Shared ground
These verses present a chain of sound and speech: a mighty figure gives a loud, authoritative cry (likened to a lion), and that cry is immediately followed by “the seven thunders” speaking with their own “voices” (thunders; voice). The narration treats the thunders as conveying real content, not just loud noise, because John is ready to write down what they “said.”
The passage also draws a firm boundary around revelation. John, who normally records what he sees and hears, is stopped by a heavenly voice and told to seal up the message and not to write it. Whatever the seven thunders communicated is intentionally withheld from the reader at this point.
Where interpretation differs (only where needed)
What “the seven thunders” are. Some read them as personal agents (heavenly voices or messengers) because they “speak” in coordinated fashion. Others take them as a symbolic way of describing a divine-sounding proclamation (thunder as God’s public, overwhelming voice) without implying distinct beings.
What “seal up” implies. Some read the sealing as a temporary withholding within the story (kept from John’s book, but potentially disclosed later through other means). Others see it as a permanent limit: certain divine information is not meant to be part of Revelation’s written disclosure.
Why the disagreement exists
The text gives no identification of the thunders, no summary of what they said, and no stated reason for the sealing. Because Revelation often uses sound as both event and message, readers differ on whether “thunders” should be taken more concretely (agents) or more symbolically (sound-image), and whether sealing is a time-limited delay or a lasting restriction.
What this passage clearly contributes
Explicitly, Revelation 10:3–4 shows that God’s communication in the vision is both abundant (more is spoken than is written) and selective (some messages are restricted). It also highlights John’s role as a witness who records what he is allowed to record, not everything he hears. Theologically by inference, the passage supports the idea that divine disclosure has intentional boundaries: not all “true” information is meant to be shared in the same way or at the same time.
