What does it mean to say that Revelation is symbolic?

[Nihil Obstat]

I figured this was coming. It's a good question, and I'm not really settled on the answer. Although I've seen some interesting possibilities in George Caird's commentary, Gordon Fee's commentary, and in J. Nelson Kraybill's brilliant study Apocalypse and Allegiance: Worship, Politics, and Devotion in the book of Revelation.

I'll have to check those out.

But I would also emphasize, like I did in the recent thread on Jeremiah 50-51, that it's always best to keep the interpretation of the text separate from the questions of fulfillment which may or may not arise afterwards.

We are in complete agreement.

That's obviously a difficult thing to do, since it may sometimes mean that we have to leave the question of fulfillment unanswered, but nonetheless I think it's important in order to maintain exegetical integrity. If our primary aim is to handle the text of Revelation with exegetical integrity, as indeed it should be, then we simply cannot ignore the specific indicators of historical context and authorial intent, all of which point to the primary referent being a near-impending conflict between the church and Rome.

Right. As an example of historical context and authorial intent being in conflict, I've been looking into how the fourth gospel differs drastically in its depiction of Jesus' arrest, even contradicting the Synoptic gospels' account of what all occurred then. The three synoptics have Jesus praying in distress, needing imparted strength from ministering angels, at the point of dying, asking for a way out, with His friends asleep and at a distance, being captured, and his disciples all fleeing from Him "in accordance with the Scriptures", while the fourth quite oppositely has Jesus praying as a high priest, imparting power to His friends, who all stand with Him, when He is sought for His captors draw back and fall to the ground, even Judas unable to come near let alone kiss Him, and when He goes with the guards none of His disciples flee, but follow after Him "in accordance with the Scriptures".

There are other instances of this type of depute between the gospels, but I find this one to be particularly interesting as one group says that the Scriptures foretold that when the shepherd is stuck down, the sheep would scatter, while the other says that the prophet foretold that the Messiah would not lose even one whom the Father had given Him. Both groups remember the event in very different and contradicting ways, and yet both cite the word of God in support of how their version of the story came to be fulfilled.

It's not all that problematic for me, then, to read Revelation or Jer. 50-51 as the Lord's word against Rome or Babylon (respectively), and yet for the history books to have gone quite another direction altogether. The Synoptic writers' depiction of Jesus' arrest and the author of the fourth gospel's depiction of the same event cannot both be true, but clearly the fourth book's author intended Jesus to have been, one might say, already ascended to God's right hand (cf. John 3:13), as if Jesus as He is now was re-cast to play the part of Jesus as He truly was at the time those events occurred. This would naturally demand that this author tell the story of His arrest in quite another light, if you take my meaning.

Also, I would say that it's a much more honest display of faith in the authority of Scripture to first take the text at its own terms, and then to say "I don't know" in reply to the question of fulfillment, than to try to save face by suggesting the text actually refers to something else, something easier to get our hands around. That's not true faith; it's doubt in disguise.

Good word.

[Nihil Obstat]

It seems I may have scared everyone away with that last one of mine... Not my desire, nor my intention.

[ewq1938]

Right. As an example of historical context and authorial intent being in conflict, I've been looking into how the fourth gospel differs drastically in its depiction of Jesus' arrest, even contradicting the Synoptic gospels' account of what all occurred then.

That's a bold charge...Can you prove it, and if you can, what does that mean for Christians and bible believers?

[Nihil Obstat]

That's a bold charge...Can you prove it, and if you can, what does that mean for Christians and bible believers?

I thought I did prove it? But have you ever tried to completely mesh Matthew, Mark, and Luke's accounts of this Passover? It's not too difficult to do; sure, there are some minor difficulties, but nothing out of the ordinary. Now, attempt to incorporate John's depiction into that amalgamation. Can you do it?

[ewq1938]

I thought I did prove it? But have you ever tried to completely mesh Matthew, Mark, and Luke's accounts of this Passover? It's not too difficult to do; sure, there are some minor difficulties, but nothing out of the ordinary. Now, attempt to incorporate John's depiction into that amalgamation. Can you do it?

I do not know but since you have brought up a possible contradiction in the book of John, please share it so we all can reason it out.

[divaD]

I do not know but since you have brought up a possible contradiction in the book of John, please share it so we all can reason it out.

Try rereading post #46 I think.

[ewq1938]

Try rereading post #46 I think.

I guess I was looking for the specific scriptures but I'll work with that, thanks.

As an example of historical context and authorial intent being in conflict, I've been looking into how the fourth gospel differs drastically in its depiction of Jesus' arrest, even contradicting the Synoptic gospels' account of what all occurred then. The three synoptics have Jesus praying in distress, needing imparted strength from ministering angels, at the point of dying, asking for a way out, with His friends asleep and at a distance, being captured, and his disciples all fleeing from Him "in accordance with the Scriptures", while the fourth quite oppositely has Jesus praying as a high priest, imparting power to His friends, who all stand with Him, when He is sought for His captors draw back and fall to the ground, even Judas unable to come near let alone kiss Him, and when He goes with the guards none of His disciples flee, but follow after Him "in accordance with the Scriptures".

I'll use the term "both" when I mean John vs. the synopics:


1. So far both speak of Judas betraying Jesus.
2. Both also have all the disciples at first wondering if it was them that would be the betrayer.
3. Both mention Christ revealing it is Judas by he and Christ both eating from the same dish.
4. Both have the last supper and communion.
5. Both speak of Peter denying Christ three times.
6. Both speak of the Comforter coming when Jesus leaves.
7. Both speak of them being scattered when Jesus is executed (Joh 16:32)
8. Both show the ear of the Priest being cut off and healed.
9. Both show peter secretly following after Christ is led away. (John says others did as well and Mark mentions one who ended up naked)

[Matthehitmanhart]

I guess I was looking for the specific scriptures but I'll work with that, thanks.

I think two of the primary passages astro has in mind are the contrasting portrayals of Mark 14:50 and John 18:8-9.

[ewq1938]

I think two of the primary passages astro has in mind are the contrasting portrayals of Mark 14:50 and John 18:8-9.

Mar 14:50 And they all forsook him, and fled.
Mar 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
Mar 14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
Mar 14:53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.
Mar 14:54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.

Clearly verse 51 isn't a permanent fleeing since Peter and this other young man follow Christ.

Joh 18:8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
Joh 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.


This is completely unrelated. Jesus lost no one but Judas. A temporary scattering doesn't equal being lost and it was fulfilling prophecy anyways.

[Matthehitmanhart]

Mar 14:50 And they all forsook him, and fled.
Mar 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
Mar 14:52 And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.
Mar 14:53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.
Mar 14:54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.

Clearly verse 51 isn't a permanent fleeing since Peter and this other young man follow Christ.

Joh 18:8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
Joh 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.


This is completely unrelated. Jesus lost no one but Judas. A temporary scattering doesn't equal being lost and it was fulfilling prophecy anyways.

I think the bigger difference is the impression which Mark gives that all of the disciples forsook Jesus at the first sight of trouble vs. John's portrayal of Jesus asking his captors to let the disciples go.

[Matthehitmanhart]

I'm pretty sure we've now taken this thread outside the bounds of the ETC. If a mod sees this, they might want to turn these last few posts into a new thread in Bible chat, or perhaps Contro.

[ewq1938]

I think the bigger difference is the impression which Mark gives that all of the disciples forsook Jesus at the first sight of trouble vs. John's portrayal of Jesus asking his captors to let the disciples go.

I don't see any contradictions there. Both accounts give the fullest view of what actually occurred. No gospel is 100 percent identical to the other.

[Matthehitmanhart]

No gospel is 100 percent identical to the other.

Of course. No two accounts of anything would be completely identical. But it does appear that these two texts represent different interpretations of why a particular event happened, namely the disciples leaving Jesus in the garden. For Mark, they all fled from him of their own volition, the result of disillusionment and fear. For John, in contrast, they all left because Jesus asked that they be free to go.

[ewq1938]

Of course. No two accounts of anything would be completely identical. But it does appear that these two texts represent different interpretations of why a particular event happened, namely the disciples leaving Jesus in the garden. For Mark, they all fled from him of their own volition, the result of disillusionment and fear. For John, in contrast, they all left because Jesus asked that they be free to go.

I disagree completely. Jesus asked they not be arrested and then they fled. Not all the gospels record every detail but together we have the fullest picture.

Nothing in John contradicts anything in any book of the bible. Contradictions exist solely within our own misunderstandings. (I say that every time someone suggests the scriptures contradict themselves)

[Matthehitmanhart]

I disagree completely. Jesus asked they not be arrested and then they fled.

It's possible, but I think somewhat less likely.

Nothing in John contradicts anything in any book of the bible.

Please don't misunderstand my motives here. I'm not trying to tear down anyone's faith in the authority of Scripture. But I am questioning the foundation of that faith.

Contradictions exist solely within our own misunderstandings. (I say that every time someone suggests the scriptures contradict themselves)

So what do you make of the apparent difference between Matthew 27:3-10 and Acts 1:16-19 then? In Matthew's account, Judas returns the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests, goes and hangs himself, and then the chief priests buy a field with the money to use as a cemetery. In this account, the fact that the field was paid for with blood money and turned into a cemetery explains why it later became known as the "field of blood". In Luke's account, however, Judas himself uses the silver to buy a field, and then he falls head first in that field and bursts open so that his entrails spill out. In this account, the fact that Judas died in the same field that he purchased with blood money explains why it later became known as the "field of blood", not because the chief priests purchased the field and used it for a cemetery.