|
|
Contact me with your Biblical questions or comments about Revelation, things taught in the book, Total Eclipse: Christ Returns, or end times in general and I will answer them on this page, if I am able. Place your question in the box at the bottom of this page! Any correspondence attacking a person who holds a position other than the position held by the correspondent will simply be deleted. No attacks on people here, just ideas, hypotheses, data and truth claims. RE: Lord's Day Daniel Cherry said... [Edited from his blog]
Steve,
I appreciate your study and your input on this issue. I still, however, must disagree with your conclusion.
First, You mention the dative in the LXX. However, it [sic-LXX] is still genitive when using the phrase “day of the Lord.” “In that day” is necessarily a dative phrase and would have no meaning in the genitive.
Second, The Greek New Testament 4th Rev. ed. offers no other possible reading for this phrase in Revelation 1:10. I don’t have a copy of Kittel at my immediate disposal, but if he suggests that there is another possible construction for this phrase, I don’t find it in the textual apparatus in Aland and Metzger’s (et. al.) “official” text. And they are normally pretty good to offer any meaningful textual variants.
Third, It does not make sense for John to be referring to his being “in the Spirit” in the general “day of the Lord,” because that “day” has already be ushered in. The very point of Luke’s recording of Peter’s discourse in Acts two was to indicate that “the day of the Lord” as per prophetic expectation (Joel 2) was at that present time beginning on the day of Pentecost. For John to say he was in the Spirit “in the day of the Lord” meaning an era of redemptive history, would therefore introduce a redundant and superfluous phrase into the text.
Fourth, the dative of possession here, again puts emphasis on the day. When he writes the apocalypse John is in his normal state of being and his vision is cast in the past tense. He is reporting what he had experienced in his vision on a particular day. The reference is to the day the vision was received, not what was in the vision itself (i.e. your suggestion the day of Christ’s second coming) The vision was received on the Lord’s day. His reference in 1:10 is not to some eschatological moment, but rather a previous day on which he had the vision.
Fifth, anachronisms? On your website way you have applied Revelation directly to today’s events, (i.e. Revelation 6 referring to the United States) indicates your approach to Revelation, the Futurist approach, which has been proven too malleable to put any stock in its reliability. [For those reading this blog, the Futurist view seeks to apply the events of Rev. 4-19 to the events of history Just before the end of the world. However, people who hold this view tend to base their interpretation upon the century in which they live. There have been, therefore endless possibilities of interpretations. I believe this is not a helpful approach to John’s book]. It seems like your interpretation of Rev. 1:10 is colored by your futurist approach to the book and introduces an entire interpretation based upon anachronisms.
I find an approach closer to the Preterist view to be more helpful. Shcolarship [sic] is much more substantial in showing how John (a first century author) wrote this book in the first century to a first century audience (the churches in Asia minor) in a way that they could understand. If Rev. 6 deals with the United States, then Revelation was an utterly useless book for those to whom it was directly written. Since Christ himself said that we would not know the “day or the hour” he would return, I am more concerned to keep my lamp trimmed and burning and help others do the same – to be constantly ready for the bridegroom.
It is not likely an anachronism to understand John using this phrase the way I have described (and in line with the most prominent conservative scholars today). Extent extra-biblical Christian literature from the first century outside the New Testament is scant at best. However the closest writings we do have access to refer to our day of worship as the day belonging to the “Lord.” That is the best we can do. “The Lord’s Day.”
Respectfully,
Daniel My reply (here), First, I made no suggestion that "the day of the Lord" in the LXX was anything but genitive. The point I was making is that in the LXX, which was familiar to John, we find the dative phrase, "in that day," definitely refering to the future coming of the Lord, quite similar to the dative expression John uses here, "in the Lord's Day." Second, Kittel makes no suggestion that there is an alternate reading in the Greek text, but simply that John could have just as easily chosen to use the genitive Greek phrase "Day of the Lord." Third, You are confused about John's use of "in the Spirit" because you are mistsken about the meaning of "day of the Lord"." Note, 1 Thess 5:2, "...the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night," 2 Thess 2:1-3 "Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you may not be shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction...," 2 Peter 3:10-12. To Paul and Peter and all others the eschatological day of the Lord had not come yet. The Preterist position (your position) misinforms people about the day of the Lord. In the Acts 2 record, when Peter quotes Joel, he is offering Joel's statemens in support of his message and that of the disciples (the mighty deeds of God" (2:11), not an explanation for how they came to be able to speak it. Fourth, I agree that the dative of posession puts emphasis on "day," THAT DAY! Fifth, you made no answer at all to my point about semantic anachronism: (a) that your interpretation of Lord's Day in Rev 1:10 is later in history (b) that John used "first day of the week" (in his gospel) when speaking about a day of the week. The scant sources you mentioned are simply not adequate since they are 75 plus years later and disallowed by context and plain sense. Much happens to word usage in 75 years, as we know. And, the endless interpretations of the language in the Revelation have not been nearly as numerous as we have observed in the Historical and Preterist positions. To say that my Revelation 6 reference to the rider on the White Horse renders it as useless to those to whom it was written, is like saying that when God was speaking through the prophets, warning of coming punishment against Israel and Judah in the O.T., that His words were totally useless to them (and are to us) today. My interpretaton is Futurist (chapters 1-22 generally). In Revelation 2-3 He speaks to the churches in the day of the Lord, AND "he who has on ear," His people of all time. "For the great day of their wrath has come..." (Rev 6:17) does not invite any but the Futurist reading. The Preterist view makes the words of the Revelation mean virtualy anything needed to fit the position, ignoring the opening verse of the Revelation (1:1), the further end time context, "Behold He is coming with the clouds (1:7)... Him who is to come (1:8)," John's statement of the time-frame, "Lord's day," (1:8)and Jesus' warnings to the seven churches that "I am coming...," to name only a few. As we know, He did not come to the first century churches. Indeed, the Scriptures become like clay in the hands of the Preterist position, "too malleable to put any stock in its reliability." [Readers, the Preterist position (among other things) interprets Revelation 20 as a description of the present church age, maintaining that today Satan is bound in the abyss (20:2). Go figure!] My understanding of the events revealed in John's Revelation ARE definitely colored by the time frame given by John in Rev. 1:10. In Jesus' day, "most prominent scholars" were wrong about the first coming of Jesus--as they are today about the Lord's day, the second coming of Jesus. "Lord, I pray that we have not added to or taken away from the things written in this book." Stephen. Peter Asks, Where does Daniel speak about the desolation of the end times described by Jesus in Matt 24:15? Answer, We see references to this in Daniel 7:25, 8:24-25, 9:27, 11:31, 12:11. Since the angel speaking to Daniel in chapter eight gives him (and us) a scene by scene explanation of the vision, then verses 8:10-12 are explained by 8:24-26. That is to say that "the host of heaven" caused to fall from heaven, are synonymous with "the mighty men and holy people" who are suddenly and terribly destroyed by the end time little horn. This also explains the stars swept from heaven by the dragon's tail and cast to the earth in Revelation 12:3-4. These scenes are different views of the casting out of the temple and trampeling which happens to the gentiles as a result of the measuring in Revelation 11:1-2.
samyster62@expressright.com
Comments on Total Eclipse: Christ Returns  A Pastor comments on the book About 15 years ago I was teaching a class on the second coming of Christ. Stephen Amy was in the class. As I taught I repeated the dispensational pretribulationism that I had been taught in seminary. Subsequent to that Steve and I went to breakfast on many occasions and often discussed the issue of Christ’s return. Slowly as I began to look at the Biblical evidence I came to a completely different way of looking at eschatology. I changed my mind. If you are looking for a book that simply regurgitates what has become in many quarters a matter of essential doctrine--that the rapture will occur before the tribulation--then this book is not for you. If you are ready for a book that will challenge your thinking and will cause you to look at what the Bible has to say in a fresh way then read Total Eclipse: Christ Returns by Stephen K. Amy. This commentary on the book of Revelation is the result of a lifetime of study. It is timely, well written and thoroughly researched. The book will help you understand a part of Scripture that many have found difficult. I pray that it will be a blessing to you.
Scott McKinney
Senior Pastor, Christ Evangelical Church
Orem, Utah
A Doctor comments on the book Steve is a master of Biblical hermeneutics and has applied this principle to help better understand the book of Revelation. He takes a very symbolic and often confusing book and dissects it, to give any student of the Bible a clearer understanding of God's message, the Hope, the Love and the Faith needed to live now and to prepare for the end times. It has deepened my understanding of worship and the joy of living the sacrificial life for our Lord. This is a must read for any Christian.
Michael S. Rosen, M.D.
Lake Havasu City, AZ A Celebrated Author has this reaction If you'd like to have a commentary on the book of Revelation that has aimed to avoid the usual errors found in many other such commentaries, I'd like to recommend Stephen Amy's important new work. [Note: This endorsement was written after Dave read the unpublished manuscript when it was still bearing the title Worhip at The Altar. Some of the manuscript was rearranged after he read it, but the information remained essentially unchanged.] Dave MacPherson Author, The Rapture Plot A Dean comments on the book Total Eclipse: Christ Returns by Stephen K. Amy is a unique commentary on St. John's book of Revelation. Those who have not yet discovered Amy's book are missing an easy to understand and revealing insight into the book of Revelation that I previously thought was arduous and confusing. If you have been waiting for insight and clarity as I have, this is the book to read.
D. Dee Martin, EdD
Dean, Utah Valley State College
Orem, Utah
Back to the Sign of Jesus Contact us samyster62@expressright.com |
|