The Prophecy of the book of Revelation

[Durbin]

Did John of Pathmos fail in his prophecy? That's the new, open minded approach I am considering with this book. Any book of the Bible or apocyrha etc involves for me the biblical cannon questions and opinions of divine inspiration, and critical analysis of copies since no originals exist too but I'm finding that this consideration with an honest, open look may just make more sense to me.

The Roman Imperial temple cult after Vespasian, I've been reading about this some and then the time of the Roman setting that seems to fit the time of the book (90's) seems to me to maybe referring to John's belief in his visions for the end of the Roman rule and the coming of the kingdom very shortly from the time of writing which we know did not happen in the physical sense of Jesus' presence and other things predicted in the book. Maybe I should say in a physical sense since there are other interpretations of the book's prophecies.

I also ask myself, how much room is fair to give this book in the ways we and others may interpret and reinterpret it yet continue to hold it as the true and inspired word of God? Can we allow John to be very knowledgeable of the Old Testament writings (commentators say like 1/2 the book has reference to the Old Testament or OT apocrypha) and be noncritical about his conviction in his belief yet come to the conclusion he was simply in error with his visions and prophecies? Then not throw out the whole of Christian faith or of other books of the bible just treating this one book with the tests of faithfuly coming to pass or not, and in the time period that it was to be soon after his writing.

When is reinterpreting over and over just too much and maybe foolish or should I never give up and refuse to consider the prophecies in this book may have failed long ago?

[BC Editor]

Hi John

Did John of Pathmos fail in his prophecy? That's the new, open minded approach I am considering with this book.

I would say that John most certainly did not fail in his prophecy ... but that, about which he prophesied (the end of that age and the various events concerning it, which Jesus had also already prophesied) did come to pass as prophesied.

I would say that the understanding of later Church fathers and theologians has failed in that it misunderstood what the prophecy was about and put the fulfillment events into their still future ... and it is this "futurist" theology which causes the dilemma with what John wrote ...

The Roman Imperial temple cult after Vespasian, I've been reading about this some and then the time of the Roman setting that seems to fit the time of the book (90's) seems to me to maybe referring to John's belief in his visions for the end of the Roman rule and the coming of the kingdom very shortly from the time of writing which we know did not happen in the physical sense of Jesus' presence and other things predicted in the book.

For one, the time of the writing of the book of Revelation has been disputed for a long time, and the currently still popular idea of it being written in the 90ies AD indeed causes the very problems to which you refer. An alternative time of writing is during the second half of the 60ies AD, which is supported by the internal evidence of the book as well as an indication in the Aramaic Peshitta version which has an introductory remark at the beginning of the book that it was received when John was banned to Patmos by emperor Nero!

Secondly, I would say that one needs to understand the book of Revelation on its own merits and by understanding the apocalyptic language used in it .... rather than understanding it in light of present day ideas about how things at the end of the world supposedly will happen, etc .... Could it be that the things prophesied DID happen as prophesied, just not in the way modern day theologies teach ?

[Durbin]

Wolfgang, thanks for your reply.

I may have the years off, 60-90, my apology. Sources I've read like Metzger's places the mark of 666 with Nero and maybe the other's do too, I have to look them up. I'm still in a preliminary stage of study and not ready to put in to writing. Just getting ideas.

How does one understand first century apocalypic literature?
What is all the circa first century Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature to study?
How does one come to a learned decision on this?

Are there good books that outline all the different views on Revelation and perhaps all the eschataology of the NT like preterist, futurist and all?

The Peshitta introduction sounds interesting. Is this their own view? But what about the early eastern churches that would have spoken syriac or those eastern languages, didn't they reject this book for many years after it's writing? Wasn't it left out of thier cannon?

Thinking outside the box of biblical cannon and inerrancy, it's very easy for me to see that those prophecies in the Gospels and Revelation simply failed. For me, thinking outside the box yet retaining faith, Jesus our Lord did not say them, the Holy Spirit did not inspire them or the tradition of sayings handed down got corrupted. This upsets my evangelical mind-set on biblical inspiration and cannon I admit but when I start to study biblical cannon and really try to understand each individual book of the bible so that I could write on it, it's another story. :/

I'm trying to see the various views "in the box" but also "out of the box" and then how does each view make sense? Clearly why, how? Can I follow it? If I can't follow it, what good is it to me? Like tongues of others I cannot understand (I Cor 14). Sometimes I may not be the best reader, but sometimes the writer of the book may not be the best writer either :/

I'm not "losing" faith, I'm just looking more closely to understand early christianity and the books of the bible more clearly.