1. What do the author's state is the primary purpose of the Book of Revelation? How do you respond to this view?
Revelation states that God's people are living in between the times. Scott sees Revelation as an example of the type of prophetic writings which address and alludes to events of the author's own time and also the future. He believes is addresses the experiences of Christians living at the end ofthe first century, during the time of persecution by Emporer Domition.
I personally am weak in studying Revelation. I know that John is addressing specific churches, but I am not sure what alludes to the 1st century and what is directed towards teh end times.
2. What literary form, often employed by intertestamental Jewish writers, is also used in the book of Revelation? Why is this significant to the study of Revelation?
Scott describes the literary form as philosophical orientation. This is significant because we are left to answer when the events are going to occur. Whether they be in the first century or at the end times.
3. How do you think world events could affect someone‟s view of the millennium?
I think people look at world events in the present and try to predict when the millennium is going to begin. They see Tsunamis and earthquakes or any other natural disaster and predict that Christ is coming soon. There is also alot of emphasis on the Middle East and Israel. The political nature and role in different wars. Some look at these to try to determine when the millennium will begin. I am not sure if this is what they wanted, but I tried to answer the best I could.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If I understood correctly the first question which seems to be answer on page 309, last paragraph before the summary, the author seems to imply that God is not fully in control but He will be one day. Did I misunderstand the question? Or the authors conclusion?
ReplyDeleteOn the second one, if I understood correctly, knowing that is written from visions using symbolisms I guess will help us understand that what we are reading might not be literal for once, and for another that when a man of God wrote a vision of the future of things he might had never heard or experience, I guess he will do the best to explain and compare it with what he knows and understands. Like when the Scripture talks about the sun turning into blood, I heard it probably relates to a solar eclipse. One of our professor also told me that their interpretation of a vision is like the vision(s) is (are) on top of a mountain(s) and he is on the bottom, he cannot see what is going on in the other side of the mountain(s), neither the distance between one mountain and the other one. That’s why for them it seems like one even will occurred right after the other one but in reality there are centuries between the two of them. I found this view interesting. I think it will make sense that way.
ReplyDeleteYes, I remember the mountain analogy as well but had forgotten it. Thanks for the reminder. I think yuo answered the question well. I am very weak in this area and haven't strudied much at all in it.
ReplyDeleteI know that this doesn't have much to do with the chapter. But what is your take on Literal vs Figurative interpretation. Do we have the liberty to choose when to use each one in Scripture?(I am not saying you did this, I just want your opinion).