There are certain obvious errors with trying to understand the Apocalypse of John literally. I am not concerned with those here. What I wanted to point out was a much more interesting hermeneutic. The following text was heard on a tape series done by David Hocking. I think the dispensationalists call this a letteral interpretation.

I was trying to briefly share with a guy about what Jesus is like now. I was getting frustrated talking to him and was not getting anywhere. This is what I said to him, "Are you aware of the fact that there are flames of fire that shoot out from His eyes right now?"

He just looked at me like I am nuts or something.

I said, "Yeah, it says so over here in Revelation 1. There are actually flames of fire that shoot out from His eyes."

"Jesus?"

I said, "Yeah. Jesus. There’s some other very interesting things said about Him too. Very different than what you’ve been describing. I just wondered if you knew Him. When it says His hair is white like wool and white as snow. He didn’t say He was white. It says His hair was white. In other words, He turned white. What’s that a sign of?"

"Age."

"It’s the Ancient of Days, which is the Lord Jehovah in the Old Testament."

"So what are you talking to me about? That’s Jesus?"

I said, "Yeah."

"Well, what about the pictures in the bookstores?"

"Well, those are drawings, attempts to visualize Him, but that's not what He is now since He rose from the dead. He now looks totally different than what He looked like when He was walking on the earth."

This guy would not buy it. He just said, "That’s not the Jesus I believe in, and he walked away."

So is that why the disciples didn't recognize Jesus on the road to Emmaus—because he had flames shooting out of his eyes? Come on people, if you would just admit that there is at least a miniscule amount of symbolic language in the Scriptures I would be happy.