UNDERSTANDING VISIONS IN THE BIBLE

 

                                           Wheels Within Wheels (assemblage, 2006)

A good place to start (actually a horrible way to start) is with this quotation from John Walvoord, past president of Dallas Theological Seminary:

“(Augustine suggested) a two-fold principle of interpretation of Scripture, namely, a literal interpretation of Scripture as a whole, but a spiritual or nonliteral interpretation of prophetic Scripture....The premillennial system of interpretation of Scripture interprets prophecy in the same way as other Scripture...Though recognizing that some Scriptures are contextually indicated as containing figures of speech and not intended for literal interpretation, premillennial interpretation finds no need for spiritualizing prophecy any more than any other portion of Scripture.” ( The Millennial Kingdom)

Walvoord actually misspeaks several times in this statement.

    1. His characterization of Augustine's words is misleading. Augustine believed in a dual interpretation of Scripture in which even many literal historical passages had prophetic properties in that they contained hints and types of what was to come under Christ. That is quite different from saying that he read most of the Bible literally while treating the overtly prophetic books in the Bible in an entirely different manner. And actually, while Augustine was much less allegorical that his contemporaries, most modern-day interpreters are in many ways even more literal than Augustine was.

    2. He equates a “spiritualizing” interpretation as being the same as a non-literal one. “Spiritualizing” is actually a derogatory term usually reserved for those who deny literal meaning to even the historical portions of the Bible.

    3. Then he turns around and admits that there is nothing wrong with a non-literal interpretation if the context indicates that is the best way to understand it. I have heard some premillennialists of his particular camp try to get around this contradiction in their claim that they always interpret literally by calmly redefining “literal interpretation” as “the most natural interpretation” even though the most natural one could often be a non-literal one.

    4. But despite that admission, Walvoord falls back on the “superior” literal method of premillennial interpretation which treats prophetic passages exactly the same way as all other Scripture. This is despite the fact that huge portions of the Bible are not written in literal language at all. This includes all the poetic passages (such as most of the prophetic writings), parables, and proverbs – just to name a few of the many types of figurative language present.

    5. He also lumps wrongly lumps all premillennialists into the same boat when the fact is that only the pre-tribulation dispensationalists such as himself take that firm hermeneutic stance.

    6. In the process, he pointedly steers away from the implication of what he has just said, i.e. that premillennialists feel free to depart from a literal meaning of a passage whenever they feel it is necessary to take it figuratively instead. But they never advertise that fact since they generally make a fetish of the fact that only they interpret the Bible in a thoroughly consistent, literal manner.

    7. And another problem with his statement is that it is obvious from Walvoord's other writings that he considers all the OT prophetic books and the Book of Revelation as belonging to the same type of literary genre, when that is not true since some of those books are more properly classified as apocalyptic literature. Here is a quick way to distinguish between these different types of biblical literature:

Prophecy                                                                             Apocalyptic

Events telescoped in time                                                    Cyclic presentation of same material

Conditional fulfillment                                                       Future is certain

Ambiguous                                                                         Veiled

Mainly poetic                                                                      Mainly prose

Figurative language                                                            Symbolic words and numbers

Images taken from everyday life                                        Imagery often bizarre

And to make the distinction in genres even more clear, consider the following statements:

    If I say, “Your behavior is entirely inappropriate,” that is using literal language.

    If I say, “You are acting like a beast,” that is figurative language (specifically a simile).

    If I say, “You are beastly” or “You are a beast,” that is also figurative language (metaphors).

    But what if I say, “Numerous beasts with heads like leopards will arise from the waters. And the

ruler of the beasts will stop up the waters for two of seven times causing tribulation among all

mankind?” This symbolic, veiled, apocalyptic language is the most ambiguous type to decipher unless

it is actually followed it up in the biblical text with an explanation or you know the context.

Those portions of Scripture generally accepted as being apocalyptic include: Ezekiel 1-3, 8-11, 37, 40

-48; Daniel 7-12; Zechariah 1-6; and Revelation.

With that background, we can begin to look at the various ways readers have approached the visions in

apocalyptic books:

    1. By its very nature, apocalyptic writings contain rather bizarre, almost nightmare-like imagery.

That fact has caused some skeptical readers to simply reject them without further

consideration as the ravings of a person who was obviously mentally deranged, under the influence of

some hallucinogenic substance, suffering from delirium tremans, or seeing visions brought about by a

prolonged period of fasting. But once one begins to read the writings a little more deeply, a definite

method to their “madness” is revealed.

    2. Then there is the “literal” understanding followed paradoxically by both fundamentalists and

atheists alike. Thus, we have Hal Lindsey in the best-selling book The Late Great Planet Earth telling

us that the locust John saw in Revelation 9 with their golden crowns on their heads, long flowing hair

and tails like scorpions were actually John's (pathetically poor) attempt to describe modern attack

helicopters.

In taking this approach, I now wonder whether he was not in fact taking a cue from another best-seller

of two years earlier: Chariot of the Gods by Erich von Daniken. In that book, the rabidly atheistic

author discusses Ezekiel's equally bizarre vision of four composite monsters in the middle of a cloud

from which a flashing fire could be seen. Each beast has a wheel within a wheel which could move in

any direction, and the wheels have eyes all around their rims.

In the same manner that Lindsey interpreted John's vision as a feeble attempt of a human being to

describe the physical appearance of something which was beyond his understanding, von Daniken

went on to explain that Ezekiel was seeing a flying saucer. That was one of the linchpins of his

argument that the so-called miracles of the Old Testament were actually accomplished by visitors from

outer space using their superior technology.

In both cases, these “interpreters” assumed that the only possible meaning of the vision was a literal,

physical one even if it was misunderstood by the seer in each case.

    3. But if we take a symbolic approach to these visions and others in the Bible, we can soon see

that they are all to be interpreted consistently in completely different terms. And we know this by

simply looking at those examples of visions and dreams (or “visions of the night”) from God which are

actually interpreted for us in the text. Here are a few of them:

Genesis 37 – Joseph has two dreams with basically the same meaning. First his brothers' sheaves of 

wheat bowed down to his sheaf, and then the sun, moon and stars bowed down to him. Both his 

brothers and father get upset with him for his presumption in thinking that they will bow down to

him. They immediately discerned the underlying meaning of this prophetic dream, which would

literally take place later in the story. And that meaning had absolutely nothing to do with agriculture or

astronomy.

Genesis 40 – Of the two dreams which Joseph's fellow prisoners had, the one of the baker is the

most interesting. In that prophetic dream, the baker had three bread baskets on his head but the birds

were eating the bread out of it. In Joseph's accurate interpretation, he explained that pharaoh was going

to behead him and hang his body on a pole where the birds would eat his flesh. As in the later dreams

by the pharaoh himself (see Genesis 41), the imagery was somewhat appropriate to the final meaning

but not in any literal manner.

Ezekiel 1 – This is the famous vision of a throne-chariot in the sky mentioned above. I don't

have the space to go into a detailed interpretation of the various symbolic components present in this

vision, but suffice it to say that when properly understood it conveys at the same time the

omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience of God in symbolic terms.

Daniel 5 – The vision of the handwriting on the wall seen by King Belshazzar and his court is

explained to him by Daniel as relating to the meaning of the words written there. The words actually

refer to different weights or coins, but they sound like other Hebrew words which hold the key to the

meaning.

Daniel 7 – The prophet is greatly disturbed by nightmare-like visions he experienced populated

by several types of strange creatures. Fortunately, he is given a divine interpretation in which it

becomes obvious that the beasts stand for four human kings who will appear in the future. The details

regarding their iron teeth, multiple horns, and composite appearance resembling several types of

animals at the same time can obviously not be explained in terms of their physical appearance but must

relate to something else altogether. This becomes even clearer when Daniel's similar visions of Daniel

8-12 are explained to him by an angelic being.

Amos 7-8 – The prophet is given two visions here along with a direct interpretation from God.

The first is a plumb line placed against a wall. The meaning here is that Israel does not measure up to

God's standards. So again, it is the function of the plumb line which holds the key to the explanation,

not its physical appearance.

The second vision is that of a basket of summer fruit. God's explanation, which makes little sense to us,

is that “The end has come upon my people Israel.” Here we see a marked similarity to the handwriting

on the wall which Daniel interpreted as a pun. In other words, the explanation comes from the

similarity between two words which sound alike in Hebrew: “summer fruit” = qayits; “end” = qets.

Acts 10 – While in Caesarea, Peter is given a vision of a lowered sheet containing all manner of

animals, both ritually clean and unclean. A voice from heaven tells Peter to eat, to which Peter objects

that some of these are unclean. The voice replies, “What God has made clean, you must not call

profane.” Peter's interpretation to the Gentiles who were sent to the house by God's word is that “I

should not call anyone profane or unclean.” This goes beyond the overt meaning of the vision in

utilizing the underlying principle as well.

Book of Revelation – Finally, we come to this book filled with apocalyptic visions. And we are

given an aid to interpretation in that the images are actually explained in at least nine cases.

Revelation 1:20

    7 lampstands = 7 churches (They function as bearers of light.)

    7 stars = 7 angels/messengers

Revelation 5:8

    incense = prayers of the saints (Both are pleasing and rise upward.)

Revelation 11:3-4

    2 olive trees + 2 lampstands = 2 witnesses (Two different visions stand for one concept.)

Revelation 12:9

    dragon = Devil / Satan

Revelation 17:9

    7 heads of the scarlet beast = 7 mountains + 7 kings (One vision stands for two concepts.)

Revelation 17:12

    10 horns = 10 kings

Revelation 17:15

    waters = groups of people

Revelation 21:9-10

    a bride = city of New Jerusalem

And for a tenth example, we could point to Revelation 11:8 where the “great city,” a phrase applied to

Babylon elsewhere in the book is equated with Sodom, Egypt, and Jerusalem all at the same time. This

should certainly stop any nonsensical commentaries which insist that the “Babylon” of Revelation 18

has got to refer to another modern city erected on the same site as the ancient Babylon.

Another inconsistency in the “completely consistent method of interpretation” of dispensationalists is

the way they occasionally stretch a point when it comes to the literal meanings of words but absolutely

refuse to do so when it comes to numbers. This is even though it is well accepted and easily proved

from passages in both the OT and NT that the non-mathematically minded biblical writers were much

more interested in the non-literal aspects of numbers (as approximate numbers, numbers that could be

understood as corresponding to words, poetic usages, and as symbols) than the literal values. This is

especially true for the numbers 3, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 1,000.

Note that in none of the above cases does the meaning of the vision have anything to do with its

physical appearance. Instead they are uniformly explained as having thematic, symbolic, or spiritual

similarities. Thus, the burden of proof is really up to the literalists to show why the other visions in the

book shouldn't be understood in exactly the same way.