Someone wrote to me:
"You are an indoctrinated person, you have the same spirit as those who believe tongues is not for today because you tear people to pieces and it makes you feel good in the name of truth of course (not you that religious devil in you). You must love this I have had so much fun slapping that religious devil and you still come back for more. You are wrong about Rev.6:6".
I replied:
"If it is a religious devil making me question end-timers, then how come I can use Scripture to run rings around people who don't believe in tongues? The heart that enables me to see the relevance of tongues for today in Scripture, is the same heart that enables me to see what I am seeing in the Book of Revelation."
To which he replied:
"Run rings around hey".
And I replied:
"I don't know anyone who believes tongues are not for today who can wield Scripture on the topic as effectively as I can. Not a single one of them! I can run rings around all of them, in Scripture knowledge, in logic, in wit, and in experience, on the topic [of tongues being relevant today].
When it comes to the Book of Revelation, I've made no attempt to assert any particular interpretation - my only goal so far has been to observe accurately what the text actually says without imposing any interpretation on it.
So how can you say I'm wrong about Rev.6:6? I haven't interpreted it or applied it. All I've said is that John saw a vision of weighing scales and he heard a voice which indicated that one Grecian Measure of wheat was soon to sell for for the exhorbitant price of one Roman Denarius of cash.
No-one can argue with me on that. That is exactly what John saw and heard in a vision. I haven't said anything more or less than that.
Now, if you are going to turn around and say:
"Yes, John John saw a pair of weighing scales, but he didn't mean a pair of weighing scales - he really meant electronic scales such as are used in markets today"; or
"Yes, John heard a Grecian Measure of wheat, but he didn't mean a Grecian measure of wheat - he really meant an American bushel of wheat"; or
"Yes, John heard a Roman Denarius, but he didn't mean a Roman Denarius - he really meant the Euro"; or
"Yes, John heard one Denarius, but he didn't mean one Denarius - he really meant the minimum wage in the 21st century for a day's unskilled labour"; or
"Yes, John heard about cash being exchanged, but he didn't really mean cash will be exchanged - we believe we will have a cashless society, so he must have meant something else"; or
"Yes, John described details which applied in the Roman Empire during the early centuries of the Church, but he didn't mean it - he really meant the European Union in the 21st century";
If that's what you are going to say, then you are not merely observing what the text says - you are actually interpreting what you believe the text means.
And if you are going to say that it means something different to what it says, then you should be ready with proof."
To which he replied:
"Are you a scholar in Greek? You call yourself an expert yet 6:6 is not trying to point out the currency of the time but economic distress - so the emphasis is not on the currency. How could have John interpreted modern technology? Why say things like you apply logic? You did interpret 6:6 in you explanation of chap 13."
And I said:
"I don't think ANY lay-person should claim to be a BETTER scholar in Greek than the 47 scholars who produced the KJV in 1611! But I do own two Greek New Testaments plus several other books on New Testament Greek which I have been studying for 30 years. And both my parents studied the elements of New Testament Greek for two years full-time before they were married - so ever since I was a child I was brought-up in a home-environment where New Testament Greek was often discussed.
In Revelation 6:6 we have the words χοίνικες which is the Greek Measure, and δηναρίου which is the Roman Denarius. All six of the most popular Greek manuscripts use the same two Greek words. Even the Latin Vulgate translates the two words directly.
There were other Greek words available at the time to describe coinage, such as the word στατῆρα (Four-Drachma coin). So the choice of the word δηναρίου (Denarius) in Rev.6:6 was very specific and deliberate.
What I have observed therefore about Rev.6:6 is this: John foresaw a day in which a χοίνικες (Grecian Measure) of wheat would be weighed using a pair of balances and sold for exactly a δηναρίου (One Roman Denarius coin). And John was compelled to inform the seven churches in Turkey about this and to tell them that it was to happen shortly in their future.
That's not an interpretation! That is black ink on white paper. Six different Greek manuscripts! Now YOU have said that the "emphasis is not on the currency" - that's an interpretation.
It is YOU who is altering details in the verse - I am saying nothing more nor less than what the verse says. You have the right to interpret the verse, because Revelation is after all a book of symbols - but you need to be able to prove your interpretation.
Here again is what the verse SAYS (without interpreting it):
Sometime in the near future, said John to the seven churches in Turkey, a Grecian Measure of wheat, weighed using a pair of balances, would cost a whole One Roman Denarius Coin.
That's what it says! Now go ahead and interpret it, add details, subtract details, assert details, deny details - but be ready to prove it! And make sure you remain loyal to what it actually SAYS instead of changing details to suit a PREDECIDED view. (Remember what the Book of Revelation warns about readers who add to or take-away from ANY of the WORDS (details) of the prophecy of this book!!)
John Wesley in his famous, standard commentary explained that the deliberate and specific use of the two Greek words used in this verse means that the prophecy must have been fulfilled in a place and time where the specific currency and system of measurement were still current.
But even if the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled in our future, my point was that it demonstrates the use of coinage. It doesn't show a cashless society. That's what the verse SAYS - without imposing an interpretation on it.
It isn't possible to establish the case for a belief in a future cashless society based on Rev.6:6 alone. If you are going to believe in a future cashless society, you will have to find a basis for it elsewhere. Rev.6:6 simply doesn't provide that basis.
Which brings us to Rev.13. Again, I have not interpreted it - I've merely observed what it ACTUALLY SAYS. What I observed is:
The little horn sought to cause the world to worship the beast and the statue of the beast. So the little horn had two strategies to achieve this:
1) he performed miracles through the power of the Dragon to deceive the world into worshipping the beast and the statue of the beast; and
2) he MARKED everyone who worshipped the beast and his statue with the beast's NAME or NUMBER - and anyone who turned-up to buy or sell who had not worshipped the beast nor his statue nor been marked with his name or number, was NOT ALLOWED to buy or sell.
I've merely observed what the text says. I have not interpreted it. I observed the following:
The text tells us that the mark was simply a mark. It doesn't tell us that the mark had any functionality. It was a mark.
The text tells us what people were marked with. They were marked with the beast's name or number. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. The beast's name or number.
The text tells us that without being marked with the beast's name or number, people would not be allowed to buy or sell. The text did not say that there will be a cashless society. The text did not say that those who were marked would use the mark to buy and sell instead of using cash. It just said that those who were not marked with the beast's name or number were not allowed to buy or sell.
The text tells us that EVERYONE who was marked had worshipped the statue of the beast.
Those are merely observations - it's not an interpretation. Now if you are going to turn around and tell me, "Yes, but the mark is not a mark, it's really a chip"; and "Yes, but the mark is not the beast's name or number, it's a chip"; and "Yes, but the mark is not a mark, it's really a replacement for cash"; and "Yes, but people don't really worship a statue, it's something else" - well it takes a lot of extra-Biblical imagination that isn't actually in the text of Scripture to say that.
The text itself does not say any of those things. That's a massive INTERPRETATION. The text doesn't mention a cashless society - it just says that unless men had worshipped the beast and his statue and been marked with his name or number, they wouldn't be allowed to buy or sell. And Rev.6:6 prophesied that the Roman Denarius coinage would be used. That's what it SAYS.
If you are going to add from it, take away from it, interpret it, claim that the emphasis is on something else, that's fine - but prove it."
No comments:
Post a Comment