The Apocalypse of St. John: Introduction
Robert Sungenis | 5 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZqiAjq1jZw
Quibbles?
1) He stated the Apocalypse is one vision, like one dream, I would say the book itself supports very clearly that it's divided into many visions.
I John, your brother and your partner in tribulation, and in the kingdom, and patience in Christ Jesus, was in the island, which is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 1:9-10]
After these things I looked, and behold a door was opened in heaven, and the first voice which I heard, as it were, of a trumpet speaking with me, said: Come up hither, and I will shew thee the things which must be done hereafter And immediately I was in the spirit: and behold there was a throne set in heaven, and upon the throne one sitting
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 4:1-2]
The following three could be referring to prominent details in the previous, but could also mean new visions continuing the theme:
And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne, a book written within and without, sealed with seven seals And I saw a strong angel, proclaiming with a loud voice: Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 5:1-2]
And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 5:6]
And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the living creatures, and the ancients; and the number of them was thousands of thousands
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 5:11]
The argument for these being new visions on continued theme is strengthened if you take these as being so:
And I saw that the Lamb had opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures, as it were the voice of thunder, saying: Come, and see And I saw: and behold a white horse, and he that sat on him had a bow, and there was a crown given him, and he went forth conquering that he might conquer
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 6:1-2]
And I saw, when he had opened the sixth seal, and behold there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair: and the whole moon became as blood
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 6:12]
Here is probably a new one:
After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree 2 And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the sign of the living God; and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 7:1-2]
I will not go through all of the Apocalypse right now, but the references with "I saw" are Apocalypse 1:12, 5:1, 5:2, 5:6, 6:1, 6:2, 6:9, 6:12, 7:1, 7:2, 7:9, 8:2, 9:1, 9:17, 10:1, 10:5, 13:1, 13:2, 13:3, 13:11, 14:6, 14:14, 15:1, 15:2, 16:13, 17:3, 17:6, 18:1, 19:11, 19:17, 19:19, 20:1, 20:4, 20:11, 20:12, 21:1, with "I John saw" 21:2 and then 21:22. "I was in the spirit" comes at 1:10 and 4:2. These are potential divisions between different visions. I can easily count the verses by using a word to change : to , in previous sentence and it was changed 40 times. So, perhaps the Apocalypse is 40 visions. If so, some of them are very short, interrupted and then JOhn goes back in a visionary state and has a vision of the continuation. Counting this way, John was arguably startled out of the visionary state 3 times, and the fourth vision continues to 14:5. Unless the "I beheld" are also vision divisions, in which case a new one starts at 14:1.
I will not dispute the division of the Apocalypse into "7 dramas", but just say that rather than all 7 being parts of one vision, all 7 were rather subdivided into several visions. Possibly there is actually a continuation of vision from 11:19 to 12:1, as some Catholics have mentioned that the woman of Apocalypse 12 is the Ark of the New Covenant, mentioned in 11:19, here:
And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 11:19]
However, I will dispute the idea that as all 7 end in the Second Coming therefore each thing mentioned before that is all of Church history from First to Second coming. In Apocalypse 6:9—11 we see the position of saints that are praying for us right now, specifically martyr saints. This part is clearly sth the Church applies to the time from the First to the Second coming. Therefore not one of the signs foreboding the imminent Second Coming. But this does not mean that for instance chapter 11 must be primarily about all the time from the First to the Second comings, though St. Cyprian took it to be so, it does not preclude that it is about the actual span of less than half a decade before the Second Coming.
2) He takes for granted that St. John the Gospeller is the same as John of Zebedee, the younger of the Boanergs. I used to do so until I read the Catholic priest Fr. Jean Colson. He was ordained in 1938 and wrote the book in 1968. He traces this misidentification to St. Irenaeus, who left Asia Minor while still a teen. So, when both were prominent, both were called John, both were venerated, who's excluding he could have got it wrong?
Now, the mere possibility is of course not an argument in itself, but he adds some other evidence. It falls into three categories, and he dismisses the Acts of John as a novel. His three categories are:
- some discrepancies about John the Beloved being one of the Twelve, the son of Zebedee, with facts in the Gospels ("all fled" / the Beloved was at the Cross, "ye will all drink of this chalice" / John wasn't martyred, the absence of account of the Last Supper Eucharist in his Gospel, the absence of the transfiguration, where John was very probably the son of Zebedee, since mentioned with James) as well as hints in the Gospels he could be a Cohen and have property in Jerusalem (the host of the Last Supper is never named and would have had access to the discourses Jesus gave while the eating was going on, the Beloved disciple could host the Blessed Virgin immediately on Good Friday, the Beloved was known to the High Priests, I'm not sure he mentioned it, but like Matthew has lots of references to money, John has more than usual references to feasts);
- an early Gallican martyrology supports John of Zebedee being martyred in boiling water;
- Asia Minor references, excluding Irenaeus, never directly identify the Gospeller with the son of Zebedee, and mention a "John who has worn the golden headband" ...
Now, the Church clearly says that the Fourth Gospel is written by "the Apostle John" and public revelation was finished "before the death of the last Apostle" ... but the word Apostle is sometimes used to refer to other groups than just the 12, like the 72 or the group (whether same as or other than the 72) that included Andronicus and his wife Junia. Therefore obviously Fr. Colson latched on to the wiggle room this provided and wondered if it could be applied fruitfully. I bet he celebrated his patron the 27th of December rather than the 24th of June, for "Jean" so he had a holy and pious curiosity (I actually commemorate both as patron saints, "Hans" being an abbreviation of "Johannes").*
3) He presents a dichotomy about literal and symbolic, which I think is ... wrong. "When so and so gave me a meal with lots of spices he pulled my leg, it gave me diarrhea" is a literal story, even if "pulled my leg" doesn't literally mean he held my ankle and pulled it with my leg towards him. Apart from the four senses, in which the literal and the allegoric sense are always different, literal and symbolic are a gradient with many possible combinations.
In the case of relation to OT symbolism, I do think the Four Beasts of Daniel (one of them fourheaded) and the seven heads of the Beast from the Sea are related. I also think the Lioness in Daniel may well have been Queen Elizabeth II. Not sure if that means Charles III or someone else after him or beside him is going to be the spokesman of the Antichrist. If you consider that the Four Beasts were already fulfilled, the Senatorial Rome being the Fourth Beast (and Antiochus Epiphanes was not just a Greek, he was even more notoriously a vassal of the Roman Senate!), I agree. I just think there is a correspondence between two fulfilments.
Speaking of end times, and Apocalypse 11, St. Cyprian could have been speaking about the moral sense of the passage, which differs from the literal.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Saint Amand
6.II.2025
* I noted that two Church Fathers cited identifying John the Beloved with the son of Zebedee, both were some decades younger than St. Irenaeus.
No comments:
Post a Comment