I would split the proverbial hair over the use of the "
entire" because in
Rev. 1:19 the book itself states some of its contents had already occurred and some of it existed at the time it was written. Those portions of the book were not what would "
shortly come to pass." Only the portion that "
which will take place after these things" was in the future.
And I agree with that "hair-splitting". Revelation's events
were divided between the past, present, and future things "
about to be hereafter" in John's days. And of course, "showing" and revealing to God's servants in John's days those
future things to come was a promise which Christ had also made to the Apostles earlier in John 16:13, "...when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:
and he will show you things to come."
The prophecies which were NOT shown and revealed, but which were
"sealed up" in Revelation 10:4 - these were the prophecies which were reserved for later fulfillment further down the road, past the immediate first-century generation. Everything else in Revelation concerning "near" future events that were being
unsealed and revealed to God's servants in those days
- these prophecies fit into the category of future things that were
"about to be hereafter" in John's own generation.
The dividing line between the
"near" future things for John's first-century generation and any
distant future things was whether those prophecies were either
being unsealed at that time or
"sealed up" in Rev. 10:4 for a much later time (such as for our own days). This "sealing up" is how Daniel's visions of the distant future had once been presented (Dan. 12:4 & 9), and John in Rev. 10:4 was presenting those particular "sealed up" visions of the distant future in the very same manner.
...rarely do I ever read of anyone (preterist or not) thinking
Rev. 20's binding is in the past
prior to the penning of Revelation. I've had difficulty broaching the topic with amils, postmils, and idealists. Yet, if the principle of using other scripture to understand scripture is valid, then the already-existing binding of Satan would have been something John had seen for himself and understood as a thing "
which are."
Make that instead that "John had seen for himself and understood the binding of Satan as a thing which he
had seen in the
past."
The Rev. 20 millennium
WAS a past event when John began writing Revelation. I am one of that rare breed that sees the Rev. 20 millennium as being "finished", "fulfilled", and "expired" with the "First resurrection" event in AD 33 which included Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints.
The two texts of Rev. 12:12 compared with Rev. 20:3 & 7 are all it takes to prove that the Rev. 20 millennium had ended before John was writing Revelation. Satan was to be loosed for
a "little season" after the millennium had
ended, and John warned his own first-century audience that Satan
had then presently come down to them in great wrath, knowing that this
"short time" was all he had left. The Rev. 20:3 "little season" and the Rev. 12:12 "short time" were speaking of
the very same time period of Satan's renewed deception of the nations after the millennium had
"expired" and was
"fulfilled".
The idea is that if I could provide proof then they'd readily change their views but that never happens. The evidence is never proof and no matter how convincing the premise they'd readily abandon their eschatology and change to something more-evidenced was disingenuous from the beginning. All claims of "It has not happened," more accurately and honestly mean, "It has not happened according to my interpretation and doctrinal biases.
Soooo true. This same reaction shows up over and over on all the forums. It is a rare soul that is willing to consider that they might have been instructed incorrectly by a well-meaning pastor, professor, or early church father's writings. My constant prayer for the past 12 years has been, "Lord, don't let me believe a lie...I want to know WHAT you did, and WHEN you did it. Teach me, and I will believe you."
I'm curious: Have you ever read Geerhardus Vos' "The Pauline Eschatology"? You might like and agree with it. It sort of anticipates E. P. Sanders and N. T. Wright (although I do not recall either man referring to Vos' view) but greater orthodoxy. His writing is labored so it's a tough read (it was for me, at least) but I found it worth the effort.
This isn't a work I'm familiar with, but I will check it out. Always looking for a good referral. I should tell you though, that it will place second in importance to what Paul actually said himself. Paul admitted in Philippians 3:10-11 that he was rather eager to be martyred, and hoped to be put to death early enough so that "by any means" he could arrive at the time for the next bodily resurrection coming up soon. You could say that Paul had a "death wish" of sorts. God granted Paul's desire, since Paul was put to death in AD 67, with only 3 years until Paul was bodily resurrected. I believe Paul knew the very day that this resurrection was coming. With his Pharisee background training, Paul certainly knew his Daniel scriptures, and could count the 1,335 days from the date of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies in late AD 66 to determine that approaching date of Christ's return in AD 70.
), but he's conducted himself admirably here. That deserves commendable mention.
