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

Re: Things seen, what is now and what will take place later

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Jan 10, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 13 , Jan 11, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 13 , Jan 11, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 13 , Jan 13, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 13 , Jan 25, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              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.