Quote:
Originally Posted by KSA
As for me, the most prudent way to take 7 churches in Revelation is to take all the warnings to all the seven churches as relevant to us today. After all, these seven epistles were written to the churches that existed at apostle John's time. Therefore, I take all seven epistles as written to all the churches throughout the church history. No need to divide them into periods. .
|
Well, John did write about the "things which are to come", and the Jewish literature had a great tradition of looking ahead. Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel; these brothers had a great gift, greatly appreciated by all, of pointing out the direction things were headed. John entered into this "prophetic" ministry here.
But they were simultaneously applicable to the actual recipients. Jesus' letters to the angels of the assemblies in Asia were quite pointed. This seems to be overlooked in the LCs. But if we could see the situation on the ground more clearly, and what John [Jesus] was concerned about, we would more clearly see the portents of history looming.
Can you imagine a couple of brothers in Thyatira, discussing John's hard words. One reassures the other, "Don't worry, Theophilus; that's a prediction of the degradation coming a dozen centuries hence. Nothing to do with us."
"Oh...whew. I thought John's letter was directed towards us. I was worried."
"Nah. We're fine. It's the coming Catholic church that's gonna be in trouble."
Of course I am being facetious, but that is what you end up with unless you learn to look beyond the historical focus of these Brethren acolytes. You end up with something that is far removed from the reality on the ground.
Not once do I remember anyone asking, "What was this supposed to mean to the recipients? What was John's 'take home message' to the saints?" Instead it was, "What does this mean to us, today?" Which, with Lee, seemed to be whatever he needed it to mean at that training, to keep the saints toeing the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSA
The same I think is applicable to the rest of the book of Revelation. Even though there will be a final consummation of all the things mentioned in Revelation, all those things have been relevant throughout the church history, even though maybe in different degrees. Otherwise, it is easy to dismiss the content of this book as something that has already happened (preterist or historicist approach) or something that will happen some time in the future and to the Jews only (dispensational approach).
The Word of God despite the historical framing it was written in contains eternal principles as it was inspired by the eternal Spirit.
|
Yes indeed. As sister Thankful noted, John gives a rather universal preamble in chapter 1, to the readers: "whoever reads these words and keeps them will be blessed." This book does indeed address history, but it supersedes history as well. I would argue that those in the assemblies in Asia, and elsewhere, who "had an ear to hear what the Spirit was speaking" to them, were quite aware of this fact. The LSM version probably paid lip service to this, I don't remember, but subsequently went way overboard on the historical aspect. Then "we" conveniently got to be Philadelphia. "They" had to repent.
As Nigel points out, you had to do some creative cut-and-pasting to make history "fit" the neat interpretation laid before the saints. Not to mention, you basically have to ignore the obvious question of what John wanted the saints in Asia to get from the letters, and the subsequent chapters. "He who has an ear to hear", indeed.