Pre-millennialism

[praet0r]

Hi there,

I’ve read that the Catholic church teaches an preterist amillennial view of the book of Revelation. If anyone could give a brief explanation as to why that view is the best fit, and why futurist premillennialism doesn’t fit, I would appreciate that. I have always believed in premillennialism as the other views seemed like nonsense to me.

Thanks!

 

[spauline]

Hi there,

I’ve read that the Catholic church teaches an preterist amillennial view of the book of Revelation. If anyone could give a brief explanation as to why that view is the best fit, and why futurist premillennialism doesn’t fit, I would appreciate that. I have always believed in premillennialism as the other views seemed like nonsense to me.

Thanks!

oh, don’t get me started!

yes, the RCC TENDS to favor amillennial preterism, but that’s not dogma.

I am utterly convinced the best and most useful meaning is mystical and spiritual historicism, and a “millennial” view that is a mish mash of chiliasm, amill, and postmill. In this view, chiliasm just needs to be tweaked with a little allegory: the millennium lies between now and the very end, but Jesus doesn’t return until after the very end: that is, we are about to go through a dress-rehearsal for the end of the world, but it won’t end just yet. Rather, the force of this “minor” chastisement will bring humanity to its knees and restore the near totality of earth to Catholicism, and the Gospel will reign in a spiritual sense for a great Age of Peace, which is the Millennium. But this millennium is not literal, that is, Jesus doesn’t return yet. He is rather “reigning in the hearts of men” for a great sabbath-like rest. Then after this coming Age of Peace will occur the final rebellion, the “great” apostasy and trib, where the Antichrist will come, and then the world will end for real with the Second Coming.

Again, I don’t know what you would call this position. It’s not entirely amill, because it believes in the Age of Peace, unlike the pessimistic augustinian. And it’s not postmill, because the Christianization of humanity is not gradual: it is brought about rather by the crisis of an epic chastisement. also, the millennium ultimately fails because of the great apostasy, unlike many postmillers who think the age of peace would last until the second coming. and, of course, it’s not chiliasm, because Jesus doesn’t return until after the apostasy after the millennnium.

So it’s NONE of the above!

 

[didymus]

Hi there,

I’ve read that the Catholic church teaches an preterist amillennial view of the book of Revelation. If anyone could give a brief explanation as to why that view is the best fit, and why futurist premillennialism doesn’t fit, I would appreciate that. I have always believed in premillennialism as the other views seemed like nonsense to me.

Thanks!

GGRRRRRRRRR!!!
If I were Pope the teaching would be that no Catholic should even waste their time thinking about the subject. It’s a too bad Revelations was even included in the Canon.

Jesus said He didn’t know the day nor the hour so let’s leave the seven signs, Rapture-predicting last days mongering to the fundies.

 

[richardeekw]

Extracted from Dr Scott Hahn and his Team’s teaching on The Book of Revelation

The Four Views of Revelation.

Christian theology has generally taken four different approaches to Revelation.

In America today, by far the most common view especially among Evangelical Protestants and fundamentalists (and by some lay Catholic influenced by Evangelical revision programming) in **the futurist viiew. **In essence, the futuristic view argues that the real meaning of Revelation will not make sense until the end of time. According to this view, only believers studying Revelation at the end of history will truly understand the elements of the vision John records. Thus writers such as Hal Lindsey have popularized theories which see various candidates ripped from the newspapers as corresponding to the images of Revelation (God and Magog = USSR, European common market 0 10 headed beast, locust = Soviet helicopters etc). According to this view, Jesus is to return, slaughter the predictedSoviet (or whatever political threat du jour) army and establish a kingdom lasting 1000 years here on earth. This particular view has been specifically condemned by the Church as heresy known as “chiliasm”. That said however, it must also be noted that many futurists do have valuable and valid insights from which we can benefit.

“A second view is known as the historicist position. This position holds that Revelation predicts all the various stages of Church history from the first generation to the end of time. This also is a fruitful way of looking at Revelation, precisely because the triumph of Christ over the whole world is a fact throughout history.

A third view and te oe probable held by more Church Fathers than any other, is called the idealist view. The idealist view contends that the book of Revelation is basically description of the opening spiritual struggle that every believer faces in his or her life and that the Church faces in every generation. It is a struggle that takes place on earth, and it is a struggle that also takes place at this very moment even in heaven. It is a struggle involving the world, the flesh and the devil, and it is a struggle that also engages the principalities and powers, the archangels, the thrones, dominions, and so forth. That is why, according to this view, you find the Church in the book of Revelation having to overcome in the midst of persecution on earth even as the struggle is reflected by St. Michael of the Archangel doing battle with Satan (Revelation 12:7-9). Between those two poles we see creatures of every level of the universe struggling as the battle between good and evil intensifies throughout history till Christ brings it to a decisive conclusion.So the idealist view essentially explain Revelation in terms of the moral struggle between good and evil, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. Here again, we must emphasize that many valuable and valid insights into Revelation can be gained from this view as well. In fact, this third view can be particularly valuable for us today as it reminds us that Jesus Christ is the Lord of history and that the battle is today the Lord’s.

That said, the view of Revelation which we shall take is known as the preterist view. It holds, in short, that the fulfillment of the book of Revelation is, at least in its literal sense, already past and that the book was primarily designed for the Church in the first century just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem which it anticipates. To be sure this is not to deny the Second Coming of Christ at the end of time. (In fact, the Catholic traditions has long regarded the coming of Christ judgement in 70 AD as an image of the coming judgement of the world.) But it is to say that Revelation is written in its literal sense not primarily to give a long-range forecast of world history, but to address the immediate historical circumstances of John anr his community. That is why Revelation opens with the proclamation that it is given by God “to show to his servants what must soon take place… for the time is near.” (Revelation 1:1-3). This sounds a strong note of imminanence that is heard throughout the book. (Revelation 22:10-12, 20). “Soon” in Greek, means “soon.”

 

[praet0r]

Richardeekw:

As for the Preterist view, what of the evidence that Revelation was written around 95 AD? There is plenty of evidence that it was NOT written before 70 AD

Some quotes on Wikipedia are as follows: “According to early tradition, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian’s reign, around 95 or 96. Others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter.[5] Those who are in favor of the later date appeal to the external testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus (d. 185), who stated that he had received information relative to this book from those who had seen John face to face. He says that the Apocalypse “was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign” (A.H. 5.30.3), who according to Eusebius had started the persecution referred to in the book. However, recent scholars dispute that the book is situated in a time of ongoing persecution and have also doubted the reality of a large-scale Domitian persecution.[6]”

Also, it’s popular for Catholics (or anyone else taking a similar view) to claim that futurism wasn’t “invented” until the 19th century, but what of ancient documents uncovered with sermons on the matter in the 4th century? There was one authored by a guy called Pseudo Ephrem if I recall correctly

Thanks for your help

 

[praet0r]

GGRRRRRRRRR!!!
If I were Pope the teaching would be that no Catholic should even waste their time thinking about the subject. It’s a too bad Revelations was even included in the Canon.

Jesus said He didn’t know the day nor the hour so let’s leave the seven signs, Rapture-predicting last days mongering to the fundies.

That’s like saying “it’s too bad anything that makes us think was included in the canon”. There was plenty of OT prophecy during OT times for the Jews, why does it seem outlandish to you that there is also NT prophecy for Christians?

If you are merely stating that we shouldn’t spend all our time thinking about it, I agree. But if you’re stating we shouldn’t think about it at all (which I think you might be implying), then no offense, but I think you’re taking the “strength through ignorance” viewpoint in my opinion.

 

[praet0r]

Spauline:

It’s not dogma. Does that mean a Catholic can have the same understanding of Revelation as a protestant, even though it’s not approved of by the Vatican? If not, just what flexibility does it give the Catholic believer?

Thanks

 

[Della]

There was plenty of OT prophecy during OT times for the Jews, why does it seem outlandish to you that there is also NT prophecy for Christians?

I’ll leave the first sentence for didymus to respond to since I cannot speak for him/her.

There were plenty of OT prophets because the Messiah, who is the Prophet, had not yet come. Jesus is the last prophet of God, for he is the very Word of God himself. This means that nothing anyone receives in prayer, visions, locutions, apparitions, etc. can be new revelation, because all revelation to man from God was culminated in Christ.

If you are merely stating that we shouldn’t spend all our time thinking about it, I agree. But if you’re stating we shouldn’t think about it at all (which I think you might be implying), then no offense, but I think you’re taking the “strength through ignorance” viewpoint in my opinion.

No, the Catholic viewpoint is definitely not one of sticking our heads in the sand or ignoring the 2nd Coming. At every Mass we declare the fact that Christ will come again. It’s one of the things we know will happen (and look forward to happening) because Jesus himself taught us that 1) he would come again, and 2) that we should be ready when he does. This means that every day of our lives we should be prepared for the coming of the Lord, be it in our own deaths or, if it should happen in our lifetime, for his physical return to judge the world.

 

[praet0r]

I’ll leave the first sentence for didymus to respond to since I cannot speak for him/her.

There were plenty of OT prophets because the Messiah, who is the Prophet, had not yet come. Jesus is the last prophet of God, for he is the very Word of God himself. This means that nothing anyone receives in prayer, visions, locutions, apparitions, etc. can be new revelation, because all revelation to man from God was culminated in Christ.

In this case, why is there a record of a prophecy in the book of Acts about someone predicting a severe famine coming upon the entire Roman world? This seems to contradict your statement. If it doesn’t, can you clarify?

No, the Catholic viewpoint is definitely not one of sticking our heads in the sand or ignoring the 2nd Coming. At every Mass we declare the fact that Christ will come again. It’s one of the things we know will happen (and look forward to happening) because Jesus himself taught us that 1) he would come again, and 2) that we should be ready when he does. This means that every day of our lives we should be prepared for the coming of the Lord, be it in our own deaths or, if it should happen in our lifetime, for his physical return to judge the world.

I don’t dispute that the Catholics eagerly await Jesus’ second coming, but He himself said “he who has an ear, let him hear” and “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.”

 

[Della]

In this case, why is there a record of a prophecy in the book of Acts about someone predicting a severe famine coming upon the entire Roman world? This seems to contradict your statement. If it doesn’t, can you clarify?

The prophecy you cite was not a matter of faith or morals, doctrine or dogma. There have been many seers since Jesus’ day, which is what I was referred to in my post. But, they are not bringing any new revelation in faith or morals, doctrine or dogma. Does that help you?

I don’t dispute that the Catholics eagerly await Jesus’ second coming, but He himself said “he who has an ear, let him hear” and “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.”

Jesus was talking about the fact that the kingdom of God was near–in himself. Yes, he talked about the destruction of Jerusalem and the fate of some of the Apostles, but what he was driving at with this statement isn’t that we would know when his 2nd coming is to happen–he also said no man can know the day or time. He was reminding the Apostles (and us) of what really matters–that they be in him, in the kingdom of God. The sign was already there, his existence, his upcoming death and resurrection (which is what the fig tree putting out its leaves and summer being near refers to, not to the 2nd coming, per se).

 

[praet0r]

The prophecy you cite was not a matter of faith or morals, doctrine or dogma. There have been many seers since Jesus’ day, which is what I was referred to in my post. But, they are not bringing any new revelation in faith or morals, doctrine or dogma. Does that help you?

Yes, it does. Thank you.

Jesus was talking about the fact that the kingdom of God was near–in himself. Yes, he talked about the destruction of Jerusalem and the fate of some of the Apostles, but what he was driving at with this statement isn’t that we would know when his 2nd coming is to happen–he also said no man can know the day or time. He was reminding the Apostles (and us) of what really matters–that they be in him, in the kingdom of God. The sign was already there, his existence, his upcoming death and resurrection (which is what the fig tree putting out its leaves and summer being near refers to, not to the 2nd coming, per se).

Take a look at the context of the verse which you claim relates to Jesus’ upcoming death and resurrection:

Luke 21:20-31
20"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 25"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." 29He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

Clearly, it is referring to the signs Jesus has given regarding “the end of the age”. This was not fulfilled by the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. Jerusalem will be trampled on until the time of the Gentiles has come to a close - how can you explain this and it’s fulfillment? More importantly, how would you counter the popular protestant belief that this refers to the capture of Jerusalem by the State of Israel in 1967?

Anyhow, if you claim that Revelation does not have any inspired teaching about faith, morals, doctrine, dogma - just how would you describe Chapters 2 and 3 which were addressed to the 7 churches in Asia? They certainly discuss this matter, and we learn new things about Jesus and the age to come in this book. For one, in Revelation 3, we learn that those who claim to be religious Jews are actually a synagogue of Satan: “9I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.” and again in Revelation 2:9, “I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.”

In addition to these things, we also see new teachings about heavenly rewards: Revelation 2: “17He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.”, Revelation 3: “12Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name. 13He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

 

[spauline]

Spauline:

It’s not dogma. Does that mean a Catholic can have the same understanding of Revelation as a protestant, even though it’s not approved of by the Vatican? If not, just what flexibility does it give the Catholic believer?

Thanks

In the end, a Catholic can not FULLY agree with ALL of the Protestant beliefs, because, clearly, ECCLESIOLOGY is involved with the spiritual meaning of Church history, for clearly, eccleisiological rifts are at the heart of the church history thus far and have bearing on precisely what will be the “fullness of the Gentiles”. That is, the questions to ask on the apocalypse are intrinsically tied to whether the faith will be restored before the great apostasy, or if, rather, the great loss of faith in modern times will not be healed and that it is already the beginning of the great apostasy. But asking whether the Catholic faith will renewed to any significant extent before the Second Coming is inseparable from asking what will become of all the GRAY area religions …

…
(which are summarized by the Mulsims, the Orthodox [Schismatics], the Protestants [Heretics], the supernaturally dead but naturally good religionists (Enlightenment Chidlren of deists and rationalists), and last but not least, the totally dark full apostates (relativistic materialists and atheistic materilaists))
…

… that partially form an obstacle the propogation of the FULLNESS of the Gospel.

And since the Scriptures are not merely Christian but also Catholic, a Protestant can never fully understand them as a whole, and consequently also, if spiritual historicism is a legitiamate sense intended by God (and Catholicisim recognizes this as possible), it would have to describe that spiritual history from a Catholic viewpoint, which can only mean that non-Catholic spiritual disturbances of the propogation of the Gospel must then be viewed as negative. hence, at a bare minimum, Islam, Orthodoxy and Protestantism, if contained in the apoc, will be shown in a NEGATIVE light.

For more info on the development of this thesis, you may consider reading my article on this which expands considerably on this:

The Seal, the Mark, and Everything in Between

Blessings to you, praetr!

 

[spauline]

Spauline:

It’s not dogma. Does that mean a Catholic can have the same understanding of Revelation as a protestant, even though it’s not approved of by the Vatican? If not, just what flexibility does it give the Catholic believer?

Thanks

A Catholic canNOT accept chiliasm. However, a Catholic is not REQUIRED (at this point at least) to believe that amill is the only intended meaning of the Millennium. Basically, it cannot accept chiliasm (a literal reign of Christ on earth before the General Judgement or end of time) and they cannot accept a position that would have the earth “full of wondrous faith” at the time of the Second Coming, since the presence of the great apostasy at the very end is general teaching. Hence, an overly optimistic postmiller who believes the Christianization of humanity will PERSEVERE until the Second Coming is in opposition to general Catholic teaching.

HOwever, the Church does not condemn the possibility that the near totality of humanity might come to embrace the Gospel at some time prior to the great apostasy. In fact, accoirding to EWTN experts, there are “countless fully approved private revelations” that discuss a MINOR apostasy and tribulation to occur before the times of the great apostasy, and that the minor tribulation succeeds in bringing humanity back to the Gospel for a glorious age of peace, and that only after the age of peace will there occur the great apostasy of the end. All this above CAN be believed by a Catholic, and yet, OTOH, a Catholic does not HAVE to believe it.

In other words, a Catholic is obligated to believe that Christ returns only at the very end of time, (hence, chiliaism is out of the question) and that when Christ returns, the majority of humanity will be in apostasy and indescribable tribulation. A Catholic MAY OR MAY NOT believe that there could occur a lesser apostasy and tribulation prior to those of the end.

 

[praet0r]

Spauline:

Thanks for your answers - they were very helpful. The link you supplied is particularly helpful and I will read it to gain further understanding of your viewpoint.

 

[spauline]

Spauline:

Thanks for your answers - they were very helpful. The link you supplied is particularly helpful and I will read it to gain further understanding of your viewpoint.

You’re welcome!

Blessings to you again!
scott

 

[richardeekw]

As for the Preterist view, what of the evidence that Revelation was written around 95 AD? There is plenty of evidence that it was NOT written before 70 AD

I;m only beginning my study on the Book of Revelation and have offered the extract from Dr Scott Hahn;s introduction.,

If you have not read it.
This extract,is his write up on
Authorship, Audience, Date and Place of Composition

Revelation gives a few details about the author: His name is “John” (1:1, 4, 9, 22:8), he sees himself among the prophets (22:9) and uses such general titles as “servant” of God (1:1) and “brother and companion in tribulation” (1:9). He also affords a rare instance of a biblical book that explicitly states its place of composition: the the island of Patmos(1:10) following a banishment imposed by unknown authorities for his Christian testimony. And the letters he sends to the seven Churches (2:1 – 3:22) presuppose his pre-eminent position among the Christians of Asia. It is to these Christians primarily that John addresses his Revelation.

Many early fathers (for instance, the author of the Aporyphon of John, Panias (according to Andrew of Caessarea), Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tretullian Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Athanasius) regard John the Apostle, therefore, as the author of Revelation.

However, others in the early Church rejected the book as unapostolic for various reasons, most frequently because certain heretics misused and abused the text of Revelation to support their heresy. Others, noticing differences in the literary style between Revelation and the gospel and letters of John, concluded with the same person cannot be the author of both. One theory, dating back to Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264’65) holds that only John and 1 John are the work of the apostle John whereas Revelation was written by a figure name “John the Presbyter”. “Eventually, however, a consensus was reached and Revelation took its place in the canon of New Testament books in the late 4th century through the debate over authorship never really settled down.

We tend to hold that the weight of evidence indicates Revelation was weitten by John the Apostle. It seems to us that whatever problems you encounter attributing revelation to St. John, you encounter more problems taking it away from him., A great Catholic Scripture scholar named Andre Feuillet, in his book The Apocalypse, gives a very persuasive summary of the arguments for St John the Apostle being the author of Revelation.

For example, aside from St John’s gospel (John 7:37-39) only in Revelation do we have language which speaks of “living water”. In the Gospel of John, this “liing water” flows from the heart while while in Revelation it flows from the center of the new Jerusalem which is the Bride of Christ – the Mystical Body. In other words, the same mystical train of thought is at the center of both books. Other similarities pointing to a common origin include other details found nowhere in the NT except in these two books: Christ is presented as “the Lamb” (Jon 1:29, 36, and 28 times in Revelation but with different Greek words); Jesus is the “Word of God” (John 1:1, 14; Revelation 19:13); and the Church is imaged as “the bride” (John 3:29, Revelation 21:2, 9; 22:17). Likewise the absence of a temple in the new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:22) suggests a line of thought something like that of John 4:21… Feuillet adduces other examples of such parallels as well.

In addition the preponderanc of early Fathers is on the side of St. John the Apostle as the author. St. Justin, for instance specifically refers to the author of Revelation as “one of the apostles of Christ”. Significantly, Justin Martyr was converted to Christianity in Ephesus around 135 A.D. This was the very city where John had served as Bishop and is one of the cities addressed by Christ in the seven letters at the beginning of Revelation. So Justin is very much in touch with some of the most ancient traditions surrounding Revelation and its author. In addition Melito of Sandis (yet another of the churches mentioned in Revelation 2-3) also tells us that St. John the Apostle was the author. Similarly Irenaeus attests to his authorship and the learned the Gospel from St. Polycarp, who actually heard John the Apostle with his own ears.

 

[didymus]

That’s like saying “it’s too bad anything that makes us think was included in the canon”. There was plenty of OT prophecy during OT times for the Jews, why does it seem outlandish to you that there is also NT prophecy for Christians?

If you are merely stating that we shouldn’t spend all our time thinking about it, I agree. But if you’re stating we shouldn’t think about it at all (which I think you might be implying), then no offense, but I think you’re taking the “strength through ignorance” viewpoint in my opinion.

I apologise for my, ah, intemperate post. I’ve just seen a lot of people go 'round the bend with this book. Plus, it is so multi-layered, I feel like I need a scholar next to me to guide me thru it.

 

[praet0r]

I apologise for my, ah, intemperate post. I’ve just seen a lot of people go 'round the bend with this book. Plus, it is so multi-layered, I feel like I need a scholar next to me to guide me thru it.

No problem at all. Revelation is indeed an interesting book with a wide variety of interpretations. Like you, I am not sure how to interpret it and that is why I thought I’d turn to the experts at Catholic.com to hear what the Catholic church teaches

 

[praet0r]

Richardeekw:

Thanks for sharing. May I ask whereabouts you quoted this from? I wouldn’t mind looking into it further.

 

[richardeekw]

No problem at all. Revelation is indeed an interesting book with a wide variety of interpretations. Like you, I am not sure how to interpret it and that is why I thought I’d turn to the experts at Catholic.com to hear what the Catholic church teaches

For a start, Trace your understanding from the Book of Revelation to the Catechism of the Catholic Church
CITATION INDEX - NEW TESTAMENT

Revelation

Revelation 1:4 1403, 2854*
Revelation 1:6 1546, 2855*
Revelation 1:8 2854
Revelation 1:17 612
Revelation 1:18 625, 633,* 635, 2854
Revelation 2-3 401*
Revelation 2:5 1429
Revelation 2:16 1429
Revelation 2:17 1025,* 2159
Revelation 3:7 303
Revelation 3:14 1065
Revelation 4-5 1138*
Revelation 4:2 1137
Revelation 4:6-11 662*
Revelation 4:8-11 2642*
Revelation 4:11 295, 2855*
Revelation 5:6 1137
Revelation 5:9-14 2642*
Revelation 5:9-10 1546*
Revelation 5:13 449,* 2855*
Revelation 6:9-11 1138
Revelation 6:10 2642, 2817
Revelation 7:1-8 1138*
Revelation 7:2-3 1296*
Revelation 7:9 775, 1138
Revelation 7:10-12 2642*
Revelation 9:4 1296*
Revelation 11:15 450*
Revelation 12 1138*
Revelation 12:9 391,* 2852
Revelation 12:11 2853*
Revelation 12:13-16 2853
Revelation 12:17 501,* 757,* 2853
Revelation 13-14 2113*
Revelation 13:8 677
Revelation 14:1 1138,* 2159
Revelation 14:4 778,* 1618*
Revelation 16:15 2849
Revelation 18:24 2642*
Revelation 19:1-8 2642*
Revelation 19:1-9 677*
Revelation 19:6 865*
Revelation 19:7 757,* 1602, 1612
Revelation 19:9 1329,* 1602, 1612
Revelation 20:7-10 677*
Revelation 20:12 677*
Revelation 21:1-22:5 117*
Revelation 21:1-2 756*
Revelation 21:1 1043*
Revelation 21:2-4 677*
Revelation 21:2 757,* 1045, 2016
Revelation 21:3 756,* 2676
Revelation 21:4 1044, 1186
Revelation 21:5 1044
Revelation 21:6 694,* 1137*
Revelation 21:7 2788
Revelation 21:9 757,* 865, 1045, 1138*
Revelation 21:10-11 865
Revelation 21:12-14 765*
Revelation 21:14 857, 865, 869
Revelation 21:22 586*
Revelation 21:27 1044,* 1045*
Revelation 22:1 1137
Revelation 22:4 1023*
Revelation 22:5 1029
Revelation 22:15 1470*
Revelation 22:16 437,* 528*
Revelation 22:17 524,* 671, 694,* 757,* 796,*
1130, 2550,* 2853
Revelation 22:20 451, 671, 673,* 1130, 1403,
2853
Revelation 22:21 1061*

<BR