Not sure if you fully get my statement here, maybe using your phrasing I would requote it like this.
Yes I also think that different parts of the text cover same events, but let’s not get into that discussion (actual sequence of the described events) not to lose focus of the issue I want to discuss here.
Well, I think it's relevant to discuss here whether several visions covered the same territory. A brother recently suggested the trumpets judgments and the vial judgments were very similar and may have been a reiteration of the same things, to add a 2nd witness. Everything needs to be established by more than one witness.
So when we're talking breaks in the narrative, we're also discussing the relationship of one section to another. If they cover the same territory, then they can be reiterations, separated by time. I just don't think that's the case.
Yes, I think all the visions were revealed in a limited timeframe, however I think there is reason to assume that all the visions as described in Revelations were revealed in one single, lets say “session”.
I'm not really sure if we're on the same track, but I'll try again. I think the whole Revelation is a single narrative, with all of the phrasing, "after this," "then this," etc. being representative not of a chronological fulfillment for the visions, but rather, of a sequence in the narrative.
With this in mind, it is likely that the Revelation happened all in one "session." And he later had a scribe record this, which accounts for "after this, "then this" commentary. A lot of interpreters of Revelation mistakenly think "after this" means that each vision's fulfillment follows the previous vision's fulfillment in time. But John is just saying that after his vision he saw another vision.
What binds the whole Revelation together for me is the fact that they are not just a lot of scattered unconnected visions, but rather, visions within a few larger visions, all connected by a single commentary, a beginning and an end of the story. The scroll vision alone takes up virtually half the book. And the account of Antichrist takes up virtually the other half of the book.
The period of Antichrist's reign is said to be 3.5 years in three different ways--time, times and half a time, or 3.5 years, 42 months, and 1260 days (not 1290 days per Dan 12, which I believe referred to Antiochus 4).
So within these two major stories we have the entire book of Revelation and its many visions. Since both halves end up with the Kingdom of Christ, the book seems to be a reiteration of the same theme and the same general time frame. "After this" simply refers to the next vision John saw in sequence--not to the chronological order of their fulfillments.
Do you also think that John would have tried to interpret the visions for their meaning, that he would have wondered about it like if it was meant for his time or a future time?
Good question. I think John knew this was an elucidation of Dan 7, where the Man of Sin, or the Little Horn, was described as reigning for 3.5 years. In the same chapter, the 4th Beast is mentioned, which was to lead to the Kingdom of Christ.
So John clearly knew it was future. And he also knew that Jesus said the Jewish People had been sent in judgment into exile until the time of their return. So he had to know this was for a future people.
At the same time he knew end-time truths are given now to help people who live today. He said, "as you have heard that Antichrist is coming, so already there are many Antichrists." In other words, he is coming at the end of the age, but we have them already and need to beware of them.
The same thing likely held for John, that he had to minister to the 7 churches where they were at at that time, but also project into the future our hope, to keep us encouraged and to keep us watchful. Thanks for some interesting insights and questions!
I will add this that if John had more than a single session I should think we would be told that. We were told in the book of Daniel about each separate dream or vision. We are not told these are separate time periods for the visions. So I wouldn't read into it more than we're told. This seems like a single session.
But I think you're right that there are "separations" between visions in that one session, in which there is a pause, or the delineation of a sequence from one vision to another. This should cause us to avoid running fulfillments of each vision into a continuous sequence. They are distinct and separate visions all encased within a single narrative.