Post by randy on Jan 7, 2021 0:53:04 GMT
I just posted this in another forum, and would like to share it with my brothers and sisters here for their consideration. I've loved the book of Revelation as long as I can remember, and I've struggled with it through the many years, wanting to get a grip on it. Even after more than 50 years I cannot say with any certainty I'm right about everything. But I would not wish this struggle I've had on anyone else, and would like to help if I can.
The following non-chronological perspective of the Revelation has really helped me. As far as I know, it's something I've developed myself, although I feel certain it is a very common way of looking at it likely considered by numerous scholars through the ages.
I see the book of Revelation not just as a Preterist would, although I've been called a "Preterist." I believe the focus of the Olivet Discourse was on the 70 AD crisis, and on the Jewish judgment that followed. By contrast, Jesus warned his followers not to place any stock on trying to anticipate "times and seasons" with respect to his 2nd Coming. We prepare for that event not by making out a timeline, but rather, by living godly lives.
But I do see the focus of the Revelation on a special 3.5 year period of time at the end of the age, when Antichrist will reign. We see this mentioned in Dan 7. There, the Antichrist is called, I believe, the "Little Horn." Paul references him in 2 Thes 2, calling him the "Man of Sin."
And although I think the Revelation focuses on this special period of time, I don't think it is for the purpose of having us wait for this time to put it into effect in our lives. Rather, it is given as a model for Christians down through the ages, who have to go through severe trials, such as under the Romans in the first few centuries. There have been trials for Christians all down through the ages. This vision, though referring to the last days, had a particular impact upon Christians at the time, who were suffering from pagan Rome. And I believe Rome is at least partly in focus here, particularly because in Dan 7 we read of a 4th and final Beast, which I believe to be Rome, who will bring this age to an end.
But a lot of confusion has resulted from trying to place the Revelation in a chronological set, so that people can speculate about its chronology and sort of anticipate and prognosticate about it--not what I believe God ever meant us to do. So I've set before you a view that you may or may not find interesting. It's just for your consideration. It's not written in stone! I addressed this to someone who seemed upset that I challenged his chronological view of the book. It is not being directed in this way at *you!*
In my view there isn't a smidgeon of evidence for your "chronological" theory in the Revelation itself. You would have to assume that the order in which John saw these visions requires that the events represented in those visions follow the same chronology. But that doesn't follow.
I might relate to you a couple of visions, all the while explaining what they mean in some cosmic drama. Telling you two visions one after another hardly means the events represented by those visions must take place in the same order that I relate them to you! This is just common sense!
No, you really have to have evidence from the events themselves, indicating that one takes place before another one. In the Revelation, all you have is John saying he saw one vision before another one, or rather, one vision after another one--not that the events they represent take place in the same order.
You have over 50 references to the word "then," and 13 references to "then I heard," and 12 references to "then I saw." John constantly refers us to the next thing he saw or heard, but in no way means that each vision represents events that take place one after another. Until you understand this argument, I don't think you're really responding well to my claims. You're just brushing them off.
If I turn on the TV and watch a 1990s movie, and then watch a 1960s movie, and then watch a 2015 movie, and then a 2000 movie, how would I describe it. *I saw* the 90s movie, and *then I saw* the 60s movie, and *then I watched* the 2015 movie, and *then I saw* the 2000 movie. Do each of these movies represent a chronology of the times they initially played for the 1st time? No!
It's the same thing with these visions. Some visions represent things yet to come in the future, and are prolepses. Some visions represent things already having taken place in the past--flashbacks. Several visions represent the exact same history, and are repeats looking at the same event at different angles.
There is no chronological sequence between these visions, even though the narrative is slowly progressing towards a description of the grand event, the coming of Christ. In all reality, Christ's Coming is represented by several visions before this grand climax! We have a progressive narrative, but we don't have a definitive timeline of events!
John is pasting vision after vision for us, saying "I saw this," and "then I saw that." None of that describes the time frame for the events represented in each vision. It really depends on the time frame of each event, and not the order in which I saw it.
The following non-chronological perspective of the Revelation has really helped me. As far as I know, it's something I've developed myself, although I feel certain it is a very common way of looking at it likely considered by numerous scholars through the ages.
I see the book of Revelation not just as a Preterist would, although I've been called a "Preterist." I believe the focus of the Olivet Discourse was on the 70 AD crisis, and on the Jewish judgment that followed. By contrast, Jesus warned his followers not to place any stock on trying to anticipate "times and seasons" with respect to his 2nd Coming. We prepare for that event not by making out a timeline, but rather, by living godly lives.
But I do see the focus of the Revelation on a special 3.5 year period of time at the end of the age, when Antichrist will reign. We see this mentioned in Dan 7. There, the Antichrist is called, I believe, the "Little Horn." Paul references him in 2 Thes 2, calling him the "Man of Sin."
And although I think the Revelation focuses on this special period of time, I don't think it is for the purpose of having us wait for this time to put it into effect in our lives. Rather, it is given as a model for Christians down through the ages, who have to go through severe trials, such as under the Romans in the first few centuries. There have been trials for Christians all down through the ages. This vision, though referring to the last days, had a particular impact upon Christians at the time, who were suffering from pagan Rome. And I believe Rome is at least partly in focus here, particularly because in Dan 7 we read of a 4th and final Beast, which I believe to be Rome, who will bring this age to an end.
But a lot of confusion has resulted from trying to place the Revelation in a chronological set, so that people can speculate about its chronology and sort of anticipate and prognosticate about it--not what I believe God ever meant us to do. So I've set before you a view that you may or may not find interesting. It's just for your consideration. It's not written in stone! I addressed this to someone who seemed upset that I challenged his chronological view of the book. It is not being directed in this way at *you!*
In my view there isn't a smidgeon of evidence for your "chronological" theory in the Revelation itself. You would have to assume that the order in which John saw these visions requires that the events represented in those visions follow the same chronology. But that doesn't follow.
I might relate to you a couple of visions, all the while explaining what they mean in some cosmic drama. Telling you two visions one after another hardly means the events represented by those visions must take place in the same order that I relate them to you! This is just common sense!
No, you really have to have evidence from the events themselves, indicating that one takes place before another one. In the Revelation, all you have is John saying he saw one vision before another one, or rather, one vision after another one--not that the events they represent take place in the same order.
You have over 50 references to the word "then," and 13 references to "then I heard," and 12 references to "then I saw." John constantly refers us to the next thing he saw or heard, but in no way means that each vision represents events that take place one after another. Until you understand this argument, I don't think you're really responding well to my claims. You're just brushing them off.
If I turn on the TV and watch a 1990s movie, and then watch a 1960s movie, and then watch a 2015 movie, and then a 2000 movie, how would I describe it. *I saw* the 90s movie, and *then I saw* the 60s movie, and *then I watched* the 2015 movie, and *then I saw* the 2000 movie. Do each of these movies represent a chronology of the times they initially played for the 1st time? No!
It's the same thing with these visions. Some visions represent things yet to come in the future, and are prolepses. Some visions represent things already having taken place in the past--flashbacks. Several visions represent the exact same history, and are repeats looking at the same event at different angles.
There is no chronological sequence between these visions, even though the narrative is slowly progressing towards a description of the grand event, the coming of Christ. In all reality, Christ's Coming is represented by several visions before this grand climax! We have a progressive narrative, but we don't have a definitive timeline of events!
John is pasting vision after vision for us, saying "I saw this," and "then I saw that." None of that describes the time frame for the events represented in each vision. It really depends on the time frame of each event, and not the order in which I saw it.