Revelation 11:15-19--IJ?

[OntheDL]

I can certainly see how someone MIGHT not notice that.

Do you care to show how you reached that conclusion?

Again, I am waiting for a full explanation of the text, including OT allusions, etc.

In any case Jim already hinted that he was aware of that assumption. I think he was looking for evidence.

I was addressing Jim. And I don't think there is anything more for me to prove to you.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Most commentaries see the Rev 10 little book as does Matthew Henry

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] III. The apostle’s discharge of the duty he was called to (v. 10): He took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up, and he found the relish to be as was told him. 1. It becomes the servants of God to digest in their own souls the messages they bring to others in his name, and to be suitably affected therewith themselves. 2. It becomes them to deliver every message with which they are charged, whether pleasing or unpleasing to men. That which is least pleasing may be most profitable; however, God’s messengers must not keep back any part of the counsel of God. IV. The apostle is made to know that this book of prophecy, which he had now taken in, was not given him merely to gratify his own curiosity, or to affect him with pleasure or pain, but to be communicated by him to the world. Here his prophetical commission seems to be renewed, and he is ordered to prepare for another embassy, to convey those declarations of the mind and will of God which are of great importance to all the world, and to the highest and greatest men in the world, and such should be read and recorded in many languages. This indeed is the case; we have them in our language, and are all obliged to attend to them, humbly to enquire into the meaning of them, and firmly to believe that every thing shall have its accomplishment in the proper time; and, when the prophecies shall be fulfilled, the sense and truth of them will appear, and the omniscience, power, and faithfulness of the great God will be adored.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=re&chapter=010


[/FONT][/FONT]

I would be curious to know of any other the Adventist commentaries which hold to the book as being Daniel book. It does not really make any contextual sense to be Daniel but I would be interested to see what they say.

 

[djconklin]

Why doesn't it make contextual sense?

 

[tall73]

No I didn't. It was shown in a vision.

If you wish to find a way to discredit our believes, you will always find it. Even if it's shown in the plain text which has been the case with you. God does not remove all doubts and thus leaves no room for faith.

DL, you haven't shown anything yet. You have said what you think it is.

Even Dig Deep said you hadn't shown what the text means.

Now why won't you answer the question?

It was JOHN doing the measuring.

The timing is not right. The person doing it is not right. The OT allusion doesn't support you, but you are saying it is just me trying to cause problems. Why is that?

 

[AndrewK788]

DL, you haven't shown anything yet. You have said what you think it is.

Even Dig Deep said you hadn't shown what the text means.

Now why won't you answer the question?

It was JOHN doing the measuring.

The timing is not right. The person doing it is not right. The OT allusion doesn't support you, but you are saying it is just me trying to cause problems. Why is that?

I am a firm believer that there will always be a few things that God does not show us simply for the sake of faith. If we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt every minute detail of doctrine was absolutely right there wouldn't be much need for faith because we'd already know we're right.

But at the same time I believe that idea can be used as a sort of crutch by those who truly do not have answers, or at least wish to manipulate truth to fit their answers.

 

[tall73]

Most commentaries see the Rev 10 little book as does Matthew Henry


I would be curious to know of any other the Adventist commentaries which hold to the book as being Daniel book. It does not really make any contextual sense to be Daniel but I would be interested to see what they say.

Actually I have heard the notion before from other Adventists. But I do not have any print material on hand that speaks to that, but then much of my print material is packed away.

 

[tall73]

Why doesn't it make contextual sense?

Before we get to that I am still waiting for the case by the proponents that it DOES make contextual sense.

There is no need to debunk a case that has not been made.

 

[freeindeed2]

I am a firm believer that there will always be a few things that God does not show us simply for the sake of faith.

A few things?

God is infinite/never-ending. We haven't even scratched a scratch on the surface of the knowledge of who God is.

It would be better said that all finite beings - any creature that has been created - only knows a few things about God, rather than the other way around. We will NEVER have a complete understanding of an infinite God.

 

[tall73]

Alrighty, so Jim has asked me to look at what Rev. 11 might mean.

I honestly am not sure yet what the total meaning is. But I think it might be fun to try to find out.

My main point until now has been that the timing issues and the presence of rewards and judgment of the wicked show that this is not an Adventist IJ.

But if we are to find out what it is then we need a hermeneutic for the book of Revelation.

I would suggest that the most productive one I have found so far is to look at the many allusions that the author makes to the OT. He put them there for a reason.

So first we should try to identify all of the possible allusions.

Anyone else have a better hermeneutic?

 

[Jimlarmore]

Hi Jim,

I don't know if you notice, the little book that was given John in Rev 10 was the book that was sealed til the time of the end in Daniel 12:4 & 9.

The bitter sweet experience was the great disappointment of 1844.

Yes I am aware of that. I was just trying to show some OT allusions to this text to see if the O.T. counterpart may shed some light on what this book is and what it all means. The book of Revelations has over 600 O.T. allusions in it so you can't deeply study this book without looking at the Old Testament. In this case however, I don't think the texts in Ezekiel helps much. For one thing the book is handled differently in Ezekiel and it was sweet in his stomach after eating it but not bitter. So the text in Revelation is definetely telling us something different than the ones in Ezekiel. Does that mean that the ones in Ezekiel have no application whatsoever to Revelation? I'm not quite ready to go that far yet. The context in the book of Ezekiel speaks of the message ( the scroll eaten ) was to go to Israel. So there may be some application to "spiritual Israel" in Revelations.

To me I am convinced that the entirety of Rev 10 and 11 are thematic of the time of the end just before Christ returns and a "judgement". Whether it's the IJ or not is not rock solid. Since Rev 11 specifically speaks of judging the dead and in context mentions the heavenly sanctuary it's fairly easy to associate these texts with the IJ. However, we're distinctly missing some important parts of our puzzle. What would really seal it for me would be the mentioning of the 2300 days here like the 1260 days are in other chapters, but that is not given in the narrativeof these two chapters or anywhere in Revelation to my knowledge.

God Bless you bro.
Jim Larmore