MF Blume

METHOD 1) Comparing John's Visions with modern-day elements of technology, as though John described the distant future in the best way his first century mind could do so.

METHOD 2) Comparing John's Visions with other stories from the Bible in order to gain a certain message God wants applied to our thoughts of the church and Christ's work on the cross from those stories.
Most interpreters of the Book of Revelation today, amongst evangelicals such as ourselves, use a method to interpret the Book of Revelation that proposes John was shown far-off future events involving technologies that were absolutely alien to his first-century mind. And so he described these technologies that belong to our day using the best means of description he could propose. Therefore, when he spoke of locusts, he was referring to helicopters, for instance, or something else similar.

I propose this method of interpretation is absolute error.

The manner of interpretation that I have personally found bears much more witness with my spirit than the method of interpreting Revelation to speak of bombs and so forth.

And please note that I am not infallible in my interpretations, and I could be wrong on all points. However, I do not think I am, of course, and propose to you that you try my method of interpretation and see if it bears witness with your spirit.

How is it that the popular common manner of interpretation, seeing bombs and armies, etc., can fit with the thought noted in the first verse of the book -- a "Revelation of Jesus Christ"? I am simply proposing a challenge to anyone to simply and actually consider that perhaps looking at Revelation as a message about Jesus and His work through the cross will bear witness with your spirit as it has mine.

Upon what basis does one believe John simply has to be speaking about modern day technologies that he could only describe in such weird ways, since they were so far after His time, instead of looking at the entire book as a spiritual application of what Jesus and the apostles already said elsewhere in the Bible?

How does one know that is what John saw? How is it one's basis for that kind of method of interpretation?

I am proposing that we look to the rest of the Bible and find similar pictures already used there, to interpret the Bible.

For example. I did a study entitled PHYLACTERIES OF HELL ( ). In it I proposed that the Lord had the PHYLACTERIES of the Hebrews in mind when he gave John a vision of the mark of the beast coming. Phylacteries were noted by Jesus when he said the Pharisees make broad their phylacteries. What were they? They were little leather boxes about a few inches cubed, that contained four scriptures found in the Old Testament. These are as follows:

Exodus 13:1-10
Exodus 13:11-16
Deuteronomy 6:4-9
Deuteronomy 11:18-21

In each of those scriptures, we read a command of God for the people to take those words of God and bind them as frontlets between the eyes (on forehead), and on their hand . (Sound like anything else you read about in Revelation?) And the nature of the commandments, in each case, has a common denominator. They in fact say, in a nutshell, obey me simply because I am God.

I saw that and noticed something. (See if this bears witness with you or not.) The mark of the beast is said to be on the RIGHT HAND AND FOREHEAD. When you check the references contained in the phylacteries, you find it was the LEFT HAND AND FOREHEAD they were to be bound to. Hmmm....

Do you not think there might be a link to this Old Testament picture of phylacteries that God was making to John in the vision of the mark of the beast? John knew all about phylacteries. Is that similarity only a coincidence?

In fact, every jewish Christian knew all about phylacteries! And to see a picture in a vision of something going on one's forehead and right hand would immediately remind John of those phylacteries commanded of God in the four verses I cited above.

Today, the common Christian would not know about them, because, for one thing, we're not nearly knowledgeable of the Old Testament details as the early Jewish church was.

The early church knew more about the entire Old Testament than most Christians know about one book of the Bible today -- even obscure little details we are virtually ignorant of. And I propose God used that knowledge of John's to show Him these visions.

Now, bear with me a minute. I know this is lengthy.

We know God's express image was Christ. And lo and behold there is an image of the beast!

And we now know about the phylacteries God commanded. So could it be that the devil has his own "phylacteries", too?

Satan has a counterfeit for everything God has. And what did God's commandment about phylacteries insist upon? OBEY GOD BECAUSE HE IS GOD. Well, what would Satan's phylacteries be?

(Hint: Its a MARK OF THE "BEAST".)

What BEAST do you read about that told people the opposite of the command to obey God? The serpent was more subtle than any BEAST of the field. And he told Eve to be like a god, herself! The man of sin in 2 Thess 2 says that he is God, himself! MAN says HE IS GOD. That is the first lie that threw all men into sin in the Garden!

See what I am proposing for a method of interpretation? Look to the rest of the Bible to see if there is a link with details of Revelation.

And so Satan's PHYLACTERIES are indications of CLAIMING YOURSELF TO BE GODS, which is absolutely the most antichrist thing to do!

We know that two verses after we read about the mark of the beast, that there are 144,000 with their FATHER'S NAME ON THEIR FOREHEADS. Is that a computer chip?

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads : And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Zion, and with him a hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. (Rev 13:16-14:1)
No. The Father's name was not a computer chip.

Were the phylacteries Moses commanded people to wear on their foreheads a computer chip? No.

I am simply saying that it bears more witness with my spirit that John was seeing opposites of God's people and the devil's people in the book of Revelation, using biblical elements you can read about elsewhere in the Bible , rather than future technology.

Nothing in the Bible says John was writing of things 2000 years in to the future. In fact, it says the opposite:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
(Rev 1:1)
And, yes, I heard that "shortly come to pass" may be a long 2,000 years in our time, when it is short in God's time. I don't buy that, though. God is talking to men to relate to men in their understanding.

So I am simply proposing these things to see if they might bear witness to you. Forget about me and my words. I am not the issue. Just consider, seriously, if whether or not the entire method of interpretation based upon thinking of how John might describe future technology is totally offbase, and that God is rather trying to get us to look in the rest of the Bible, as I have shown, to interpret these pictures.

The Bible does not say which method is true. It just gives the visions, and leaves them with us. I am only proposing that my spirit bore witness with the manner I showed, after me hearing others interpret these scriptures in that manner. I simply felt the witness that I cannot describe. I know that I know. That is all I can say about it. But I judge no body who disagrees.

I only propose, "Try it. You'll witness with it."

So I ask you.... does this bear witness with your spirit when you actually consider it a little?

I propose interpretations should be made by comparing scripture with scripture. And that John knew perfectly well what the visions meant. John was not given unknown sights if God did not seal the book from his understanding. He gave John visions that John would immediately recognize as being similar to many, many Old Testament stories and events. And John was directed to recall those similarities and apply the main point of those stories to the visions and figure how they relate to the Church and to Christ crucified for our salvation, and then new Kingdom of a spiritual temple and so on.