Revelation

SCROLL TO BOTTOM FOR CONTENT THREADS.

Bible Question: Are the descriptions about the end of the earth (i.e. Revelation 17 - the woman and the beast) literal or metaphorical?

Bible Answer: 'The decision to classify Revelation as belonging to the apocalyptic genre has a tremendous impact upon how one interprets the book. Numerous hermeneutical doors seem to open to the extent that the primary character of Revelation's genre is viewed as apocalyptic.

'For example, it becomes difficult to approach the text with a straightforward literalism. Gregg contends that many interpreters fail to take into account Revelation's apocalyptic character. According to Steve Gregg:

'A failure to take into account this feature has led some to the most outlandish teachings on this book by some whose rule of interpretation is 'literal unless absurd.' Though this is a good rule when dealing with literature written in a literal genre, it is the exact opposite in the case of apocalyptic literature, where symbolism is the rule and literalism is the exception.[1]

'Kenneth Gentry echoes similar sentiments when he notes:

'Before beginning my survey, I must note what most Christians suspect and what virtually all evangelical scholars (excluding classic dispensationalists) recognize regarding the book: Revelation is a highly figurative book that we cannot approach with a simple straightforward literalism.[2]

'The reason that apocalyptic literature cannot be approached literally is because of the nature of such literature. At times, the apocalyptists disguised through symbolic language the entity that was oppressing God's people. The apocalyptic writer sought to give hope to the oppressed people of God by predicting the cataclysmic destruction of the enemy that was persecuting them. However, the apocalyptist was not at liberty to literally identify the oppressor. Such a message of hope would have never gotten past the censors of Antiochus or Rome. Had it been written unambiguously that the insane Antiochus would be cast down, such a message would have been proscribed just as the books of the law had been. Thus, the message had to be veiled in symbolic language.[3] Thus, a literal interpretation without properly understanding the genre of the book leads to an inaccurate conclusion.

'Thus, categorizing Revelation as apocalyptic significantly influences how one identifies Babylon of Revelation 17-18. If John was following in the pattern of the apocalyptists, he does not mean Babylon when he says Babylon. Instead, he is using the word Babylon as a symbolic disguise to identify an oppressor that was persecuting Gods' people when John wrote. Thus, when John mentioned Babylon, he might have had in mind Jerusalem or Rome.'
____________________
To read more go to:
www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id[equals sign]46