GUIDELINES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF REVELATION

[DanielGracely]

Duncan,

Unfortunately, oftentimes a discussion about hermeneutics doesn’t solve anything. On another site earlier this week, I tried (in a rather despairing comment) to explain why this was the case:

The problem, then, is that each group believes it is the only group properly identifying genres. Thus the partial preterist Steve Gregg on his Narrow Path ministries website, in his back-and-forth exchange with futurist Norman Geisler, says Geisler is wrong about preterists not following the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Partial-preterists, claims Gregg, DO use the historical-grammatical hermeneutic; but because they more frequently and properly recognize the genres of hyperbole, poetry, and apocalyptic literature—when futurists do not—naturally the resulting interpretations look different. But (I say) somewhere in all this fray one wonders if either group realizes that even the German Higher critics of the mid-19th century would have claimed the same holy ground in the historical-grammatical hermeneutic argument. After all, wouldn’t they have said they ably identified the genres of myth and legend compilations of which nearly all the ‘historical’ narratives of the Old Testament and especially the Torah consisted?

But, of course, you are right, Duncan. Ultimately, the correct hermeneutic will yield the truth. But since every hermeneutical approach can be argued in a way that is consistent with its own presuppositions, it seems that testing them all to find the true one requires something beyond mere consistency of argument.

But before continuing, let me say that, until recently, I never expected to argue eschatology. I was about 20 when my Dad and uncle got into a terrible argument with another Christian who didn’t share their particular eschatological view. (I’m nearly 53 now.) This really turned me off. And besides, in some ways I’ve always found Revelation very confusing, especially since the Eastern tendency not to explain things in a strictly linear format seems foreign to me (no pun intended).

In the end, it all came through the back door for me. It began in October, 2010, when I found myself doubting my faith in a way I hadn’t experienced in many years. Oddly enough, I knew I had no real reason for doubt. And yet, when I looked at old film slides of semi-desert in Israel, taken by my Dad and uncle when they took my sister and me to the Holy Land when I was 13, I found myself looking at all this barrenness, and asking myself: “Really? A man named Jesus walked this arid plain of clod and brush and did miracles?” It didn’t help that my Dad and uncle were now deceased. For though they were not perfect men; their ideals were genuine. And I think not having the benefit of hearing them talk about spiritual things had a slowly corrosive effect on my spirits.

Anyway, I decided to study the prophecy in Daniel about the coming of Messiah, to see if could prove the Bible’s superiority over other scriptures held to be sacred or profound. I had heard about the prophecy, of course; in fact, I had been named for the prophet. But I had to know if the prophecy would hold up to what I personally felt was a high burden of proof. I thought the whole matter would probably take a week of study, maybe two. In the end, it took nearly all of 2011 to think it through, and then to write up the results in a book. And yet even then I had only aimed to show the historical record of the first 69 weeks. Because that’s all I was concerned with at the time—looking for supernatural proof of the Bible’s superiority, through fulfilled prophecy.

Re: my study of this prophecy, I had heard that the 69 weeks supposedly ended on the Day of Triumphal Entry. When I first heard this, I thought the claim probably came from some overzealous dispensationalist. Still, I thought it worth testing. Now please bear with me here (I know I’m running long), because what follows explains the hermeneutic I’ve chosen. Anyway, it occurred to me that if it were true that when Jesus said that the Jews should have known, “at least in this thy day” the things that pertained to their peace, and that dispensationalists were correct that 483 years of 360 days had transpired from the time the word went forth to restore and build Jerusalem to an Anointed Prince [understood by them to be the Messiah], that Jesus was therefore implicitly stating that the Jews should have been counting down 360-day years for all those centuries. But why ever would the Jews have counted years in so unorthodox a fashion? For nothing in the prophets had ever so instructed them. Oddly enough, I never remember this criticism being raised against dispensationalists, even by their critics.

Well, the thought occurred to me that IF dispensationalists were right, then perhaps something in Jewish history could have alerted the Jews to count off Daniel’s prophecy in 360-day years. But what could it be? At some point the 70-year Exile came to my mind, and I wondered, “What it the Exile had actually been 70 years of 360 days?” Out of curiosity I divided the amount of days (70 x 360) into the length of normal years. To my surprise I found it came to almost exactly one year shy of 70 normal years; or 69 years and 2 days. Therefore such a length of Exile arguably could have made the Jews ask why their Exile had ended almost exactly one year shorter than what they expected. And from there they could have made the connection with statements in Genesis chapters 7 and 8, about 5 months equaling 150 days during the Flood, implying a 360 day year at the time of Creation. Putting this all together, the Jews therefore could have reasoned that the Messiah, when he came, would enact a wide agenda of restoration—not just of repentant hearts back to Him, but even of the earth and moon to where they had once been, when they more simply “told the seasons.”

Well, it was an interesting hypothesis, but was there any evidence?

And so I began to study biblical and extra-biblical records to determine the length of the Exile. I’ll spare you the details of my research in this particular comment, but I found that the longest the Exile could have been was about 69 years, 16 days (Tishri, 606 BC to Tishri, 537 BC). I realized this window of time could accommodate an interval of 69 years and 2 days, and that therefore the Jews could have theorized from this fact that perhaps they should also count Daniel’s 483 years similarly. Of course, this would only be for the purpose of counting off years until the Messiah, since otherwise the Jews would continue to observe their usual lunar-solar calendar, lest they fail to observe their festivals in their proper seasons.

Much later, I realized a 69 year and 2 day Exile would explain why Daniel, arguably the most learned man in Babylonian and Jewish culture, was searching the scrolls re: the number of years Jeremiah assigned to the Exile, despite what must have been common knowledge among all believing Jews that the number of years was 70. Apparently, the decree of Cyrus came about a year earlier than what Daniel had expected.

Anyway, long story short, after studying records pertaining to Artaxerxes’ ascension year, along with when in 14 instances the 5th century BC Jews at Elephantine reckoned Nisan, Nehemiah’s reckoning from Tishri instead of Nisan regarding monarchial years, W.E. Filmer’s article (in a theological journal published by Oxford) on the likely year of death of Herod the Great, and so forth, led me to conclude that the 69 weeks ran from (Julian) April 6, 444 BC to April 27, 33 AD.

And so it is this conclusion that has led me to a hermeneutic in which I believe the 70th week of Daniel lies in the future. I especially think this, since John in Revelation describes two periods of 42 months, each of which is 1260 days (meaning a 360 day year). And so, I believe Revelation is essentially historical, despite its rather surrealist prose heavily laden with metaphor. And I think John’s vision may have had a dream-like quality not entirely dissimilar to the kind of dreams we ourselves have, in which real persons are sometimes combined with absurd actions.

Finally, I realize I have not given you enough information to judge the correctness/incorrectness of my conclusions about the historical record, which forms the basis of my hermeneutic. But at least this is a sketch of some of the reasons for the hermeneutic I have chosen.

[Duncan]

Daniel,

Yeow. We have way too much to talk about. Volume I of my book (The Antichrist and the Second Coming: A Preterist Examination) focuses on the book of Daniel. I would be glad to send you a free copy if you are interested. Just email me a mailing address; send it to, Duncan@peoplepc.com
The 70 weeks is pretty difficult; for now lets keep it simple and focus on Revelation (I never thought I would ever make that statement). How do you determine what is literal and what is figurative in Revelation? If you would rather that I start and give some of my ideas and you comment on them that is fine also.

[DanielGracely]

Duncan,

I guess we can discuss Revelation, though I feel at a disadvantage because I haven’t studied it to the same degree I’ve studied the historical record regarding Daniel’s 69 weeks. Besides this, I doubt I can offer you much in the way of futurist argument you haven’t already heard. And yet I don’t follow the standard dispensational party line in every respect, so perhaps I can offer at least one idea below that is new. Or, at least, I think it is new.

This idea came to me some hours after my older brother and I discussed how many future resurrections we thought the Bible taught. I finally pinned him down (he’s a pretrib-premil guy, and I guess at this point I am, too) and said (in effect), “Dave, you have to read Daniel 12, because it seems to me it’s talking about a resurrection at the mid-point of the 70th week. And I don’t know how that could jive with the dispensational view.” Dave is pretty big on Clarence Larkin, and we noticed Larkin didn’t list this resurrection in the middle of the 70th week. It seems dispensationalists interpret Daniel 12:2 to refer to the two resurrections in Rev. 20:4-5, which happen on either side of the 1,000 year reign of Christ. That is, like in the other dozen or so instances in which contiguous clauses in the prophets are understood (at least by dispensationalists) to be fulfilled many years apart, dispensationalists have understood Daniel 12:2 in the same way, with the righteous being raised, and much later the unrighteous being raised. But here in Daniel I felt there was a problem with this approach. For Daniel 12:2 comes between Daniel 12:1 which talks about a time of unprecedented international distress, and Daniel 12:7 which states that all these wonders will be completed in a time, times, and half a time (which I would interpret to mean 3.5 years). And so it seemed to me that Daniel 12:2 was talking about a general, simultaneous resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous dead, at the threshold of the Great Tribulation (by which I mean the last 3.5 years of Daniel’s 70th week. I’m clarifying here because it seems some people refer to the entire 70th week as the Great Tribulation).

Anyway, prior to talking with my brother, I had been reading the passage in one of the gospels where Jesus tells Caiaphas that he [Caiaphas] will see Him [Christ] coming in the clouds. And it seems to me that Jesus was saying Caiaphas would see him with his own eyes (not via some TV-like screen in Hades). I think that verse has been problematic for futurists and preterists. For futurists have to try to explain why Caiaphas would see Jesus if he (presumably) were in Hades, while preterists have to explain why Jesus didn’t come in the clouds during the destruction of the Temple. BTW I read your comment about Josephus mentioning signs in the heavens at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction. I’m not sure what to say here, since I doubt this really happened, though I myself sometimes rely on Josephus for argument. But I have discovered that Josephus is more frequently wrong than I wished, about such things as Cyrus ordering materials for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and in statements such as the year of Darius’ reign in which the temple was completed, and in stating that there was a 4-year difference between Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim’s reign, whereas Jeremiah 25:1 plainly puts the difference at three.

Anyway, it occurred to me that IF there were a general resurrection of the dead, in which the righteous presumably went to be with Christ but whereas the unrighteous went to the surface of the earth to begin the suffering of their judgment, it would solve a number of puzzling verses. For example, IF all the unbelievers were present upon the earth, this could explain how Caiaphas could be present to see the return of the Lord shortly after the end of the Great Tribulation. Perhaps more significantly, it would explain those verses in Rev. 22 in which God warns that those who add to the words of “this book” shall receive the plagues of this book. And so, all the unrighteous who throughout the ages had tampered with “this book” would literally experience the plagues of Revelation. Moreover, they would probably experience ALL the plagues, since presumably their resurrected bodies are made indestructible (though not “glorified”) by God, in order that their resurrected state be maintained.

Admittedly, what possible evidence I found in Revelation for this hypothesis was oblique. As you know, Revelation makes no mention of a general resurrection at the threshold of the Great Tribulation. And yet there are lesser evidences remarkable in their own right. For example, since the antichrist is active (I speak as a futurist) throughout the first half of Daniel’s 70th week, he could not be among the resurrected unbelievers. Yet that is not necessarily the case with the false prophet, since he is not mentioned until after the death of the two witnesses. And when I read more about him, I found it interesting that the Bible says he comes “up from” the earth. This type of description of a man suggests (to me) he is one of the resurrected dead. As I thought more about the matter, I remembered that an earthquake had taken place at the time of Christ’s own resurrection, in which many in the tombs came forth and witnessed of things in Jerusalem. And so it seemed reasonable to me to find whether there is any mention of an earthquake occurring shortly after the two witnesses are taken to heaven. In fact, there IS an earthquake mentioned—not as devastating as another earthquake mentioned later in Revelation which causes the great cities of the nations to fall, etc., but one causing enough damage that it might open up the tombs.

But what I’m saying here is really in the hypothesis stage. Yet to me it offers an explanation of verses that preterists have properly pointed out have been problematic for dispensationalists.

But moving on, let me give a direct answer (or as direct as I can) to your question about what I take literally in Revelation. Based on my prior study of Daniel’s 69 weeks, I would begin by assuming that a 7-year period of history remains before us, and that it must be 7 years of 360 days each. And so I would interpret the description of such a period as historical, while, of course, seeking to understand whatever in plainly metaphorical.

But as to the nature of the vision, it seems to me that John’s description of it could have happened just as he recorded it. In other words, he could have had a vision in which he saw Jesus, and then saw a ‘literal’ sword coming out of Jesus’ mouth. Now when I say “literal” I do not mean a real sword that exists in geo-physical space, but rather an image of a real sword. After all, what John experienced was a vision; and John tells us that he wrote what he saw. And so, I don’t think it’s likely he decided to consciously encode some message through metaphor from something else that he saw. I think he wrote what he saw, yet I would say that the sword he saw coming out of Jesus’ mouth was (of course) a metaphor. But that’s what makes Revelation particularly tricky in some parts. For example, when it says that four angels held back the winds of the earth, is that historical or a metaphorical? For angels in the Old Testament, both good and bad, are recorded as being given incredible power. “Fire has come down from heaven and destroyed the sheep,” said Job’s servant, a reference to Satan having been given such power. And then there is the angel that wiped out tens of thousands of troops ( in Hezekiah’s time?). So deciding in every case whether an image should be understood as historical or metaphorical is not always easy. In any case, I’m certainly not so much a literalist that I would interpret the angels holding back the winds with their hands.

Anyhow, the assumption of a future 70th week is where I would begin my hermeneutical interpretation of Revelation.

Now, there is one more thing I can say about what IMO is a proper hermeneutical approach. I assign the most importance to the immediate context, followed by the near context, followed lastly by the far context (except where one passage cites another). This is why, for example, when Daniel 9:24 speaks of the “bringing in of everlasting righteousness,” I interpret this to mean, in the immediate context of chapter 9, in which Daniel has confessed his own sin and the sins of his people on the ‘Eve’ of the Jews’ return from the Exile, a time when Israel will no more turn back from God to serve idols. To me that is the natural reading based on the immediate context. And although such an obedient Israel would, by definition, require the sacrifice of Christ , so that they might exercise faith and remain in such a state of continued obedience, I don’t think Messiah’s sacrifice itself is the thing directly in view in the phrase “the bringing in of everlasting righteousness (although, again, Messiah’s sacrifice is necessary if Israel’s ongoing obedience is to have any meaning).

Although I haven’t studied the matter enough, I strongly suspect the predicate in the phrase “the bringing in of everlasting righteousness” is the Hebrew equivalent of what in the Greek has been called a middle-passive verb. As one scholar points out, however, such verbs should be not supposed middle OR passive, but rather both. He gives baptism as an example. In one sense the person being baptized is the passive object in the immersion process. Yet in another sense he has consented and placed himself into the passive position. And so in one sense the action is passive, yet in another sense it is middle, i.e., self-reflexive. Even so, the believer, whether you or me or a believing Jew in the Old Testament, himself exercises faith in God’s work to make possible God’s declaration that he is his child. And so there is the middle, yet there is also the passive. That is, a man himself exercises faith, yet he is the passive recipient of God’s declaration in response to that faith. And so, there is the middle, yet there is also the passive.

So about Revelation. I’m concerned that our discussion doesn’t devolve into each of us trying to prove his position while being forced to stay within the book of Revelation itself, at the expense of citing anything from the Olivet Discourse, Daniel, etc. But surely I am guilty at last (!) of being too literal in my inference of what you meant, when you said, “Let’s just stay within Revelation”. Nevertheless, perhaps you could clarify for my sake the parameters you want. For I doubt I could entirely stay within Revelation while discussing Revelation; yet I want to be sensitive not to prolong my comments about Daniel, since I’ve already made most of the primary points about that book I wished to.

Dan

p.s. Yes, let’s exchange books! I’ll check out your site later or web address later today.

[Duncan]

Dan,

Again, there is so much to talk about (and we may determine we don't have the time for it). First I would be careful about taking a difficult passage like the 70 weeks and making that ones roadmap for prophecy. Take Revelation on its own, if your roadmap of the 70 weeks is correct it will confirm it. Be careful, however, of taking your roadmap and making Revelation fit into it.
A fundamental difference between the preterist and the futurist is on how to interpret Revelation that is really where the discussion should begin. Here are some of my thoughts in a nutshell (a rather long winded nutshell I am afraid; sorry if it is too much stuff).

It is important that one has a consistent hermeneutic when interpreting Revelation. One’s hermeneutic, or method of interpretation, will to a great extent determine the conclusions one comes to concerning the book. Osborn concurs: “Perhaps more than any other book, our understanding of the meaning of Revelation depends on the hermeneutical perspective we bring to bear on it.”1 Those who are looking at Revelation as a collection of literal physical events will interpret the visions very differently from those who see the events as more symbolic in nature. Most of the differences between futurists and preterists can be traced to differences in how each approaches Revelation. Most of these differences center on how literally or symbolically the images are being interpreted.

APOCALYPTIC WRITING
The book of Revelation is also known as The Apocalypse. This title is taken from Revelation 1:1 where we are told that the book is a revelation (Gr. apokalypsis) of Jesus. The Greek word apokalypsis means an uncovering or unveiling.2 A common understanding is that what is being unveiled in Revelation is the future. While it is true that Revelation was unveiling future things (things near to when the book was written, Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10),3 this is not the primary unveiling of the book. The primary unveiling of Revelation is one of the spiritual realm. That is, Revelation unveils the invisible realm of the spirit, making it visible by way of symbols.
The following description of the apocalyptic genre by Osborne fits Revelation quite well.

Apocalyptic entails the revelatory communication of heavenly secrets by an otherworldly being to a seer who presents the visions in a narrative framework; the visions guide readers into a transcendent reality that takes precedence over the current situation and encourages readers to persevere in the midst of their trials. The visions reverse normal experience by making the heavenly mysteries the real world and depicting the present crisis as a temporary, illusory situation. This is achieved via God’s transforming the world for the faithful.4

Revelation is much more than a letter written to the churches of Asia using an apocalyptic style, however. It is a prophecy from God (Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6-10). Beale writes the following on the uniqueness of Revelation.

The most preferable view is that Revelation is “a prophecy cast in an apocalyptic mold and written down in a letter form” [D.A. Carson, D.J. Moo and L. Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 479] in order to motivate the audience to change their behavior in the light of the transcendent reality of the book’s message. The conclusion of Ramsay Michaels is judicious when he refers to Revelation’s genre as “mixed” and unique: “If a letter, it is like no other early Christian letter we possess. If an apocalypse, it is like no other apocalypse. If a prophecy, it is unique among prophecies.”[J.R. Michaels, Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 30, 31-32]5

It should also be noted that Revelation was originally intended to be read aloud (Rev. 1:3). Thus, its grand images and stylized use of numbers may also function as a mnemonic device to help its hearers retain its message.6

IS REVELATION LITERAL OR SYMBOLIC?
Most modern-day readers have little to no experience with apocalyptic writings and do not quite know what to make of the bizarre images of Revelation. The question of how much of the book is symbolic and how much is literal is one of the first questions that any reader of Revelation must consider. To say that one is simply going to read the book literally is foolishness; much of Revelation is clearly symbolic. No one looks for a literal seven-headed beast from the sea (Rev. 13:1), or a two-headed beast from the land (Rev. 13:11). No one looks for a lamb with seven eyes and seven horns (Rev. 5:5-7). Few if any look for a literal star to fall to the earth and release actual locusts from a bottomless pit (Rev. 9:1-3). No one looks for a literal harlot sitting on the beast (Rev. 17:3). While these things are clearly symbolic, what about something less bizarre, such as the two witnesses in Revelation 11:1-14? Are the two witnesses two actual people or are they just as much a symbol as the harlot? This brings up the question, how does one determine what is literal and what is symbolic in Revelation? Is the book mostly literal or mostly symbolic or a combination of both? If it is a combination of literal and symbolic images, how does one determine which are which? Before I address this question, allow me to define how I use the terms literal and symbolic.
Webster’s Dictionary gives the following definitions of literal and symbolic:7

LITERAL (3a): based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning; not figurative or symbolic /the literal meaning of a passage/.
SYMBOLIC (1): of or expressed in a symbol or symbols.
SYMBOL (1): something that stands for, represents, or suggests another thing; esp., an object used to represent something abstract; emblem /the dove is a symbol of peace/.

The slain Lamb with seven eyes and seven horns on God’s throne (Rev. 5:6-14) taken literally (“the actual words in their ordinary meaning”) would mean a physical lamb with seven eyes and seven horns sitting on a fancy chair in heaven. Taken symbolically, this slain lamb would stand for or represent something other than simply a lamb. I trust this is a pretty clear example. The book of Revelation is not talking about a literal lamb here; it is talking about Jesus, the Lamb of God—God’s perfect sacrifice for man’s sin. The Lamb here is obviously a symbol (“something that stands for, represents, or suggests another thing”). Note, however, that just because a symbol is being used does not mean the meaning it is conveying is not real. The symbolic meaning of a slain Lamb on the throne is much more profound than any meaning that could be derived from a literal lamb on the throne. This is an important point; most of the time the symbolic interpretation in Revelation is the more powerful one.

Symbolic understandings of Scripture are viewed with suspicion by many who hold a high view of the Bible. This is primarily due to the excesses that have arisen from the misuse of such interpretations by those with a low view of Scripture. Again, just because something is symbolic does not mean it is any less of a reality. For example, the symbolic understanding of the white hair of the Son of Man in Revelation 1:14 (symbolic of his eternality, as it is with the Ancient of Days in Dan. 7:9) is far more powerful than a literal understanding that Jesus has white hair. The interpretation of the symbolic passages of Scripture can be difficult at times; the way to stay on track is to let Scripture interpret Scripture. The place to find the meaning of the Revelation symbols is in Scripture, especially in the OT. The major reason we have so much trouble understanding Revelation is that we do not know our OT as well as we should. This was not a problem for the first-century audience to whom Revelation was written; the OT was their Bible.

SENSUS LITERALIS
Another meaning is sometimes given to the term literal. R.C. Sproul writes the following on this.

The orthodox Protestant hermeneutic follows Martin Luther’s view of the sensus literalis. There is much confusion today regarding the “literal sense” of Scripture. Luther means that one should interpret the Bible according to the manner in which it was written, or in its “literary sense.” . . . To interpret the Bible “literally” in the classical sense requires that we learn to recognize in Scripture different genres of literature. Poetry is to be interpreted as poetry, and didactic passages are to be interpreted according to the grammar of the didactic. Historical narrative must not be treated as parable, nor parable as strict historical narrative. Much of biblical prophecy is cast in an apocalyptic genre that employs graphic imaginative language and often mixes elements of common historical narrative with the figurative language.8

While I heartily agree that the different forms of literature in the Bible should be interpreted differently, I find that the sensus literalis definition of literal confuses the issue. The problem is that sensus literalis does not define what the correct way to interpret a given genre is. It is a little like the saying “one should always do the right thing.” While this is a truism, it is not of much help if the right thing is not defined (as different people have different ideas of what the right thing is in a given situation). By using the sensus literalis definition of literal, all commentators would say they interpret Revelation literally! This is because all would maintain that they are interpreting Revelation in the way it should be interpreted. Again, this confuses the issue. Because of this, I prefer to use the dictionary’s definitions of literal (“the actual words in their ordinary meaning”) and symbolic (“something that stands for, represents, or suggests another thing”) in discussing literal and symbolic interpretive approaches to Revelation.

MAKING KNOWN BY WAY OF SYMBOLS
Consider what Revelation says about how literal or symbolic the images in it are. In Revelation 1:1 we are given the following introduction to the book: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John.” Osborne writes the following about the meaning of “signified” (Gr. sēmainō) here. “This term has a special purpose, for it is the verb cognate of the Johannine term (sēmeion, sign) and yields the idea of ‘making known’ by means of symbols. This is particularly apropos in light of the predominant symbolism of the book.”9

Using this definition of signified, the meaning of Revelation 1:1 is, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it [communicating it by way of symbols] by His angel to His servant John.” Of course the meaning of any word is ultimately defined by the context in which it occurs. When one looks at the book of Revelation and its numerous symbolic images, it lends strong support to the proposition that sēmainō in Revelation 1:1 means making known by way of symbols. David Chilton notes the following along these lines:

Now St. John says that these things regarding the future were signified, or “sign-ified,” to him by the angel. The use of this word tells us that the prophecy is not simply to be taken as “history written in advance.” It is a book of signs, symbolic representations of the approaching events. The symbols are not to be understood in a literal manner. We can see this by St. John’s use of the same term in his Gospel (12:33; 18:32; 21:19). In each case, it is used of Christ “signifying” a future event by a more or less symbolic indication, rather than by a prosaic, literal description. And this is generally the form of the prophecies in the Revelation.10

G.K. Beale points out that in the Septuagint the Greek word sēmainō is used in Daniel 2:45 to denote the making known of prophetic revelations by way of symbols.11 The LXX version of Daniel 2:45 is as follows:

Whereas thou sawest that a stone was cut out of a mountain without hands, and it beat to pieces the earthenware, the iron, the brass, the silver, the gold; the great God has made known to the king what must happen hereafter; and the dream is true, and the interpretation thereof sure.

In this context sēmainō clearly means making known by way of signs. What God had “made known” to King Nebuchadnezzar was the interpretation of his dream of a great human image that symbolized four empires (Dan. 2:36-42). This human image was destroyed by a mighty stone, a symbol of the kingdom of God (Dan. 2:44-45). This section of Daniel is clearly communicating by way of symbols. Beale argues that this use of sēmainō in Daniel 2:45 is an important indicator of its meaning in Revelation 1:1.

To understand the word [sēmainō in Rev. 1:1] fully, its role in the immediate context must be recalled. It is part of a clear allusion to Dan. 2:28-30, 45. The clauses “revelation . . . God showed . . . what must come to pass . . . and he made known” [ellipses in original] occur together only in Daniel 2 and Rev. 1:1 . . . The revelation [in Dan. 2] is not abstract but pictorial. The king saw a huge statue composed of four sections of different metals: gold, silver, bronze, and iron. The statue was smashed by a rock that grew until it became a mountain filling the earth . . . The allusion [of Rev. 1:1] to Dan. 2:28-30, 45 indicates that a symbolic vision and its interpretation is going to be part of the warp and woof of the means of communication throughout Revelation. This conclusion is based on the supposition that John uses OT references with significant degrees of awareness of OT context . . . .12 (underlined emphasis mine)

Again, the book of Revelation is “signified”; the information contained in it is made known by way of signs or symbols. Few if any would deny that Revelation has many symbols in it. It is my contention that symbolism is the primary mode of communication in Revelation; as Beale so wonderfully puts it, part of the “warp and woof” of the book. Essentially all the images in Revelation are symbols.13 Having said that, many of these symbolic images do contain physical referents in them.

THE FALSE CRITERION OF ABSURDITY
In trying to differentiate symbolic from literal images in Revelation, many interpreters operate on the assumption that how absurd or bizarre an image is should be the criterion for what is literal and what is symbolic. It has been said that “if the literal sense makes good sense then look for no other sense.” This sounds like good advice but is not—at least not in the book of Revelation. According to this line of thinking, a lamb with seven eyes and horns is bizarre (and thus symbolic), while two witnesses are not bizarre (and thus literal). This is wrong: the two witnesses are just as much a symbol (a symbol of the witness of God’s people)14 as is the Lamb with seven eyes and seven horns. For the most part the less absurd images in Revelation are just as symbolic as the more absurd images. By the way, the two witnesses kill their enemies with fire from their mouth (Rev. 11:5); they are thus a bit more bizarre than they appear at first glance.
Even though I contend that the images in Revelation are symbols, the foundation underlying the understanding of this symbolism is grounded in the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. Gundry writes the following on the importance of this:

. . . we must presume that the text as it stands had a meaning for the author and his first readers. We want to discover that meaning. The path to discovery lies along the line of historical-grammatical interpretation, which assumes that the language of the biblical text, including its symbolic language, grows out of and speaks to the historical situation of the writer and his readers. To take a non-referential view of language, particularly of symbolic language, may open up possibilities of contemporary interest and deconstructive play, but it blocks the path to historical understanding.15

Before one can begin to understand what John wrote (whether to take it literally or symbolically) one has to know what the words John used meant to him and his audience at the time in history that he wrote. Thus the symbolic interpretation of Revelation that I am advocating is built on the historical-grammatical method of interpreting Scripture. I make this point because some mistakenly equate the historical-grammatical method with literalism.

It is easy to fall into the trap of literalism in Revelation; as I have mentioned, this most often happens when a symbol is not bizarre. Even preterists fall into this trap at times. Most preterists correctly see the New Jerusalem as not being a literal city but a symbol of the bride of the Lamb.16 When the angel tells John that he is going to show him the bride, what he shows him is the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:9-10).17 In a similar vein, Paul tells us that this Jerusalem from above is the new covenant mother of all believers. (Gal. 4:21-31; cf. Rev. 21:1-2).18

While preterists understand that the New Jerusalem is not a literal city, they are not as clear that Babylon is not a literal city either (preterists usually say Babylon was first-century Jerusalem). The “city” of Babylon is as much a symbol as the “city” of New Jerusalem. In both cases the symbol of a city is being used to represent a community of people. Babylon (the harlot) represents the unfaithful old covenant community; New Jerusalem (the bride) represents the faithful new covenant community. While Babylon was centered in Jerusalem (in the Temple), it represents all of the old covenant community that rejected Jesus, not just the city of Jerusalem. When God tells his people to come out of Babylon (Rev. 18:4), he is not telling them to come out of Jerusalem; the people of the seven churches of Asia were already out of Jerusalem. What God was telling his people was to make a final break with the old covenant temple system.

PHYSICAL REFERENTS CONTAINED IN REVELATION’S SYMBOLS
Even though I see the vast majority of the images in Revelation as symbolic (i.e., the book is unveiling the spiritual realm by means of symbols), there are physical referents contained within these symbols to aid in their identification. For example, harlot Babylon is dressed up in the attire of the high priest as well as the furnishings of the Temple (Rev. 17:4; 18:16; cf. Exod. 28). The merchandise of Babylon (Rev. 18:11-13) consists of the physical materials used in the construction of the Temple as well as the merchandise used in the sacrifices and offerings.19 Thus, while harlot Babylon is a symbol of the temple system of God’s unfaithful old covenant people, physical referents are contained in her description (mostly taken from the Temple and the high priest) for the purpose of aiding in the identification of what she symbolizes.
Another example of a physical referent contained in a symbol in Revelation is found in Revelation 16:21, “And great hail from heaven fell upon men, every hailstone about the weight of a talent. And men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, since that plague was exceedingly great.” This plague brings to mind the seventh plague of Egypt where God rained great hailstones on the Egyptians (Exod. 9:18-26). The hailstones of Exodus were said to be very heavy, but the hailstones in Revelation are said to weigh a talent each (about 100 pounds). Such massive hail is a natural impossibility. (As of 1999 the world record for hail was around two pounds.)20 The reference to 100-pound "hailstones" in Revelation is not talking about literal hail; it is symbolic of the Roman bombardment of Jerusalem during its siege. Josephus tells us that these great stones were shiny white (like hail) and weighed a talent each.21

The reason Revelation symbolizes the bombardment of Jerusalem in the form of one of the plagues of Egypt is because this was a fulfillment of one of the curses God said he would bring on his old covenant people when they broke the covenant. God said he would bring the diseases and plagues of Egypt on his unfaithful people at this time (Deut. 28:58-61; cf. Rev. 11:8). Thus, the 100-pound white stones that the Romans rained on Jerusalem are portrayed symbolically as 100-pound hailstones. The reference to the weight being a talent aids in identifying what the symbol refers to; it provides a historical point of reference.
The Antichrist and the Second Coming: A Preterist Examination, vol. II, 69-78

Endnotes:
1. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Moises Silva (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 18.
2. Smalley, Revelation to John, 27.
3. Rev. 12:5 is an exception to this. It shows the AD 30 spiritual birth (i.e., as firstborn from the dead, Rev. 1:5; cf. Rom. 8:29) and ascension of Jesus.
4. Osborne, Revelation, 14.
5. Beale, Book of Revelation, 39.
6. E. Schuessler Fiorenza, Revelation: Vision of a Just World (Minneapolis: Proclamation, 1991), 31-33.
7. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 3rd. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1997).
8. R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 65.
9. Osborne, Revelation, 55.
10. David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance (Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1987), 53.
11. Beale, Book of Revelation, 50-52.
12. Ibid., 50-51. While I agree with Beale that the method of communication in Revelation is by way of symbols, I disagree with how he applies these symbols. Beale sees a given symbol as having a number of possible fulfillments throughout history ending “with a final consummation in salvation and judgment” (what he calls a “transtemporal” approach, see Book of Revelation pg. 48). Thus, the symbol of Babylon could have aspects of Israel and Rome in the first century and aspects of other wicked communities that come against God’s people throughout history. He writes, “The majority of the symbols in the book are transtemporal in the sense that they are applicable to events throughout the ‘church age.’” (pg. 48)
Beale is a great scholar and very helpful and but he has to be used judiciously. I strongly disagree with this shotgun idealistic approach. The symbols in Revelation had one (soon coming) referent in the first century (although many have ongoing fulfillments from that time), not numerous possible referents throughout history.
13. There are a few exceptions to this but they are usually clear in their context. For example, the seven churches were seven literal churches (although they also symbolize the totality of God’s church). Similarly the eight kings of Revelation 17:10-11 were eight demonic kings that worked through eight specific rulers. These examples are exceptions, however; as Beale notes, symbolism is “part of the warp and woof of the means of communication throughout Revelation.”
14. Beale gives a number of reasons to support the idea that the two witnesses are used as a symbol of the new covenant community:

1.) The witnesses are called “two lampstands” in v 4, which should be identified as the churches . . . important is the explicit identification of the lampstands in Rev. 1:20 “the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” It is unlikely that the lampstands are different here than in ch. 1.
2.) Verse 7 says that “the beast . . . will make war with them and overcome them.” This is based on Dan. 7:21, where the last evil kingdom prophesied by Daniel persecutes not an individual but the nation of Israel.
3.) The corporate interpretation is pointed to by the statement in vv 9-13 that the entire world of unbelievers will see the defeat and resurrection of the witnesses . . .
4.) The two witnesses prophesy for three and a half years, the same length of time that the “holy city,” “the woman,” and “those tabernacling in heaven” are to be oppressed (11:2; 12:6, 14; 13:6). If these texts speak of the persecution of a community, then it is plausible to identify the witnesses likewise . . .
5.) Often elsewhere in the book the entire community of believers is identified as the source of “testimony” to Jesus (6:9; 12:11, 17; 19:10; 20:4).
6.) A final hint that these prophets are not two individuals comes from observing that the powers of both Moses and Elijah are attributed to both the two witnesses equally, and not divided among them. They are identical prophetic twins.
(Beale, Book of Revelation, 574-75)

That the witnesses are a corporate symbol of God’s people can also be seen in the fact that the singular “body” is used in vv. 8a and 9a (i.e., “their body will lie in the street of the great city”) although the plural is used in v. 9b (see Beale, Book of Revelation, 594).
Finally, verse 11 (which shows God’s breath of life resurrecting the two witnesses) alludes to Ezek. 37:8-14 which speaks of a corporate resurrection of Israel. Quoting Beale again, “Ezek. 37:10-13 refers to restored Israel as ‘an exceedingly great army . . . the whole house of Israel . . . my people.’ Since Ezekiel prophesies the restoration of an entire faithful nation to God, John sees the fulfillment in all the faithful of the church, and not merely in two faithful individuals.” (Book of Revelation, 597)
When a symbol is not extraordinary—like with the two witnesses—it is easy to lose focus of the symbolic nature of Revelation and start looking for two actual persons. Looking for two people who were the two witnesses is as big a mistake as looking for an actual harlot or the beast she rode on. They are all symbols.
15. Robert Gundry, “The New Jerusalem: People as Place not Place for People,” Novum Testamentum 29 (1987), 255-56.
16. Those who were faithful under the old covenant are part of this new covenant community (Rev. 21:12).
17. By switching symbols from a bride to a city, God is able to reveal more information about his new covenant people (this information is conveyed in the details of the city, e.g., Rev. 21:14; cf. Eph. 2:19-22).
18. That the heavenly Jerusalem is likened to both a mother and a bride is not an inconsistency. For example, there is no inconsistency in saying believers are children of God and at the same time his bride or that Jesus is both the Good Shepherd and the Lamb of God.
19. Carrington notes the following about the merchandise of Babylon: “The long list of merchandise in 18:11-13 is surely a catalogue of materials for building the Temple, and stores for maintaining it.” Philip Carrington, The Meaning of the Revelation (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007). Originally published by SPCK, 1931, 287.
20. Hail is the result of frozen drops of water bouncing up and down in the atmosphere due to strong updrafts. Every time a piece of hail goes up in the atmosphere it freezes again and forms another layer of ice, getting bigger and heavier. When the hail gets too heavy for the updrafts to keep it in the air it falls to the ground. Thankfully, this happens way before hailstones reach a weight of a hundred pounds!
21. Josephus writes, “The engines of all the legions were masterpieces of construction, but those of the tenth were supreme. Their quick-firers were more powerful and their stone-throwers bigger, so that they could repulse not only the sorties but also the fighters on the ramparts. The stone missiles weighed a talent and traveled two furlongs [approx. 375 m.], and their impact not only on those who were hit first, but also on those behind them, was enormous. At first the Jews kept watch for the stone—for it was white—and its approach was intimated, to the eye by its shining surface, as well as to the ear by its whizzing sound.” Josephus, Jewish War, 5, 6, 3, trans. Cornfeld, 370-72 (underlined emphasis mine).

[DanielGracely]

Duncan,

It would be hard for me to believe that your last comment was not something at least mainly copied from your book. The extensive quotes from (G.K?) Beale and Sproul and the extensive footnotes wouldn’t be possible for you to have written since my comment earlier this morning. I guess that’s okay in one sense, since I realize you don’t want to rewrite material you’ve already written. But on the other hand, I’m not going to enter a ‘discussion’ in which I have to do a lot of first time thinking and writing, while the other fellow posts long comments mostly or entirely copied from his book. However anti-marxist I claim to be, I’ll admit to feeling the division of labor isn’t fair here—or, rather, wouldn’t be fair in a continued conversation of any real length.

Please understand I’m not accusing you of dishonesty.

Moving on, I could not be in stronger disagreement with your implicit suggestion that (in effect) the restrictive or at least primary key to Revelation is in the Greek word sēmainō, at the expense of what history shows about when the 69 weeks of Daniel ended. For regarding sēmainō, anyone can form a hermeneutic consistent with his own presuppositions, by insisting on what degree of metaphor is appropriate. In fact, you do this very thing yourself. For after stating in very strong terms that the book is primarily symbolic, you yourself go on to qualify what things in Revelation are exempt from being understood as signs, based on your own preterist presuppositions. The proof of this is in your unwillingness to grant “identifiers” unless they are historically past objects identifiable because of their aforementioned use in the Bible. And so with one large brush stroke you make any objects that could refer to the distant future impossible, because that is what your presuppositions demand.

And yet you do not seem to remain consistent with your own presuppositions. Take the two witnesses for example. You give them quite a bit of attention because, apart from fire coming from their mouths to destroy their enemies, they do not appear absurd (like a lamb with seven eyes and horns). You claim these are not real persons but merely a symbol of a general Christian witness. But the actual text of Rev. 11 states they are the two olive trees and two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth, an obvious reference to Zech. 4, a Messianic passage which predicts that Zerubbabel (like the Messiah), shall make the mountain a plain, and carry out a work which men despised because of its small beginnings. At verse 11 Zechariah asks:

Then I said to him, "What are these two olive trees on the right of the lampstand and on its left?" And I answered the second time and said to him, "What are the two olive branches which are beside the two golden pipes, which empty the golden oil from themselves?" So he answered me, saying, "Do you not know what these are?" And I said, "No, my lord." Then he said, "These are the two anointed ones who are standing by the Lord of the whole earth."

Now granted that the two witnesses who are anointed ones give a witness, since that is their function. But to claim, as you do, that the two witnesses are a symbol of “the witness of God’s people” and not two individuals who witness, is in my opinion a flagrant disregard of the text. In fact, because you insist that the two witnesses are a symbol, when Revelation itself shows they are the reality behind the symbol of two olive trees, your position is that the “two witnesses” are a symbol of a symbol. If you really believe that is the case, I doubt anything I say could move you away from the kind of ridiculous implausibility which preterist presuppositions apparently demand. What's next? A symbol of a symbol of a symbol?

Also, you claim that the angel told John in Rev. 21:9-10 that Jerusalem was a bride, that this is a symbol for God’s people, and that the New Jerusalem is not an actual city. But arguably the angel is using the term “bride” as a metonym figure of speech for the people of God in the city (those believers no longer on earth), while yet implying a city, knowing John has already stated in verse 2 that the city descended from heaven like (Greek hos) a bride adorned for her husband. But to be like a bride is not to be a bride. But what, then? A city, perhaps? But because a future city called New Jerusalem is not “identified” according to what the standards of your presuppositions demand—i.e., historically past identifiable objects—you say it can be no city.

Duncan, I hope that you, but if not you then any 3rd party readers, will take note of one thing here. While you can sometimes make your case appear convincing by staying within your preterist presuppositions, similar to how I can appear convincing by staying within my futurist presuppositions, only my position admits to the necessity of also being informed by what history has proven about the 69 weeks of Daniel ending in 33 AD. For this makes the preterist position not credible, since obviously the two periods of 3.5 years mentioned by John in Revelation are years of 360 days each (like each year in the 69 ‘weeks’), and therefore ought to be taken literally. But since the ramifications of this historical evidence show the preterist position excessively metaphoric, I wouldn’t advise anyone to hold his breath while waiting for preterists to admit history unfriendly to preterism has any evidentiary value.

I have to be frank here. I’ve noticed for many years now that theological error will generally avoid addressing the full spectrum of evidence in favor of select ‘evidence’ to keep readers uninformed. Even so, you don’t make even a contingent admission that, if what I point out about the historical record is true, there could be any value to it.

Lastly, I want to say how disappointing it is to hear you say 100-pound hailstones are “impossible” based on present scientific understanding. By the same logic, the children of Israel should not have moved forward to the Red Sea when God told Moses to move them forward, since past historical observation would have told them it was clearly impossible that the Sea could divide. And by the same token, I suppose the Jews should have disbelieved that any of the 10 plagues of Egypt could come to pass, since each of them would require a historically unprecedented act. So I have to ask this question: Duncan, Are we talking about the same God?

For the really aggravating thing here is that, except for the phrase in Daniel 12:1 foretelling an unprecedented time of international distress, the O.T. phrases claimed by preterists to be “poetic hyperbole” are hardly more linguistically ‘exaggerative’ than those disasters Moses predicted and described before Pharaoh. And so, considering preterist principles, the question arises why the entire Exodus narrative shouldn’t also be supposed one large effort of poetic epic, invented by Moses, who, after all, was learned in all the wisdom of Egypt, and therefore certainly literate enough to have been a poet. Indeed, don’t we already have the Mosaic poetry of Psalm 90? Well, admittedly, no preterists I know of have yet taken that step. Perhaps, instead, they merely feel that when Moses predicted that water would turn to blood it came to pass the next day, not hundreds or thousands of years later. But, then, I ask, must John’s predictions in Revelation of waters turning to blood be assumed hyperbole or befitting an “apocalyptic genre” that cannot be literally true, simply because its fulfillment might remain in the future? Indeed, I can only wonder why preterists haven’t also (1) labeled the Daniel 12:2 term “everlasting life” hyperbole, since it occurs nowhere else in the O.T., and (2) regarded its use an error by N.T. figures unattuned to the genre of poetic exaggeration. Perhaps that step will be taken by the next generation of disciples who are made twice the preterist children of today.

Anyway, I’m going to wind down my end of this conversation here, or shortly, unless you hold your hermeneutic accountable to the historical record. For until you incorporate into your hermeneutic the historical data showing the ending date of the 69 weeks of Daniel, and what that implies, you will continue to fall victim to the assumption that your position is right because of mere consistency of argument. Consistency is necessary, yes, but it is only one thing. For there is the full spectrum of evidence to be considered, and that is the primary key.

Daniel Gracely

[steve7150]

Sorry if i'm repeating things i have mentioned several times in previous threads but to me a premise has to make sense and this is my problem.

From Jeremiah and Ezekial i think it was plainly stated a New Covenant was coming and the law would be written on our hearts and In Hebrews we were told the Old Covenant was either obsolete or at least fading away.

In the first three gospels written before Revelation we have the Olivet Discourse where Jesus stated the temple and Jerusalem would be destroyed.


So after these things are plainly stated and known by the Christian community we then have John write a highly symbolic book about something in the future. Is he repeating in difficult symbolic images things that were plainly revealed already and known, or is this about something not known? Another words a "revelation" by definition is about something not known.

Which makes more sense?

[Duncan]

Hi Steve,

So you are saying that Revelation should be about something beyond the Olivet Discourse? We are told that the time of the prophecy of Revelation was at hand, Rev. 22:10. Actually the seals of Revelation parallel the Olivet Discourse. It has been said that Revelation is John's Olivet Discourse (his gospel not having anything on the O.D.) Assuming the same John wrote both I think that is true. Something from my book (hopefully the chart below does not get messed up too much).

CHAPTER 6: THE SEALS
The seals of Revelation’s scroll are like a musical overture; they give an overview of what is to come in the rest of the work. Notice that the seals parallel the Olivet Discourse, especially as found in Mark. The following chart is based on one by Ian Boxall.53

First seal: coming of Antichrist, Rev. 6:1-2-----------coming of deceivers, Mark 13:5-6; the abomination of desolation, Mark 13:14

Second seal: peace is taken, Rev. 6:3-4----------------wars and rumors of war, Mark 13:7

Third seal: scarcity of food, Rev. 6:5-6----------------famines, Mark 13:8

Fourth seal: famine and pestilence---------------------famine and pestilence, Luke 21:11
Rev. 6:7-8 NASB

Fifth seal: souls of martyrs, Rev. 6:9-11---------------martyrdom, Mark 13:9-13

Sixth seal: darkening of sun and moon, ----------------darkening of sun and moon, falling of
falling of stars on day of the Lord, -----------------------stars at the Second Coming,
Rev. 6:12-17-------------------------------------------------Mark 13:24-27

It was those in Judea who would need to flee the events spoken of in the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13:14-19). That these events would be directed at the generation that rejected Jesus (Mark 13:29-30; cf. Matt. 21:33-45) is another indication that Revelation is dealing with the judgments coming on first-century Israel. Consider the four judgments of the fourth seal—they would be by way of the “sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth” (Rev. 6:8 NASB). This mirrors Ezekiel 14:12-23 and the plagues God said he would bring on Jerusalem for her unfaithfulness: “. . . I [will] send My four severe judgments on Jerusalem—the sword and famine and wild beasts and pestilence—to cut off man and beast from it” (Ezek. 14:21).

The first six seals take one all the way up to the day of the Lord (Rev. 6:12-17). Variations on this theme of the events leading up to the day of the Lord continue in the rest of Revelation (e.g., Rev. 10:1-7; 11:15-19; 14:14-20; 16:17-21, etc.). A common sequence employed is for the narrative to bring one to the day of the Lord and then present an interlude, which is then followed by another series of events that again bring one to the day of the Lord. These repetitions (or recapitulations) involve a backing up of the narrative and then covering some of the same ground, often from a different perspective—sometimes with an intensification of events.

[steve7150]

So you are saying that Revelation should be about something beyond the Olivet Discourse? We are told that the time of the prophecy of Revelation was at hand, Rev. 22:10. Actually the seals of Revelation parallel the Olivet Discourse. It has been said that Revelation is John's Olivet Discourse (his gospel not having anything on the O.D.) Assuming the same John wrote both I think that is true. Something from my book (hopefully the chart below does not get messed up too much).





Yes the word "Revelation" partially defines that this letter reveals new things not previously known IMO. The second coming, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of the world, the lake of fire and New Jerusalem are revelations on a grand scale. The initiation of the New Covenant was already known from the OT and from Jesus and Paul.
It is possible and perhaps likely that the beginning of Revelation is about the destruction of Jerusalem but we don't need the entire book for this.

Rev 22.10 can be an unsealing of the final events of the church age leading to rewards and punishments and my hope which is restoration of the many.

"And behold i come quickly and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Rev 22.12

[steve7150]

Anyway, long story short, after studying records pertaining to Artaxerxes’ ascension year, along with when in 14 instances the 5th century BC Jews at Elephantine reckoned Nisan, Nehemiah’s reckoning from Tishri instead of Nisan regarding monarchial years, W.E. Filmer’s article (in a theological journal published by Oxford) on the likely year of death of Herod the Great, and so forth, led me to conclude that the 69 weeks ran from (Julian) April 6, 444 BC to April 27, 33 AD.










Hi Daniel,
I thought your points were interesting and i was wondering if you did write a book and if so it is available for sale?

[DanielGracely]

Hi Steve 7150,

Yes, last December I finished writing up a book on this subject and gotten 50 copies or so printed up. So far I've just pretty much given away most of these copies to friends and aquaintances. I hope at some point to have the book online as a free read. I have a handful of copies left. Just shoot me your address at ddgracely@yahoo.com, and I'll send a complimentary copy to you. And thanks for inquiring.

Dan