What is the difference in the rapture and the second coming?

[Littlelambseativy]

The Bible on my computer opened on the page that I was reading yesterday and what I and many think of as the first resurrection at the time of the rapture is NOT according to Rev 20 considered to be the 1st resurrection. THE RAPTURE of the Bride is both dead and alive that is one whole and complete event.. The FIRST RESURRECTION happens at the END of the TRIBULATION period and beginning of the 1000 yr reign of Christ. Someone mentioned the dead raise at the time of Jesus resurrection...they were seen ...NOT resurrected.

Joe, right on!! I have read Revelation countless times...a Book I enjoy reading but occasionally we don' see what we read.....

[Guest shiloh357]

That is correct, littlelamb

[Serving]

The Bible on my computer opened on the page that I was reading yesterday and what I and many think of as the first resurrection at the time of the rapture is NOT according to Rev 20 considered to be the 1st resurrection. THE RAPTURE of the Bride is both dead and alive that is one whole and complete event.. The FIRST RESURRECTION happens at the END of the TRIBULATION period and beginning of the 1000 yr reign of Christ. Someone mentioned the dead raise at the time of Jesus resurrection...they were seen ...NOT resurrected.

Joe, right on!! I have read Revelation countless times...a Book I enjoy reading but occasionally we don' see what we read.....

 

Exactly .. the main harvest is all together at once .. the dead from every generation since Christ appeared will partake of the same resurrection just as He promised those believers whilst still on earth during His Ministry, just like Martha admitted to Christ that her dead brother Lazurus would be resurrected too in response to what Jesus said to her .. said before Christ revived Lazarus .. revived not resurrected as in the biblical sense of being changed into a spirit being .. & of course, those who are still alive at that event being changed in the twinkling of an eye.

 

This shows that when John focussed on that group which was beheaded for not taking the mark of the beast .. where a fairly recent doctrine has sprung up now saying that only that group will be resurrected at the 2nd coming, shows that the focus was for OUR sakes .. the last generations sake .. to strengthen US .. because we are those who are about to face it, the last group who will READ that prophecy in God's written word !! .. it certainly strengthened me when I first ever read it !!

 

So it does not mean that they are the only group resurrected at that harvest !! It is focussed on for us ourselves.

 

And like you said concerning those saints who came up out of their graves .. agreed too. 

 

Regards.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Serving

[thereselittleflower]

Joe,  something in the passage you shared caught my eye, so I wanted to take a deeper look into this passage.  

 

Keeping in mind that the book of Revelation was written in Koine Greek, not English, and that there are words in Koine Greek that are difficult to translate into English, and this difficulty extends to verb tenses, voices and moods (for Koine Greek uses all three),  I thought I should look at this issue in the original Greek. 

 

I started with the first verse of Chapter 20.

 

What I found is something very interesting - the predominate use of the Aorist tense, mostly with the Indicative mood (which makes a  simple statement of fact and when combined with the Aorist tense is a standard tense for storytelling), and in some very important instances, it is found with the use of the Subjunctive mood.  In the original Greek, this greatly impacts how we understand what the writer was saying, which, when looked carefully at, can change the way we understand English translations - sometimes significantly so.  

 

This is what I want to explore:

 

Rev 20:1

 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

 

 

"I saw"   is in the 2nd Aorist tense.     This is basically the same as the Aorist.    The Aorist tense is without regard to past, present or future.  

 

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, 

 

So this verse doesn't give us any indication of when this happened, just that it did happen.

 

 

"come down" and "having" are in the Present Tense, so translated 'come' rather than came or coming; 'having' rather than had or will have.

 

 

 

Rev 20:2

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

 

"he laid hold on" is, again, in the Aorist tense, which is considered without regard to past, present or future.    This is not about when, but what.

 

'which "is" the devil' - "is" is in the Present Tense.

 

"bound" again is in the Aorist tense, which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

 

 

Rev 20:3

And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

 

"cast" is again, in the Aorist tense, which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

 

'shut him "up" '   "up"  is again, in the Aorist tense, which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

 

"set a seal"  is again, in the Aorist tense, which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

 

 

And here it gets really interesting:

 

 

"he should deceive"  is not only, again, in the Aorist tense, which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what; but ALSO in the SUBJUNCTIVE Mood.

 

The Subjunctive Mood:

 

The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility and potentiality. The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances. 

 

 

The subjunctive mood does not denote certainty, but only possibility, only potentiality.      It may, OR MAY NOT occur, and whether it occurs depends on the circumstances.

 

 

So far, the original Greek is not actually saying anything about time, for it uses the Aorist tense throughout, which is without regard for past, present or future time.  It is only is telling us the "what" - and then we see that the "what" concerning the seals is stated as something possible.  There is no certainty about it expressed here.    Previous to this,  the indicative mood was used, which is a simple statement of fact - but not here.

 

 

"he should deceive" is the same way  -  it is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.  And it is in the Subjunctive mood, which is the mood of possibility of potentiality.  Again, there is no certainty being expressed in the Greek here.

 

"should be fulfilled" is the same again  -   it is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.  And it is in the Subjunctive mood, which is the mood of possibility of potentiality.  Again, there is no certainty being expressed in the Greek here.

 

 

And here, where people say this is future:

 

"must"  is in the Present Tense.

 

and  "be loosed" is, once again,  in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.  

 

 

 

 

 Rev 20:4

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

¶

 

"and I saw"    is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what. 

 

"they sat"    is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what. 

 

"judgment was given"   is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what. 

 

"of them that were beheaded"  is in the Perfect Tense - this denotes describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.

 

 

So this last is about something that happened in the past, not something yet to happen in the future.

 

 

"worshipped" is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what. 

 

"had received" is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what. 

 

 

And now we see the "a thousand years" again:

 

"they lived"  is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what. 

 

"reigned" is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what. 

 

 

This is all said without regards to time, past, present or future.

 

This entire passage has been concerned with "what."  It has largely not been concerned with time.   

 

If we continue, we see more of the same.  The predominate use of the Aorist tense which means we consider the "what" without regard to past, present or future.   The almost exclusive use of the Aorist tense here   means we are not dealing with a prophetic foretelling of future events, but a prophetic teaching of the struggle of Christians and the ultimate triumph over satan and evil.   This is exactly what the apocalyptic genre is and accomplishes.   And the book of Revelation, the Apocalypse of John, is written in this genre.

 

So let us continue -

 

 

 

Rev 20:5 

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

 

 

"again"  is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

 

"were finished"  is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.      It is also  in the Subjunctive mood, which is the mood of possibility of potentiality. The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances.  Again, there is no certainty being expressed in the Greek here.

 

 

The use of the Subjunctive Mood here concerning the concluding of the "a thousand years"  makes this concluding something that is conditional and dependent on circumstances.   Instead of reinforcing a literal interpretation of "a thousand years" it actually does the opposite.  John's use of the Aorist tense - which means what is being said is without regard to past, present or future, along with the Subjunctive Mood, which means the action - the concluding of the "thousand years" - may or my not occur and is dependent on circumstances.   This conveys the clear sense that the concluding of the "thousand years" is not dependent of an exact number of years passing, but on circumstances which may or may not occur.    

This all points to,and strengthens the understanding in apocalyptic literature, that the use "a thousand years" here by John is not intended to be understood to be a literal 1000 years that must conclude at the end of a literal 1000 years, but is intended to be understood symbolically, as numbers are meant to be understood in the apocalyptic genre in general.  

 

 

 

Rev 20:6

Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

   

"is he that hath"   is in the Present tense.   The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense.

 

 

Being something has happened and is true in the present would mean it is something that is occurring now, not at some point in the future.     This enforces the understanding that the first resurrection is not the literal resurrection of bodies from the ground at some future point in time, but is referring to Baptism which other scriptures denote as our being buried with Christ and rising with Christ.

 

 

"hath"  is also  in the Present tense.   The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense.

 

"they shall be"  is in the Future tense.  

 

This is one of the very few times the future tense is actually used in Revelation.    It places  our being kings and priests in the future, but does not tell us anything about when or the circumstances.   This has long been understood to refer to our position in heaven after then end of all things,  the resurrection and the great white throne judgment.

 

"shall reign"  is also in the Future tense.

 

 

 

 

Rev 20:7

And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

¶

 

"are expired"   is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

 

"shall be loosed" is in the Future tense.

 

 

This simply means the loosing is future to when John wrote these words.   The Church has always believed there would be a final tribulation so great, it would seem as if the Church and the world would be overcome.  

 

 

 

 

Rev 20:8

And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

 

"shall go out" is in the Future tense.

 

"to deceive"   is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"together"  is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

 

 

 

Rev 20:9

And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

 

 

"they went up"  is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"about"  is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"the beloved" is in the Perfect Tense which corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.

 

 

This is also interesting, as it puts the beloved city as something completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.   If this is speaking of a future (to John) Jersualem restored to the Jewish people in our time, then there would need to be a repeating of what God has done before.  But this tells us that there is no need to repeat of this action already accomplished in the past, for what has been done in the past has been done perfectly.  There is no need to add anything.  No need to redo. Nothing to re-establish.   This supports the idea carried in works of the apocalyptic genre that these terms are symbolic and we should not be looking for literal interpretations.

 

 

"came down" is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"devoured" is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

 

 

 

 

Rev 20:10

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophetare, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

 

"that deceived"   is in the PRESENT tense  .  not the past tense.   Even though the english renders this in the past tense,  in the Greek it is in the present tense.    

 

"was cast"  is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"shall be tormented"    is in the Future tense.

 

 

 

 

Rev 20:11

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

¶

 

 

"I saw"   is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"him that sat"   is in the Future tense.

 

"fled away"   is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"there was found"     is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

 

 

 

 

Rev 20:12

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

 

 

"and I saw"   is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"stand"   is in the Perfect tense.

 

"was opened"  is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"is"  is in the Present tense.

 

"were judged"  is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"those things which were written"  is in the Perfect tense.   

 

 

 

 

 

Rev 20:13

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

 

 

 

"gave up"  is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"delivered up  is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"they were judged"   is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

 

 

 

 

Rev 20:14

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 

 

"were cast" is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"is"  is in the Present tense.   

 

 

 

 

 

Rev 20:15

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

 

"found"  is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

"written" is in the Perfect tense.   

 

"was cast"   is in the Aorist tense which is considered without regard to past, present or future - again not telling us when, but what.

 

 

 

 

This the entire chapter.    The vast majority of the time, John uses the Aorist tense.  

 

The Aorist tense is a standard tense for telling a story.    The apocalyptic genre is a story telling genre which tells the story of the ultimate triumph of good over evil, and in chistian apocalyptic genre, the triumph of God and the Church over satan and evil, and it does so using highly symbolic imagery and terms.        The heavy use of the Aorist tense in the book of Revelation, The Apocalypse of John, reinforces its story telling nature as is found in works of the apocalyptic genre,  rather than the predictive nature of an exact sequence of future events some have recently tried to give it.    Additionally, the use of the Aorist tense can be telling us a story of what has happened in the past, present or future, for the Aorist tense is without reference to time.

 

When the Aorist is used with the indicative, it usually implies a past event,  The vast majority of the use of the Aorist in this chapter is in the indicative, which implies that this story is most likely not of the future, though it may have some present (to the writer) and future elements.   This conforms with the thought that the book of Revelation, The Apocalypse of John, was written to those of his time about events of their time and leading up to their time, with a view to the future defate of satan and evil by God and the Church.

 

Additionally,  the conjuction Kai, which translates as "and," is used virtually throughout this work.    In koine Greek there is another conjuction for "but" which is De.   Where De denotes a change in direction and thought,  kai denotes a continuation along the same line of thought, no change in subject.      When we read through this chapter, we see something of interest.

 

In verse 25, the translator used  "but" to translate kai.    This is a mistranslation as kai does not indicate a change in topic.   Obviously it appears there is a change in topic from those who partake in the first resurrection to those who partake in the 2nd resurrection.  But in the Greek here, it does not indicate such a change in topic.     Kai is used throughout the book of Revelation, which puzzled me until I realized this goes further to indicating this book was never intended to be understood as a foretelling of a literal sequence of events, but rather as a story told in symbolic terms of the struggle and ultimate triumph of God and the Church over satan and evil to encourage those who were going through what these symbolilc terms signfy at the time of John.

[thereselittleflower]

Hi T.flower,

 

 

Ok so let me make sure I understand what you are saying in regards to the seals.

 

Um .. No, I am not speaking of the seals as in the 7 seals, no, I am speaking of this seal :

 

Revelation 20:2-3 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

 

 

Since the passage uses the word seals, this makes everything in that passage literal?  

 

No, not seals but seal .. singular.

 

 

I'm sorry, I truly am having difficulty following what you are trying to say.

 

Okay, I understand, no problem T.

 

 

If I take what you said here:

"I therefore, and on that premise, supplied evidence of a literal example for the 1000 years in scripture, since the seal is relative to TIME in regards to NATIONS here on earth which ARE subject to literal TIME keeping meaning 1000 literal EARTH YEARS. "

I wish I could draw a diagram to more clearly illustrate what I see you saying, for I am afraid that without understanding each other, we can be like ships passing in the night.

Let me tackle it this way, and tell me if I am  understanding you correctly.

In life around us, nations are subject to literal time.         I agree.

 

Good .. correct yes.

 

 

Since this passage in Revelation tells us about the seal, this seal points to the time frame this passage speaks of - "a thousand years."     I agree.

 

Yes, since the 1000 years is relative to the nations, meaning, 1000 literal earth years .. time which is relative to nations / humans.

 

 

"a thousand years"  concerns a period of time.       I agree.

 

In this case with relation to nations as is revealed in the seal, literal time .. not time gauged by some metaphoric "clock" .. literal earth time that nations / humans are subject to, 1000 years of literal earth years .. yes.

 

 

this period of time concerns nations.

 

As God (not me) revealed in that seal .. yes.

 

 

So because the seal points to a period of time,   and that period of time concerns nations, and nations in real life are subject to the literal passage of time,   then all this should be taken together to mean that the "thousand years" is a literal period of time.

 

Yes .. how else can one take it unless one twists it to suit something else?

 

The subject I was responding to dealt with 1000 literal years v's 1000 metaphoric years and the call for scriptural evidence to back the 1000 literal years which I have given, 

 

Look at the chronological order which is speaking of literal events within that whole chapter 20 of revelations .. no metaphors are present in that certain chapter at all, the whole chapter is clearly describing a literal chain of sequenced events.

 

So yes .. you have understood me quite clearly it seems after all.

 

All I do now, is await your response.

 

Thanks T.flower.

 

 

Thank you for confirming I am understanding you.

 

 

The difficulty  I have with this approach is it rests on an understanding that  what we (and thus the nations)  experience in our daily lives in regards to the literal passing of time is required to be tied to what John says in this passage.    

 

 I don't see what necessitates such a requirement. And I don't see how the use of the seal necessitates such a requirement.    It's like there is a missing piece here.  

[missmuffet]

Question: "What is the first resurrection? What is the second resurrection?"

Answer:Daniel 12:2summarizes the two very different fates facing mankind: “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Everyone will be raised from the dead, but not everyone will share the same destiny. The New Testament reveals the further detail of separate resurrections for the just and the unjust.

Revelation 20:4-6mentions a “first resurrection” and identifies those involved as “blessed and holy.” The second death (the lake of fire,Revelation 20:14) has no power over these individuals. The first resurrection, then, is the raising of all believers. It corresponds with Jesus’ teaching of the “resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14) and the “resurrection of life” (John 5:29).

The first resurrection takes place in various stages. Jesus Christ Himself (the “first fruits,”1 Corinthians 15:20), paved the way for the resurrection of all who believe in Him. There was a resurrection of the Jerusalem saints (Matthew 27:52-53) which should be included in our consideration of the first resurrection. Still to come are the resurrection of “the dead in Christ” at the Lord’s return (1 Thessalonians 4:16) and the resurrection of the martyrs at the end of the Tribulation (Revelation 20:4).

Revelation 20:12-13identifies those comprising the second resurrection as the wicked judged by God at thegreat white throne judgmentprior to being cast into the lake of fire. The second resurrection, then, is the raising of all unbelievers; the second resurrection is connected to the second death. It corresponds with Jesus’ teaching of the “resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29).

The event which divides the first and second resurrections seems to be the millennial kingdom. The last of the righteous are raised to reign “with Christ a thousand years” (Revelation 20:4), but the “rest of the dead [that is, the wicked] lived not again until the thousand years were finished” (Revelation 20:5).

What great rejoicing will attend the first resurrection! What great anguish at the second! What a responsibility we have to share the Gospel! “And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire” (Jude 23).

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/resurrection-first-second.html#ixzz3gMuZ0m9n

[Guest shiloh357]

That's why you cannot have a figurative millennium.  It is book ended by two physical resurrections.

[Marilyn C]

Hi shiloh357,

 

We seem to agree on much here as to the literal millennial reign of Christ through Israel on earth, as promised to them in the Old Testament & confirmed by Jesus during His manifestation while on earth. The point we part company is that I do not believe the Lord Jesus Christ will stay on earth after He has set up the kingdom rule (King, priests, & other rulers). Plus I believe that the Body of Christ NEVER came back to earth. This is all tied up in the purposes of God for the Body of Christ, Israel & the nations.

 

Now I see you have your hands full here with JohnD & littleflower, but if you would like to discuss/debate this in the soap-box area then I would be pleased to work through with you. I`m sure we can both learn from each other as we agree on so much.

 

Marilyn.

Hi Shiloh357,

 

You may have missed my post. What do you say? Soap-box debate? Yes or No?

 

Marilyn.

[Kan]

Littleflower,

 

You have made a great effort to try and show that the 1000 years is not literal, but figurative, or symbolic.

I don't doubt what you have found in the symbolism of the 1000 years, but can you just relax and stay on the ground with us?

 

Can we read the Bible in the plainest and most obvious sense first, as a child would?

 

What would a new comer or a child think this 1000 years means?

 

The answer is literally 1000 years.

 

You have made several points that could show it to be symbolic, but none of the points can be exclusive to a symbolic or figurative meaning, they can be symbolic or literal. 

So long as the literal stands it is best to leave it as that.

 

This does not mean that the 1000 years cannot be symbolic, because every literal thing can also be symbolic in truth. God has made the world with all its creations, like icons for spiritual truths, which all spell "I love you."

But if a literal thing stands on it's own, we should not try to dismiss it's connection to us either.

 

There is a danger of spiritualizing things away. And we all know that has been done with many literal doctrines.

 

A child or newcomer will look for the literal first, and learn the spiritual later, because the literal is the ground for the spiritual plant.

[thereselittleflower]

 

Littleflower,

 

You have made a great effort to try and show that the 1000 years is not literal, but figurative, or symbolic.

I don't doubt what you have found in the symbolism of the 1000 years, but can you just relax and stay on the ground with us?

 

Can we read the Bible in the plainest and most obvious sense first, as a child would?

 

What would a new comer or a child think this 1000 years means?

 

The answer is literally 1000 years.

 

You have made several points that could show it to be symbolic, but none of the points can be exclusive to a symbolic or figurative meaning, they can be symbolic or literal. 

So long as the literal stands it is best to leave it as that.

 

This does not mean that the 1000 years cannot be symbolic, because every literal thing can also be symbolic in truth. God has made the world with all its creations, like icons for spiritual truths, which all spell "I love you."

But if a literal thing stands on it's own, we should not try to dismiss it's connection to us either.

 

There is a danger of spiritualizing things away. And we all know that has been done with many literal doctrines.

 

A child or newcomer will look for the literal first, and learn the spiritual later, because the literal is the ground for the spiritual plant.

 

 

It would be so nice to be able to do that and not end up with a misreading of the text.     I used to do exactly what you suggest.   Then I learned about the apocalyptic genre and how one must approach that genre.  I could not approach Revelation with any intellectual honesty after learning this by going back to how I approached it before.

 

When we approach biblical interpretation, the first thing we must do is determine the genre.   Determining the genre is the first step, without which, we can end up going way off in left field.    In this case, since apocalyptic genre heavily uses symbolism, we must be very careful about taking anything in the way it is stated.    This is true for all numbers.  All numbers in apocalyptic genre are symbolic.     Understanding this is absolutely key to coming away from reading it with a correct understanding of what is read.

 

A child or newcomer would not be aware of the need to first determine the genre of a book or passage.      And there is no danger of spiritualizing away text that is intended to be read for its symbolic meaning rather than taking it at face value.