At the end of last October, I wrote a post about the two witnesses of the book of Revelation. Earlier this month, I wrote another regarding two videos about the book produced by BibleProject. If I'm honest with myself, both of these posts were in large part a reaction to some of the wild-eyed speculation which has been generated by folks who believe they have acquired the key(s) to unlocking Biblical prophecy. Hence, in writing about these things, I am averse to offering any definitive interpretations of my own or giving the impression that I believe I've acquired the key(s). However, in the spirit of offering plausible alternatives to some of the scary and depressing prophecy seminars of others, I continue to seek a better understanding for myself and remain committed to offering any assistance I might provide to others in their own search for answers.
As I have related in other posts and comments, my former associates in the Armstrong Churches of God loved to speculate about the identity of the two witnesses (they still do). Of course, this speculation always centered on the identity of two flesh and blood members of the Church. For those folks, the Bible is always to be taken literally - even in those instances where symbolism has been employed to convey a message. In other words, these folks tend to eschew non-linear thinking (they don't do well with abstract thinking).
As a consequence, when Zechariah and John wrote about things like lampstands and olive trees, these folks tended not to focus on the imagery which these symbols evoke. For many of us, however, we think about the purpose of the lampstand - to give light. We think about the lampstand illuminating the inner sanctum, and our minds are drawn to the olive oil which was used to fuel it. This, in turn, leads us to remember that olive trees provided that oil, and that their fruit also provided nourishment for the humans who cultivated them throughout the ancient Mediterranean World. "Hmmmm, illumination and nourishment - those are interesting concepts," we think.
We remember too that olive oil was used in the Old and New Testaments to anoint people, and Zechariah's mention of "the two anointed ones" sparks our interest. In fact, oil is employed throughout the Scriptures in a symbolic fashion. This fact is underscored in a post entitled What Does Oil Represent In The Bible? by Jack Wellman over at Patheos on Christian Crier. In that piece, Wellman reminds us that oil was used in the anointing of priests and kings in Old Testament times. He then proceeds to underscore the fact that oil is often employed symbolically in Scripture to represent the Holy Spirit. Wellman also reminds us that Christ inaugurated his ministry with "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor." And that gets us to thinking about the message of the two witnesses and the message of the Bible and the Church, and then we remember that John used a lampstand to represent each one of the seven churches earlier in his book.
Yes, the thought process may not be linear, but it gives new meaning to the phrase "precept upon precept - here a little, and there a little." Moreover, if we stop and think about it, this non-linear thinking style is much more in harmony with the style these prophets used in writing their respective books. Yes, I'm a fan of this whole Bible approach which generated those two videos I lauded in an earlier piece, and I am NOT a fan of the cherry-picking/proof-texting approach of others. It seems to me that prophetic interpretations get into serious trouble when they are divorced from the context of the rest of Scripture. What do you think? Does this approach offer any hope for a clearer understanding of this subject?
Miller:
ReplyDeleteYes, it does offer hope. The Bible is not the simplistic document that the literalists claim. I think they forced the conclusion that the Bible has to be simple so that people at all levels of education can be evangelized. My feeling is that if God is calling someone, he makes it work no matter what the constraints and without removing the profundity of the Bible.
For those of us that are students of the Bible, it means that there are levels of complexity that we only understand with the help of the holy spirit in our lives or in the life of a mentor. In fact, I think the nuanced meaning of the Bible is an open door to the ministry of the holy spirit.
I read the Bible for years and never once saw Adam as an archetype of Israel. And the Garden of Eden as an archetype of the Promised Land. I heard Peter Enns' exposition of this and now it seems obvious. The account of Adam is not about archaeology, genetics and paleo-anthropology but about the Story of Israel. And the account does not really support those sciences and was not intended to.
Neo