Why send to the churches in Asia Minor?

[Guest]

Dear Steve,

Just puzzling over this: Why was Revelation written to the 7 churches in Asia Minor when the bulk of Revelation is about the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70? Wouldn't this letter be more useful to the Jerusalem church?

[Guest]

Dear Steve,

Just puzzling over this: Why was Revelation written to the 7 churches in Asia Minor when the bulk of Revelation is about the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70? Wouldn't this letter be more useful to the Jerusalem church?

I have always wondered that also which is one reason I have never really bought the 70 AD senario.

Jim

[Guest]

Actually I buy the 70 AD senario.

This question presents a worse problem for the futurist view. Why write a letter to seven Asia Minor churches about something that will take place more than 2000 years later? Especially since none of these churches (except for Symrna, I think) are existent today.

I don't think the Idealist [and possibly Historicist] view would have a problem with this question though.

[Guest]

Dear Steve,

Just puzzling over this: Why was Revelation written to the 7 churches in Asia Minor when the bulk of Revelation is about the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70? Wouldn't this letter be more useful to the Jerusalem church?

The Jerusalem church had already received the warnings of Christ, passed down by the apostles.

[Guest]

Actually I buy the 70 AD senario.

This question presents a worse problem for the futurist view. Why write a letter to seven Asia Minor churches about something that will take place more than 2000 years later? Especially since none of these churches (except for Symrna, I think) are existent today.

I don't think the Idealist [and possibly Historicist] view would have a problem with this question though.

Agreed.

[Guest]

Why write a letter to seven Asia Minor churches about something that will take place more than 2000 years later? Especially since none of these churches (except for Symrna, I think) are existent today.

But Benjamin, unless you are a full preterist, you must view at least some of Revelation (chapter 21 and 22?) as concerning end-time events? So you also face these very same problems. No?

ybiM,
Ely

[Guest]

Actually I buy the 70 AD senario.

This question presents a worse problem for the futurist view. Why write a letter to seven Asia Minor churches about something that will take place more than 2000 years later? Especially since none of these churches (except for Symrna, I think) are existent today.

I don't think the Idealist [and possibly Historicist] view would have a problem with this question though.

Its not that I don't accept the possibility of 70 AD scenario, but why not write to all the churches of the time period not just the seven? What was it about these 7 churchs and thier make up that they were used in revelations?

Jim

[Guest]

But Benjamin, unless you are a full preterist, you must view at least some of Revelation (chapter 21 and 22?) as concerning end-time events? So you also face these very same problems. No?

Hi Ely,

No. I'm not a full preterist. Sorry I wasn't explicit enough. I was basically referring to the majority teaching of Revelation (i.e. based on the number of chapters) rather than the entirety of Revelation.

Its not that I don't accept the possibility of 70 AD scenario, but why not write to all the churches of the time period not just the seven? What was it about these 7 churchs and thier make up that they were used in revelations?

Hi Jim,

Been thinking about my question. Maybe because some of these Asia Minor churches were undergoing persecution by the Jews or perhaps they were getting confused about having to meet the requirements of the Old Covenent. Therefore Revelation was to tell them about the final end of the Old Covenant. In this light, Revelation might have possibly acted as the Gentile counterpart to the book of Hebrews. Then again, I'm not sure whether the apocalyptic genre extended outside of Jewish literature.

[Guest]

Hi Ely,

No. I'm not a full preterist. Sorry I wasn't explicit enough. I was basically referring to the majority teaching of Revelation (i.e. based on the number of chapters) rather than the entirety of Revelation.

OKay, I'm with you now.

Ely

[Guest]

I found Steve Gregg's answer on this other forum post.

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... &&start=15

I don't think we can say for sure why the Apocalypse was addressed to the region it was addressed to and not to Jerusalem, but I think the answer may be as simple as this:

Asia was where Ephesus, John's home church, was. He was permitted to send this book of warning and encouragement to the folks "back home," who would haved as much of an interest in the fate of Jerusalem as would any first-century Christians—besides the Jerusalemites themselves, of course.

The reason for not sending this particular book to Jerusalem might be that God had already given the church there precisely the same warning and encouragement in the Olivet Discourse, and He would also send a special oracle, at the proper time, to tell the Christians there when to flee (which happened, according to Eusebius).

What would be even more inexplicable than His sending a letter about the fate of Jerusalem to first-century, Asian Christians would be His addressing it to them, as He did, but really meaning for its message to be applicable to the last generation of Christians that would ever live—while providing no way for the final generation to know that they are the very last generation, to whom it applies. This would leave open the possiblility (and likelihood) of every successive generation, after the first, being deceived into thinking that they might be the last, and that the book applies to their own time.

He wisely took steps to prevent this confusion by frequently telling the original readers that the book would be fulfilled immediately.