Difference between High Church and Anglo-Catholic and can Anglo-Catholics identify as Protestants?

Well of course it is obviously figurative, it uses this imagery of wine, the winepress. And nevertheless the reality which these similes identify is terrifying, because by wine the Angel speaks both of the dead branch of Christ's vine, and also the actual flesh and blood people. The angel speaks of the cup of God's wrath, and how the splattering from this "cup" will be so high as to rise above ground.

It's figurative and 100% real.

So let's all repent, before it is too late.

 

You managed to spot the fact that the passage is actually about grapes being crushed in a winepress and an angel with a sharp sickle filling up a 'cup' of God's 'wrath'. Yet you prefer to believe this will be an actual historical event at some future time when the 'grapes' will actually be people and the angel and the sickle will presumably be ENORMOUS. You refuse to even consider the possibility that this apocalyptic literature was originally aimed at a persecuted church under possibly Nero or some other despotically insane Roman dictator, and the language is litered with snippets of Old Testament prophetical pronouncements of doom, on entirely different nations and people at the time they were written, and comprehendable probably only to those select few believers with a comprehensive understanding of the Jewish Scriptures and the apocalyptic code that the author is using.

Though actually factual, this explanation does not appeal to your appetite for lurid details concerning God's wrath toward sinners, even though you are sinners yourselves and entirely owe your salvation as such to Jesus Christ's atoning death, just like the rest of us. Instead you prefer to believe it is 100% real and accuse anyone else with any other explanation for its existence in the Bible, other than your own, of being heretical, unbelieving or in some way wrong about the charater picture of God that you are so eager to excitedly paint for us.

v.17: "Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. Still another angel, with authority over the fire, came from the altar and called out in a loud voice to the angel with the sharp sickle, “Swing your sharp sickle and gather the clusters of grapes from the vine of the earth, because its grapes are ripe.” So the angel swung his sickle over the earth and gathered the grapes of the earth, and he threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and the blood that flowed from it rose as high as the bridles of the horses"

If, as you would have it, this passage refers to the final obliteration of all the wicked in one 'real' apocalyptic blood bath, what is your understanding of the last verse. "And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and the blood that flowed from it rose as high as the bridles of the horses".

Where do you actually imagine this 'real' city to be? Only one city or all cities on earth? Who 'trod' or will 'tread', the 'winepress'?
Angels? God? The Saints?
It can't be wicked humans because they are the ones being trodden on. It might be the horses, which for some reason have been ordered by God to trample wicked mankind to finally finish them off, I suppose.

Can you not see that there is far more that we don't understand about the meaning of this passage than that we do understand. What does seem clear enough though is that this is a vision, and visions, like dreams, need interpretation, not necessarily concrete and literal application within 'real' and historical frames of reference. Gen.41:1-36. Dan.5:1-31. Dan.7:1-28.

In all three instances I have quoted above, the interpretation is not literally what appeared in the dream or vision. Why is it that you seem so dogmatically insistant that the visions in Revelation must be taken at face value, being 'real' in a future historical and actual sense, rather than being figurative of some other more obscure, interpretive reality, (such as the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD), as was Pharoe's dream, (a famine) or Daniel's visions, (an invasion) and (the rise of the Greek and Roman Empires).
.

 

It seems like this has gotten really far from the original topic.

 

Yes, in these circles most interpreters take it figuratively. Of course, that doesn't mean (or prove) that it was meant to be taken figuratively.

Who made up this rule of thumb (or whatever) that apocalyptic writings should be taken figuratively or spiritualized rather than read literally? I'll tell you who made it up: the RC hierarchy. And I'll tell you why they made it up: Rev. 17 & 18 hit too close to home for their comfort; those chapters clearly identify Rome as the great whore. It's set forth as the place that would be a power broker with the kings of the earth (v. 2), wearing primarily colors of red and purple, made rich with gold and gems (v. 4), known for wielding a gold cup or chalice, guilty of murdering martyring true Christians (v. 6), situated upon seven hills or mountains (v. 9, and Rome has long been known as the city of seven hills), wielding control over multitudes of peoples and nations (v. 15). These descriptors fit the Roman church in its past history very, very well. And the clincher comes in verse 18: And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth. "Reigneth" is the present tense, meaning city which then (in John's day) reigned over the known world; that city was Rome.

 

As you saw me say just above, I’m second to none in making practical use of Revelation, rather than spiritualizing it away. But spiritualizing is not the same as figurative language. And that it has figurative language is impossible to ignore, as in the verse I quoted of winepresses. Is it talking about literal winepresses there?

No, the Holy Ghost is giving us a figurative image of the Last Judgment and the great sifting of people by the Angel and his scythe, cutting down the dead “vine” and splattering the “grapes” to fill God’s “cup of wrath”.

These expressions are not literal, but they’re 100% real.

If we insist on taking every little bit as literal, we will let the leftists in the Church hold the mantle of nuance and precision of thought. That is how they will rise to be leaders in the church and teachers in the seminaries. You’ve got to be as nuanced and precise as the best of them.

 

I've got to admit, I'm confused by your comment. Aren't you saying Rev. 17-18 should be read figuratively and not literally? If we read Rev 17-18 literally, there will be a literal "whore of babylon" sat upon a literal "seven headed beast with ten horns", and she will literally fornicate with the kings of the Earth, both past and future. If we read it figuratively then we can say the woman in Revelations is not a literal woman, but is instead the RC Church. The RC Church has not literally fornicated with kings, but it has figuratively. The RC Church isn't literally drunk with the blood of saints, but it is figuratively.

Apologies if I missed something here.

 

You make a very valid point ZachT. Also there is no absolute certainty that this refers to the Roman Catholic Church but could also refer to The Roman Empire and Caesar-worship pagan religion associated with it. The final vision is a dramatic attempt to encourage Christians faced with martyrdom. It's message is that Rome, (the great harlot) will perish. Her tormentor, (the scarlet beast), will appear from out of the East, and then this tormentor, will himself be destroyed by God. The beast 'was and is not and is to come'. Many take this to be Nero, sprung to life again, leading the Parthian armies against Rome, ('the great harlot' who was once carried by Nero , the beast : 17:7.

The author's original contribution to apocalyptic is this: The Lamb will eventually conquer Rome's conquerers(17:14,16). The whole prophesy is full of Old Testament allusions especially to Tyre, Nineveh and Babylon - ancient enemies and oppressors of the people of God. Moreover, it is evident from a study of the language that there are traces of at least two distinct sources on which the author worked and which he has attempted to revise. That may be why the thought is not clear or easy to follow.

The harlot on the beast: One might think this more appropriate of Jerusalem than of Rome, given the constant accusations of the Hebrew Prophets of the spiritual sin of fornication, namely religious syncretism and imprudent association with foreign kings. It's hard to resist the conclusion that all this applies fittingly to Jerusalem. Such a conclusion is strengthened by the observation that the last words of Ch.18 (In her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and all who have been slain on the earth), remind us vividly of the words that Jesus used of Jerusalem in Matthew 23:35 "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah . . . O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets . . ." So the question may be raised as to whether Revelation is not really directed against militant and persecuting non Christian Judaism, which arrested the spread of the gospel in its earliest days, rather than at secular Rome. On the other hand there are considerable difficulties in the acceptance of such a view and the rejection of the more usual identification with Rome. V12 for instance (the 10 kings), would most naturally be a reference to Roman Emperors and the seven hills V9 look like those upon which Rome is built.

The most likely explanation for the difficulty we have in understanding this is that the author knew what he was implying by codifying what he wrote, (he was after all exciled on the island of Patmos from Rome for being a nuisance to Roman authorities, so censorship might have applied to his work), and possibly his intended readership also were able to interpret his meaning, (otherwise there would have been little point in the author writing it), but we are too far removed from the events themselves to be able to have any absolute certainty of what he is trying to convey to us. Add to that the desire of some modern day readers to make it apply to future events which they are inclined to shorehorn into the narrative to help their futuristic predictions, and you have some extremely difficult scripture to make sense of. Not nearly as straightforward and understandable as the Gospels or even the letters of St Paul to the churches.
.

 

It's hard not to assume that the author refers to Rome throughout. However he probably refers to The Roman Empire as a secular entity not as The Holy Roman Empire or even as The Roman Catholic church, neither then existed when he wrote this. Extrapolating his writings to include the Roman Catholic church as his intended target can then also be extended to any regime that styles itself on The Roman Empire, such a Hitler's Third Reich for instance. Then the Biblical book of Revelation becomes the tool of anyone who wants to equate current events with its bizarre imagery, for whatever purpose they most desire. Such was David Coresh and the Branch Davidian and such are many amateur theologians and even some 'professionals' and best selling authors like Hal Lindsey, of the fundamentalist variety.

Predicting the future lucratively appeals to a wide readership, especially when the predictions are dire and an escape route appears to be provided in the form of a 'Rapture', fire escape.
.

 

I agree with you here

 

Well, I suppose I don't have a good, solid mental image of the difference between 'figurative' and 'spiritualized' interpretations. Just to explain, when I think of them in my mind, the two things both mean, 'what is said isn't straightforward, it means something else.' You see my problem? I'm not differentiating them very well in my mind. Maybe someone can give concrete examples that can help me out.

Invictus commented, "Since Revelation is apocalyptic, I always assume the interpreter takes it figuratively unless it is explicitly stated otherwise." This is what I was replying to. My reaction was, certain groups in particular like to interpret all of Revelation in a manner that completely discounts any possibility of literalness. Thus, for example, when it talks about "that great city" which "sits on seven mountains," those groups will assume that it's not talking about an actual city or even an actual geographic location, and the mountains aren't actual mountains but represent something else (7 sources of influential power or 7 earthly rulers or 7 past kingdoms or whatever!). Another example: when it talks about a mark being placed on people's foreheads or hands, this is assumed to represent something other than an actual, physical mark on those body parts. In other words, in their view we should assume that it should be read anything but literally. And since I think any given portion of the Bible (be it a verse, a chapter, or a book) should be read to have a literal meaning unless the context indicates otherwise, I was reacting to Invictus' statement about automatically assuming that Revelation is figurative just because it's about the end times. I think that notion is fallacious; it has led many people to erroneously assume that nothing in that book says what it seems to say, and so they treat it as if it were in some foreign language or even gibberish. The consequences could be devastating if the laity completely miss the 'signs of the times' when we reach those last days, for they may be fooled into following the lying wonders of the Antichrist and his false prophet and may accept the 'mark of the beast' to their detriment. Satan seeks to work through such men to 'deceive the very elect' if possible, Matt. 24:24.

So, yeah, I've conflated 'figurative' and 'spiritualize' in my head, and I need to get that sorted out.

 

I think it’s reasonably clear that the book was written to encourage churches then facing persecution at the hands of the Roman authorities, and that the immediate hearers were meant to understand the various symbols, OT allusions, etc. I don’t see the book as adding much, if anything, to our knowledge of the eschaton that wasn’t already taught in the Gospels or the Pauline Epistles. There has periodically been a minority within Christendom that has been overly preoccupied with that book, and if the fruits of those tendencies are any indication, I don’t think that’s healthy. The message of the book is simply that God will triumph over evil. It isn’t, and wasn’t intended to be, a roadmap to the future.

 

The message of apocalyptic literature is essentially things are bad, and they are going to get worse, but ultimately the righteous will prevail. That we call the book Revelation, when in point of fact so much of its specific meaning is hidden from us, is worth a smile. I will fight for its inclusion in the canon, and get very shy of those who claim to understand it's true meaning, which normally includes a claim for an epistemic primitive or some private unverifiable revelation.

 

It might be worth noting that the book is actually not 'The Revelation of things to come' but rather the "Revelation of Jesus Christ". Revelation 1:1. It is not a book revealing the future as much as it is a book revealing the cosmic nature and person of Jesus Christ.
.

 

Oh, really???

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.
Or, as another version words it, "...things which are to come."

Do you still maintain that it is not a revelation of the future?

 

These things were shown to John, perhaps not to us except in code. Perhaps the code has not been given to us to decipher it. It may all have been on a 'need to know' basis way above our pay scale. God has secrets you know. Revelation 10:6-7. Especially about the future.

But I didn't actually say it wasn't a book revealing the future though. I said it was more a book revealing the cosmic Jesus Christ, which the title of it, written by it's author in Chapter one verse one indicates.
.

 

Pretty much. Only in a generic, abstract, symbolic sense is it about the future, aside from the second advent itself.

 

Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
Rev 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
Rev 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
Rev 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
Rev 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
Rev 11:9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
Rev 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
Rev 11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
Rev 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

Do you believe that in the final days there will be two individuals sent by God to 'witness' about Him, with authority to perform signs and wonders, who will be raised from the dead after being killed and dead for 3.5 days? If not, do you have a 'spiritualized' interpretation as to what this passage means?

 

Some commentators see the two witnesses as symbolic of the Church, and I am amenable to that interpretation.

 

I wouldn't go as far as to predict that there definitely won't be "two individuals sent by God to 'witness' about Him, with authority to perform signs and wonders, who will be raised from the dead after being killed and dead for 3.5 days", but I am extremely sceptical about it coming about in so literal a manner. It just does not fit with the genre of the entire document.

Why did you omit verses 1 and 2? They provide the context for the whole passage, v.1-12. It concerns the temple, the court of the Gentiles which is not to be measured. The temple, it seems, along with the court outside the temple and the holy city are being used as symbols of the church under different aspects. Note: 'is given', neither the Gentiles nor anyone else can exercise any power other than that which is given'. They trample the holy city for forty and two months (for trampling a holy place see Is.63:18, Dan.8:13, Zech.12:3 (LXX), Lk.21:24.) Forty and two months is the same as 1,260 days or a time, two times and half a time. A time = 1 year, times = two years and half a time = 6 months. That is to say the same length of time that, as in Daniel, is allowed for the treading down of the holy city by the Gentiles. Coincidentally this is the period that Antiochus Epiphanes tyrannised in Jerusalem. John might simply mean Roman Christians to understand that their trial will be of measurable duration no matter how unpleasant and they will in due course be delivered out of it. It might also be worth noting that 42 is the number of encampments of Israel in the wilderness Num.33:1-49. John throughout uses much symbolism from the deliverance from Egypt so it's possible that some of the time periods contain oblique references to the wilderness story and you can see perhaps how codified and cryptic John's Revelation document might possibly be.

Zech.4:1-5. Here and in Revelation they indicate a plentiful supply of oil. In Zechariah the oil and the spirit are connected, so that the message is "Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit , saith the Lord of Hosts". Zech.4:6. A message very appropriate to John's situation. Zechariah's olive trees are described as 'the two anointed ones, that stand by the lord of the whole earth', Zech.4:14, which closely resembles John's words.

This symbolism continues throughout the passage indicating spiritual meanings intended by the text rather than literal, fire breathing, human beings literally appearing at the end of time to be attacked by a beast from a bottomless pit. (Which of course we know must be dimensionally figurative since every physical pit literally must have a bottom, otherwise it would't be a pit but a just hole through a planet).

All this does not easily translate into concrete historical reality at some distant future date. Verse 8 looks more like a comment on the siege and destruction of Jerusalem 70 AD and it's reasons for having taken place. i.e. Sodom and Egypt and the place Christ was unjustly, by the city authorities, crucified.

I think you may need to get some less fundamentalist commentaries on the book of Revelation, if you have one at all.
.

 

Well, that's... interesting. To me, looking at the details set forth in that passage, that interpretation fits about as well as size 14 boots on an infant. I can't see how a description of two dead bodies lying in the streets of Jerusalem for three and a half days could represent the church in any way.

My rector has said that they will be two actual persons, but we don't know for certain who they are; it's usually between Enoch, Elijah, Moses, and John the Baptist from what I understand.