Could REVELATION ever apply to the 1st-century congregations?

[JW Insider]

This is a follow-up discussion from a conversation under a topic about 1914. It is pure speculation, and I suspect that most persons will find it either a waste of time, or perhaps even a subversion of currently taught doctrines. It is not intended to be. It is a speculative guess about various doctrinal repercussions in the event that the doctrinal about 1914 was dropped. It is especially concerned with whether almost all items related to the parousia would be set into the future, or is it possible that some of them could reasonably be set in the past. Naturally, the goal is to see if the Scriptures could support either of these scenarios, or would either or both need to be rejected on scriptural grounds. In one way, this is a kind of thought experiment that can be used to test the validity of a doctrine like 1914. If abandoning such a doctrine would result only in additional contradictions and confusion, then this becomes evidence that 1914, or something like it, could remain viable for years to come. It is not the goal of this discussion to reject 1914, or get anyone else to reject it. This is also not a comparison to see whether a certain "solution" seems or sounds better than the current solutions we present concerning 1914. It is just a way to see what alternatives we might be left with if the 1914 doctrine were actually changed.

So I should say that this discussion is not for everyone, although all interested persons should feel welcome to comment. I hope this doesn't go on for 15 pages however, so if posts are too far off topic, perhaps it would be better to start new threads for them.

INTRODUCTION

For the most part, it's obvious that Revelation is about future events, especially the events associated with the Return of Christ in Judgment of the Nations, of Babylon, the Great Tribulation, Armageddon, the Millennium, the New Heavens and the New Earth.

But there are parts that reference past events, present events along with, of course, future events.

In fact Jehovah is presented as being in control of history, and this might even be implied in expressions such as this, referencing past, present and future:

(Revelation 1:8) 8 “I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”

When John was told to write letters to the seven congregations, these were about matters going on in the first century, too:

(Revelation 1:17-19) . . .“Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave. 19 So write down the things you saw, and the things that are, and the things that will take place after these.

Note that in vv 17-19, Jesus also has titles that reference the past, present and future. And we already know that John's messages to the congregations would reference those congregations' recent past, the present and the future.

So, is there a way to look at OTHER chapters in Revelation, such as chapters 11 and 12, and make any sense of them without reference to the 1914 doctrine? And if so, the next question is whether anything in those two chapters, especially, can apply to the first century congregations. If hat question must generally be answered in the negative, then the next question would be if anything (or everything in those two chapters could apply mostly to the future without a need to reference 1914 or a date or time prior to the Great Tribulation, for example.

[JW Insider]

11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So, is there a way to look at OTHER chapters in Revelation, such as chapters 11 and 12, and make any sense of them without reference to the 1914 doctrine?

In another thread, I proposed the possibility that Revelation 11 and Revelation 12 might both be starting out with references to events in the first century CE. There are some immediate problems with this proposal, and a couple of them were pointed out by @ComfortMyPeople. One problem for example is that Christ Jesus obtains the kingship, and this is tied to the time for the dead to be judged, a clear reference to the resurrection:

(Revelation 11:15-18) 15 The seventh angel blew his trumpet. And there were loud voices in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” 16 And the 24 elders who were seated before God on their thrones fell upon their faces and worshipped God, 17 saying: “We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

As CMP pointed out, that would apparently contradict the scripture that says it was a deviation from the truth to claim it had occurred in the first century:

(2 Timothy 2:18) 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are subverting the faith of some.

Of course, that wasn't the intention of putting the first portions of the chapter in the first century, but it shows that it's possible to test proposals about doctrines and find that some ideas just obviously cannot work. I'm hoping that we can test such speculative proposals even further to see if they actually fit the scriptures, or should be rejected. So when I get an opportunity, hopefully in the next few days, I might be able explain how the ENTIRE 11th chapter MIGHT be understood under a first-century proposal.

[ComfortMyPeople]

I'd like to share some comments. But these are very busy days for me. 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

In view of the latest writing about types/anti-types, ('We're done') I wonder if there will be spillover as to how we view Revelation, which fairly begs for the application of anti-types

[Anna]

15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In view of the latest writing about types/anti-types, ('We're done') I wonder if there will be spillover as to how we view Revelation, which fairly begs for the application of anti-types

We are due for a new Revelation book. I hope it's in my lifetime as it should be pretty interesting!

[JW Insider]

@Anna I'd love to see a new Revelation book, too. I don't think it would remove types and anti-types completely, because I agree with @TrueTomHarley that Revelation "fairly begs" for these applications. Besides, the new "rule" on avoiding speculative types/anti-types doesn't cover prophecy; it only covers narratives and parables. (We also can make an anti-type prophecy from Nebuchadnezzar's tree dream in Daniel 4, because it shows up in Daniel, a book of prophecy, although we do not make a prophecy out of the "Lion's Den" narrative, or the "Three Hebrew 'Children'" narrative. Also we make an exception for parables that immediately follow a prophecy such as the end of Matthew 24, which is evidently why we treat the "faithful and discreet slave" parable as a prophecy about the Governing Body starting in 1919, although here, too, we make no prophecy out of the specific features of "two women grinding at a mill, one left, the other taken away, etc.")

I would love to see a book on Revelation that is done in the style of a standard commentary, so that it contains several possibilities for the meaning of each verse, instead of dogmatic explanations that effectively make the entire book obsolete as soon as something changes. I'd like to see a style that is heavier on expressions like the following (where the ** refers to scripture citations, footnotes, or other references):

"This verse in Revelation 11:1 is clearly alluding to similar verses in Ezekiel and Zechariah where the context of those verses discusses the preparations for rebuilding an earlier temple at Jerusalem which was destroyed by the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar.** The rebuilt temple lasted from the time of Zechariah** until Herod the Great expanded it in the decades before Jesus was born.** That temple was destroyed in a horrific holocaust by the Romans in 70 C.E. Through the centuries, many have believed that this verse is an indication that a new physical temple will literally be built in Jerusalem before the final visitation of judgment on the world. It was while Herod's expanded temple was still standing that Jesus said: "Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." ** In fact, Paul speaks of Christians themselves as each one a temple** and all being built up together into a holy temple**. Therefore, it appears that we could look for a spiritual, rather than a physical application of the temple spoken of here. Note, too, that there is a specific time element associated with the temple preparation.**ref 1,260 etc** This could be an indication that the verse applies to some specific event in the time period leading up to the final judgment of the world. Perhaps it is a time period that we can identify within the recent history of God's people.** Perhaps it is something we will come to understand in the very near future! Some commentators have even applied it to events that would have been clear to the hearers of this vision who had lived in the first century. Recall that many in that generation had just experienced the traumatic event in 70 CE, seeing Jerusalem and its temple destroyed in a war that took well over a million lives.** In fact, a specific length of 1,260 days might have reminded them of the time period between [etc. etc. etc.]

The next verses, however, may shed more light on the meaning of this and give evidence that the fulfillment is not limited to a first century application . . . etc etc etc...

Sorry, got carried away.

[TrueTomHarley]

It's a little dated. But it does fit the theme of an updated Revelation book:

http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/07/will-the-real-a.html

[Anna]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Sorry, got carried away.

That's ok I like it when you get carried away

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I would love to see a book on Revelation that is done in the style of a standard commentary, so that it contains several possibilities for the meaning of each verse, instead of dogmatic explanations that effectively make the entire book obsolete as soon as something changes

Yes, the example you present would be perfect, because as you say, dogmatic explanations are SO susceptible to revisions, so much so that it is not really a prudent thing to do.....and references would be great for those who wish to "make sure of all things". I think @ComfortMyPeoplementioned once that it would be nice to have more of a commentary style for some of our publications and use more expressions such as "perhaps", "most likely",  "it would be reasonable to conclude", ....etc. But that has not been the style of the society (although improving a little) and my theory is, and I have mentioned this before, that the GB feel like they must speak with authority, otherwise they may lose respect and trust, i.e. the parent/child model. However, this has backfired in more ways than one quite a number of times...

P.S. I think one particular book had quite a few overt dogmatic statements on things that no one could possibly know for sure, it was one of the prophetic books we studied at our book study, either Isaiah, Ezekiel or Daniel. I remember one mature, studious sister got a little upset and exclaimed; how can they know that! I wish I could remember what it was...

[TrueTomHarley]

2 minutes ago, Anna said:

it was one of the prophetic books we studied at our book study, either Isaiah, Ezekiel or Daniel. I remember one mature, studious sister got a little upset and exclaimed; how can they know that! I wish I could remember what it was...

Can it really be that these characters were as concerned with dress and grooming as we are today?

[Anna]

15 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It's a little dated. But it does fit the theme of an updated Revelation book:

http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/07/will-the-real-a.html

I remember reading that on your blog some years ago! It was enjoyable. What is telling though is your comment above that "it's a little dated"

10 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Can it really be that these characters were as concerned with dress and grooming as we are today?

Nah, that wasn't it. But seriously, it was quite a presumptuous statement. The brother in writing must have felt he had had an epiphany.

[Anna]

I don't think Allen liked me saying "I like it when you get carried away" he gave me a negative point, my first one on here I think!! Boo hoo, I think I'm upset an I'm going to cry, and there isn't even a crying emoticon on here! And I think the Librarian is dead, she's not been chastising anyone for changing the subject for a while now, I mean look at the previous 1914 thread, although a reconciliation has been reached, its all gone silly on there. Everything is falling apart. I think I'm going to go out in the garden, sulk, and eat worms....good night everyone

[JW Insider]

13 minutes ago, Anna said:

I don't think Allen liked me saying "I like it when you get carried away" he gave me a negative point, my first one on here I think!! Boo hoo, I think I'm upset

LOL. Every now and then Allen goes on a gift-giving campaign of the same sort with me. I already got three out of three from him, one for each of my posts in this new topic alone. I don't feel badly, however, because I notice that he typically gives them out when he realizes he can't respond truthfully to a point without agreeing, and it's anathema for him to agree. So he has only these two choices. I actually prefer receiving the negative point, rather than be embarrassed for him when he goes off into another dishonest or unscriptural diatribe.

There, with that statement, I just gave him a chance to claim a completely different rationale for his reactions. Maybe he will thank me for this one!