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

Re: [revelation-list] Re: Things seen, what is now and what will take place later

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.