation of prophecy. The normal way to interpret prophecy is to interpret it literally UNLESS the context or common sense dictates otherwise. Also, again, we see how oftentimes when symbols are used in a prophecy that the prophet tells us so and that he is not to be taken literally. This is the same way we should interpret the words we hear every day from others. Yes, people use figures, metaphors, similes, idioms, etc., but these we easily recognize. But, even then we know that such are used to inform of some literal truth. 

There is no way that I could write this short series on how to interpret bible prophecies without including the above words of Seiss. Notice another example of how even in the Book of Revelation the writer tells us when something is figurative and explains the literal thing that the figures point to. The following is from the very first chapter.

"12Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; 16He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength." (Rev. 1: 12-16 nkjv)

John in his vision of the risen Christ sees him in the midst of seven golden lampstands and having in his right hand seven stars. How much of this vision is literal and how much is figurative is a matter of debate. I find no reason to doubt that John literally saw Christ just as described. That being said, however, does not negate the fact that the literal things seen do not have signification beyond the literal thing itself. Things may be literal and yet be significant of some things beyond the literal. 

Notice these words of explanation about the prophetic vision.

"The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstandsThe seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches." (vs. 20)

By the word "mystery" being connected with the seven lampstands and seven stars we see our thesis upheld which says that there is something to be understood beyond the literal. 

Notice also how once again when figures and symbols are used that the prophet tells us what the symbols represent. Notice also that Christ did not say that other things in the vision were mysteries or signs of something else. He did not speak of the mystery of his head being white like wool or his feet being like fine brass. The fact is, such things were both literal and symbolic. The statue of liberty is a real statue but it is filled with signification. 

How do we interpret numbers in prophecies? Literally or figuratively, or both? Amillennialists say the thousand years of Revelation chapter twenty do not denote a literal thousand years but simply a long time. That is totally untenable. They also do the same with other numbers in scripture. Is that proper and valid? I don't think so. In the above vision there are seven stars and seven lampstands. These numbers are literal, standing for seven named churches and the angels of those seven churches. John mentions the number twelve, the number seven, and "one thousand two hundred and sixty days." These are to be taken literally.

Finally, the imagery in describing both the celestial woman and the red dragon is not difficult to decipher. The context helps us to know who is under consideration by these two figures. This includes the immediate context or the general context of scripture as a whole. That does not mean that every aspect of the imagery is easy to comprehend, for many Christians disagree on those aspects. What does it mean that the woman is clothed with the sun? And that has the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars? What does it mean that the dragon seeks to kill the woman's man child? What does it mean that the dragon's tail drew one third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the ground? What is the place in the wilderness where the woman flees for safety? These questions do spark disagreement. However, we must remember that the symbolism is for the purpose of foretelling future literal events and things.

No comments: