Is the Book of Revelation Still a Closed Book?

[Ed Walsh]

Greetings,

Several comments on the title, "Is the Book of Revelation Still a Closed Book?".

1. The word 'Still' - should not be taken as if all agree that Revelation was closed at one time. Some may think it was. Some may think it was never a closed book.
2. The word 'Closed' - should be taken in any of three senses. Completely, mostly, or partially.
3. There is no need to mention Revelation 10:3,4 about the seven thunders, which I think everyone is in agreement on.

I posted the following sentence in two different posts and never got a reaction, either pro or con. (none that I noticed anyway)

"I think Revelation is still a closed book for the most part. Parts for the Revelation remind me of Daniel 11 and 12, which were totally hidden from Daniel's contemporaries in the 6th-century bc. Until that is, history revealed the meaning to the faithful and wise Jews during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanies after 175± BC."

What does everyone think?
If there is any interest in my question? Do you think I should include a poll in a new thread? If so, what are some of your suggested questions?

Thanks,

Ed

I know that this is a topic that might bomb. But I'm used to it.

 

[arapahoepark]

Depends on whether or not you think it refers to events past, present and/or future.
Even a preterist like myself still wonders how much of the latter portion is fulfilled. I.e. the millennium (is it present or future?)

 

[Ed Walsh]

Depends on whether or not you think it refers to events past, present and/or future.
Even a preterist like myself still wonders how much of the latter portion is fulfilled. I.e. the millennium (is it present or future?)

That's kinda what I mean, Trent. There are widely different views of the Revelation. Is that because some interpretations are simply off the wall? Or is it because it is not yet time for it to be unsealed, and therefore everyone's interpretation will fall short?

Thanks for writing,

Ed

 

[arapahoepark]

That's kinda what I mean, Trent. There are widely different views of the Revelation. Is that because some interpretations are simply off the wall? Or is it because it is not yet time for it to be unsealed, and therefore everyone's interpretation will fall short?

Thanks for writing,

Ed

Oh I see. I misunderstood. I will come up with some thoughts later.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

It may be closed to you, Ed, but those with the right key may open it, though from here on — in these days nearer the very end — it will increasingly open and reveal what the Almighty is doing.

"But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end . . . And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." (Dan 12:4, 8-9)

 

[RamistThomist]

If you are a historicist, then it is still closed because some events in world history haven't happened yet. There are huge problems with this view, not least its ad hoc nature, but it's fairly straightforward. There is a difference between saying it is still closed on one hand, and that some things, like the Resurrection, haven't happened yet on the other. A partial preterist can inconsistently say the Resurrection hasn't happened yet without committing himself to the thesis that some meanings are still veiled.