Comments on: Sin City – 2

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Sun, 29 Jun 2014 23:24:09 +0000

This is good, too…

http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2013/07/26/the-point-of-the-revelation/

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Sun, 29 Jun 2014 22:50:36 +0000

Thanks Mark
Certainly we agree on the timing of the book, but if it’s about the process of calling the saints as sacrifices, not only does it miss the point of the prophecy, and miss the “heaven’s-eye view” of the ministry of the Church from acts onwards, but the actual destruction of the city doesn’t play a large part. Both views can’t be right – it’s more than just reading with a dose of OT liturgy. It’s using the OT to interpret the symbols, as we do with every other book.

By: MarkO

MarkO — Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:21:30 +0000

I agree with David. It is not that Gentry is wrong, but simply providing a historical perspective. It appears that both you and he are in agreement that the events in Revelation has as their point in history the actual events surrounding AD70 – right? I realize your approach is to read Revelation with heavy dose of OT liturgy, but you certainly aren’t placing the events in a Futurist time frame as do Dispensationalist nor are you placing the events in a Historicist time frame.

So you and Gentry agree more than not. It’s just the interpretive details that differ, not the time structure.

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 23:34:00 +0000

One more thought – Revelation serves the same purpose as Ezekiel, and its layout is level-pegged with that book (as Chilton observes). Jordan’s approach is the same approach we take with Ezekiel, whereas Gentry’s is not.

By: Mike Bull

Mike Bull — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 23:05:36 +0000

Thanks David

The details here are really just a summary of Jordan’s 144 hours of lectures pegged out slightly differently and with a few of my structural observations. The “foreign language” is “Bible symbol,” which I think only Jordan is teaching. From my experience over the past 7-8 years, it really works, and is very consistent. I’d put it down to Jordan’s close study of the Torah.

Where Jordan and Gentry really differ is in the guts of the book. Gentry (and Chilton) attempt to decode the symbols by looking to Josephus, whereas Jordan looks to the rest of the Bible. Their differing interpretations of the “hail” is a good example: Gentry thinks they are the white rocks catapulted at the city, where Jordan understands them as an allusion to Joshua’s defeat of Adoni-zedek, a bad king of Jerusalem. But they are not that different when it comes to chapters 1-5 and 19-22.

If anyone else would like to compare, both sets of lectures are available from http://www.word.mp3

http://www.wordmp3.com/product-group.aspx?id=18
http://www.wordmp3.com/product-group.aspx?id=79

Thanks for reading!

By: David

David — Sat, 28 Jun 2014 16:12:57 +0000

Mike this is a very insightful article, however after listening to Gentry’s lecture series, and Jordan’s, I am thinking that there is two layers or dimensions to Revelation (really to all the books of the Bible). There is the layer that is closest to the surface (shall I say the physical layer) that is most easily visible and understood as Gentry using Josephus in explaining what happened in AD70. And then a deeper more difficult to see and understand spiritual layer which you and Jordan bring out. I am being honest when I say that in reading your article it was like looking at the book of Revelation with ‘new eyes’. Almost like looking through a microscope – you see what is not visible with the naked eye. And it is so foreign I have to read it several times (almost like I am learning a new language).
Do you think there is any merit to the two layers/dimensions, or do you feel the Gentry vs. Bull/Jordan views are mutually exclusive of one another?

I love your writing, you are totally amazing!

Thanks,
-David