There is something I need to explain. It’s something that even Heiser gets wrong, in my opinion. When I was studying ANE literature, one of the sources made something clear that I think way too many Bible scholars don’t grasp. Admittedly this is rather obscure, something that generally shows up only discussions of the philosophical orientation and differences in the epistemology of the ANE versus the West: Narrative sequence does not always mean temporal sequence.
This is especially true when you start digging into esoteric and symbolic texts in the Bible. The Hebrew author, and prophets in particular, would expect the reader to already know the historical sequence, and would tie things together by their moral meaning, not their sequence, nor even their proximity, on the timeline. Visions and dreams are like this, as well. God’s direct communications by default should be presumed without a temporal sequence, unless that’s explicit in the message. The sequence is what the individual experienced, but the meaning may not depend on that sequence. The Hebrew language and Hebrew minds were not too deeply concerned with nailing down a sequence like a movie playing in your head. They didn’t think visually like that, and they certainly didn’t regard time the same way we do. There is a substantial epistemological difference between our assumptions about time and theirs.
The Book of Revelation is frankly seldom in any particular chronological order. The sequence is primarily logical, as it were. There are events portrayed in Eternity, wherein time has no meaning. They are presented in a sequence of some kind because that’s how human languages work, but it’s not how Eternity works. It’s one of the biggest problems for western believers approaching moral questions and prophecy in general — not recognizing the Hebrew outlook on such things.
Thus, in my commentary on John’s Revelation, I warned that the focus of the whole prophecy is, “This not about future events. It is about who the characters are. This is how they operate until the Day of Judgment.” Thus, the sequence of events as portrayed are not literal in description; they are symbolic, as is the sequence.
I gotta say this makes things more confusing, but that’s okay. It demands more reliance on divine guidance to get at the meaning.
Example: The events depicted in Revelation 12 are not a temporal sequence. When the Dragon swept a third of the stars from the heavens, it was a signature of who this was, not an event, per se, as part of the narrative. The conflict between the Woman and the Dragon was not temporally close to the conflict between Michael and the Devil. Rather, it symbolizes who we are talking about, identifying them by the role these characters play in familiar imagery, showing us how they act.
I am kind of in sync….. kinda. I understand the words you are saying; it’s the putting the book into that context that makes it a little difficult for me…. Difficult might not be the right word. Oh, heck, I don’t know! Gives me food for thought for sure to re-think how I personally interpret, or try to get the meaning of, the book.
Kinda of deep….. Yes, divine guidance would definitely be helpful!
Yes, divine guidance is necessary. I’m taking the biblical path here in providing a signpost, not so much content. I’m inviting you to explore something that you might not have noticed before. It’s always possible, even likely, that I’ll fumble things a bit, but the emphasis is not on filling in the blanks, but pointing out that there are some blanks that need filling. Our language and culture do not lend themselves to the task very well.