Latest / Reformed Thinking / Hermeneutics for Interpreting the Apocalypse | Robert L. Thomas

Transcript

Hermeneutics for Interpreting the Apocalypse | Robert L. Thomas · Reformed Thinking

0:00
You know, usually when we talk about a medical diagnosis, there
0:02
is this expectation of precision, like engineering or
0:05
something. Right.
0:06
Yeah. You break your arm.
0:08
The X-ray shows that jagged white line, and the doctor just
0:11
points out and says there it is, Yeah.
0:13
It is binary. Broken or not broken, it is a
0:16
clean process. We like things to be visible, to
0:19
be categorized. But then you step into the world
0:22
of interpreting ancient prophetic texts and suddenly
0:25
that X-ray machine is well, it is completely broken.
0:28
Yeah, we are looking at a diagnostic landscape that is
0:32
honestly, it is muddy. It is the absolute definition of
0:36
diagnostic Muddy Waters. I mean, when you look at the
0:39
final book of the New Testament, the Apocalypse of John, people
0:42
look at the exact same text and see completely different
0:45
diagnosis. They read the same paragraphs
0:47
and walk away with entirely contradictory views of what it.
0:49
Means that is right. It is like everyone is looking
0:52
at a different set of test results.
0:53
Well, welcome to Reformed Thinking.
0:55
For this deep dive, we are tackling a highly specific and
0:58
rigorous source. We are analyzing Robert L
1:01
Thomas's commentary on Revelation chapters one through
1:04
7. Specifically, we are looking at
1:07
the hermeneutics, you know, the rules of interpretation for the
1:10
Book of Revelation. Now I want to speak directly to
1:12
you, the listener, for a second. Revelation is often treated like
1:16
a confusing puzzle book. Oh for sure.
1:17
People think it's a giant Rorschach test where you can see
1:20
whatever you want. Right, a dragon here, a multi
1:23
headed beast there, and you just project your own fears or your
1:27
political views onto it. But today we are going to
1:30
establish a logical, objective set of rules to read it clearly.
1:35
No more Muddy Waters. We are looking for the crisp
1:38
X-ray, so to get us started, give us a bird's eye view of the
1:42
source material. What is Thomas's primary thesis
1:45
when it comes to reading this book?
1:47
Well, the core belief of Thomas's text is that the
1:50
understand the final book of the Bible.
1:52
One must read it according to normal dramatical rules and
1:55
historical facts. So no secret decoder rings
1:57
required. No, none at all.
1:59
It cannot be based on subjective feelings, and it cannot be
2:02
twisted to fit modern political situations.
2:05
That text must dictate the meaning, not the reader.
2:08
OK, that makes sense. Yeah, if you use a specific
2:11
interpretive method for the Gospel of John or the book of
2:14
Romans, you do not just throw those rules out the window
2:17
because you get to the bizarre imagery of Revelation.
2:21
OK, let's unpack this, because before we can establish the
2:24
rules for reading a text, we have to correctly identify what
2:27
kind of literature it is. Right, genre is everything.
2:30
Because if you receive a letter from a friend, you read it very
2:33
differently than if you read a transcript of a courtroom
2:36
hearing. Absolutely.
2:37
If you read a legal document like a poem, it leads to
2:40
absolute disaster. O what is the genre of
2:44
Revelation? Is it an apocalypse or is it a
2:47
prophecy? That is the critical starting
2:49
point. Our source insists Revelation is
2:51
primarily prophetic, and the text actually makes self claims
2:55
to this effect. Oh wait, it calls itself a
2:57
prophecy. It does.
2:58
For instance, Revelation 1.3 pronounces a blessing on those
3:01
who read the words of this prophecy.
3:03
OK, so it gives itself a label right out of the gate.
3:05
Yeah, and Thomas rejects the idea of blending genres.
3:08
You see some scholars calling it prophetic, apocalyptic,
3:12
epistolary, trying to cram everything into one massive
3:14
label. Yeah.
3:15
That sounds like a bit of a mouthful.
3:16
It is, and Thomas argues that doing so dilutes the primary
3:20
prophetic nature of the book. He categorizes it specifically
3:24
as a visional prophetic genre. Visional prophetic.
3:28
That sounds highly specific, but why not just say it is a
3:31
mixture? I mean we know it is a letter
3:33
sent to seven churches, so it has epistolary.
3:35
Elements. Sure, it has the format of a
3:37
letter at the beginning and the end.
3:38
And we know it has apocalyptic imagery, so why fight so hard
3:41
for visional prophetic? Because the literary genre was
3:44
not just a stylistic choice made by the human author, it was the
3:47
inevitable result of the mode of divine communication.
3:50
What do you mean by mode of communication?
3:53
Well, let me break down how different modes dictated
3:55
different styles in the New Testament for the Gospels.
3:59
According to John 14.26, the Spirit stimulated the memories
4:03
of eyewitnesses. That produces a specific kind of
4:06
historical biographical literature.
4:09
Right, because you are dealing with memory recall of actual
4:11
events that happened in front of them.
4:13
Spot on. The writers are documenting
4:16
things they touched, saw and heard in the physical world
4:19
during a specific period of history.
4:21
So what about the letters? For the epistles based on
4:24
indications in First Corinthians 2, the Spirit impressed
4:28
undisclosed data upon the deep consciousness of the writers,
4:31
which they then transformed into words for communication.
4:34
So that produces A logical, argumentative instructional
4:38
style. Yeah, exactly.
4:39
I mean, that is right. Think of the Apostle Paul laying
4:42
out a massive theological argument in Romans.
4:45
He is reasoning through a premise.
4:47
OK, I see where you are going. So how does that differ from
4:50
Revelation for? Revelation.
4:52
The message came through literal visions.
4:54
The apocalyptic elements are present, sure, but they are just
4:58
the vehicle for the prophecy. Therefore, visual prophetic is
5:01
the most accurate description. I want to push back on that
5:04
apocalyptic label for a second. If there are beasts and Dragons
5:08
and cosmic disturbances, that is textbook apocalyptic literature.
5:12
So why does labeling the book purely as apocalyptic cause so
5:15
much trouble for readers? Well, treating it purely as
5:18
apocalyptic often leads readers to assume the text is
5:22
disconnected from actual political history.
5:24
Disconnected how? Apocalyptic literature outside
5:27
the Bible, things like the Book of Enoch or other
5:30
intertestamental Jewish writings, often uses wild,
5:33
surreal imagery to convey general ideas about good and
5:37
evil. So they were not making literal
5:39
predictions. Right.
5:40
Those authors were not always predicting specific literal
5:44
future events. They were painting a mood or a
5:47
theological theme. And if you classify revelations
5:50
solely in that category. Then you give yourself a license
5:53
to ignore the historical literal fulfillment of the events it
5:56
describes. You start treating it like a
5:58
fairy tale with a moral lesson rather than a prophecy of actual
6:02
future events. OK, because people disagree on
6:05
this genre issue, they have historically built very
6:08
different frameworks for interpreting the text.
6:10
Yeah, the genre question changes everything downstream.
6:12
Once you decide what kind of book you think it is, that
6:15
decision acts like a pair of glasses.
6:17
It colors everything you read. That is a great way to look at
6:20
it. So the source breaks down five
6:22
major interpretive frameworks that have dominated history.
6:26
Let's start with the preterist view.
6:28
From what I understand, this video tries to shove all the
6:31
events of Revelation into the rearview mirror.
6:34
That is a very accurate summary. The preterist approach views the
6:38
book as a sketch of 1st century conditions in the Roman Empire.
6:43
So they think it already happened.
6:44
Yes. Our source notes that scholars
6:47
holding this view, like David Chilton, typically date the book
6:50
to the 60s AD. They argue that the entire
6:53
prophecy was fulfilled shortly thereafter.
6:55
When specifically. Primarily in the destruction of
6:57
Jerusalem in the temple in 8070 by the Roman army.
7:01
In this view, the beast might be the Emperor Nero, and the
7:04
judgments are all about God punishing 1st century Israel for
7:07
rejecting the Messiah. But wait, how do they handle the
7:10
end of the book? What about the return of Christ
7:12
described in chapter 19? And that is a huge.
7:14
Problem for them, I mean, did Jesus physically ride out of the
7:17
sky on a White Horse in 8070? Because I feel like someone
7:20
would have written that down. That is the fatal flaw the
7:24
source points out regarding the preterist view.
7:27
It forces a massive spiritualization of Christ's
7:30
second coming. So they do not think he
7:31
physically came back. To make their timeline work,
7:35
they equate the destruction of the temple in 8070 with the
7:37
return of Christ. They say Christ returned in
7:40
judgment via the Roman armies. Wow, that is quite a leap.
7:44
It is. It completely ignores the
7:46
physical, personal, bodily return described in Revelation
7:49
19. Christ did not physically appear
7:52
on the earth in 8070. So to make the preterist
7:55
framework hold together, you have to do incredible violence
7:58
to the prophetic literal nature of the text you do.
8:01
You have to twist the words to fit the historical event.
8:04
It sounds like taking a historical event and stretching
8:06
the text until it snaps just to make it fit.
8:09
That is precisely what Thomas argues.
8:11
So if the preterist view is looking at the 1st century, what
8:13
about the tradition historical approach?
8:16
I have seen this one pop up in a lot of secular academic setting.
8:19
Yeah, this approach views the book through the lens of
8:21
background material from Greek myths, Oriental myths and Jewish
8:25
tradition. It sounds more like an
8:27
anthropology class. It suggests the author was just
8:30
pulling from the cultural mythology of his day to craft a
8:34
theological message. In this view, Jed is sitting
8:37
around thinking, what symbols do my readers already know from
8:41
local Babylonian or Greek folklore?
8:43
I will use those to teach a lesson.
8:45
So it turns John into a comparative religion student
8:48
rather than a prophet receiving a direct vision.
8:50
Exactly. I can see why Thomas rejects
8:53
that. He rejects it completely because
8:55
it removes the predictive future looking element of the text.
8:58
Right, because if it is just a reshaping of ancient myths, it
9:01
is no longer a prophecy stretching forward to the return
9:04
of Christ. It becomes a fascinating study
9:06
in ancient sociology, but it ceases to be a reliable guide to
9:10
future events. It removed the divine revelation
9:13
aspect altogether. Now here's the one that always
9:16
fascinates me because of how incredibly complicated it gets
9:19
the continuous historical or historicist view.
9:22
Oh, this one is quite the maze to walk through.
9:24
This treats the book as a panorama of all church history
9:27
from the 1st century until the 2nd Advent.
9:30
Basically, they see Revelation as an outline of Western
9:33
civilization written in advance. Yes, and the source is highly
9:37
critical of the extreme allegorization required to make
9:41
this work. How so?
9:42
Interpreters holding this view try to match specific
9:45
geopolitical events during the intervening centuries with the
9:48
Seals, trumpets and bulls. So they are scanning history
9:51
books trying to find matches for the plagues.
9:54
Right. For example, a prominent scholar
9:56
named EB Elliott acquitted the Halen fire mingled with blood in
10:00
the first trumpet Judgment of Revelation 8.7 to the specific
10:04
wars of Alaric the Goth. Wait, Alaric the Goth from the
10:07
four hundreds? Yeah, Alaric and Ratagice is the
10:10
Vandal against the Western Roman Empire in the early 5th century.
10:13
How does a reader jump from Hail and Fire to a specific
10:16
historical figure like Ellarik the Goth?
10:19
I mean, think about how exhausting it would be to read a
10:21
book this way. You would be a nightmare.
10:23
You would constantly need a multi volume history textbook in
10:26
one hand trying to find some obscure warlord or medieval
10:30
battle to match up with a flying eagle or a falling *.
10:34
It sounds like an endless guessing game where the rules
10:36
change depending on what century you happen to live in.
10:39
It is entirely arbitrary. The source mentions another
10:41
example from Elliott where he proposes that the fallen star
10:44
following the 5th trumpet in Revelation 9.1 is Muhammad.
10:48
The founder of Islam. Yes.
10:50
Why? Because Muhammad was a
10:52
significant historical figure who introduced a new movement,
10:56
so Elliott decided that must be the falling *.
10:59
Is there anything in the text that actually points to that?
11:01
There is 0 exegetical merit to these claims.
11:04
Nothing in the Greek text points to 7th century Arabia.
11:08
It sounds like you could just pick any major historical figure
11:11
and make them fit if you try hard enough.
11:13
You could, and that is why this method reduces the language of
11:16
Scripture to meaninglessness, because the interpreter is just
11:19
forcing the words to fit a preconceived timeline of
11:22
European history. Which brings us to the 4th
11:24
framework, the timeless, symbolic or idealist position.
11:28
This one seems incredibly popular today in a lot of
11:31
modern. Churches it really is.
11:33
It views the book as representing the eternal
11:35
conflict of good and evil in every age, rather than
11:38
predicting specific future events.
11:40
It removes the timeline entirely.
11:42
Just good guys versus bad guys. Repetitive cycles of history.
11:45
What is staggering here is how this ties into modern trends in
11:48
academia and theology. This view relies heavily on a
11:52
concept called contextualization.
11:54
Contextualization. Where does that term come from?
11:57
The term was coined in a 1972 publication by the World Council
12:01
of Churches. It advocates assigning meaning
12:03
to the text based on cultural and sociopolitical factors in
12:07
contemporary society rather than the grammatical historical
12:10
method. Let me see if I grasp this.
12:12
You take the original situation and transpose it onto modern
12:15
sociopolitical causes. Spot on.
12:17
So instead of asking what did John mean when he wrote this to
12:20
the seven churches in the 1st century, you ask what does this
12:24
text mean for a labor strike in the 21st century or an
12:27
environmental crisis? That is right, and the source
12:29
notes that this allows people to use the book to support entirely
12:33
divergent modern causes. Oh, I can see how that could get
12:36
messy fast. It does.
12:37
You see groups on the political left and groups on the political
12:40
right both claiming the text validates their specific
12:43
agendas. Right.
12:44
And to be clear to you, the listener, we are not taking
12:47
sides here, but just reporting what the source observes.
12:50
One group might say the beast is global capitalism.
12:53
And another group might say the beast is a specific centralized
12:56
government or a specific politician.
12:59
What is fascinating here is that this method allows anyone on the
13:02
modern political spectrum to weaponize the exact same text
13:07
for completely opposite agendas. Because the text has no fixed
13:10
meaning in that view. Right.
13:12
If the text just means good versus evil, then whoever you
13:15
happen to dislike becomes the beast.
13:17
If we connect this to the bigger picture, the danger of the
13:21
timeless symbolic approach is massive.
13:25
In literary theory, there is a fundamental distinction between
13:28
the meaning of a text and the significance of a text.
13:30
What is the difference between meaning and significance?
13:33
The meaning is fixed by the author.
13:36
It is what the original author intended to say to the original
13:39
audience. The significance or the
13:41
application can apply to different situations today.
13:44
OK, that makes sense. But by separating the original
13:46
meaning of the text from its modern significance,
13:49
applicational control vanishes. It leaves the text completely
13:53
vulnerable to the individual whim of the reader.
13:56
So scripture becomes a tool for self generated crusades rather
14:00
than an objective truth to be understood.
14:02
Exactly. It becomes a mirror for the
14:04
reader's own ideas. That leaves us with the 5th
14:07
framework, the eschatological or futurist approach.
14:11
This is Thomas's preferred view, right?
14:14
It focuses on the last periods of world history using normal
14:17
literal interpretation. So it reads it as actual future
14:21
events. Yes, it treats the prophetic
14:23
genre seriously, anticipating actual historical fulfillment of
14:27
the predicted events, most notably the personal bodily
14:30
return of Jesus Christ to earth. And when does that future
14:33
section start in the book? It assumes the beginning.
14:36
In Revelation chapter 4, the events described our future to
14:39
John, and largely future to us today.
14:42
Now, after evaluating those five frameworks, you, the listener
14:46
might naturally wonder why not just take the best pieces of all
14:51
of them? That is a very common reaction.
14:53
I mean, if the historicist view is too exhausting and the
14:56
futurist view feels too rigid, why not a combination approach?
15:00
It is a common temptation. Scholars like Leland Riken,
15:04
Berkley Mickelson and Robert Mounts attempt to mix the
15:06
idealist and futurist approaches.
15:09
How do they mix them? Well, they might look at the
15:11
early plagues in Revelation, like the seals and trumpets, and
15:14
treat them as timeless poetic symbols.
15:17
Just general ideas about God judging sin throughout history.
15:20
But then they switch. Yeah, they switch gears to a
15:22
literal futurist view when they get to Christ's return in
15:25
chapter 19. Let me play devil's advocate for
15:28
a minute. Doesn't it seem safer to hedge
15:30
our bets? How so?
15:31
Well, if I am reading about a beast with 7 heads and 10 horns,
15:34
that feels bizarre. Why not treat the really weird
15:37
stuff as symbolic general principles and keep the
15:40
straightforward parts like Jesus returning literal?
15:44
I get why that is appealing. It feels like a safe middle
15:47
ground. Think of it like a pilot flying
15:49
a plane. You use your instruments for
15:51
takeoff, but then you switch to manual control when the weather
15:54
clears up. The problem with your airplane
15:56
analogy is that this combination approach is more like a pilot
16:00
who uses their instruments for takeoff but suddenly decides to
16:04
fly blindfolded based on feelings halfway through the
16:07
flight. Wow, OK, that paints a scary
16:09
picture. And then they just RIP the
16:11
blindfold off right before landing.
16:13
It creates immense hermeneutical confusion.
16:15
Because there is no consistency. Right.
16:17
Some scholars argue for a right brain approach, suggesting the
16:21
text should be felt through images and intuition rather than
16:25
analyzed with cognitive rationality.
16:27
So they want us to feel the text, not think about it.
16:30
Yes, they say the effects of the apocalypse are to be experienced
16:34
without intellectual interaction.
16:36
They treat the visions like surrealistic dreams.
16:38
I can see the appeal of that for some people, treating it like an
16:41
abstract art gallery instead of a legal document.
16:44
You just stand in front of the painting and let it wash over
16:46
you. But what does the text actually
16:48
say about John's state of mind? Was he just dreaming?
16:52
Thomas argues vehemently against that John was in a prophetic
16:56
trance. The Greek phrase used is in the
16:58
spirit. But isn't a trance kind of like
17:01
a dream? A prophetic trance in the
17:03
biblical sense is not the same as a disconnected, illogical
17:06
dream. John's spirit was wide awake.
17:09
His senses were more alert to detail, not less.
17:12
Wow. So his mind was actually
17:13
sharper. Yes, his cognitive powers were
17:16
functioning with unusual clarity.
17:18
He was processing specific, detailed information given to
17:21
him by God. So he wasn't just having a hazy
17:24
drug like hallucination, he was sharply observing highly
17:27
detailed literal visions. That's right, if he writes down
17:30
a third of the trees were burned up, he actually saw a third of
17:33
the trees burning, rather than just having a vague feeling of
17:36
sadness about nature. Precisely, and the fatal flaw of
17:39
the combination approach is that it leaves it entirely up to
17:42
human subjective judgement to decide where the non historical
17:45
details end and the literal future picture begins.
17:49
Oh, I see, because the text does not tell you when to switch from
17:51
symbol to literal. Right.
17:53
If you, the reader, get to decide which parts are literal
17:56
and which parts are just feelings, you become the
17:59
ultimate authority over the text.
18:01
The objective meaning is lost. Abandoning the grammatical
18:04
historical method leads straight to chaos.
18:07
You cannot have elasticity of interpretation that changes from
18:10
chapter to chapter based on human intuition.
18:13
That sets up a massive problem, though.
18:16
Establishing that a literal futurist approach is required
18:20
leads to an obvious question. OK, what is the question?
18:22
How do you interpret a book filled with multi headed beasts,
18:26
Dragons, and literal bowls of wrath pouring out on the earth
18:30
literally? It does seem counterintuitive at
18:32
first. Here is where it gets really
18:34
fascinating. How do we apply literal rules to
18:37
a book overflowing with symbols? Well, literal interpretation
18:40
recognizes a vital distinction. There is a difference between a
18:44
symbol and symbolic language. Explain that difference.
18:46
Symbols can and do represent literal historical realities.
18:50
The fundamental rule, according to Thomas, is to assume a
18:53
literal interpretation of each representation provided to John,
18:57
unless a specific factor in the text indicates otherwise.
19:00
So the default setting is literal.
19:02
Yes, you do not assume it is a symbol until the text forces you
19:06
to. Let's make this concrete for the
19:08
listener. Where does the text tell us not
19:10
to be literal? In Revelation 11.8, the text
19:14
speaks of the city where the two witnesses are killed.
19:17
It explicitly uses the Greek word numaticus, which translates
19:21
to spiritually. OK, so it gives us a direct
19:23
label. It says the city is spiritually
19:25
called Sodom in Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
19:29
And we know Jesus was physically crucified outside Jerusalem.
19:33
Right. By using the word spiritually,
19:35
the text gives us an internal clue.
19:37
It signals a non literal interpretation of the proper
19:40
names. Sodom in Egypt.
19:42
It is comparing Jerusalem's moral state to those ancient
19:45
cities. That is a clear textual traffic
19:48
light telling us to stop reading literally.
19:50
It is the text telling us how to read the text.
19:52
Another big one is Babylon. Many theories claim Babylon in
19:56
Revelation 14 and chapter 16 through 18 is just a code word
19:59
for the Roman Empire. Or maybe the Roman Catholic
20:02
Church, or some other Western Power.
20:04
Right, but a strict literal reading prevents that, doesn't
20:07
it? It does.
20:08
Revelation 16.12 locates Babylon geographically on the Euphrates
20:14
River. Rome is not on the Euphrates.
20:16
That is a pretty major geographical problem for the
20:19
code word theory. Furthermore, Rome, because of
20:22
its geographical location, was never a great commercial seaport
20:26
city in the specific way described in Revelation 18, with
20:29
Shipmaster standing off the coast weeping over her
20:32
destruction. So the details do not match the
20:35
symbol people try to apply to it.
20:37
The geographic and economic details the text provides block
20:40
the code. Word theory, Thomas argues it
20:43
must refer to a rebuilt literal city of Babylon on the
20:46
Euphrates. OK, what about things people
20:48
almost always take symbolically? We hear a lot about the 144,000
20:52
in Revelation 7.4. That is a classic example.
20:55
I have heard people say this is just a symbol for the complete
20:57
church or all believers throughout history.
21:00
Well, according to Thomas, that should be taken as a literal
21:02
multitude of 144,000 people, specifically 12,000 from each of
21:08
the 12 tribes of Israel as the text goes on to list.
21:11
Why so literal there? Because nothing in the text
21:13
indicates that the number should be understood in some hidden
21:16
spiritualized sense. The rule is literal unless
21:21
instructed otherwise. And it does not say spiritually
21:24
called 144,000. Right.
21:27
If God wanted to describe a vague countless multitude, He
21:31
does that just a few verses later in Revelation 7.9.
21:35
But here he gives a specific mathematical count.
21:38
I want to highlight the green grass logical test from the
21:41
source, which I think is brilliant.
21:43
Oh, this is a great illustration of the principle.
21:44
In Revelation 8.7, the first trumpet judgment talks about 1/3
21:48
of the earth being burned up, a third of the trees and all the
21:51
green grass being burned up. Right.
21:53
And some interpreters, especially in the idealist camp,
21:55
try to spiritualize that. They say the grass stands for
21:58
human beings and the green portrays the prosperous
22:01
conditions of those people. So burning the green grass means
22:05
judging wealthy people? That interpretation completely
22:09
falls apart when you read just a little bit further into the
22:11
text. Right.
22:13
Think about it like a movie. If you are watching a movie that
22:16
features both horses and cars on a street, you cannot suddenly
22:20
decide halfway through the movie that the horses actually
22:22
represent cars. That would make the movie
22:24
impossible to follow. It breaks the internal logic of
22:27
the universe you're watching. The text in Revelation does the
22:30
same thing. Later verses, specifically 8.11
22:34
and 9.4, contrast the grass with actual men.
22:38
Revelation 9.4 says the demonic locusts were told not to harm
22:41
the grass of the earth or any green plant or tree, but only
22:45
those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads.
22:48
If grass means men in chapter 8, the command in Chapter 9 makes
22:52
absolutely no sense. You would be saying do not harm
22:55
the men, but only harm the men. The internal logic forces a
22:58
literal reading. Glass is grass.
23:00
Men are men. The most contentious example of
23:03
literal interpretation revolves around the Millennium in
23:05
Revelation 20. This is a huge debate.
23:07
Verses four and five describe 2 resurrections separated by 1000
23:11
years. People constantly try to
23:12
spiritualize this thousand. Years.
23:14
How did they do that? And Millennialists, for example,
23:17
view it as a vague representation of the current
23:20
church age, spanning from the cross to the Second Coming.
23:24
And how do they handle the two resurrections?
23:26
They argue the first resurrection is spiritual,
23:29
meaning being born again, and only the second one is physical.
23:32
But the grammar shuts that down completely.
23:35
Yes, the entire argument hinges on a single Greek verb, Azizon.
23:40
It means they lived or they came to life.
23:42
OK, so where is it used? The text uses this exact same
23:47
verb for both the first resurrection before the 1000
23:50
years and the second resurrection after the 1000
23:53
years. In the exact same passage.
23:54
Yes, by common agreement across almost all interpretive
23:58
frameworks, the second resurrection at the end of the
24:00
chapter is clearly a bodily, physical resurrection.
24:03
So logically, what does that mean for the first?
24:05
One, since the text uses the exact same verb in the exact
24:09
same context, separated by just one sentence, the first
24:12
resurrection must also be bodily.
24:14
You cannot say the word means a spiritual heart change the first
24:17
time you use it and a physical body coming out of a grave the
24:19
second time you use it. That ends all definite meaning
24:23
in plain words. It violates the rules of
24:25
language. If both are bodily
24:27
resurrections, the thousand year interval separating them must be
24:32
a literal future time period. You cannot have two literal
24:36
physical events separated by a purely symbolic era.
24:39
The grammar of the text builds a wall around the literal
24:42
interpretation. It really does.
24:44
It locks you into a specific reading.
24:46
Since words like ezasan carry so much weight, our discussion must
24:50
zoom in on the granular molecular level of the text.
24:53
We have to get into the Greek. It all comes down to the Greek
24:56
language itself. How John uses grammar, tense and
24:59
vocabulary is the foundation of everything we are talking about.
25:02
Our source highlights several intense debates about the Greek
25:05
of revelation. First is the aorist tense.
25:08
This is a specific past tense in Greek, right?
25:11
Right. A scholar named Frank Stagg
25:13
wrote an essay claiming the Aorist tense denotes undefined
25:16
action and should not be contrasted with other tenses
25:19
like the present or perfect. So he basically argued that the
25:22
Greek verbs in Revelation are blurry and general.
25:25
Yes, that they don't have a sharp edge to them.
25:28
But Thomas disputes this. Why?
25:30
Because Thomas relies on traditional classical grammar
25:33
that recognizes contrasts and urgency.
25:36
This is particularly true when dealing with the aorist
25:39
imperative, which is a command. What is the difference between a
25:42
present command and an aorist command?
25:45
When a command is given in the present tense, it means keep
25:48
doing this. But when a command is given in
25:50
the aorist tense, it carries weight and immediacy.
25:54
It means do this specific thing right now, ah.
25:57
I see. So it is much more urgent.
26:00
If we accept Stag's view that the verbs are blurry, we lose
26:03
the sharp urgency, the prophetic commands, the text loses its
26:06
punch. Another big debate is over
26:09
synonyms. Modern linguists sometimes argue
26:11
that when a writer uses different words that mean
26:13
roughly the same thing, it is just stylistic variation.
26:16
Like Agapash and Philly, both of which get translated as Love in
26:20
English. They argue the writer is just
26:22
trying to avoid repeating themselves to sound more
26:24
eloquent. Thomas argues the exact
26:26
opposite. The New Testament authors,
26:28
especially John, were not writing his classical scholars
26:32
aiming for rhetorical brilliance.
26:34
They weren't trying to read a Shakespearean masterpiece.
26:36
No, they wrote in coin Greek, which was the language of the
26:39
man on the street, the common marketplace language of the 1st
26:42
century Roman Empire. Therefore, if they use different
26:44
words, they meant different things, yes.
26:47
They used the precise word they needed for that specific
26:50
thought. Let me ask a highly practical
26:53
question for you, the listener. If John was writing an ecstatic
26:56
trance on the island of Patmos, seeing these mind bending
27:00
visions of the throne room of God, would he really care about
27:03
swapping out synonyms just to sound like a fancy poet?
27:06
That is highly unlikely. I mean, he is writing down
27:08
apocalyptic visions of the end of the world.
27:11
He doesn't have time for a thesaurus.
27:13
Right. The text represents the raw,
27:15
urgent communication of the vision.
27:18
A renowned Greek scholar named CFD Mool gives fantastic advice
27:22
on this, which Thomas quotes heavily.
27:25
What did he say? He said to assume a difference
27:28
until 1 is driven to accept identity of meaning.
27:31
Meaning if John uses two different words, assume he means
27:35
two different things. Unless the context makes it
27:37
literally impossible, this highly disciplined approach to
27:40
grammar protects the reader from making lazy assumptions about
27:44
the text. We also need to talk about the
27:45
language debate as a whole. What kind of Greek is Revelation
27:48
written in? That has been argued about for a
27:51
long time. I have heard some people say the
27:53
grammar is terrible. Is it standard Greek?
27:56
Is it an Aramaic translation? Or is it some kind of Jewish
27:59
Greek hybrid? Thomas lands somewhere in the
28:01
middle. The text definitely has obvious
28:04
Semitic idioms. Because John was a Jewish man.
28:07
Right. His native thought process
28:09
processes were rooted in Hebrew and Aramaic.
28:11
For example, the phrase forever and ever in Revelation 1.6 comes
28:15
directly from a Hebrew idiom translated into Greek.
28:18
OK, that makes sense. However, you cannot assume every
28:21
oddity in the grammar is a Hebrew interference.
28:23
No, you can't. Give me an example of people
28:25
trying to force a Hebrew meaning onto a Greek word.
28:29
Some scholars argue the Greek word diduka in Revelation 3.8,
28:33
which usually means I have given should be read Hebrewistically
28:37
to mean I have set referring to setting an open door before the
28:41
church. So they try to bend the Greek to
28:43
fit a Hebrew concept. But Thomas argues it is just
28:46
standard Greek for I have given you have to evaluate each
28:50
instance on its own merit, recognizing it is vulgar 1st
28:53
century St. Greek with isolated Semitic
28:56
enhancements. You do not just get to rewrite
28:58
the Greek dictionary because the author was Jewish.
29:00
That is the bottom line. If John is writing in the
29:03
language of the street, but his text is filled with Semitic
29:06
idioms and visions, where is his vocabulary actually coming?
29:09
From that is a great question asked.
29:11
He is a prisoner on an island. He does not have a theological
29:13
library with him. That brings us to the massive
29:16
footprint of the Old Testament in Revelation.
29:18
The statistics are staggering. Out of the four O 4 verses in
29:22
Revelation, an incredible 278 allude to the Old Testament.
29:26
Wait 278 out of four O 4. Yes.
29:30
No other New Testament writer uses the Old Testament more than
29:33
John does in the apocalypse. The primary books he pulls from
29:36
are Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel and the Psalms.
29:40
So. What does this all mean for the
29:42
listener? If I am trying to read
29:44
Revelation today and I come across a beast rising out of the
29:47
sea, do I need to be thinking about Daniel?
29:50
You do. Do I need to be an expert in
29:52
Ezekiel to even have a chance at understanding John's visions?
29:55
It absolutely requires deep familiarity with those ancient
29:59
texts. You cannot understand the end of
30:01
the story if you haven't read the beginning.
30:03
Because the imagery is so deeply connected.
30:05
What is fascinating here is that despite those 278 illusions,
30:09
there is an entire absence of formal quotations.
30:13
What do you mean by formal quotations?
30:15
In the gospels or in Paul's letters, you constantly see
30:18
phrases like as it is written in the prophet Isaiah followed by a
30:22
direct word for word quote. Oh, right, they cite their
30:25
sources. John never does that in
30:26
Revelation. He never cites his sources.
30:28
Why is that? If he is pulling from the Old
30:31
Testament and more than half of his verses, why wouldn't he cite
30:33
it? Because in a prophetic vision, a
30:36
prophet does not stop to cite a chapter and verse.
30:39
The imagery of the Old Testament was simply the native language
30:42
of his mind. He wasn't sitting at a desk with
30:45
a scroll of Daniel open, copying it down.
30:48
His mind was steeped in multiple versions of the Scriptures.
30:51
He knew the Hebrew Old Testament.
30:53
He knew the Greek translation called the Septuagint, which was
30:56
widely used and. What about the spoken language?
30:58
He was likely familiar with the Aramaic expanded paraphrases
31:02
known as the Targums, which were spoken aloud in the synagogue's
31:06
every Sabbath. He also shows familiarity with
31:09
Matthew, Luke and several of Paul's letters.
31:12
All of this language was swirling in his subconscious,
31:15
providing the vocabulary for the visions that God was giving him.
31:18
That mental saturation is incredible.
31:20
Now some people claim he also pulled from other ancient non
31:24
biblical apocalyptic writings. We mentioned the Book of Enoch
31:27
earlier. Did he use those books too?
31:28
The source addresses that and states there is no conclusive
31:32
evidence that John used extra biblical, non canonical
31:35
apocalyptic sources in the same way he used the Old Testament.
31:38
So he wasn't just pulling from popular culture, some scholars.
31:41
Try to prove he was just copying popular Jewish folklore.
31:45
But the Old Testament is the overwhelming, virtually
31:48
exclusive lens through which his vocabulary is shaped.
31:51
When he sees a beast, he describes it using the exact
31:54
imagery Daniel used centuries earlier.
31:57
Let's tie all this together for the listener.
31:59
We started out looking for a crisp, clear X-ray of a
32:03
confusing text. We defined the genre of
32:05
revelation as visional, prophetic, driven by the
32:08
specific mode of literal visions given to John.
32:11
We walked through the major historical frameworks, from the
32:15
preterists trying to leave it in the 1st century, to the
32:17
historicists playing a guessing game with European history, to
32:21
the idealists trying to make it a timeless metaphor.
32:23
We saw why Thomas vigorously rejects subjective combination
32:27
approaches that rely on human feeling.
32:29
We established the hard objective rules of literal
32:32
interpretation. Assuming a literal meaning
32:35
unless the text gives us a specific indicator like the word
32:37
spiritually or an internal logical contradiction like the
32:40
green grass and the horses and cars analogy.
32:43
We looked at the necessity of respect, the street level Greek
32:46
grammar, recognizing the urgency of the aorist tense and the
32:50
distinct meanings of synonyms, ensuring we don't let our modern
32:54
laziness blur John's precise words.
32:56
Finally, we uncovered the massive footprint of the Old
32:59
Testament, providing the mental architecture for the entire
33:02
book. This raises A vital question for
33:04
us today. I want to leave you with a final
33:06
thought to Mull over. What is that?
33:09
Consider John on the island of Patmos.
33:12
He did not have access to a printed study Bible.
33:14
He did not have a search engine or a concordance.
33:17
Yet while documenting A vivid, ecstatic vision, he
33:21
instinctively drew upon 278 references from the ancient
33:25
prophets. The scriptures were the very
33:26
architecture of his thoughts. The language of God was his
33:30
native tongue. What does that reveal about the
33:32
mental library of the early Christians?
33:34
And more pressingly, how does our own mental saturation and
33:37
scripture compare when we try to interpret the chaotic events of
33:41
our own world today? That is a challenging thought.
33:44
If our mental library is filled primarily with modern political
33:48
commentary, cable news, or social media trends instead of
33:51
the prophets, we are going to muddy the waters all over again.
33:54
We will start reading our own anxieties into the text, rather
33:57
than letting the text speak for itself.
33:59
We started this deep dive talking about X-rays.
34:02
We want the clean, clear lines of a precise diagnosis, not the
34:06
murky interpretations that come from projecting our own biases
34:09
onto the page. Thank you for joining us on
34:11
Reformed Thinking. Keep reading your sources with
34:14
fresh, objective eyes and keep looking for the clarity in the
34:16
text.