Teaching Eschatology (when you aren't sure what's right)

Post by **_Ely** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:35 am

Aaron,

Personally, I would suggest not teaching on the book of Revelation until you feel you understand it. There is a risk that it could turn into a free-for-all where everyone gives their own opinion ("what the book means to me") and everyone goes away more confused than when they begun.

Do you have to do the book of Revelation?

Post by **_Jim** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:38 am

Well one thing you can say about the book of revelations and its message is that the Lord is returning.

I have found that when I tell people I don't believe in a pre-trib rapture it makes those who have been taught otherwise upset. Not to mention revealing that I believe the left behind books are not scriptual.

God Bless,

Jim

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:07 am

I just don't really see enough proof that the 7 Churches represent ages to make that my position at the moment.

Hi Aaron, But you said you have studied dispensationalism and preterism and they don't make sense to you. And i agree that at least to myself they don't make complete sense because they have the same problem. They squeeze Rev into a brief time period, they are almost mirror images of each other.
If John is warning about Jerusalem's destruction why does'nt he write to the inhabitants of Jerusalem instead to these 7 churches. If he is writing about a 7 yr trib 2,000 years into the future is this book useless for the Christians throughout the church age?
The fact is it's written to 7 churches which is the symbol of completion ,so it could be the completion of the church age through Laodecia. True during the Laodecian age there are persucuted Christians as there always have been but there never has been such a large and wealthy and worldly westernized materialistic church as there is now. This letter may be addressed to them in particular.
I'm not an expert on it as i recently started studying it but it does ring true to me. For example i listened to an analysis on Rev 9 being the birth of Islam and their invasion into North Africa and Europe and it sounded pretty compelling to me. If you're interested the analysis is on historicist.com

Post by **_chriscarani** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:47 am

Ely wrote:Aaron,

Personally, I would suggest not teaching on the book of Revelation until you feel you understand it. There is a risk that it could turn into a free-for-all where everyone gives their own opinion ("what the book means to me") and everyone goes away more confused than when they begun.

Do you have to do the book of Revelation?

Does anyone really understand the book of Revelation though? I think many like to claim they do, but have only arrived at a presumptious opinion.

STEVE7150 wrote: I've learned a lot from listening to Steve but beyond his knowledge a couple of things that impressed me were
1. It's OK not to know.
2. It's OK not to have an opinion.

Btw have you ever considered the Historicist approach to Revelation?

This is very true Steve and something I have learned myself. I think (as you know) , especially, in the book of Revelation when people assume they have concluded something they leave themselves open to being decieved and mislead. It's best to keep an open and watchful mind concerning the prophecy of this book, in my opinion.

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:00 am

Where in Rev 2-3 is there any indication that these represent church ages? The only way one gets that is by importing (eisegeting) the notion into the text. The plain, literal meaning is that John is speaking to 7 churches in Asia. Period.

If John is warning about Jerusalem's destruction why does'nt he write to the inhabitants of Jerusalem instead to these 7 churches.

John's purpose wasn't to warn about Jerusalem's destruction; that's what Jesus did in Matt 24-25. John's purpose is to edify and encourage the seven churches in Asia; some of which are entering into severe persecution. The overarching message of John's Revelation is that, no matter how bad things look, Jesus is on the throne.

The flaw in the Historicist approach is finding agreement on which historical events correspond to which texts in Rev. As time has gone on and events such as WWI, WWII, the holocaust, etc. have occurred, the historicist interpretation has been spread thinner and thinner.

This dialog (and others like it) highlights that Aaron's best approach might be to assemble an overview of all four major approaches to Revelation and teach from it. As I recall, Matt Rose put together an excellent outline for just this purpose.

Post by **_Christopher** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:10 am

I agree. We needn’t be afraid of the book, we just need to not get dogmatic about it and keep it in proper perspective.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:10 pm

John's purpose wasn't to warn about Jerusalem's destruction; that's what Jesus did in Matt 24-25. John's purpose is to edify and encourage the seven churches in Asia; some of which are entering into severe persecution. The overarching message of John's Revelation is that, no matter how bad things look, Jesus is on the throne.

The flaw in the Historicist approach is finding agreement on which historical events correspond to which texts in Rev. As time has gone on and events such as WWI, WWII, the holocaust, etc. have occurred, the historicist interpretation has been spread thinner and thinner.

The beauty of the historicist approach is it's flexibility. For example i believe Rev was written in the 60s and the first part does apply to Jerusalem 70AD. Also re the churches even if each of them don't apply to a particular age, still the characteristics of all 7 churches can apply to all the churches throughout the church age.
When you have multiple sets of judgements it does make one wonder why they would all apply to one single event as opposed to them happening at different points in history.
And as time has gone on and more historical events happen the historicist view does have to be reevaluated , but that's kinda fun and interesting actually.

Post by **_mattrose** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:19 pm

I think a teacher should be well informed on various interpretations of each passage he teaches, but I doubt it's necessary to have decided on a view. After all, we aren't teaching people to believe what we believe, we're teaching people to be led by the Spirit.

Post by **_Ely** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:42 am

chriscarani wrote:Does anyone really understand the book of Revelation though? I think many like to claim they do, but have only arrived at a presumptious opinion.

I don't understand every single bit of the book of Revelation, but I think I've got a general understanding. This is sufficient for me at this time, as the Lord requires, I'm sure He will lead me into a more detailed understanding. But until then, I will not try and systematically teach the book to anyone.

One thing I do know is that the best way to understand the Revelation of Jesus Christ is to have an understanding of the prophets on whose words much of the book is based upon.

ybiM,
Ely