Re: [revelation-list] Re: Things seen, what is now and what will take place later
- 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 -----
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:50 PM
Subject: [revelation-list] Re: Things seen, what is now and what will take
> 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
> 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
> 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?
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/