Even the devil quoted Scripture, that means nothing.
It has to be revelation.
Do you think truth comes by direct revelation from God alone?
I do.
Since anyone can interpret any Scripture however they like...
But what is the strongest tool used to defeat revelation??? Was it not the orthodoxy of the Pharisees and Sadducees (especially in their controversies) who accused our Lord? Did He not say to beware the leaven of the pharisees, ie, interpreting theology to our own eisegetic ends??
A progressive revelation seems to be par for the course...from the OT to the New.
Daniel 12:9 And he said, Go thy way Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
Daniel 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.
From
12:9 we can see that the disclosing or unsealing of the angel's words (
12:7) will not happen until the time of the end.
Therefore, we can say with assurance that this verse bears witness that there will be an unsealing, disclosing or revealing at the time of the end. Therefore may I once again suggest that, in the end times, we will be given a new understanding, that is, a revealing of that which has been sealed previously and so misinterpreted from misunderstanding.
This verse also tells us that the understanding of the new disclosures will not be possessed by everyone, but that this blessing will be possessed only by the purified and the wise, whatever that means, which implies that many will stand against it. I also suggest that because the verse says that it is the wise who shall understand, some in-depth study might be required to understand the new disclosures, that is, that
these new revelations will not be blinding visions of light, but that they will most likely appeal to our reason. Stated another way, they will be doctrinal, that discipline that requires so much discipline and openness to new thoughts and implications.
And from the NT too:
John 16:25 These things have I (Jesus) spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.
Which time was Jesus referring to? Was He speaking of a time far in the future, say like this time? Well, if it was a time more in the future, then He would be referring to a future doctrinal revelation, would He not?
I guess that one way to tell the time of its fulfilment is to ask ourselves whether we (that is, our educated commentators) yet plainly know of the Father, or whether we do not have it so plainly yet? In other words, do we understand the Bible plainly, or does it yet speak to us in proverbs? The Pharisees and the Sadducees certainly thought they had a plain understanding!
Revelation 10:8 Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me once more: "Go, take the scroll that lies open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land."
9 So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, "Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey." 10 I took the little scroll from the angel's hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour.
Very interesting, no? As a sign of the last days, a "scroll" or KJV "little book" a diminutive form of the Greek
biblos or in English,
bible.
Since 'book' or 'scroll' denotes writing to me, I suggest that
eating is a metaphor for reading the scroll and is used so we can get the analogy of sweetness and bitterness/ sour taste into the metaphor that the meaning would be off putting.
To continue with the thought would take us to:
I read the words on the little book and at first I thought they were very wonderful and gratifying (sweet) but later as I dwelt upon their meaning, I found them hard to digest, (sour in my stomach), that is hard to accept in their full meaning in the current theological context..
This leads me to consider that in the last days a new revelation will be learned that at first seems great but then makes us scared or dismayed as we learn its implications.
In the context of the next verse:
Revelation 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings. This person who read and studied until he understood the words in the little book must go out and be a prophet from the Lord, probably teaching us the words/ideas/revelation of the little book.
Since we all know the warnings of
Rev 22:18:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: I'd also suggest that this
new revelation is probably more correctly called
a new understanding of a previous revelation similar to the way we got a new understanding about the Messiah from Jesus and the Apostles.
So I guess we of the end times had all better be open to a theological explanation of God's reality about the Church and/or the world, one that is different from all the previous explanations we have been taught.
Might not such an occurrence put the sects, denominations and churches in the position of the Pharisees, stuck on their old understandings of the theology of the scriptures and rejecting the new understanding written in the little book? Who in any position as authority or teacher is telling us to wait for a new revelation that will put theirs out of business? Are all doctrinal fortresses self serving?
It is funny that when people say an idea
is not found in the scriptures they often really mean
"I was never taught an understanding of the scriptures in this way." Double-think, the belief something and its opposite are both true at the same time in the same way...such as that we are in the end times except for this new revelation thingie which must mean we are not yet in the end times, since no acceptable new revelation is being offered.
Peace, Ted
