Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Continuing the Man Child and the woman

Expand Messages
  • Alan Fuller <rocsy@yahoo.com>
    Hi Keith, I am prepared to accept that in the vision the woman, dragon, and birth are in heaven because that s what the vision says. Of course that doesn t
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 9, 2003
      Hi Keith,

      I am prepared to accept that in the vision the woman, dragon, and
      birth are in heaven because that's what the vision says. Of course
      that doesn't mean I think that those things literally happen in
      heaven because it is a vision, not a literal narrative. The idea
      that the woman represents Israel is not at all clear to me. Neither
      is the representation of Christ as the man child or the
      dispensational rapture clear to me.

      The dispensational rapture is supposed to be a resurrection in which
      believers meet Christ and are caught away into heaven. If that is
      the depiction in Revelation 12 I would expect those basic elements to
      be shown. In fact, both earth and heaven play key roles in the
      vision. The dragon is expelled from heaven and comes down to earth.
      Since the earth is a basic element in the vision why isn't the
      resurrection of the church, or for that matter Jesus shown coming
      from the earth? Yes it's a vision, but if it supposed to show
      someone going from earth to heaven it shouldn't show them originating
      in heaven while others travel from heaven to earth. That seems
      entirely inconsistent to me.

      Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
      that is the correct interpretation. The vision is supposed to be a
      prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected. Svigel believes the
      church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
      overcomers share the rod of iron. If I were a first century
      Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
      prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.

      Israel did not receive Jesus. Did the woman in the vision reject
      Jesus? Was He snatched into heaven to save Him from the devil? Was
      that the purpose of Jesus' resurrection?

      The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
      child is Psalms 2:8,9. Svigel has made a convincing argument that
      this could also be the church.

      The earth swallows up the flood, as if it were diverted into a great
      pit. The remnant of her seed are identified as christians. So who is
      the mother of christians?



      Thanks,
      Alan
    • Keith Starkey
      Greetings Alan, ... The woman? Okay, we can let that go for the time being. But who, then, would you say is the Man Child? And finally, I m not all that
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 9, 2003
        Greetings Alan,

        >The idea that the woman represents Israel is not at all clear to me.
        > >Neither is the representation of Christ as the man child or the
        >dispensational rapture clear to me.

        The woman? Okay, we can let that go for the time being. But who, then,
        would you say is the Man Child? And finally, I'm not all that hyped up,
        myself, on a dispensational rapture either. Of all the items in prophecy,
        that one is the least of my concerns, except, if for any reason, I find in
        it something revealing the heart and character of God. Otherwise, we'll all
        get to heaven one way or another!


        >The dispensational rapture is supposed to be a resurrection in which
        >believers meet Christ and are caught away into heaven. If that is
        >the depiction in Revelation 12 I would expect those basic elements to
        >be shown.

        I tend to agree with you here, Alan. It's rather vague and demanding; to
        have to "figure it out" is troublesome to the interpretation.


        >In fact, both earth and heaven play key roles in the
        >vision. The dragon is expelled from heaven and comes down to earth.
        >Since the earth is a basic element in the vision why isn't the
        >resurrection of the church, or for that matter Jesus shown coming
        >from the earth? Yes it's a vision, but if it supposed to show
        >someone going from earth to heaven it shouldn't show them originating
        >in heaven while others travel from heaven to earth. That seems
        >entirely inconsistent to me.

        Okay, I see where you're coming from. I would note, however, that the
        dragon is cast to the earth after the event of the catching up of the Man
        Child, unless one interprets the casting down of Satan as parenthetical.
        (Too, at this point, I'm not finding much to flavor the text by trying to
        interpret the "catching up" as encompassing both Christ and His body.)


        >Svigel believes the church is the primary representation, and Rev >2:26,27
        >shows that the
        >overcomers share the rod of iron. If I were a first century
        >Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
        >prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.

        Now I'm getting confused. Can you be specific: who is the Man Child, and
        what do you mean by he was "born in heaven" if you don't believe this is
        literal?


        >Israel did not receive Jesus. Did the woman in the vision reject
        >Jesus?

        Her rejecting Jesus is immaterial because she will eventually (in this time
        period) accept the Child as the Messiah: All Israel will be saved (Romans
        11).


        >Was He snatched into heaven to save Him from the devil? Was
        >that the purpose of Jesus' resurrection?

        Well, personally, I don't think think the dragon presented much of a threat
        to the Man Child (or the Church). He is, however, quite a threat to the
        woman (Israel?), and that's the emphasis of his wrath.


        >
        >The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
        >child is Psalms 2:8,9. Svigel has made a convincing argument that
        >this could also be the church.

        Who else or what else would you say the Child might be if it's not Jesus?

        >The earth swallows up the flood, as if it were diverted into a great
        >pit. The remnant of her seed are identified as christians. So who is
        >the mother of christians?

        I'm still putting my chips on Israel as the woman. Time will tell!

        Hey, thanks Alan,

        Keith

        _________________________________________________________________
        Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
        http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
      • Leo R Percer
        On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:53:50 -0000 Alan Fuller ... and ... Psalm 2:8-9 shows up in one other place in Revelation--19:15. This is the
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 9, 2003
          On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:53:50 -0000 "Alan Fuller <rocsy@...>"
          <rocsy@...> writes:

          > Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
          > that is the correct interpretation. The vision is supposed to be a
          >
          > prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected. Svigel believes
          > the
          > church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
          >
          > overcomers share the rod of iron. If I were a first century
          > Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
          > prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.
          >

          and

          > The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
          > child is Psalms 2:8,9. Svigel has made a convincing argument that
          > this could also be the church.
          >

          Psalm 2:8-9 shows up in one other place in Revelation--19:15. This is
          the vision of the rider on a white horse, a rider who (by all
          appearances, at any rate) seems to be Jesus. Curious, no?

          Leo Percer
          Waco, TX

          (My dissertation--"The War in Heaven--Michael and Messiah in Revelation
          12"--looks at this issue in a little more depth. I am beginning to think
          an article or book on Psalm 2:8-9 is also needed. Any takers?)

          ________________________________________________________________
          Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
          Only $9.95 per month!
          Visit www.juno.com
        • Bob MacDonald
          Your archives reveal that the Apocalypse by Jacques Ellul (1978) has not been referenced in your discussions. While this book is a nuisance to search (no
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 10, 2003
            Your archives reveal that the Apocalypse by Jacques Ellul (1978) has not
            been referenced in your discussions. While this book is a nuisance to search
            (no index), his thesis is that the book of the Apocalypse reveals the
            meaning of the incarnation, life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus.

            He identifies for instance, the woes, as the suffering of Christ (page 73):
            "all that happens to humanity is concentrated in fact upon his [Jesus]
            person. Thus we must never read the plagues and judgments of the Apocalypse
            outside of the perspective of perfect, absolute, unbreakable association
            between Christ and men..."

            The man-child and the woman are in the centre of the third woe, which is
            itself the centre of the keystone of the book (8:1 to 14:5) - the midsection
            of the 5 sections. Ellul considers this the unfolding of the mystery of the
            incarnation (pp 83-84) in heaven since its full understanding is invisible
            on earth - (too few words for summarizing these two pages).

            He considers the woman as having a plurality of meanings: Eve, (12:9), Zion
            and Israel who engender the Messiah and the believers; Mary in "celestial
            reduplication", but not the Church who does not give birth to the child but
            who derives from him. Finally, he writes: "we must not forget that the
            Incarnation is the total union of the whole of man with the whole of God. In
            this perspective, the woman appears to me to be the image of the entire
            creation (of earth and heaven) in some way synthesized to produce the fruit
            of the most decisively intimate covenant of God with his creation."

            The dragon must prevent the Incarnation - if the latter comes to pass, all
            is lost. So the fury that is unleashed at the Incarnation (12:2-5). So (my
            conjecture) the immediacy of the ascent of the child. In wrestling with this
            colourful imagery and refusing deliberately to take the Apocalypse as a map
            of the 'future', I think Ellul helps us see the celebration of the non-power
            power of God as revealed. The child (Jesus) is taken up to heaven (not I
            think away from the earth but in the bosom of the Father) from which the 3.5
            year (12:14) ministry proceeds. The woman is protected in the desert and by
            the earth from all that the dragons and beasts can imagine or deliver.

            This is long enough as a sampler - are there other commentators who have
            taken this thesis more recently than 1978? Ellul seems rarely quoted
            (Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament 1972, Nanos, Mystery of
            Romans 1996). I wonder if others specifically studying Revelation had used
            his work.

            Bob

            mailto::BobMacDonald@...
            + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

            Catch the foxes for us,
            the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
            for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
            http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
          • Don K
            I seems to me that this objection overlooks one thing. The Apocalypse is not just a prophecy of things to come but is a review of things that had been, and
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 10, 2003
              I seems to me that this objection overlooks one thing. The Apocalypse is not
              just a prophecy of "things to come" but is a review of things that had been,
              and there were present (1:19). Thus, the vision of chapter 12 certainly
              could, it seems to me, be a review of the past, a vision of the present, and
              a foretaste of the immediate future as well.
              Don K

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Leo R Percer" <PercerL@...>
              To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:18 PM
              Subject: Re: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the woman


              >
              > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:53:50 -0000 "Alan Fuller <rocsy@...>"
              > <rocsy@...> writes:
              >
              > > Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
              > > that is the correct interpretation. The vision is supposed to be a
              > >
              > > prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected. Svigel believes
              > > the
              > > church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
              > >
              > > overcomers share the rod of iron. If I were a first century
              > > Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
              > > prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.
              > >
              >
              > and
              >
              > > The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
              > > child is Psalms 2:8,9. Svigel has made a convincing argument that
              > > this could also be the church.
              > >
              >
              > Psalm 2:8-9 shows up in one other place in Revelation--19:15. This is
              > the vision of the rider on a white horse, a rider who (by all
              > appearances, at any rate) seems to be Jesus. Curious, no?
              >
              > Leo Percer
              > Waco, TX
              >
              > (My dissertation--"The War in Heaven--Michael and Messiah in Revelation
              > 12"--looks at this issue in a little more depth. I am beginning to think
              > an article or book on Psalm 2:8-9 is also needed. Any takers?)
              >
              > ________________________________________________________________
              > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
              > Only $9.95 per month!
              > Visit www.juno.com
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
              >
            • Keith Starkey
              DON: Thus, the vision of chapter 12 certainly could, it seems to me, be a review of the past, a vision of the present, and a foretaste of the immediate future
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 10, 2003
                DON:
                Thus, the vision of chapter 12 certainly
                could, it seems to me, be a review of the past, a vision of the present, and
                a foretaste of the immediate future as well.


                KEITH:
                I am in COMPLETE agreement with this statement. We just weren't working
                from that perspective. It was Svigel's interpretation of the "catching up"
                being the issue of including or not including the entire body of Christ, not
                just resurrection of Jesus.

                Great comment, though, Don,

                Keith



                _________________________________________________________________
                MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
                http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
              • Alan Fuller <rocsy@yahoo.com>
                Hi Keith, ... Jesus?
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 10, 2003
                  Hi Keith,

                  >>Who else or what else would you say the Child might be if it's not
                  Jesus?<<

                  Sviegel says it is primarily the body of Christ, meaning the church.
                  That is more in line with my thinking, although I don't see the
                  snatching away as a rapture. As the 17th century commentator Matthew
                  Henry puts it;

                  >Having on her head a crown of twelve stars; the doctrine of the
                  gospel, preached by the twelve apostles, is a crown of glory to all
                  true believers. As in pain to bring forth a holy family; desirous
                  that the conviction of sinners might end in their conversion. <

                  The heavenly Jerusalem is mother to those of the spirit whom the
                  dragon wishes to devour (1 Pet 5:8). The spirit of God gives power
                  over the dragons temptations. The catching away to God is the power
                  the overcomer has been given to resist the wiley predator (Rev 2:26,
                  17:14).

                  The mother is the doctrine of the church that gives faith, and the
                  spirit is the man child that is given protection by the Father.
                  That's an idealistic interpretation that I prefer.


                  Thanks for asking,

                  Alan
                • Alan Fuller <rocsy@yahoo.com>
                  Don, In 1:19 John is instructed to what he has seen, what he sees, and the following things he will see. It is popular to use this verse to divide the book
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 10, 2003
                    Don,

                    In 1:19 John is instructed to what he has seen, what he sees,
                    and the following things he will see.

                    It is popular to use this verse to divide the book
                    into three parts.

                    Rev 1:11-20 The things John has
                    seen perhaps representing events in John's
                    past.
                    Rev 2:1-3:22 The things that are, representing the
                    first century churches with which John was familiar
                    and, current events for John.
                    Rev 4:1-22:21 The things that shall be, events future to John.

                    In my opinion, too much importance is attached to this
                    verse. It is simply an instruction to John to write
                    everything he sees in the vision, and it is not a good method
                    to use to divide the book of Revelation.

                    Why should it be about past history, or events current to its
                    writing?
                    In Revelation 9:12 it says that some of the woes are past, yet most
                    of us don't try to say the events described previous
                    to 9:12 are in John's past.

                    Also there is no special emphasis
                    given to the verse as in the next verse, 1:20.
                    Shouldn't 1:19 be viewed more like 9:12?

                    Thanks,
                    Alan
                  • coates
                    The thematic symbolism of the woman and her child here is too strong to reduce to a singular reference. Of course I come from the standpoint that the Bible is
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 11, 2003
                      The thematic symbolism of the woman and her child here is too strong to
                      reduce to a singular reference. Of course I come from the standpoint that
                      the Bible is a coherent and complete document plotting the Godhead's plan of
                      human redemption through the Messiah. The imagery of the woman is so
                      highlihted in this passage in association with a Christ figure that I
                      beleive on needs to look to first reference.
                      From: Alan Fuller <rocsy@...> [mailto:rocsy@...]
                      Sent: 09 January 2003 06:54
                      To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the woman


                      Hi Keith,

                      I am prepared to accept that in the vision the woman, dragon, and
                      birth are in heaven because that's what the vision says. Of course
                      that doesn't mean I think that those things literally happen in
                      heaven because it is a vision, not a literal narrative. The idea
                      that the woman represents Israel is not at all clear to me. Neither
                      is the representation of Christ as the man child or the
                      dispensational rapture clear to me.

                      The dispensational rapture is supposed to be a resurrection in which
                      believers meet Christ and are caught away into heaven. If that is
                      the depiction in Revelation 12 I would expect those basic elements to
                      be shown. In fact, both earth and heaven play key roles in the
                      vision. The dragon is expelled from heaven and comes down to earth.
                      Since the earth is a basic element in the vision why isn't the
                      resurrection of the church, or for that matter Jesus shown coming
                      from the earth? Yes it's a vision, but if it supposed to show
                      someone going from earth to heaven it shouldn't show them originating
                      in heaven while others travel from heaven to earth. That seems
                      entirely inconsistent to me.

                      Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
                      that is the correct interpretation. The vision is supposed to be a
                      prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected. Svigel believes the
                      church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
                      overcomers share the rod of iron. If I were a first century
                      Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
                      prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.

                      Israel did not receive Jesus. Did the woman in the vision reject
                      Jesus? Was He snatched into heaven to save Him from the devil? Was
                      that the purpose of Jesus' resurrection?

                      The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
                      child is Psalms 2:8,9. Svigel has made a convincing argument that
                      this could also be the church.

                      The earth swallows up the flood, as if it were diverted into a great
                      pit. The remnant of her seed are identified as christians. So who is
                      the mother of christians?



                      Thanks,
                      Alan



                      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    • coates
                      Apologies for this last mail . . .it went off accidentally. The imagery of this woman in labour seems to trigger thoughts of Genesis 3v15. Here the first
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 11, 2003
                        Apologies for this last mail . . .it went off accidentally. The imagery of
                        this woman in labour seems to trigger thoughts of Genesis 3v15. Here the
                        first reference to the holy war or two seeds begins and for me is continuous
                        throughout the Old and New Testament. It fits in with the imagery of a
                        conquering warrior/Christ. This passage is a recapitulation of the history
                        of God's plan for the souls of man and the ensuing struggle against the
                        enemy the dragon-serpent Satan. The idea of a struggling woman carrying the
                        seed of righteousness through the generations comes forth in figures such as
                        Rachel and Mary whose lives mirror this archetypical struggle. Time and time
                        again the idea of a an evil enemy whose head is ultimately to be crushed
                        comes through in this struggle. The women here is the Old Testament church,
                        if you want to call her Israel then so be it, who gives birth to the
                        Messiah. It is a labour or outworking made over many generations and the
                        birth pangs had been felt for many centuries.

                        The imagery of the woman gives some clues as to her identity. The sun and
                        moon and stars reminiscent of Joseph's dream where the mother and father and
                        brothers were symbolised. Stars are symbolic not only of power and
                        government but here directly of the 12 tribes of Israel . . . the OT Church.
                        Joseph's parentage is highlighted as a remberance of the first parents, Adam
                        and Eve, and an allusion agin to the seedbed of the struggle found in
                        Genesis. I have more, but will give more direct and precise responses later.

                        Jason Coates
                        Johannesburg

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: coates [mailto:jasonnola@...]
                        Sent: 11 January 2003 04:22
                        To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the
                        woman


                        The thematic symbolism of the woman and her child here is too strong to
                        reduce to a singular reference. Of course I come from the standpoint that
                        the Bible is a coherent and complete document plotting the Godhead's plan of
                        human redemption through the Messiah. The imagery of the woman is so
                        highlihted in this passage in association with a Christ figure that I
                        beleive on needs to look to first reference.
                        From: Alan Fuller <rocsy@...> [mailto:rocsy@...]
                        Sent: 09 January 2003 06:54
                        To: revelation-list@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Continuing the Man Child and the woman


                        Hi Keith,

                        I am prepared to accept that in the vision the woman, dragon, and
                        birth are in heaven because that's what the vision says. Of course
                        that doesn't mean I think that those things literally happen in
                        heaven because it is a vision, not a literal narrative. The idea
                        that the woman represents Israel is not at all clear to me. Neither
                        is the representation of Christ as the man child or the
                        dispensational rapture clear to me.

                        The dispensational rapture is supposed to be a resurrection in which
                        believers meet Christ and are caught away into heaven. If that is
                        the depiction in Revelation 12 I would expect those basic elements to
                        be shown. In fact, both earth and heaven play key roles in the
                        vision. The dragon is expelled from heaven and comes down to earth.
                        Since the earth is a basic element in the vision why isn't the
                        resurrection of the church, or for that matter Jesus shown coming
                        from the earth? Yes it's a vision, but if it supposed to show
                        someone going from earth to heaven it shouldn't show them originating
                        in heaven while others travel from heaven to earth. That seems
                        entirely inconsistent to me.

                        Although the man child is often interpreted as Christ I'm not sure
                        that is the correct interpretation. The vision is supposed to be a
                        prophecy and Jesus had already been resurrected. Svigel believes the
                        church is the primary representation, and Rev 2:26,27 shows that the
                        overcomers share the rod of iron. If I were a first century
                        Christian I think I would take note that this was supposed to be a
                        prophecy, and the man child was born in heaven.

                        Israel did not receive Jesus. Did the woman in the vision reject
                        Jesus? Was He snatched into heaven to save Him from the devil? Was
                        that the purpose of Jesus' resurrection?

                        The only thing I can think of that would identify Jesus as the man
                        child is Psalms 2:8,9. Svigel has made a convincing argument that
                        this could also be the church.

                        The earth swallows up the flood, as if it were diverted into a great
                        pit. The remnant of her seed are identified as christians. So who is
                        the mother of christians?



                        Thanks,
                        Alan



                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      • Keith Starkey
                        JASON: The idea of a struggling woman carrying the seed of righteousness through the generations comes forth in figures such as Rachel and Mary whose lives
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 13, 2003
                          JASON:
                          "The idea of a struggling woman carrying the seed of righteousness through
                          the generations comes forth in figures such as Rachel and Mary whose lives
                          mirror this archetypical struggle. Time and time
                          again the idea of a an evil enemy whose head is ultimately to be crushed
                          comes through in this struggle."

                          KEITH:
                          Ultimately, however, what's the point of the passage? I think he had
                          something more specific in mind than the vagueness you've described, though
                          I like the theology.


                          JASON:
                          "The women here is the Old Testament church,
                          if you want to call her Israel then so be it, who gives birth to the
                          Messiah. It is a labour or outworking made over many generations and the
                          birth pangs had been felt for many centuries.

                          The imagery of the woman gives some clues as to her identity. The sun and
                          moon and stars reminiscent of Joseph's dream where the mother and father and
                          brothers were symbolised. Stars are symbolic not only of power and
                          government but here directly of the 12 tribes of Israel . . . the OT Church.
                          Joseph's parentage is highlighted as a remberance of the first parents, Adam
                          and Eve, and an allusion agin to the seedbed of the struggle found in
                          Genesis.

                          KEITH:
                          Here again, what is it that John is ultimately saying? It's not enough to
                          merely recap Joseph's vision; John was going somewhere with it, somewhere
                          very relative reason why he was given the visions in the first place.

                          I can't help but see the clarity of coming to terms with the language you've
                          used (good, by all means): Israel births the Christ (the Man Child). The
                          child is taken back to heaven, and Satan continues to make war on the
                          remnant; in this case the church, ultimately to include Israel. It seems
                          simple enough, I believe.

                          Thanks,

                          Keith R. Starkey

                          Keith R. Starkey

                          _________________________________________________________________
                          Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
                          http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
                        • Juan Stam
                          I agree with Alan that this verse is not meant to give an outline of the book. (1) It is best translated, what you have seen, that is things that are and
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jan 25, 2003
                            I agree with Alan that this verse is not meant to give an outline of the
                            book. (1) It is best translated, "what you have seen, that is things that
                            are and things that are to come. The book brings visions ("things seen")
                            right to the very end. It is two-fold, not three-fold, and nothing suggests
                            it was meant to divide up the book by these two (or three) categories. (2)
                            In fact, the first-century realities of the Roman Empire are present almost
                            to the end: Armageddon as a cavalry battle (14.20; 16.16), the seven hills
                            of imperial Rome and seven emperors, five already deceased etc; the bill of
                            lading for imperial commerce (18:11-14, fits roman luxury commerice
                            precisely but impossible to interpret in modern terms), etc. (This,
                            however, does not rule out also future significance of some visions, e.g.
                            coming of Conquerer ch 19, final judgment, new creation and more). (3) The
                            N.T. emphasis on both "already" and "not yet" makes the traditional schemes
                            of preterist, historicist, futurist etc really irrelevant; Revelation is all
                            of them but not only one of them. When it describes the future dimension of
                            our hope, it does so in the terms of its own world and its own reality.

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: <rocsy@...>
                            To: <revelation-list@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:50 PM
                            Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Things seen, what is now and what will take
                            place later


                            > Don,
                            >
                            > In 1:19 John is instructed to what he has seen, what he sees,
                            > and the following things he will see.
                            >
                            > It is popular to use this verse to divide the book
                            > into three parts.
                            >
                            > Rev 1:11-20 The things John has
                            > seen perhaps representing events in John's
                            > past.
                            > Rev 2:1-3:22 The things that are, representing the
                            > first century churches with which John was familiar
                            > and, current events for John.
                            > Rev 4:1-22:21 The things that shall be, events future to John.
                            >
                            > In my opinion, too much importance is attached to this
                            > verse. It is simply an instruction to John to write
                            > everything he sees in the vision, and it is not a good method
                            > to use to divide the book of Revelation.
                            >
                            > Why should it be about past history, or events current to its
                            > writing?
                            > In Revelation 9:12 it says that some of the woes are past, yet most
                            > of us don't try to say the events described previous
                            > to 9:12 are in John's past.
                            >
                            > Also there is no special emphasis
                            > given to the verse as in the next verse, 1:20.
                            > Shouldn't 1:19 be viewed more like 9:12?
                            >
                            > Thanks,
                            > Alan
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > revelation-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.