Revelation 1:7 - Past or Future?

Spirit and Truth ^ | N/A | Tony Garland

[dartuser]

Those who are willing to acknowledge the global context of Revelation have much evidence to support such a view. Those who are determined to shoe-horn Revelation back into the events of A.D. 70 are unlikely to be swayed by our evidence. Thankfully, we need not be overly concerned about the persistence of preterism because the plain meaning of the Biblical text stands opposed to its foundational teachings. As long as Bible students take the text at face value--as it was intended to be understood--then preterism will continue to face an uphill battle. To this fact we owe thanks to the perspicuity of the Scriptures.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>The problem with this argument is that it relies on the Bible, and therefore God, being inconsistent. When we have a less detailed description in one section, and a more detailed description in another section, of the same events, then we should read them in such a way as to assume the author was trying to be consistent, because the ultimate author is incapable of contradicting Himself. You are doing the opposite, trying to find any way to read a contradiction into them, just so that you can cast doubt on what they say.<<<

I don't "read contradictions" into the bible. But when I see what I perceive as misinterpretations, such as the "rapture" theory of futurism, I point them out. It is nothing personal. I simply don't believe the rapture theory is biblically sound.

>>>>Again, you are relying on trying to insist the verses are inconsistent, in order to justify your preferred reading. The more detailed descriptions tell us that there are two separate events, and they tell us exactly who is resurrected in each event. There is no reason to try to set the less detailed descriptions against them, unless you are unwilling to believe the more detailed descriptions.<<<

You have been making those claims, over and over again; but I tend to believe that if you had proof, you would show it, over and over again. Your opinions are simply opinions, and not fact. Show me the facts.

>>>Of course it is. Unless you are arguing that there are really three resurrections, it must be. Otherwise, you are saying the descriptions of two separate resurrections are a lie, and thus God is a liar.<<<

No. I am simply saying that I believe you are misinterpreting the scriptures; and I have been saying that all along. Nothing personal.

Philip

[Salvation]

Verse 7 is part of the greeting. Do you really think it is a futurist view?

Revelation, chapter 1

 

View all books of the Bible

CHAPTER 1

1The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must happen soon. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,^a

2who gives witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ by reporting what he saw.

3Blessed is the one^* who reads aloud and blessed are those who listen to this prophetic message and heed what is written in it, for the appointed time is near.^b

II. Letters to the Churches of Asia

Greeting.^*

4John, to the seven churches in Asia:^* grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne,^c

5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead and ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us^* from our sins by his blood,^d

6who has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father, to him be glory and power forever [and ever]. Amen.^e

7Behold, he is coming amid the clouds,

and every eye will see him,

even those who pierced him.

All the peoples of the earth will lament him.

Yes. Amen.^f

8“I am the Alpha and the Omega,”^* says the Lord God, “the one who is and who was and who is to come, the almighty.”^g

======================

Footnotes :

* [1:1–3] This prologue describes the source, contents, and audience of the book and forms an inclusion with the epilogue (Rev 22:6–21), with its similar themes and expressions.

* [1:3] Blessed is the one: this is the first of seven beatitudes in this book; the others are in Rev 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 20:6; 22:7, 14. This prophetic message: literally, “the words of the prophecy”; so Rev 22:7, 10, 18, 19 by inclusion. The appointed time: when Jesus will return in glory; cf. Rev 1:7; 3:11; 22:7, 10, 12, 20.

* [1:4–8] Although Revelation begins and ends (Rev 22:21) with Christian epistolary formulae, there is nothing between Rev 4; 22 resembling a letter. The author here employs the standard word order for greetings in Greek letter writing: “N. to N., greetings…”; see note on Rom 1:1.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>But Jesus will also have a throne, as the text says (Rev 3) ... and He will sit on it someday... on the earth ... in Jerusalem ... as He said ... and as the OT predicts.<<<

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Jesus will ever return physically to earth. That "interpretation" can only be found by spiritualizing the scriptures.

>>>I suggest you use your "truck loads of biblical and historical books and commentaries, by legendary authors' and go research the semantic and lexical range of the word (κόσμος) ... there are at least 8 uses of the word κόσμος in NT times ... search on Greek Lexicon, go find them, and look up κόσμος in some of them ... even the lesser ones will have a few meanings.<<<

I cannot read your mind. I have Strong's and Young's concordances at my "fingertips" all the time. If you are disagreeing with something I wrote, please be a little more precise. Condescension and patronization are not generally considered good or desirable debating skills. In my case, it makes me believe someone has something to hide.

>>>And for the record, the majority of those legendary authors do not hold your aberrant view, unless of course you are only searching out those who agree with you ... which would be consistent with your style.<<<

If that were true, I would not know so much about the doctrine of the dispensational cult. I realize you intended that to be an insult, but you are not very good at it. I recommend you stick with the facts. You will go far, if you do.

>>>I have heard you claim that the early church fathers were of your persuasion ... that is a blatantly false statement. <<<

I don't recall making such a claim. I have claimed that some of the early church fathers demonstrated certain preterist and post-millennial views, though I don't recall using those labels. Perhaps you can show us where I made such claims. It would go far in increasing your credibility

>>>Schaff (go look him up in your vast resources) is the standard translation for the fathers ... go read what he knew was the predominant eschatological view of the early church ... until the RCC came along around 300AD. I won't tell you ... go look it up ... if you have the courage ... or are you just going to claim that Schaff is a lousy historian as well lol; then you might as well just go back to sleep.<<<

Thanks for the recommendation; but I have most of Schaff's work, and he is an excellent historian. Did you know he wrote this?

    "On two points I have changed my opinion -- the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." [Preface to the Revised Edition, The History of the Christian Church, Volume I, 1907, Apostolic Christianity]

When you say "predominate view," you do not mean "every view," do you? Even well-known dispensationalist Tommy Ice admitted that Eusebius believed in the 70 AD fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24:3-34.) And this is Justin Martyr on the fulfillment of Isaiah 2:1-4

    "And when the Spirit of prophecy speaks as predicting things that are to come to pass, He speaks in this way: 'For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.' And it did so come to pass, we can convince you. For out of Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the world of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we might not lie or deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ." (The First Apology of Justin, Chapter 39, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 1)

I predict Justin will be stricken off the "good guys" list. LOL!

BTW, where can I find the "rapture" theory of Darby and Scofield in the early church father's writings? I am very curious about that one. I can't find it anywhere.

Thanks,

Philip

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>All credited commentators recognize the symbolism of characteristics of the Church down through the ages.<<<

I don’t believe Matthew Henry looked at them that way; except that, like all of God’s Word, it is profitable for reproof, instruction, etc. In fact, Henry seemed to believe that the prophecy did not begin until Chapter 4.

>>>If you were to take everything in Revelation literally I can see how difficult it would be to make heads or tails out of it<<<

I definitely agree.

Philip

[impactplayer]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I believe that Jesus came to re-establish the conditions which existed between God and Adam before the fall - the very conditions presented in Revelation. We now have the opportunity to be in full communion with our God - free of any remembrance of sin - and with Satan out of heaven and bound so that the Church could be successful among the nations. For me, to believe otherwise is to leave the work of Jesus uncompleted - which I find hard to accept. Many scientists have convincing arguments against the 6 day creation, and many theologians have convincing arguments against the completion of Jesus’ prophecy within the next 40 years. I just disagree with each.

Thanks again - this is truly a fascinating topic!

[sasportas]

Thanks for your response, and a sincere one it appears.

I, too, believe that Jesus came to re-establish the conditions which existed before the fall – the very conditions presented in Revelation. But they haven’t yet, that’s the difference between your system of interpretation and mine.

While it is true, for those who have Christ as their Lord, we experience the things you mentioned, full communion with God, etc. The things brought to us as a result of the wound the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15) received, Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, but what of the rest of the world that does not have him as Lord? What about all his enemies? What of the other part of the seed of the woman prophecy? What about the crushing of the devil’s head?

Paul wrote Romans many years after the wounding of the seed of the woman, wherein he says the rest of that prophecy remains to be fulfilled, Rom. 16:20. Christ’s enemies have assuredly NOT been put under his feet yet. In order for the Edenic conditions you mentioned be restored, his enemies have to be put under his feet.

While it has happened already for those of us who are subjects of Christ, not so the rest of the world. The seed of the woman prophecy, thus was only partially fulfilled at the first coming, at his wounding, we are presently awaiting his inter-advent enemies to be put under his feet at the second coming.

Like I tried to bring out in my post to you, prophecy is near-far. We are not in a prophetic vacuum, as preterists claim, since 70 AD left without any prophetic signs to let us know prophetically where we are in God’s grand prophetic plan, far from it, that is why so much of the Bible is prophetic.

[impactplayer]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I believe that Jesus came to re-establish the conditions which existed between God and Adam before the fall - the very conditions presented in Revelation. We now have the opportunity to be in full communion with our God - free of any remembrance of sin - and with Satan out of heaven and bound so that the Church could be successful among the nations. For me, to believe otherwise is to leave the work of Jesus incomplete - which I find hard to accept. Many scientists have convincing arguments against the 6 day creation, and many theologians have convincing arguments against the completion of Jesus’ prophecy within the next 40 years. I just disagree with each.

And when the Spirit says to the 7 churches in first chapter of Rev. “soon”, I believe it is in agreement with Jesus when he says “this generation shall see it all”.

Thanks again - this is truly a fascinating topic!

[ravenwolf]

It appears there are two births, two deaths and two resurrections. If there is a pattern here, then it might be that the second resurrection is not necessary or possible until after the second death which isn’t until the end of Revelation 20.

---

I am pretty much with you on the above part, the rest maybe not.

[sasportas]

Okay, I guess by repeating your post you are saying you opt out of Rom. 16:20. You want no part of it. No future putting of the enemies of Christ under your feet. I wouldn't want to go into battle with you, Christ needs end time warriors.

Rom. 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.

[ravenwolf]

Jesus being the greatest prophet, like the prophets before him, simply looked beyond 70 AD to the end time. He used the prophetic projection used by the inspired prophets. AD 70 was but the precursory “near” fulfillment.

---

I can see the argument the preterist make as far as the gospels are concerned but Revelation is far different.

Jesus went to be with God long before the end of Revelation, also there was war in heaven and Satan was cast down to earth.

So I don`t see how all of revelation could be about the destruction of Jerusalem.

[impactplayer]

Sorry I offended - not trying to convince, just giving my point of view. And I’m not going into battle - that has already been won for me - Alleluia!

[dartuser]

Verse 7 is part of the greeting. Do you really think it is a futurist view?

Yes. The Amen at the end of verse 6 looks like a transition to me ... perhaps the end of a hymn or prayer.

Starting in verse 7 John then brings two of the most significant prophetic passages in the OT together. It is unmistakable from the Greek ... John is bringing the imagery of Daniel 7 (the coming of the Son of Man) and Zechariah 10 (the repentance of the nation of Israel).

Jesus Himself says in verse 8 ... "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

... who is to come ... He is coming again.

John received Revelation when he was banished in 95 AD ... Jesus hasn't returned yet ... the nation of Israel hasn't repented yet ... we are still awaiting the Second Coming ... and in conjunction with those events ... the nation of Israel will repent and recognize their Messiah whom they have rejected for 2000+ years.

[sasportas]

“I can see the argument the preterist make as far as the gospels are concerned but Revelation is far different.”

Revelation is different, not sure what you meant about the gospels. What argument the preterist make? Matt. 24:34?

[sasportas]

I was trying to convince. Like someone at a Marine recruiting desk, trying to get you to join the Marines. But if end time battle is not your cup of tea, preterists need not apply.

[mitch5501]

"So the warning to the early Churches was valid to them but also to the Churches in subsequent ages which fit the same traits and characteristics. Therefore the studious and alert can be forewarned of upcoming events and be prepared"

Well said.

Likewise...

"And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing." (Luke 12:42,43)

[dartuser]

There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Jesus will ever return physically to earth.

Act 1:11 They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."

Once in a while you come across a passage that really needs no interpretation ... there are no textual or translation issues ... we just need the courage to accept what it plainly says.

[dartuser]

Isn't it obvious to you that Justin Martyr has spiritualized the passage for a reason? To make a point about the spread of the gospel and the change in lives as a result of it?

"nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

If this passage in Isaiah has been fulfilled ... then how would you characterize World War II?

I will never understand your propensity to deny historical reality so that you can maintain an aberrant theological position.

[ravenwolf]

Revelation is different, not sure what you meant about the gospels>>>>>>

Much of Mathew 14 can just as easily be taken to be in the near future, other verses seem to put it in the far future.

[sasportas]

While 70 AD and the events leading up to it were big things to those of that “generation,” in the bigger scope of things, they were but blips. We live in the consummation of all things. Six thousand years of human history is coming to a head in our times. What happened in 70 AD was but precursory, which means most of what Christ said in Matt. 24 was directed to US.

(I think you must have meant Matt. 24 not Matt. 14)

[PhilipFreneau]

Dartuser, I had made this statement:

    "There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Jesus will ever return physically to earth."

This was your response, in arrow brackets:

>>>Act 1:11 They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."<<<

>>>Once in a while you come across a passage that really needs no interpretation ... there are no textual or translation issues ... we just need the courage to accept what it plainly says.<<<

I wholly agree, Dartuser. It takes a lot of courage to accept what it plainly says. It might contradict every thing you have ever learned about the coming of the Lord and the resurrection!

This is what is written, in context:

    "And when [Jesus] had spoken these things, while [the disciples] beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." (Acts 1:9-11 KJV)

Okay. Where does it say anything other than the Lord would return from heaven in a cloud? Where does it say he "physically returns to earth?" Where does it say he returns to earth, in any manner, or in any way?

I realize those answers will take a lot of courage, Dartuser. Take your time. I am in no hurry.

Now that we are on the subject, is that explanation of the return of the Lord from heaven, from within a cloud, not the same as the way Paul describes the first resurrection?

    "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1Th 4:16-17 KJV)

They certainly read like they are the same events. Jesus does not return to earth; rather those in Christ rise up to meet him in the air, where they remain with him, forever.

Philip