Thirdly because I just cannot understand why Jesus would paint so dismal a picture of His last day church in chapter 3, then indicate in chapter 4:1 that He is about to tell us "what must take place after this," and that He would then proceed to tell us about a "triumphant" church that existed many centuries before this. This simply does not make sense.

2-3-1  CRITIC: It does when you understand that the vision of the 7 churches was first and foremost a message to the literal churches of John’s time.

In AA585.3 we read that . . .

(a) The names of the seven churches are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian Era. [i.e. 2nd application]

(b) The number 7 indicates completeness, and is symbolic of the fact that the messages extend to the end of time. [i.e. 2nd application]

(c) The symbols used reveal the condition of the church at different periods in the history of the world [i.e. 2nd application].

This statement suggests that while the vision was originally (first) a message to the literal churches, it is not "foremost" a message to the literal churches. It seems obvious to me that the 2nd application of this message is of far greater significance to us today than the 1st application.

CRITIC: Indeed, but we dare not disregard the historic aspect or we may become confused about the order and or application of the messages that follow in chapters 4 and onward.

(1) There seems to be general agreement that chapters 2 and 3 have multiple applications or fulfillments, and that chapters 4, 5 and 6 have only one application (See Symposium on Revelation Vol.1, p.177).

CRITIC: Yes, as long as we can allow history to repeat itself concerning chapter six and the powers of the papacy and atheism in verses 6-8 as noted by the SOP quote I referred to earlier.

The passage you are referring to reads as follows:

"The same spirit is seen today that is represented in Revelation 6:6-8. History is to be repeated. That which has been will be again. This spirit works to confuse and to perplex." (Manuscript Releases Vol. 20, p. 199).

If you read this statement carefully you will have to agree that it is not speaking of the repetition of the phenomenon that is represented in Revelation 6:6-8, but a repetition of the spirit that is represented in Revelation 6:6-8. We would have to really stretch this text to support your view that the event or body that is represented in 6:6-8 will be repeated.

You would also have to present at least some concrete evidence to support your claim that 6:6-8 refers to "the powers of the papacy and atheism."

This being the case, if chapters 4, 5 and 6 take place after chapters 2 and 3 in the 1^st application, then surely, for the sake of consistency, chapters 4, 5 and 6 must take place after chapters 2 and 3 in the 2^nd application? The only way that we can reconcile this situation is by ascribing a post-1844 timeframe to chapters 4, 5 and 6.

CRITIC: I know of nothing that ought to bind us to this kind of thinking, and surely I would not think this way and call it consistency. We must allow the Bible to interpret itself and that will establish our consistency. But I would much rather be considered inconsistent and Biblically based, than for the sake of seeming consistent disregard clear Biblical evidence.

¤  With respect, where is the "clear" Biblical evidence that you repeatedly refer to? Our traditional interpretation is certainly not supported by clear Biblical evidence - if it were, we would not be having this discussion and you would certainly not admit, as you have done, to the fact that you are having difficulty answering my claims.

¤  You know of nothing? How about plain simple "logic?" On the contrary, I would think this way because it is both logical and obvious.

¤  How can you state that your position leans on "clear Biblical evidence" when you claim that "after this" actually means "before this?" We can never claim that "after this" means "before this" and still state that our position is supported by "clear Biblical evidence."

¤  You really are making some bold assertions here. Is God ever inconsistent? He is consistently faithful. He is consistently just. He is consistently loving etcetera and He calls on us to live a consistent Christian life (18MR 279.4). And if God is consistent, then His word is consistent. With respect, you are casting out logic, consistency, and even the obvious in an effort to uphold your position – and yet you keep claiming that your position is supported by "clear Biblical evidence?" It is impossible to be inconsistent and still be Biblically based. Please note that we have been told, for good reason, that "the teachings of this book [of Revelation] are definite, not mystical and unintelligible." (Ms 107, 1897, pp. 1, 2)

Should my reader wish to contribute to this discussion, please click here to send an email. Should you wish to make an extensive contribution then press Edit, Select All and copy this entire page to MS WORD. Now, in the resultant MS WORD document, you may insert your comments into the copy in a unique color and then save this document as REV2-3 and attach it to the email above before sending it. TO ENSURE THAT YOUR EMAIL IS NOT REJECTED AS SPAM, PLEASE ENTER THE WORDS "REVELATION INSIGHTS" IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL.