PDA

View Full Version : Interpretation of the book of Revelation



bhoup
Jan 5th 2009, 07:28 AM
Hello friends! I am currently reading God's Big Picture by Vaughan Roberts and in the final chapter he is talking about the book of Revelation. He points out three different views to the book (and then his own) which are as follows:

1) Preterist - says that all the symbols refers exclusively to people or institutions at the time John was writing

2) Historicist - says that Revelation is a chronological account of the different eras throughout history from the first century to the second coming of Christ

3) Futurist - says that chapter 4 onwards describes only the events at the very end of the world, in the short period leading up to the return of Christ.

4) Author's view - Revelation describes what will happen in the whole of "the last days" between the ascension of Christ and his second coming. Revelation is not a time chart but there are sequences arranged in parallel. For instance, the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls do not follow on from one another; they all describe the same period. So, for example, the four horsemen have been active, and will be active, throughout the last days. They represent the imperialistic aggression, bloodshed, economic instability, and death that will mark every age until Christ returns.

I personally believe that the book of Revelation is the "futurist" view. I cannot agree with his view because I take (as bulk) Revelation literally. I do not agree with him that it started at the ascension of Christ because I simply don't see, anything that Revelation describes, in our world today. What do you believe?

Furthermore, what do you think about his idea of parallelism? Since I take Revelation more literally, I take it at face value, in order as the events are described, not being parallel to one another.

markdrums
Jan 5th 2009, 01:41 PM
Furthermore, what do you think about his idea of parallelism? Since I take Revelation more literally, I take it at face value, in order as the events are described, not being parallel to one another.

Hey bhoup!
Hope you had a good start to your New Year!

Anyway, here's a question / comment for you.
You say you take Revelation literally & at face value..... correct?

Sooooo... How do you interpret John's writing when he says he's writing TO the seven churches in Asia, & that these things must SOON take place, and the time is AT HAND?

Even from a LITERAL / Face Value position, it seems like the intended context meant soon & near & at hand.

Know what I mean?

Anyway, just a little something to think about during your studies.
;)

kenrank
Jan 5th 2009, 03:04 PM
Hey bhoup!
Hope you had a good start to your New Year!

Anyway, here's a question / comment for you.
You say you take Revelation literally & at face value..... correct?

Sooooo... How do you interpret John's writing when he says he's writing TO the seven churches in Asia, & that these things must SOON take place, and the time is AT HAND?

Even from a LITERAL / Face Value position, it seems like the intended context meant soon & near & at hand.

Know what I mean?

Anyway, just a little something to think about during your studies.
;)

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

One thing about Revelation is clear, John was writing about things that had NOT happened YET. Whether it be the next day, week, month, or millenium, it was about things that were still to come.

The "latter times" from the context of that phrases use is anytime "after" Yahushua ascended. Be that the next day, or today. The thing to keep in mind about John, is that he was in "the spirit." That which he was seeing was being given to him by God...who himself exists outside of time. So a statement like "must shortly come to pass" can really mean anytime after the writing.

One thing that has stood out to me in Revelation is the line John writes in 15:2-

"And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God."

If this event takes place in the desert, this can probably only describe a nuclear bomb. The heat so instense, the sand will melt and become as a sea of glass, with little pockets of fire here and there. This then leads me to conclude that at least in part, Revelation is dealing with issues and events post WW2.

Peace.
Ken

markdrums
Jan 5th 2009, 03:26 PM
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

One thing about Revelation is clear, John was writing about things that had NOT happened YET. Whether it be the next day, week, month, or millenium, it was about things that were still to come.

The "latter times" from the context of that phrases use is anytime "after" Yahushua ascended. Be that the next day, or today. The thing to keep in mind about John, is that he was in "the spirit." That which he was seeing was being given to him by God...who himself exists outside of time. So a statement like "must shortly come to pass" can really mean anytime after the writing.

One thing that has stood out to me in Revelation is the line John writes in 15:2-

"And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God."

If this event takes place in the desert, this can probably only describe a nuclear bomb. The heat so instense, the sand will melt and become as a sea of glass, with little pockets of fire here and there. This then leads me to conclude that at least in part, Revelation is dealing with issues and events post WW2.

Peace.
Ken

I appreciate the well put reply! Your views are explained quite clearly, and it's easy to know WHY you hold your view. :)

I still have trouble seeing how the majority of Revelation deals with events that are still in the future.

When we look at Daniel's vision, he was told to seal up the prophecy because the time was far off, and that turned out to be a few hundred years.

John however, was told NOT to seal up his prophecy because the time was at hand.... So I don't see how 2000+ years could mean soon, near, at hand when a couple hundred years was far-off.

:hmm:

threebigrocks
Jan 5th 2009, 03:26 PM
bhoup, here's what I had to do to make it make sense. My measley mind needed a visual once I saw they weren't linear or concurrent! :rolleyes: I wrote up the seals, bowls, trumpets vertically on a piece of paper in columns. Cut them apart into their strips, and matched up events in each by sliding the strips to do so. It gave me a new starting point to grasp Revelation.

See what you get. ;)

threebigrocks
Jan 5th 2009, 03:27 PM
John however, was told NOT to seal up his prophecy because the time was at hand.... So I don't see how 2000+ years could mean soon, near, at hand when a couple hundred years was far-off.

:hmm:

In God time it's days. That's soon. ;)

kenrank
Jan 5th 2009, 03:37 PM
I appreciate the well put reply! Your views are explained quite clearly, and it's easy to know WHY you hold your view. :)

I still have trouble seeing how the majority of Revelation deals with events that are still in the future.

When we look at Daniel's vision, he was told to seal up the prophecy because the time was far off, and that turned out to be a few hundred years.

John however, was told NOT to seal up his prophecy because the time was at hand.... So I don't see how 2000+ years could mean soon, near, at hand when a couple hundred years was far-off.

:hmm:

True, but Daniel lived before the manifestation of Messiah. John lived in what were already deemed to be the last days. (Again, anytime after Messiah's ascension) Plus, much of what Daniel wrote dealt with the Day of the LORD, which isn't Sunday per say...but the entire end time event which actually covers a number of years. John wrote of a similar time and event.

Prophecy is not my thing Markdrums, simply because there are too many ways to take things. But remember this, the OT prophecies of Messiah's arrival were pretty clear, and yet many Yahudim (Jews) rejected him because they did not understand his arrival was to free us of eternal bondage, and the bondage of sin. Instead, they expected a warrior, one who would free them from Roman captivity. So is it any wonder that the Apostles expected Messiah's return during their lifetime? Not really, they were still veiled to the things which Daniel had sealed and that John was writing about in the spirit. John knew what he was writing was to take place after he wrote it. He described a few things that actually needed MANY years for technology to catch up. The description of what is likely a nuclear bomb, the mark on the hand without which we can't buy. While I see the mark in part to be spiritual, not being able to "buy or sell" without it means it has some physical conotation as well. The chip we hear about today? Something else like it? It does fit.

Peace.
Ken

markdrums
Jan 5th 2009, 03:37 PM
In God time it's days. That's soon. ;)

Well, I could ALMOST give that one to ya..... but John wasn't writing Revelation to God. LOL!! ;)

I also realize that God is OUTSIDE of time & space, and to HIM everything is near, or now.... or... well.... the beginning AND the end...

But John was writing TO the seven churches in Asia.
And I think he was explaining to them that these things are just about here.
(He also refers to himself as their brother & Companion in Tribulation.)

Wouldn't it be a bit confusing to those seven churches if John was writing TO THEM, but describing something that would have zero to do with them, because it would be thousands of years later?

:confused

Just a thought. :hug:

threebigrocks
Jan 5th 2009, 03:42 PM
Right, but if God said soon, it's still soon, right? John recorded what he was told.

2 Peter 3
7But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Psalm 84
9Behold our shield, O God,
And look upon the face of Your anointed.
10For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside.
I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God
Than dwell in the tents of wickedness.

Psalm 90
3You turn man back into dust
And say, "Return, O children of men."
4For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it passes by,
Or as a watch in the night.

divaD
Jan 5th 2009, 03:50 PM
Hey bhoup!
Hope you had a good start to your New Year!

Anyway, here's a question / comment for you.
You say you take Revelation literally & at face value..... correct?

Sooooo... How do you interpret John's writing when he says he's writing TO the seven churches in Asia, & that these things must SOON take place, and the time is AT HAND?

Even from a LITERAL / Face Value position, it seems like the intended context meant soon & near & at hand.

Know what I mean?

Anyway, just a little something to think about during your studies.
;)




markdrums, have you ever noticed verse 8 of Revelation 1? Of course you have, but that's not what I mean.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

The part I have in bold can be and is linked to verse 7. Now if verse 7 has already transpired, then how does one explain verse 8 where it states 'and which is to come,'? Isn't Christ yet to literally return in these last days?

Isn't the way you're interpreting verse 8 something such as this?


Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come and then come again after that, the Almighty.

markdrums
Jan 5th 2009, 03:57 PM
Right, but if God said soon, it's still soon, right? John recorded what he was told.

2 Peter 3
7But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Psalm 84
9Behold our shield, O God,
And look upon the face of Your anointed.
10For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside.
I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God
Than dwell in the tents of wickedness.

Psalm 90
3You turn man back into dust
And say, "Return, O children of men."
4For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it passes by,
Or as a watch in the night.

I know whatcha mean.

And I think the main differences between views start branching out right at this point.

The question becomes, Was John describing soon for the churches in "Our regular time / space"?
Or, was it just a general statement saying, "Well, it's going to be soon... eventually, ......if not sooner.."
:lol:

I couldn't resisit!
;)

God Belss!!

kenrank
Jan 5th 2009, 03:57 PM
markdrums, have you ever noticed verse 8 of Revelation 1? Of course you have, but that's not what I mean.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

The part I have in bold can be and is linked to verse 7. Now if verse 7 has already transpired, then how does one explain verse 8 where it states 'and which is to come,'? Isn't Christ yet to literally return in these last days?

Isn't the way you're interpreting verse 8 something such as this?


Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come and then come again after that, the Almighty.

Diva D....just some food for your thought. "Which is, which was, which is to come," is the Hebrew definition of the name YHWH. So in a sense, that verse could just as easily be translated, "says the Lord YHWH the Almighty."

Peace.
Ken

threebigrocks
Jan 5th 2009, 04:02 PM
Or, was it just a general statement saying, "Well, it's going to be soon... eventually, ......if not sooner.."
:lol:

I couldn't resisit!


eventually, if not sooner. :rolleyes: Sheesh! :lol:

kenrank
Jan 5th 2009, 04:05 PM
I know whatcha mean.

And I think the main differences between views start branching out right at this point.

The question becomes, Was John describing soon for the churches in "Our regular time / space"?
Or, was it just a general statement saying, "Well, it's going to be soon... eventually, ......if not sooner.."
:lol:

I couldn't resisit!
;)

God Belss!!

Not to walk on 3Rocks...but I was about to sign off and wanted to give my 2 cents on this. I think John was in the spirit...but he is/was still a man. In his mind, in the mind of all the Apostles, Yahushua was going to return in their lifetime. One can be inspired to do something and not be perfect in execution. Look at Paul (I believe it was Paul) in Hebrews:

Heb. 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Even Paul refers to those days as the last days...but we know they weren't because we have 2000 years worth of well recorded history to prove otherwise. At least, the last days don't necessarily refer to the very last days, the time of the wrath, the revelation of the man of sin, etc. The "last days" refers to anytime after Messiah and until his return. So John saw a future event, records it for us as it was given to him, but he does so through his perspective, which was, that Messiah could or probably would, return before he died. His message was correct, his conclusion was wrong.

Peace.
Ken

threebigrocks
Jan 5th 2009, 04:11 PM
Well, Paul saying these last days - they have been. Two, give or take a bit, to be exact. ;) Just for us it's 2000 years.

divaD
Jan 5th 2009, 04:35 PM
So John saw a future
event, records it for us as it was given to him, but he does so through his perspective, which was, that Messiah could or
probably would, return before he died. His message was correct, his conclusion was wrong.


Hi Ken. The problem I see with this, this doesn't agree with 2 Thess ch 2.

The way I see it, John was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So why would John interject his own thoughts into the writings if they were the wrong conclusions, and esp since the Holy Spirit would know they're the wrong conclusions? I don't believe the Holy Spirit would allow John to interject his own perspective into the writings if his perspectives were incorrect, such as John thinking Christ could return in his lifetime.


My point is this. More than likely John probably didn't understand everything he was seeing. He was simply writing down what he saw, and all under the guidence of the Holy Spirit. IOW, everything that John wrote, was exactly what he was meant to write, according to the Spirit of God.


Paul makes it clear, in 2 Thessalonians 2, that the man of sin has to be revealed before Christ can even return. Even if John didn't know this, I don't feel that the Spirit of God would have allowed him to interject his own opinion into Scriptures, esp if his opins were incorrect.

BTW, I'm not trying to be argumentive here. This is basically the way I reason things.

reformedct
Jan 5th 2009, 04:57 PM
One thing about Revelation is that people forget the book is about Jesus

The Revelation of Jesus Christ

People tend to focus so much on the Earthly scenes, which unfortunately no matter how you interpret, will not be known until all things have come to pass. People tend to ignore all the heavenly scenes about Jesus, who is the main character of this Book

So however you interpret, make sure you are focusing on Jesus not on a potential barcode being stamped on your forehead to by your groceries lol

markdrums
Jan 5th 2009, 04:57 PM
markdrums, have you ever noticed verse 8 of Revelation 1? Of course you have, but that's not what I mean.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

The part I have in bold can be and is linked to verse 7. Now if verse 7 has already transpired, then how does one explain verse 8 where it states 'and which is to come,'? Isn't Christ yet to literally return in these last days?

Isn't the way you're interpreting verse 8 something such as this?


Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come and then come again after that, the Almighty.


Hey divaD!
Nice to talk to ya again! ;)

I'll try to explain what I mean, while staying within the context of the O.P.
**wish me luck** LOL!

Anyway, I see Revelation as being written in apocalyptic language, with a lot of imagery & symbolism. I don't see it entirely as literal descriptions.
(Also- There are 404 verses in Revelation that refer back to the Old Testament. )

I should also note that I'm in the group of people who believe that Revelation was written around 67 AD... and that MOST of the book deals with the tribulation & persecution of Christians under the Roman Empire leading up to the desctuction of the temple in 70 AD.

But the last 2 chapters, dealing with the New Heaven & New Earth, I see as still being in the future.

If Revelation was written AFTER 70 AD (as other people believe,) It seems that John would have at least mentioned the temple being destroyed, as verification of Jesus' prophecy being fulfilled.

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

The "Hereafter" I believe is the last 2 chapters of Revelation.

The things "which thou hast seen," I take as being the combination of the visions, & complete overview of the book.... "and the things which are" I see as what would have been the current status of the seven churches at the time of writing.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

I feel that it's in tandem with verse 19... in some sense anyway.

I could probably word it a littler better with more time, but I'm trying to squeeze a reply in at work, while I'm on break.

Hopefully you'll understand what I'm trying to say....
LOL!

:)

threebigrocks
Jan 5th 2009, 05:01 PM
One thing about Revelation is that people forget the book is about Jesus

The Revelation of Jesus Christ

People tend to focus so much on the Earthly scenes, which unfortunately no matter how you interpret, will not be known until all things have come to pass. People tend to ignore all the heavenly scenes about Jesus, who is the main character of this Book

So however you interpret, make sure you are focusing on Jesus not on a potential barcode being stamped on your forehead to by your groceries lol

....as given to the apostle John. ;)

John wrote down what he was given. He wrote what he saw, in the spirit, and not with physical eyes. A warning is given at the end - not to add or remove from what is written in these pages. I really don't think John was gonna mess with that and inject anything extra or record something with a lean to it.

kenrank
Jan 5th 2009, 05:03 PM
Hi Ken. The problem I see with this, this doesn't agree with 2 Thess ch 2.

The way I see it, John was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So why would John interject his own thoughts into the writings if they were the wrong conclusions, and esp since the Holy Spirit would know they're the wrong conclusions? I don't believe the Holy Spirit would allow John to interject his own perspective into the writings if his perspectives were incorrect, such as John thinking Christ could return in his lifetime.


My point is this. More than likely John probably didn't understand everything he was seeing. He was simply writing down what he saw, and all under the guidence of the Holy Spirit. IOW, everything that John wrote, was exactly what he was meant to write, according to the Spirit of God.


Paul makes it clear, in 2 Thessalonians 2, that the man of sin has to be revealed before Christ can even return. Even if John didn't know this, I don't feel that the Spirit of God would have allowed him to interject his own opinion into Scriptures, esp if his opins were incorrect.

BTW, I'm not trying to be argumentive here. This is basically the way I reason things.

I know you aren't being argumentative!! This is a discussion, we work through it and see where we end up. These give and takes are fun and helpful!

Let me clarify my position that somebody can be inspired and still inject their personal view.

The context that John writes in leaves us to believe that he expected the end to be at any time. Was he right on that account? No, but does that effect the inspiration of the letter? No, his job was to see and record things that were to take place at a time after his writing. He did that, his record is true. But did that end come in his lifetime? Does the word "shortly" really fit? The Greek word is tachos, and means a short space of time, speedily, with haste. Yet, in man's terms, tachos doesn't really indicate the space of time we are talking about. If the earth is really 6000 years old, John was off by at least 1/3 of the time since creation. But, we can look beyond his words there, and try to see it through God's eyes. As 3Rocks pointed out, and as I did in my first post here, God is timeless. A second, a minute, a year....meaningless to one who exists beyond time. God created that which we measure time by...he is beyond that. So if John was inspired to say the word "tachos" (or the Hebrew equivalent, I personally believe Revelation was written in Hebrew or Aramaic), and what he was seeing was through God's eyes, then we have to look at the word "shortly" through those eyes.

So after writing this out, I retract my statement! ;) It isn't that John was imperfect in his statement as much as we are for not looking at it through the eyes of the giver of those words....God.

Peace.
Ken

kenrank
Jan 5th 2009, 05:17 PM
Hey divaD!
Nice to talk to ya again! ;)

I'll try to explain what I mean, while staying within the context of the O.P.
**wish me luck** LOL!

Anyway, I see Revelation as being written in apocalyptic language, with a lot of imagery & symbolism. I don't see it entirely as literal descriptions.
(Also- There are 404 verses in Revelation that refer back to the Old Testament. )

I should also note that I'm in the group of people who believe that Revelation was written around 67 AD... and that MOST of the book deals with the tribulation & persecution of Christians under the Roman Empire leading up to the desctuction of the temple in 70 AD.

But the last 2 chapters, dealing with the New Heaven & New Earth, I see as still being in the future.

If Revelation was written AFTER 70 AD (as other people believe,) It seems that John would have at least mentioned the temple being destroyed, as verification of Jesus' prophecy being fulfilled.

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

The "Hereafter" I believe is the last 2 chapters of Revelation.

The things "which thou hast seen," I take as being the combination of the visions, & complete overview of the book.... "and the things which are" I see as what would have been the current status of the seven churches at the time of writing.

Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

I feel that it's in tandem with verse 19... in some sense anyway.

I could probably word it a littler better with more time, but I'm trying to squeeze a reply in at work, while I'm on break.

Hopefully you'll understand what I'm trying to say....
LOL!

:)

:D The exact reason I generally leave prophecy to the "experts." I do believe it is possible he is speaking about things shortly to take place, things to happen later, and things to happen much later. In that case, DivaD quoting "which was, which is, which is to come" fits quite well.

There is an overlooked prophecy in scripture that should be considered more than it is. In Acts 3:19-21, it says that heaven will receive Messiah, in other words, he isn't going to return, UNTIL the things which God spoke through his prophets of old is restored.

I would point out one other thing about Rev. 1, and then leave this to you all. In verse 7 it has him coming in the clouds on the heals of the verse stating "things which must shortly come to pass." Matthew 24 is clear that his coming is at the end of the tribulation. Paul also writes about meeting him in the air "at the last trump."(et) So his coming in the clouds and every eye "seeing him," I think leans more toward the end of the tribulation. That somewhat aligns with Zech 12:10.

Also, and lastly, while there is some history that has a day of the week being called "the Lord's day," this term is signifying an event as recorded by the prophets. The "Day of the LORD" is always used in the OT as a phrase describing the end time event. With John, he says he was in the spirit on the Lord's day. I personally do not believe he was speaking about a day of the week as much as recording an event already called "The Day of the Lord."

Peace.
Ken

markedward
Jan 5th 2009, 05:28 PM
One thing about Revelation is clear, John was writing about things that had NOT happened YET. Whether it be the next day, week, month, or millenium, it was about things that were still to come.


I do believe it is possible he is speaking about things shortly to take place, things to happen later, and things to happen much later.

Revelation 1:19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are about to take place after this.

John is told to write about...


Past = "the things you have seen"
Present = "those that are"
Near future = "those that are about to take place after this"

Your claim is that John was writing of things that hadn't happened yet, but here we see Christ directly telling John - in the first chapter of the book - to write of things that had already happened, things that were happening at that very time, and things that were soon* to happen. And this was before he had yet been given his visions. He was not writing from "his perspective". He was writing as Christ told him to write, and what Christ told him to write of was things past, present, and near future (not the distant future).

*Note: In the Greek, this verse contains a particular word that is translated as "about to" or "ready to" or something similar. It is used in many places throughout the NT, and it is usually translated as a word indicating an event "about to" happen or having nearness in relation to time, and on occasion, things that "must" happen, but the prime definitions of this word are "to be about" or "to be on the point of doing". Yet for some obscure reason, most English translations omit this word when they translate Revelation 1:19. But trust me; it's there. The context of the passage determines whether the word should be translated as "about to happen" or "must happen" or whatever other definitions it may have, and considering the entirety of Revelation 1:19 is about time, the best translation is "about to take place".

Other examples:

Matthew 20:17 And as Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and on the way He said to them...

Matthew 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, "You do not know what you are asking for. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" They said to Him, "We are able."

Acts 3:3 And when he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms.

Acts 16:27 And when the jailer had been roused out of sleep and had seen the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.

Acts 21:27 And when the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the multitude and laid hands on him...

Hebrews 8:5 ... who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "See," He says, "that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain."

Revelation 3:2 Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God.

Revelation 3:10 Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth.

Revelation 8:13 And I looked, and I heard an eagle flying in midheaven, saying with a loud voice, "Woe, woe, woe, to those who dwell on the earth, because of the remaining blasts of the trumpet of the three angels who are about to sound!"

Revelation 12:4 And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven, and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.

Yet this word is omitted from the translations of Revelation 1:19...

markdrums
Jan 5th 2009, 05:40 PM
:D The exact reason I generally leave prophecy to the "experts." I do believe it is possible he is speaking about things shortly to take place, things to happen later, and things to happen much later. In that case, DivaD quoting "which was, which is, which is to come" fits quite well.

There is an overlooked prophecy in scripture that should be considered more than it is. In Acts 3:19-21, it says that heaven will receive Messiah, in other words, he isn't going to return, UNTIL the things which God spoke through his prophets of old is restored.

I would point out one other thing about Rev. 1, and then leave this to you all. In verse 7 it has him coming in the clouds on the heals of the verse stating "things which must shortly come to pass." Matthew 24 is clear that his coming is at the end of the tribulation. Paul also writes about meeting him in the air "at the last trump."(et) So his coming in the clouds and every eye "seeing him," I think leans more toward the end of the tribulation. That somewhat aligns with Zech 12:10.

Also, and lastly, while there is some history that has a day of the week being called "the Lord's day," this term is signifying an event as recorded by the prophets. The "Day of the LORD" is always used in the OT as a phrase describing the end time event. With John, he says he was in the spirit on the Lord's day. I personally do not believe he was speaking about a day of the week as much as recording an event already called "The Day of the Lord."

Peace.
Ken


Well I'll tell ya what.... if you happen to actually FIND an expert on prophecy, share his / her name with me so I can ask them a few things too!! :lol:

Anyway, I think the reference to "Coming on clouds" has a different intended meaning than, coming back to rapture the church.

If we look back at the Old Testament, we'll see that the word "clouds" is used as a metaphor for judgment.
We're also told that when Jesus was to "come on clouds", "Even those who pierced him" would see his Glory, at the right hand of the Father.

So, that would indicate a first century event. Because by now, ALL the people involved in his crucifixion have long sense passed.

The coming on clouds reference of Judgment, was fully realized and fulfilled with the destruction of the temple.

If you get a chance, check out how "clouds" & coming with clouds / coming on clouds (etc.) is used throughout the Bible.
It's pretty interesting & enlightening.

;)

kenrank
Jan 5th 2009, 05:45 PM
[Ahem]

Revelation 1:19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are about to take place after this.

John is told to write about...


Past = "the things you have seen"
Present = "those that are"
Near future = "those that are about to take place after this"
Your claim is that John was writing of things that hadn't happened yet, but here we see Christ directly telling John - in the first chapter of the book - to write of things that had already happened, things that were happening at that very time, and things that were soon* to happen. And this was before he had yet been given his visions. He was not writing from "his perspective". He was writing as Christ told him to write, and what Christ told him to write of was things past, present, and near future.

*Note: In the Greek, this verse contains a particular word that is translated as "about to" or "ready to" or something similar. It is used in many places throughout the NT, and it is usually translated as a word indicating an event "about to" happen or having nearness in relation to time, and on occasion, things that "must" happen. Yet for some obscure reason, most English translations omit this word when they translate Revelation 1:19. But trust me; it's there. The text literally says "about to take place". The context determines whether the word should be translated as "about to happen" or "must happen", and considering the entirety of Revelation 1:19 is about time, the best translation is "about to take place".


Ahem yourself!;)

As I said a few times in this thread, prophecy is not a strong point of mine. I can see aspects of Revelation which are taking place then, I can see an argument made for things which history shows shortly took place after, and there are aspects of Revelation that have not happened as I write this. If you have read my posts in this thread, you see I backed off my initial claim. Markedward, I don't care what belief I hold, aside from Yahushua being Messiah, I stop at 95% in selling out to any doctrine. Until we are changed, made incorruptable, until Torah is fully written in our hearts, we are prone to error. So I leave room to grow...I try to prove all things.

No doubt my reading tonight will be in Revelation. It has been a few years since I have read any of it...so I would say it is about time.

Peace.
Ken

Partaker of Christ
Jan 5th 2009, 10:58 PM
Hey bhoup!
Hope you had a good start to your New Year!

Anyway, here's a question / comment for you.
You say you take Revelation literally & at face value..... correct?

Sooooo... How do you interpret John's writing when he says he's writing TO the seven churches in Asia, & that these things must SOON take place, and the time is AT HAND?

Even from a LITERAL / Face Value position, it seems like the intended context meant soon & near & at hand.

Know what I mean?

Anyway, just a little something to think about during your studies.
;)

Hi markdrums!

When John says; "I saw" and "I heard"

Would that make his words describe, present time, historic or futurist?

Psalms Fan
Jan 6th 2009, 04:02 AM
Hello friends! I am currently reading God's Big Picture by Vaughan Roberts and in the final chapter he is talking about the book of Revelation. He points out three different views to the book (and then his own) which are as follows:

1) Preterist - says that all the symbols refers exclusively to people or institutions at the time John was writing

2) Historicist - says that Revelation is a chronological account of the different eras throughout history from the first century to the second coming of Christ

3) Futurist - says that chapter 4 onwards describes only the events at the very end of the world, in the short period leading up to the return of Christ.

4) Author's view - Revelation describes what will happen in the whole of "the last days" between the ascension of Christ and his second coming. Revelation is not a time chart but there are sequences arranged in parallel. For instance, the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls do not follow on from one another; they all describe the same period. So, for example, the four horsemen have been active, and will be active, throughout the last days. They represent the imperialistic aggression, bloodshed, economic instability, and death that will mark every age until Christ returns.

I personally believe that the book of Revelation is the "futurist" view. I cannot agree with his view because I take (as bulk) Revelation literally. I do not agree with him that it started at the ascension of Christ because I simply don't see, anything that Revelation describes, in our world today. What do you believe?

Furthermore, what do you think about his idea of parallelism? Since I take Revelation more literally, I take it at face value, in order as the events are described, not being parallel to one another.

The "author's view" is often called the "idealist" view, where no passage is limited to one particular fulfillment in time.

I hold to three views simultaneously: preterist, idealist, and futurist. That might seem like a contradiction, but I don't believe so (otherwise that wouldn't be my view).

After John's intro, he quotes Dan 7 (Son of man coming in the clouds). Dan 7 has the Son of Man coming TO the Ancient of Days, not FROM Him, thus it is NOT a coming to earth. But the scene in Dan 7, with the Son of Man receiving glory, dominion and a kingdom, occurs in Heaven, thus outside the realm of time. So I see that scene as being applicable to any time Satan's kingdom opposes God's kingdom and God's kingdom is victorious.

I believe that Revelation must first apply to the people to whom it was written. Thus, for the first audience, it would tell them how God would bring them through their persecution and how their persecutors would be brought down and how they would share in Christ's victory; how Christ's glory, dominion and kingdom would be manifest against their enemies.

But since Christ's "coming in the clouds" is limited to a specific period of what we call "time", then it would be able to be applied to any time that God's people are persecuted by Satan's kingdom.

There are several places (but I believe much fewer than most christians would normally say) that show Christ bodily returning to earth (Acts 1, 1Thes 4). Other places teach about the resurrection of all people (1Cor 15). Other places tell us of Christ's victory over all of His enemies, especially the final enemy - Death (also 1Cor 15). So the book of Revelation isn't necessarily needed to teach us these truths, since they're taught all throughout Scripture.

Since I believe that it also applies to the final time that Satan's kingdom tries to rise up against God's kingdom, before Christ actually returns to earth, victorious over all of His enemies.

I believe that Rev 20 applies to the whole time between the time that Christ came the first time until He returns to judge the whole world.

I believe that the two cities, Babylon and Jerusalem, refer to the two kingdoms - Satan's and God's, respectively.

I believe that the reference to the old heavens and earth and the new heavens and earth are not solely a future thing (although I believe that their ultimate culmination is in the future). Rather, I believe that it refers to the reality before Christ came compared to the reality of things now that Christ has come. God's kingdom has come, but it is not here in its fulness. In like manner, Christ's death and resurrection have already begun to sanctify and restore creation, and will be complete after Christ returns.

So it refers to what happened in our past, as well as what will happen in the future, because it refers to both and everything in between, IMHO.

markdrums
Jan 6th 2009, 04:05 AM
Hi markdrums!

When John says; "I saw" and "I heard"

Would that make his words describe, present time, historic or futurist?


It depends on the context of the surrounding passages....
There are a combination of all of them.

;)

Psalms Fan
Jan 6th 2009, 04:06 AM
One thing about Revelation is that people forget the book is about Jesus

The Revelation of Jesus Christ

People tend to focus so much on the Earthly scenes, which unfortunately no matter how you interpret, will not be known until all things have come to pass. People tend to ignore all the heavenly scenes about Jesus, who is the main character of this Book

So however you interpret, make sure you are focusing on Jesus not on a potential barcode being stamped on your forehead to by your groceries lol

Yes, yes. To Obi-Wan you listen.

John146
Jan 8th 2009, 06:23 PM
Hello friends! I am currently reading God's Big Picture by Vaughan Roberts and in the final chapter he is talking about the book of Revelation. He points out three different views to the book (and then his own) which are as follows:

1) Preterist - says that all the symbols refers exclusively to people or institutions at the time John was writing

2) Historicist - says that Revelation is a chronological account of the different eras throughout history from the first century to the second coming of Christ

3) Futurist - says that chapter 4 onwards describes only the events at the very end of the world, in the short period leading up to the return of Christ.

4) Author's view - Revelation describes what will happen in the whole of "the last days" between the ascension of Christ and his second coming. Revelation is not a time chart but there are sequences arranged in parallel. For instance, the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls do not follow on from one another; they all describe the same period. So, for example, the four horsemen have been active, and will be active, throughout the last days. They represent the imperialistic aggression, bloodshed, economic instability, and death that will mark every age until Christ returns.

I personally believe that the book of Revelation is the "futurist" view. I cannot agree with his view because I take (as bulk) Revelation literally. I do not agree with him that it started at the ascension of ChristBut the ascension of Christ is mentioned in Rev 12:5.


because I simply don't see, anything that Revelation describes, in our world today. What do you believe?

Furthermore, what do you think about his idea of parallelism? Since I take Revelation more literally, I take it at face value, in order as the events are described, not being parallel to one another.I agree with the parallel view. Here is a webpage that explains this view pretty well: http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/sevenparallel.htm

IBWatching
Jan 8th 2009, 08:04 PM
...I personally believe that the book of Revelation is the "futurist" view. I cannot agree with his view because I take (as bulk) Revelation literally. I do not agree with him that it started at the ascension of Christ because I simply don't see, anything that Revelation describes, in our world today. What do you believe?...

The same. Those who truly care about understanding the book must first understand that it is meant to give an "order" to the Prophecies of the OT. There's not much in the book that didn't come from the OT. :)

mizzdy
Jan 8th 2009, 09:06 PM
Well I'll tell ya what.... if you happen to actually FIND an expert on prophecy, share his / her name with me so I can ask them a few things too!! :lol:

Anyway, I think the reference to "Coming on clouds" has a different intended meaning than, coming back to rapture the church.

If we look back at the Old Testament, we'll see that the word "clouds" is used as a metaphor for judgment.
We're also told that when Jesus was to "come on clouds", "Even those who pierced him" would see his Glory, at the right hand of the Father.

So, that would indicate a first century event. Because by now, ALL the people involved in his crucifixion have long sense passed.

The coming on clouds reference of Judgment, was fully realized and fulfilled with the destruction of the temple.

If you get a chance, check out how "clouds" & coming with clouds / coming on clouds (etc.) is used throughout the Bible.
It's pretty interesting & enlightening.

;)

Hi,
I have always saw the passage/prophecy concerning those who will see Chirst's wounds as when those in modern day Israel sees the Messiah coming back to Jerusalem and they will mourn because they rejected Him not just when it happened but after all of these years. In Zech. 12:10 it does in some ways seem as though the prophet is saying it is in the day that spirit of grace is given and it could be made to fit when Christ came to the those and they all received the Holy Spirit. Yet even though there was mourning in Jerusalem the whole city wasn't. Going into chpt. 13 it says that the Lord will cut off the names of the idols and the prophets and the unclean spirits to pass out of the land. That has not happened as far as I know! Yet more confusion it seems can be taken from John 19:37, its talking of the crucifixion and the prophecies attached to it and the one about looking upon Him is right there. Something I never really looked at before. I just love it when I see something new in something that I have read over and over before! Thanks! Just as something else I have read is the word 'meet' Him in the air, I believe that is something akin to like how one would greet royalty and I often describe it the way the Messiah was met on His way into Jerusalem on the donkey.