Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > My approach to the Book of Revelation

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 12/2/2002 7:17 PM (GMT -6)

Hey all,

This is a partial post from an email I wrote to an aquaitance named Jaun in regard to the book of Revelation. After sending it, I thought hey, this would be a good opportunity to get some discussion going on CVM. The email is in regard to Revelation 11 in context to Zecharia 4. Does the approach I take toward the book resonate with anyone? Or am I just full of hot air here?

Let's talk some about this. Here's the the email:

As I noted in my post, chapter 12 of Revelation is immediately framed in the final verses of chapter 11: the revealing of the temple and the Ark seen inside it. Now that's rich to me. That's relationship. That's God speaking something very passionate and heart-felt about His work in the Christ. And then to go back and again consider the Ark in the Old Testament in light of its usage in John's vision--that temple comes up a few more times, and each time is very, very important from this same perspective--is to add more and more flavor to the marvelous work of God in the Christ, the Ark Himself. Jesus.

Whether I'm in Genesis and looking at the first few chapters of creation, or I'm in Exodus watching the movement of the God of heaven as He sets up people, events, customs, laws, and rituals, all of it speaks to me of the heart of God being revealed in regard the issue of restoration of relationship. That God may use prophecy is for God to have only found one more vehicle in which He can carry the soul of the matter. If I'm in Romans, I'll digest the theology, the doctrine and the research but only to ultimately address that same question again after all is said and done: what does this have to say about the heart of God with regard to the relationship with us He's after? See, it all comes down to this. It does so because, well, what else would the Bible really be for if it isn't this? History? Sheesh, there's plenty of better "history" books out there. Religion? Well, we've got a ton of them, too, to choose from. Since we're corresponding in regard to Revelation, let's use that book again, and I'll share something with you about chapter 11 I'm working through.

If you had never read the book of Revelation before, and lo, someone says to you, "Hey, hot of the press: book of Revelation. John just wrote it. What a doosy," what is the first reference you'd think of (assuming you were well steeped in the OT) when you read about the two witnesses? Zecharia, chapter 4 specifically. So, we go to Zech 4, read the text and think that John's been plagarizing! Okay, so John's borrowing from Zech 4. He borrowed a lot of the OT for his vision. So I spent some time re-reading Zech 4, and I ask the same question again: what does this have to say about relationship with God? What's God doing here? What's He after? Why'd He give this to Zecharia in the first place?

To make a long story short with regard to Zech 4 as I see it, the preceding chapters are drippingly rich with the call of God to heed the work of the Christ to come. By the time we get to chapter 4, we have this saturated text dripping with even more of the behind-the-scenes of God's heart. Two olive trees feeding a seven-sticked lampstand. The immediate explanation (so often over looked by the general run-of-the-mill stuff on Revelation) is "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord." What? What's that got to do with the olive trees and lampstands? And then there's the "Moreover" (verse 8-10) and "what are the two olive trees all about, Lord?" The answer is "Oh, don't you know? They're the sons of fresh oil, the anointed ones who stand before the Lord of the whole earth."

Well, back in Revelation, the all-too-common interpretation of the two witnesses is that they are Moses and Elija, or some other combination of folk. And the question is seldom asked WHAT, not who, were they in Zecharia whence they came? (Okay, they were Moses and Elija there, too! NOT!) First, we have this concept of two olive trees feeding a lampstand. Where'd the idea of the lampstand come from? Exodus! We have to go back and ask ourselves what was God saying (and conveying) about our relationship with Him when He gave the lampstand as a piece of the furniture for the tabernacle? Further, there's this "Not by power/might, but by my Spirit" statement which IMMEDIATELY connects itself to the this vision of the two trees feeding the lampstand. That's GOT to get our attention before we just forfeit the heart of this passage with the traditional stuff like, "Bless God, it's by His Spirit and not the flesh." You know, that kind of stuff. (I mean, hey, it's all by the Spirit, eh, but that's not what this is after.) Finally, there's the interpretation of the trees themselves: sons of fresh oil who stand before the Lord of the whole earth? Man, are we just going to insert Moses and Elija (or any two specific people) here without even first asking ourselves, WHY is God even speaking like this? What in the world is He communicating? It ain't Moses and Elija, Jaun, that comes to my mind. At the moment, it's not even an issue of who these are but WHAT they are: what are they contributing to this issue of the intimacy of a lampstand being filled with oil by two olive trees, something that is very meaningfull from the Mosaic concept of the tabernacle: relationship again!!!

The interpretation, if we pay close attention to the question I keep asking about Zech chapter 4, is FIRST no less nor more than God saying something about His desire to bring in the BRANCH (the preceding chapters) and in doing so IN CONTEXT WITH the lampstand and olive trees. WHAT is the lampstand? What are the two tree branches? I mean, man, does one have to be an expert to not immediately think of Paul's reference to the two olive branches in Romans chapter 11? AH, I'm not yet trying to decifer the encryption. We at least need to see first the THEOLOGY is at heart here. Whoever or whatever the two witness are, they are in relationship to the work of the Christ, the Branch. It is in, of, and by His Spirit--the work of the Spirit within the work of the Christ, and it is in regard to the anointedness of someone/something standing by the Lord of all the earth. This is meaningful, but I ain't so sure Moses and Elija are that meaningful! (Hey, I like the two guys, don't get me wrong!)

At this point, I don't think one can miss the theology here: It is directly related to the work Christ would accomplish on the cross bringing restoration of relationship with Israel, the Gentiles, and Himself. That's the work of the Branch, is it not? But there's one thing I left out, and that's the "the seven rejoice to see the plumb line . . . these seven are the eyes of the Lord which range throughout the earth" (Zech 4:10-11). What seven? The eyes of the Lord--the concept carried over from 3:9. Well, let's move on. (Please, bare with me. This stuff sits in me bottled up with no one to share it with. Patience, please!) Back in Revelation . . .

John gives us the statement " . . . and from the seven S/spirits (here after refered to as Spirits) who are before His throne" (1:4). What many do is immediately jump to Isaiah 11 in either an attempt to defend the oneness of the Spirit or in trying to describe the Spirit's ministry in Jesus. I'm not against this, but I think that misses the more deeper heart of the issue. Zecharia is the reference that has given me more for the money.

What's the first thing John sees when the vision starts? The lampstands, which are the seven churches, surrounding the figure of the Christ. There is also the angels/messengers represented as seven stars. And this is when it gets really juicy for me as I've been working through this. Follow this with me, if you will, and tell me if this makes any sense:

* 2:1-7 - The One who walks amoung the lampstands (vs 1). Let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches (vs 7).

* 3:1 - These are the words of Him Who holds the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars.

Note that in addressing the seven churches, Jesus refers to parts of the image of Himself John first saw in chapter 1: the words to Ephesus are from the one who holds the seven stars, who walks in the midst of the seven lampstands; the words to Pergamos are from Him who has the sharp, two-edged sword coming from His mouth. But notice, though, that the language changes in 3:1 in addressing the church at Sardis. The original imagery John saw in chapter 1 was Christ holding the stars and being in the midst of the lampstands (1:12-13). The language changes in 3:1, however to Christ holding the "seven Spirits of God" and seven stars. Not only is there a subtle change from the lampstand/stars combination to Spirit/stars, but drastic theology taking place here (remember Zecharia!) And there is, again, the language of 1:4, the seven Spirits of God.

* 4:5 - Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God. (Here the same issue I raised in 3:1 is plain as day.)

* 5:6 - A Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seen eyes. (Sound familiar to the them of Zecharia? The refences in my NKJV refer directly to Zech 3:9 & 4:10!)

What's going on here?

Well, as I've thought through this (and continue to still work through it), here's where I'm heading (finally, he gets to his point, you say! Oh, and let me add that I'm going through all of this just so you can get a feel for what's driving my theological approach to Scripture, particularly the book of Revelation in this instance, and so that you'll have, perhaps, a better understanding of the need I have for existing research and work on the book.)

As I re-examined Zecharia, I'm struck by the passages which state in effect "I'm going to bring the Branch" (3:8, 6:12). Then God utilizes Joshua and his companions as examples of things to come (3:8) and the seven-fold stone's eyes come immediately into the picture. (Whether we read this as eyes or facets, it fits the wonderful description of the Capstone (4:7-8) being the Christ Himself and the eyes of the Lord scanning to and fro throughout the earth (4:10).

Chapter 4 moves into the intimacy of the fullness of the seven--the eyes of the Lord--rejoicing to see this work of the Branch. (Haggai comes to mind here, also, as one who emphasised the same theology.) John then utilizes the heavy-duty theology from Zecharia and brings it to a climax. He sees the seven eyes as the seven spirits of God themselves, the eyes of the Lamb, the eyes of God IN and AROUND the lampstand, the lampstand of Zecharia, the church, the body of the Christ, the temple of God, permeated by the presense of the seven Spirits of God who are in and around everthing and everwhere; the heart of God expressed most vividly in His desire for relationship to be restored with mankind. How much more intimacy of relationship can God express? The subtle nuances of change in language to bring together the work of Christ for the builiding up of His temple. The Christ, the Branch, the stone, the eyes, the facets, the SLAIN lamb. We, the lampstand, surrounded by the seven Spirits (seven-fold now means more, doesn't it?) of God. The churches of Revelation are so one with the seven spirits that the Christ holds them both (hence the reason for the wonderful change in language in 1:12-13 and 3:1. The intertwining of John's vision and usage of Zecharia (and the WHOLE book does this kind of stuff) is deep. And most importantly . . . most importantly, Jaun, is that if we aren't able to define certain things to the point of total decryption, it doesn't matter. God has not left the MESSAGE unknown. The theology stands regardless. This is what I'm after.

We can pause, therefore, and consider other things in Revelation, such as John's measuring Jerusalem in 11:1. You can't help but think of Zecharia 2, but why is it given? Here again, this isn't some cryptic connect-the-dots game God's playing? There's something intimate conveyed in Zecharia that John is driving home. Those two witnesses are not in a vacume. Oh, man, and then there's the 4-faced creatures who are right out of Ezekiel. Now THAT'S one of the most awesome studies I've found in this book! Holy cow, that's dripping with the honey of relationship like no one's business. On and on it goes, and it's gorgeous! Or am I just out in left field somewhere?

For the intimacy of relationship with God,

Starkman

Edited by - Starkman on 12/03/2002 12:27:30 AM

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 12/3/2002 9:00 AM (GMT -6)

Stark said:

quote:
most importantly, Jaun, is that if we aren't able to define certain things to the point of total decryption, it doesn't matter. God has not left the MESSAGE unknown. The theology stands regardless. This is what I'm after.

I really like this statement and I think it IS the most important thing when approaching a book like Revelation, or any of the Scriptures for that matter. I tend to take Revelation on the level of pure symbolism and imagery and not literally, but the theology still holds. I tend to ask questions of the text like, "What is the author -trying- to communicate? What is the main point/idea?" etc.

Nice, thorough exegetical work! I think your work on the correlation with Zech. 4 is a really interesting one too! Maybe you could write a commentary with all your insights!

Thanks,
~E

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 12/3/2002 1:28 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks, Miss E, for your input!

More and more, I find that the book of Revelation is nothing less than this magnificent Magnum Opus. It's the consumation of God's statement about His desire for relationship with mankind. We all know that the Bible isn't a "history" book, but a book of salvation history. It is the workings, in many diverse and various ways, of God's dealings with mankind in order to get relationship into perspective: restored and in good health. We should keep that in mind when we read Revelation. No other book moves in the fabric of rich anointing in both Old and New testaments. That grips me like nothing else, I'll tell you.

I've finally found some scholarly sites for researching the book of Revelation. So much scholarship, however, ends up concluding arguments at which I just don't see how anyone could have arrived. It's really strange sometimes. But there's good gems to be found in all of it. And, after who knows how many hours of studying the research, I may be able to put something of a commentary on the book, if nothing else but for personal teaching one day. We'll see!

For intimacy of relationship,

Starkman

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/4/2002 7:34 PM (GMT -6)

I think your reading of Revelation is insightful STarkman. Maclom Smith, who has the best lecture series on Revelation I've ever heard (see his Unconditional Love web site), argues that all but ONE symbol in this book comes from the OT (the one exception, as I recall, is the whore of Babylon). His series, which I first heard about 10 years ago, made this book "come alive" for me again -- after it had been totally killed for two decades by the modern apocalyptic "snap-shot-of-the-future" reading.

This approach, and you're approach, is much more in line with the Idealist/Preterist reading.

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 12/4/2002 7:38 PM (GMT -6)

Eugene Peterson has an excellant book on Revelation. He maintains that the one constant throughout it is worship.

¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108

Posted 12/4/2002 8:26 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Starkman,

I don't know how you feel about audio recordings, but I heard this very moving and powerful dramatization of the book of Revelation (NIV style--thank goodness it's not the TNIV

). Check out an audio sample of Revelation chap. 1 at:

https://www.dropincart.com/Haven-pages/index.htm

The music is performed by the London Symphony Orchestra. I heard chapters 4 and 5 on a radio program. I was so drawn into it that the segment was over before I knew it. It really brought the words to life for me. It gave me a sense of the majesty and power that John envisioned (probably not a very good sense, but it moved me to hear it read like that).

http://www.revelation-media.com/products.html

Payaso

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 12/5/2002 8:31 AM (GMT -6)

HOLY 4-HORSES OF THE APOCOLYPS!

Man, I'm listening to that audio sample right now. Absolutely way cool! What a different way to digest the Word of God. Cool!

On another note, I hold to something of the futuristic portents of the book. I believe there is the final 7 years left to be fulfilled of the original 490 given to Daniel. But I think there is so, so much more behind WHY the book was given to the Church. I think this goes without being said for all of Scripture, and that's the heart and soul of God being expressed with regard to His desire for relationship with mankind. That's what it's all about (Hoky-Pokey or not!)

For the behind-the-scenes of God's dealings with us,

Starkman

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:39 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual