Revelation … everything was written FOR the people living THEN?

[EarlyActs]

Paul might have.

Definitely did, and it was reformed like the 40 days did for the apostles. The result is especially found in the concise Gal 3, but truly anywhere he makes an OT quote is evidence of the credo.

 

[Mr GLee]

As just one small example, 144,000 is 12 x 12 x 10 x 10 x 10 … 12 is the number of God’s People (how many times is that used symbolically in scripture), so 12 x 12 is all of Gods people (Jews and Gentiles). 10 is symbolic of “many”, so 10x10x10 is many x many x many … basically “infinite”. So putting those together means that 144,000 is “ALL OF GOD’S PEOPLE, A MULTITUDE BEYOND COUNTING” … now what did John promise would happen to this multitude of God’s People … and remember that he made this promise to people that were LIVING (and dying) through the events of the Horsemen. Do you think that might have offered some encouragement to them in the middle of their hard times? Do you think it might still offer some encouragement to people living through their own personal hard times TODAY?

Amen without parables signified prophecy, comparing the things seen the temporal to the unseen eternal . . Christ spoke not .

Signified figure of speech. the required form of hermeneutics spoken of in the opening of the Revelation prophecy. Called the hidden manna in Chapter 2:17 the daily bread

Revelation 1The 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:

In that way he used the signified the whole time period of Kings in Isreal as a figure of speech, using unclean things, and cleaned things as shadow of the suffering of Christ before hand

1Peter 1:9; Receiving the end of your (Born again) faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

The Hebrew passage in regard to the reformation the Holy Spirit used the signified figure of speech used in parables the word figure the same as parable

Hebrew 9:8-10The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:;Which was a figure (parable) for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

 

[Hazelelponi]

@makesends

The problem I have with how some are interpreting is that they arent using scripture and reason.

John heard, and told us what exactly he heard, then he saw (saw what the angel sent to give him as a sign), and illustrated the sign seen.

If futurists were in any possible way correct then John is speaking partly to people of his own time, partly to people of all times, and partly to people possibly thousands of years into the future.

If so, he has to speak a common language, something those it's written for will easily understand, and something he can also recognize and describe.

The only common language we have is the Old Testament Scripture - and the Angel sent by God to give those signs would know it.

But you have to know the Old Testament. For instance, mountains are symbolic of a large tribe or nation in Biblical literature so if symbolic literature is speaking about mountains, in real life we are looking for a large people group or governments/nations.

Etc etc. But no one appears to use Scripture and the knowledge thereof to interpret the various signs in John's revelation.

The best we have on this appears to be the Amillennialists for using Scripture to interpret from the start.

Though they are correct, signs can often be taken more than one way in some cases and in the end, I have always seen prophecy as a catalyst pulling towards Christ.

Why do people panic about coming judgement? Fear of judgement, according to Scripture. The cure being Christ.

But Revelation is taking us to a historic conclusion as well, so there's that.

 

[makesends]

@makesends

The problem I have with how some are interpreting is that they arent using scripture and reason.

John heard, and told us what exactly he heard, then he saw (saw what the angel sent to give him as a sign), and illustrated the sign seen.

If futurists were in any possible way correct then John is speaking partly to people of his own time, partly to people of all times, and partly to people possibly thousands of years into the future.

If so, he has to speak a common language, something those it's written for will easily understand, and something he can also recognize and describe.

The only common language we have is the Old Testament Scripture - and the Angel sent by God to give those signs would know it.

But you have to know the Old Testament. For instance, mountains are symbolic of a large tribe or nation in Biblical literature so if symbolic literature is speaking about mountains, in real life we are looking for a large people group or governments/nations.

Etc etc. But no one appears to use Scripture and the knowledge thereof to interpret the various signs in John's revelation.

The best we have on this appears to be the Amillennialists for using Scripture to interpret from the start.

Though they are correct, signs can often be taken more than one way in some cases and in the end, I have always seen prophecy as a catalyst pulling towards Christ.

Why do people panic about coming judgement? Fear of judgement, according to Scripture. The cure being Christ.

But Revelation is taking us to a historic conclusion as well, so there's that.

Can you indicate which post of mine, or posts, you are responding to here? I'm not sure what you are saying, out of that context.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Can you indicate which post of mine, or posts, you are responding to here? I'm not sure what you are saying, out of that context.

You recently said you didn't agree with something I said. So I explained, within the context of this thread, where explaining isn't off topic.

 

[Rella]

@makesends

The problem I have with how some are interpreting is that they arent using scripture and reason.

John heard, and told us what exactly he heard, then he saw (saw what the angel sent to give him as a sign), and illustrated the sign seen.

If futurists were in any possible way correct then John is speaking partly to people of his own time, partly to people of all times, and partly to people possibly thousands of years into the future.

I think Rev 1:9 is fairly clear

“Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

To me this does not indicate in a short time. But more that they will happen at last.

If so, he has to speak a common language, something those it's written for will easily understand, and something he can also recognize and describe.

The only common language we have is the Old Testament Scripture - and the Angel sent by God to give those signs would know it.

But you have to know the Old Testament. For instance, mountains are symbolic of a large tribe or nation in Biblical literature so if symbolic literature is speaking about mountains, in real life we are looking for a large people group or governments/nations.

Etc etc. But no one appears to use Scripture and the knowledge thereof to interpret the various signs in John's revelation.

The best we have on this appears to be the Amillennialists for using Scripture to interpret from the start.

Though they are correct, signs can often be taken more than one way in some cases and in the end, I have always seen prophecy as a catalyst pulling towards Christ.

Why do people panic about coming judgement? Fear of judgement, according to Scripture. The cure being Christ.

But Revelation is taking us to a historic conclusion as well, so there's that.

 

[makesends]

You recently said you didn't agree with something I said. So I explained, within the context of this thread, where explaining isn't off topic.

Ok. I'll look for it.

 

[Josheb]

Arial said:
I find it odd that anyone can think John wrote a letter to seven churches that had nothing to do with them.

Not to disagree with the sentiment —that is, I agree it was indeed written to those seven churches— but coming from a background that —(and even though I rebelled against their constant 'spiritualizing' of scriptures)— saw these letters as for all of us, and for ongoing trends in Christendom, and/or even past trends sequentially, I have to say that it is intended for more than simply letters to those 7 churches, and could be actually written to others who can be identified by those characteristics described in that passage.

I don't think that attributing "the audience" to more than those 7, logically means that they are not written to those 7.

All scripture is to be applied to all Christians in all generations in all locales.

That is an entirely different statement than a specific letter or the prophecies of Revelation were written to and for the specific people living at the time those letters or prophecy was written. Exegesis is about understanding the text as the original author intended and his original audience understood what was written. Hermeneutics, on the other hand, is about applying what was written as originally intended and understood to our era and the conditions in which we now live.

For example, the book of Revelation opens and ends with explicit statements reporting the events described in that book were going to happen quickly because the time was then, at that time, near or at hand. Those opening and closing statements are qualified by the prophecy itself but for the sake of the current illustration, the letters to the seven churches were written to seven congregation existing at the time of the prophecy and that content pertained to circumstances those congregations were experiencing or would soon face at that time. That does not mean other congregation never face those conditions. It simply means they did, and we are to learn from what was written to them and apply it to whatever conditions we face in our time and locale. For example, there are at least two themes common to all seven congregation and all seven letters: those of their facing tribulation or travails and their need to be overcomers. The specific travails one church is not identical to the others, but all are given a message of overcoming. We in modernity may not have Nicolaitans among us but we have congregations with other kinds of heretics (such as prosperity preachers) and we must, individually and collectively overcome those adulterations, compromises, heresies, etc.

Similarly, when we read the letters to the Corinthians and exegete that text and include the cultural conditions with which that particular set of congregations had to deal, we understand there was a problem of female leaders from pagan religions and common practices from the pagan religions specific to Corinth existing in that congregation, and their needing to be addressed. We may not specifically have former priestesses from the Aphrodite cult taking leadership roles as converts in our British, US, or Australian Christian congregations, but that does not mean we do not have similar dynamics that should also be addressed similarly. The letter was written to the Church in Corinth, but its content is applicable to churches in Indianapolis, Liverpool, Perth, or Shanghai.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Ok. I'll look for it.

Don't worry about it... Was just silliness anyway.

 

[makesends]

@makesends

The problem I have with how some are interpreting is that they arent using scripture and reason.

Ok

John heard, and told us what exactly he heard, then he saw (saw what the angel sent to give him as a sign), and illustrated the sign seen.

I don't follow what you are saying, without specifics and without an explanation of the difference between "saw what the angel sent to give him as a sign" and, "illustrated the sign seen". (I understand the difference in the sound of them, but what did he see that was not illustrated in the seeing of it? It sounds redundant.) But maybe I just don't know what specifically you are talking about here.

Or are you saying that John saw, then illustrated it to US?

If futurists were in any possible way correct then John is speaking partly to people of his own time, partly to people of all times, and partly to people possibly thousands of years into the future.

If so, he has to speak a common language, something those it's written for will easily understand, and something he can also recognize and describe.

I don't think that follows. If God wants it entirely understood upon reading it first go-round, then, yeah.

The only common language we have is the Old Testament Scripture - and the Angel sent by God to give those signs would know it.

You seem to be implying something here that I'm not seeing. What difference does it make whether the Angel knows that common language?

But you have to know the Old Testament. For instance, mountains are symbolic of a large tribe or nation in Biblical literature so if symbolic literature is speaking about mountains, in real life we are looking for a large people group or governments/nations.

Always the same object is symbolic of something, and probably symbolic of the same thing, if it is included within symbolic literature? If a mountain in OT prophecy is symbolic of a nation, does it always symbolize a nation in NT prophecy using symbolic language? I'm not saying it shouldn't be considered, but I wouldn't draw conclusions on it. That's too easily become false equivalence, it seems to me.

Etc etc. But no one appears to use Scripture and the knowledge thereof to interpret the various signs in John's revelation.

Not in the way you suggest just up above, anyway. But, I'd say, most theologians and preachers do indeed use their understanding of the Old Testament (and the New), to bear on Revelation. Even the dispensationalists do, (to the extreme).

The best we have on this appears to be the Amillennialists for using Scripture to interpret from the start.

Though they are correct, signs can often be taken more than one way in some cases and in the end, I have always seen prophecy as a catalyst pulling towards Christ.

True that, and it is a good point, and something worth remembering.

Why do people panic about coming judgement? Fear of judgement, according to Scripture. The cure being Christ.

Yep

But Revelation is taking us to a historic conclusion as well, so there's that.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the point of that statement. How is 'Revelation taking us to a historic conclusion' relevant to what you say above, or in answer to what I said?

 

[Lees]

To any who want to study the Book of (Revelation), the Book gives you the best outline or format to follow.

(Rev. 1:19) "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter."

1.) The things which thou hast seen. That which John saw with Jesus in the midst of the seven lampstands. (Rev. 1:10-20)

2.) The things which are. The message of Christ to the seven churches. (Rev. 2:1-3:22)

3.) The things which shall be hereafter. The things which occur after the Church period. (Rev. 4:1-22:21)

Lees

 

[Hazelelponi]

don't follow what you are saying, without specifics and without an explanation of the difference between "saw what the angel sent to give him as a sign" and, "illustrated the sign seen". (I understand the difference in the sound of them, but what did he see that was not illustrated in the seeing of it? It sounds redundant.) But maybe I just don't know what specifically you are talking about here.

Or are you saying that John saw, then illustrated it to US?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Let me explain.

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw."

That's English Standard Version above.

We have the Bible stating Jesus Christ gave John a revelation through an angel of things that will take place.

In this revelation, there's both things John saw, and things he heard. He goes through the book saying "and I heard", "and I saw" always making a difference between seeing and hearing. John was giving testimony to the things the angel showed him and told him, as well as John's testimony to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

What John sees, is a separate grouping from what is heard when speaking of what the angel showed him.

Another way to say this is to say the angel was sent to give John signs and clear understanding of what was to come soon.

Are we on the same page here, same understanding? Do I make sense?

 

[makesends]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Let me explain.

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw."

That's English Standard Version above.

We have the Bible stating Jesus Christ gave John a revelation through an angel of things that will take place.

In this revelation, there's both things John saw, and things he heard. He goes through the book saying "and I heard", "and I saw" always making a difference between seeing and hearing. John was giving testimony to the things the angel showed him and told him, as well as John's testimony to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

What John sees, is a separate grouping from what is heard when speaking of what the angel showed him.

Another way to say this is to say the angel was sent to give John signs and clear understanding of what was to come soon.

Are we on the same page here, same understanding? Do I make sense?

Ok. So John saw/heard, then repeated it in his letter. And I don't think I hear you claiming that John gave us an interpretation of what he saw, (unless only where what he saw was indescribable or was not permitted him to tell), but rather, that he transposed what he saw/heard to paper, as-is.

So, going back —where were we?

You said, "
Hazelelponi said:
If futurists were in any possible way correct then John is speaking partly to people of his own time, partly to people of all times, and partly to people possibly thousands of years into the future.

If so, he has to speak a common language, something those it's written for will easily understand, and something he can also recognize and describe.

The only common language we have is the Old Testament Scripture - and the Angel sent by God to give those signs would know it.

How so? Or maybe, Why? Are you assuming that God intends for as many as possible to understand the signs and so on described by John?

Let's start there, mentioning how it relates to the point of the OP.

 

[Josheb]

Ok. So John saw/heard, then repeated it in his letter. And I don't think I hear you claiming that John gave us an interpretation of what he saw, (unless only where what he saw was indescribable or was not permitted him to tell), but rather, that he transposed what he saw/heard to paper, as-is.

Well... the first rule of interpretation, especially with apocalyptic prophecy, is to let scripture interpret itself first. In the case of Revelation, there are more than 340 OT references and most of them do not come with a neon light announcing they are from the OT. The reader has to know his Tanakh/OT and then recognize their reoccurrence in Revelation and correctly understand the correlation being asserted by Jesus to John (and then by John to his original readers).

So, going back —where were we?

You said, "
Hazelelponi said:
If futurists were in any possible way correct then John is speaking partly to people of his own time, partly to people of all times, and partly to people possibly thousands of years into the future.

If so, he has to speak a common language, something those it's written for will easily understand, and something he can also recognize and describe.

The only common language we have is the Old Testament Scripture - and the Angel sent by God to give those signs would know it.

How so? Or maybe, Why? Are you assuming that God intends for as many as possible to understand the signs and so on described by John?

Let's start there, mentioning how it relates to the point of the OP.

Did I say that?

Modern futurism makes prophecy irrelevant to anyone and everyone except for those for whom the prophecy occurs. Prophecy can have meaning for us in the 21st century because it had significance for its original readers. Modern futurism turns that on its head. If the "mark" is a computer chip and there were no computer chips in the first century then the mention of the mark was not only meaningless to the first-century reader, but s/he also had no need whatsoever to concern him/herself with the mark. They might not have known that in their ignorance and therefore been looking for something that was never going to come to them, and the same with all those Christians living in the second century, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the fifteenth, etc. Thousands of Christians living in the 19th century looked for events their teachers assured them were coming, only to learn every teachers' every prediction proved to be false. Meaningless scripture for ignorant Christians. Dispies, in particular, never discuss that problem or, when they do, the explanation is nonsensical.

All of which is avoided by simply understanding Revelation was written for the first century believer and that which applies to us today is applicable because our predecessors saw God's promises fulfilled.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Ok. So John saw/heard, then repeated it in his letter. And I don't think I hear you claiming that John gave us an interpretation of what he saw, (unless only where what he saw was indescribable or was not permitted him to tell), but rather, that he transposed what he saw/heard to paper, as-is.

So, going back —where were we?

You said, "
Hazelelponi said:
If futurists were in any possible way correct then John is speaking partly to people of his own time, partly to people of all times, and partly to people possibly thousands of years into the future.

If so, he has to speak a common language, something those it's written for will easily understand, and something he can also recognize and describe.

The only common language we have is the Old Testament Scripture - and the Angel sent by God to give those signs would know it.

How so? Or maybe, Why? Are you assuming that God intends for as many as possible to understand the signs and so on described by John?

Let's start there, mentioning how it relates to the point of the OP.

Answering what I emboldened, yes, I do. It's for his servants .. given by God.

Doesn't relate in particular. That's why earlier I said we could drop it.

 

[makesends]

Well... the first rule of interpretation, especially with apocalyptic prophecy, is to let scripture interpret itself first. In the case of Revelation, there are more than 340 OT references and most of them do not come with a neon light announcing they are from the OT. The reader has to know his Tanakh/OT and then recognize their reoccurrence in Revelation and correctly understand the correlation being asserted by Jesus to John (and then by John to his original readers).

What I was doing was re-stating, or summarizing, what I took @Hazelelponi to be saying.

Did I say that?

No. I was answering @Hazelelponi

Modern futurism makes prophecy irrelevant to anyone and everyone except for those for whom the prophecy occurs. Prophecy can have meaning for us in the 21st century because it had significance for its original readers. Modern futurism turns that on its head. If the "mark" is a computer chip and there were no computer chips in the first century then the mention of the mark was not only meaningless to the first-century reader, but s/he also had no need whatsoever to concern him/herself with the mark. They might not have known that in their ignorance and therefore been looking for something that was never going to come to them, and the same with all those Christians living in the second century, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the fifteenth, etc. Thousands of Christians living in the 19th century looked for events their teachers assured them were coming, only to learn every teachers' every prediction proved to be false. Meaningless scripture for ignorant Christians. Dispies, in particular, never discuss that problem or, when they do, the explanation is nonsensical.

I hear ya!

All of which is avoided by simply understanding Revelation was written for the first century believer and that which applies to us today is applicable because our predecessors saw God's promises fulfilled.

 

[makesends]

Answering what I emboldened, yes, I do. It's for his servants .. given by God.

Doesn't relate in particular. That's why earlier I said we could drop it.

Yep. It's a shame that it takes so long (for me at least) to figure out just what people are saying. By the time I get it, they are tired of talking about it —specially when what they say next may take just as long AGAIN to figure out, lol.

Oh well. I think I get the gist of what you were getting at.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Yep. It's a shame that it takes so long (for me at least) to figure out just what people are saying. By the time I get it, they are tired of talking about it —specially when what they say next may take just as long AGAIN to figure out, lol.

Oh well. I think I get the gist of what you were getting at.

I'm sure it's just the way I talk.

I'll figure out how to be a bit more clear in the future.

 

[makesends]

I'm sure it's just the way I talk.

I'll figure out how to be a bit more clear in the future.

Some people don't answer me, I'm pretty sure, because they know it will only get more complicated.

 

[Rella]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Let me explain.

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw."

That's English Standard Version above.

We have the Bible stating Jesus Christ gave John a revelation through an angel of things that will take place.

In this revelation, there's both things John saw, and things he heard. He goes through the book saying "and I heard", "and I saw" always making a difference between seeing and hearing. John was giving testimony to the things the angel showed him and told him, as well as John's testimony to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

What John sees, is a separate grouping from what is heard when speaking of what the angel showed him.

Another way to say this is to say the angel was sent to give John signs and clear understanding of what was to come soon.

Are we on the same page here, same understanding? Do I make sense?

Pardon a little side comment then Ill go away.

I see what you are saying.

The problem I have seen over the years are those who say soon had to have been imminent. They always then point back to what Jesus said in the Olivet discourse about 'this generation" as proof that even though it is future... the "soon" and "this generation" make it so that it has already happened.

An no one knows when Revelation was written. For I have heard for 60AD to 95AD . The earlier date is what the preterists hang their hat on because they are certain the temple destruction was fortold and Jesus did return, then.... I just think until we could know which side of 70AD Revelation was written its hard to know specifics.

Thanks for letting me poke in here.

I think somehow the word generation has not been translated or interpreted correctly.

As far as soon, and what that means...

If you have lived in eternity past and will continiue in eternity future... a mere 6000 years here, or 2000 brom' Jesus' birth would be a drop in the bucket , hence whatever would be forcast would be soon.