Rev 4 & 5; Pentecost or 1844

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Gus Foster said:

Hardinge does not recognize Rev 5 as the IJ, but just as judgment. He teaches that all the church age is judgment, thus Rev 5 at Pentecost is a continuation of life, even though now enhanced with a greater gift of the Spirit.

The meaning of the scroll might help. Can we find a definition of this scroll with writing on both sides somewhere else in Scripture? Yup! In Zech 5 it contains purging and judgment. Some attribute this to the judgment of Dan 7 & 9; others do not. Hardinge states that Jesus took the book of Dan 7:9, 10, but this is at the start of the church age, brushing aside an IJ. We can find the best explanation of this 'scroll' in Eze 2:9-3:7. It corresponds perfectly with the 'horses' of Zech 1 & 6 and the blowing of the trumpet in Eze 33. This book contains the admonitions of God and the history of the church age. It is plain for my study for me.

---

In Dan. 7:9, 10, the Hebrew word is 'separ' which means 'books' plural. That form also occurs in Eccl. 12:12. However, in Rev. 5, the reference is to 'biblion,' accusative singular. Here's what Kittel has to say about this occurrence of the word:

""The biblion with seven seals . . . is again in the form of a roll, and inded of an opisthographon, not a codex. this is shown decisively by the close relation of the text to Ez. 2:9f., where there is a roll inscribed on both sides and indicating the inscrutable fulness of events. According to the image, however, there is also an influence of the Roman testament with its seven seals. The contents of the biblion must be brought into relation to the whole chain of judicial acts which unfold from c. 6 on and from which there develop organically the visions of the trumpets and the bowls. Hence we are not concerned merely with the 6 or 7 seals themselves, but with all the last events up to the consummation, and indeed with the direction and goal given to the community. The biblion is thus the book of the sacredly established divine decrees concerning the future of the world and the community . . ." Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the NT, vol. 1, pp. 618, 619)

In summary, then, the 'books' of Daniel 7 are different from the 'roll' described in Rev. 4. I am looking forward to seeing Ron's response and exegesis of these passages, in particular with regard to identifying the 'books' and the 'roll.'

BTW Gus, I do suggest taking Monsieur Spiros with a grain of salt. His views are dispensationalist, from what I have read, and he allows his own views to color his work. His definitions and applications are interesting, but I highly recommend that they be checked against an authoritative source such as Bauer-Gingrich-Danker, and/or Kittel.

Regards, Dave

[Gus Foster]

This evening I was reading Christ's Object Lessons and on page 119 it reads:

But after Christ's ascention His enthronement in His mediatorial kingdom was signalized by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. On the day of Pentecost the Spirit was given. Christ's witness proclaimed the power of the risen Savior. The light of heaven penetrated the darkened minds of those who had been deceived---etc, etc.

That is a specific statement, and I must agree.

[Ron Lambert]

Following on that quote, Gus, if we accept that the Inauguration of Christ came at Pentecost, then how can the heavenly scene of Revelation 4-5 be meant to depict that event? The time of the writing of Revelation was some 60 plus years after Pentecost and Rev. 4:1 clearly states: "After these things I looked and behold" and "I will show you what must take place after these things." Honestly, how could anything possibly be any clearer? Some things are absolutely impossible, and the idea that Rev. 4-5 is depicting events over 60 years in the past is one of them. There is no way possible the traditional view can be maintained. It is definitively wrong.

Archierieus, sorry, but making trying to make a big differnce between the "book" opened in Rev. 5 and the "books" opened in Daniel 7 is not a sound argument. The book in Rev. 5 is a special, particular book, that had to be opened for humans to be saved. This does not preclude the existence of other books of record just because they are not mentioned too, as they were in Dan. 7. There is no reason why most of the books of historical record should be sealed. But the book that records the faith and works of God's people must be sealed, until One is proven worthy to open this particular book. Remember, since whether mankind is to be saved is the clear issue in Rev. 5, this confirms that Rev. 5 must be depicting the Investigative Judgment in which the final fate of all mankind will be determined.

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

Archierieus, sorry, but making trying to make a big differnce between the "book" opened in Rev. 5 and the "books" opened in Daniel 7 is not a sound argument. The book in Rev. 5 is a special, particular book, that had to be opened for humans to be saved. This does not preclude the existence of other books of record just because they are not mentioned too, as they were in Dan. 7. There is no reason why most of the books of historical record should be sealed. But the book that records the faith and works of God's people must be sealed, until One is proven worthy to open this particular book. Remember, since whether mankind is to be saved is the clear issue in Rev. 5, this confirms that Rev. 5 must be depicting the Investigative Judgment in which the final fate of all mankind will be determined.

---

Since you addressed the first half of your post to Gus, I shall leave any response to that half, to him. Now, as to what is quoted above, Hmmmm. Let's take a careful look. You have made a number of representations about "the book," or the roll, as it is:

1) "The book in Rev. 5 is a special, particular book, that had to be opened for humans to be saved."

And where, in Rev. 5, do you find that? I just now reread ch. 5. Nowhere does it say anything about the book having to be opened in order for humans to be saved. That is not stated. Apparently you have concluded that, but the Scripture does not say that.

2) "But the book that records the faith and works of God's people must be sealed, until One is proven worthy to open this particular book."

The record does not state that. Neither ch. 5 nor ch. 6 states either that the roll records the faith and works of God's people, or that it therefore must be sealed. That is not stated in Scripture. It is your conclusion, which is unsubstantiated by the record. As a point of interest, ch. 2 and 3 DO talk about the faith and works of God's people, but there is no suggestion there of any requirement for that record to be sealed. But, let's keep with ch. 5 and 6. Your conclusion appears to not be supported by Scripture here.

3) "Remember, since whether mankind is to be saved is the clear issue in Rev. 5 . . ."

Huh? That is nowhere stated in ch. 5. Nothing close to that appears in the text. The issue is the opening of the roll with seven seals (Ha! Jewish and Roman imagery combined!). Your statement appears to be conjecture.

4) "this confirms that Rev. 5 must be depicting the Investigative Judgment in which the final fate of all mankind will be determined."

Nonsense. Is this the basis for your conclusion? Flawed logic. If A then B, here, but firstly, A is not so stated in the text, and secondly, assuming it were, you have provided no basis other than your conjecture, for the "then B."

Okay, Ron, awaiting your answers.

Regards, Dave

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, the implications are pretty obvious, unless you are just trying not to see them. Immediately after the Lamb has been found worthy to open the book and has had it given to Him, the 24 elders fall down before the throne and sing: "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth." Rev. 5:9-10; NASB)

There is nothing wrong with my logic. What I said is absolutely sound amd unmistakable, unless you are in the most determined denial. If the salvation of mankind is not the issue, then whey did John "weep greatly" (v. 4) because at first no one was found worthy to open the book?

Let me ask you if you have ever read a better explanation of why the book was sealed, and why it was so important to humanity that it be opened? Can you dispute the fact that there is no need to seal mere historical accounts? Can you deny the logic of concluding that the book that was sealed must be the book that records the faith and works of the people of God, which must be consulted for it to be determined who is to be numbered in Christ's kingdom, and that it was sealed because that record cannot be consulted unless we have a Savior to give our faith and works validity? Can you appreciate that there is new light here, that comes from simply using sound exegesis to get out of the text what it really says (and implies)? If you continue to value familiar and comfortable church tradition over light from God's Word, then you will fail to receive this light.

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

Dave, the implications are pretty obvious

---

That statement describes in a nutshell, the problem. Sound exegesis SHUNS implications!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Implications" are several steps removed from solid exegesis. They are speculative in nature. Sound exegesis limits itself to an understanding of a word's derivation, its etymology, its secular Greek usage, its occurrences in literature of the time, its occurrences in the NT, and such considerations. We also look at grammatical issues for a passage including the word, and semantical issues. Context is a nebulous issue, and potentially inaccurate. From there, one dives into muddy water, dog-paddling in the speculative sea of 'implications.' That would seem tantamount to making Scripture of 'private interpretation.'

I grant you that the 'pop' study Bibles and commentaries, indulge in great indiscretions in the name of 'exegesis.' But so many times, it is sloppy. There is no rock-solid Scriptural foundation, and any house built on such shifty sands is only a house of cards.

Quote:

---

unless you are just trying not to see them. Immediately after the Lamb has been found worthy to open the book and has had it given to Him, the 24 elders fall down before the throne and sing: "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth." Rev. 5:9-10; NASB)

---

But, that does not support your assertion!!!! That says absolutely nothing about an issue of whether or not man is to be saved!! You are indulging in speculation here.

Quote:

---

If the salvation of mankind is not the issue, then whey did John "weep greatly" (v. 4) because at first no one was found worthy to open the book?

---

We have no Scriptural authority to surmise any reason beyond what is stated in the passage!!! The danger of making such a surmise, is firstly, that it may be dead wrong, and secondly, that an interpretative edifice can very easily be erected upon such surmises, which may be totally inaccurate and result in dangerous error.

Quote:

---

Let me ask you if you have ever read a better explanation of why the book was sealed, and why it was so important to humanity that it be opened?

---

That is commentary stuff--whether homiletic commentaries, general commentaries, or other such. We have no Scriptural warrant to go beyond what is actually stated in the record. Unless God expressly states a reason in the Scripture, then we are well-advised to accept what is revealed to us.

Quote:

---

Can you dispute the fact that there is no need to seal mere historical accounts?

---

Once again, that is entirely speculative in nature. Although, as a point of interest, historical accounts/evidence/testimony HAVE been sealed, by court order.

Quote:

---

Can you deny the logic of concluding that the book that was sealed must be the book that records the faith and works of the people of God, which must be consulted for it to be determined who is to be numbered in Christ's kingdom, and that it was sealed because that record cannot be consulted unless we have a Savior to give our faith and works validity?

---

Absolutely. That 'logic' is clearly based upon a number of assumptions which are not stated in the record. As I read what you posted, quoted above, it is very speculative, and not so stated in Scripture. The logic is your own, rather than what is stated in the text. That is the danger.

Quote:

---

Can you appreciate that there is new light here, that comes from simply using sound exegesis to get out of the text what it really says (and implies)?

---

So far, you have not presented sound exegesis. I would welcome the opportunity to review your exegesis. You would need to make a detailed, footnoted presentation of the etymology of each significant word, the usage of such words in Greek society of the time, word usage in the LXX, intertestamental usage, other occurrences of the word(s) in the Greek NT (identify which Greek text you are using) grammatical issues of the word itself, as well as in the passage being exegeted, as well and semantical issues. THAT is exegesis. A good start would be to refer to Kittel, and check out his footnotes.

Ron, I think it is terrific that you have the level of interest and dedication to this important project. I am giving you a straight response, as one who is interested in seeing your work pass muster according to the rigorous standards of Biblical exegesis.

Regards, Dave

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, what I have presented is sound exegesis. From your mistaken and superficial attempts to define exegesis, it is clear you do not understand what it really means. Here is the point where you fail to understand it: Exegesis also includes taking due note of CONTEXT. This includes recognizing logical implications. I do take note of context fully, and you do not. I have shown you what sound exegesis is, and you resist it because it leads to conclusions that contradict your prejudice.

Let us recall the old controversy over Acts 10:11-16, where a sheet is lowered from heaven containing unclean animals, and Peter is told to eat them, and not to view as unclean what God has made clean. Some people today who are too fond of their pork and wish to set aside Leviticus 11 seize upon this text and blindly stick to a literal construction, and ignore how Peter himself explained the vision in verse 28 of the same chapter by saying: "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." Again in the next chapter (vs. 1-17), when speaking to the elders in Jerusalem, Peter referred to this vision (vs. 5-10) as justification for bring the gospel to the Gentile, Cornelius, and baptising him and his household.

Sound exegesis REQUIRES that all these passages be taken together with the account of the vision in Acts 10:11-16. When the Bible itself explains what it means, it is a failure to practice sound exegesis to refuse to accept this.

Similar is when Revelation 17:15 tells us: "The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues." Sound exegesis requires that we "plug in" this definition when we interpret verse 1 which speaks of "the great harlot who sits on many waters."

This should be nothing new to any Seventh-day Adventist. We have always professed to believe in this principle, of allowing the Bible to define its own terms. I have long wondered why this principle is left behind by many when it comes to interpreting the seals and trumpets, and nearly everything else in Revelation. People read about the smoke coming out of the mouths of horses in the fifth and sixth trumpets, and SUBJECTIVELY reflect that this reminds them of gunsmoke coming from the guns of Moslem calvalry, instead of checking what the prophetic symbol of smoke means, as shown elsewhere in Scripture (in every case it always refers to manifestation of supernatural power; whether divine or human is determined by further consulting with context).

Seventh-day Adventists profess to be the people of the book, the people who believe in allowing "the Bible to be its own expositor." Yet those who defend the majority, traditional views of such prophecies as Revelation 4 and 5, and the seals and trumpets, exhibit the most profound incompetence in Bible scholarship! What am embarassment this has been to the church for years, what an embarassment it has been for Christ. This is surely the main thing He is talking about when He rebukes the Laodiceans for thinking they are "rich and increased with goods"--meaning the spiritual goods of thinking they have all the prophecies just about all right, when in fact their scholarship is poor, wretched, miserable, and blind!

[Gus Foster]

Once again, I am reminded why many of my fellow Adventists check out our these forums and than flee. After someone has stated his opinion, or understanding on any given doctrine or Scripture, and has contention with another, they flow into agruements and actually accuse each of inadequencies and even become downright malicious.

There is no reason to call another names or to impugn their efforts or character.

Prophetic language is written in symbolism, and understanding today is primarily due to cultural surroundings and timely events. The one thing everyone must note is that especially in the book of Revelation, the symbolism represents any event at any current time and for that particular present age.What makes us think that someone in 1266 had the same understanding that we do? When I studied the newest Revelation study by Leslie Hardinge, I was surprised that when he got into the seals and trumpets, he echoed Uriah Smith's interpretation of those events, given them exact one time elements, applicable only to one given time. He actually regressed into the 1800's and at the time of 1844 declared that Rev 10's end of all time was the end of all prophetic time. Tbe day of atonement has been every day since then! The last day is simply 'consumated end'.

Hardinge says a whole lot that bouyed me up, 'sweet in my mouth', but some things kinda 'bitter in my stomach'.

There is one major point that most seem to miss. Especially in the seals and trumpets, they apply to both the righteous and the wicked. They purge and cleanse the righteous, and separate the wicked. Another way to say that is that separated the righteous unto God, and separate the wicked unto eternal damnation, to be destroyed the lake of fire.

The initial question in this thread was that did Rev 4 & 5 represent either Pentecost or 1844; Definite time periods, and happenings. Could it be both? No! Are we in the Adventist church divided on this issue? Acutely so! So, who is right? Do I need to stand up and shout insults at those who think differently? Sometimes we may all feel that way, but is that the Christian way?

This very thing happened in our Bible study a few years ago, and we resolved to pray and study together, and come to a Scripural conclusion. Obviously, Lev 23 was the binding Scripture that brought us together, showing Pentecost, which was 10 days after the ascension of Christ, was the occurrence that happened, and it also confirmed our belief that heavenly happenings were the dictating events that caused earthly events. That is why we were ultimately convinced that the cleansing of the sanctuary was finally the cleansing of Jesus's church, His people. Jesus returns to claim these cleansed righteous.

One thing that came out of our study; we were convinced that the understanding of Christ's ministry and and most Scriptural doctrine was found in the understanding of the earthly sanctuary and the feast days. Everything in, around and about them represent Christ and His ministry. In them is found Christ, for us and in us and His heavenly ministry. This truth is what separates the true church from all others-------and we should study there.

One final point; nothing in Revelation cannot be understood without the rest of Scripture, which explains each and every DNA thread of understanding. Failure to find and illuminate the definition of any Revelation passage creates a false picture, one of which always becomes contentious. To neglect to expalin the symbolism without using Moses' books, and the Prophets is to invite error, not only in intrepretation, but also in a relationship with the Holy Spirit.

[Ron Lambert]

Gus, your temporizing equivocation is not helpful or constructive. These matters are too important to the church for them to be shrugged off and dismissed as intemperate excess just because someone speaks with warranted certainty.

Gus, please note Proverbs 27:17: "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." Is it not inevitable that when iron strikes iron, some sparks may fly? This is not bad. I for one have gained much additional insight as I worked out my replies to Dave.

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

Dave, what I have presented is sound exegesis. From your mistaken and superficial attempts to define exegesis, it is clear you do not understand what it really means. Here is the point where you fail to understand it:

Exegesis also includes taking due note of CONTEXT.

This includes recognizing logical implications. I do take note of context fully, and you do not.

---

Different schools of thought exist as to the place of context in understanding Scripture. Firstly, it is a level down in precision. It is, by nature, somewhat speculative. Some students of the Word assert that 'context' is downright dangerous, in terms of accuracy.

An example of this is what the NIV and NKJV have done in translating Heb. 9:12. The Greek (TR and Nestle Aland both) states that Christ entered ta hagia once for all. Well, ta hagia means literally, and is defined earlier in the chapter as the holy place. The Most Holy Place is described as hagia hagioon (v. 3) However, on the grounds of 'context,' these versions, as well as Desmond Ford, have rendered it in v. 12 as "the Most Holy Place." That is wrong, and violates the plain meaning of the words.

Still another couple of levels down, is 'recognizing logical implications.' That is a crapshoot. That is not exegesis, that is commentary. Yes, I am familiar with the principles and practice of exegesis. I do it fairly often. Making inferences is not exegesis in its pure sense. Nor is it accurate, by nature. In your case, Ron, I perceive that your inferences, and your own personal logic, are the cause of inaccurate treatment of the text, in violation of what the text itself says. It is much safer to stick with the Bible as it reads.

Quote:

---

I have shown you what sound exegesis is, and you resist it because it leads to conclusions that contradict your prejudice.

---

Now THAT is quite a guess on your part, as to which you simply would have no idea of the truth. The fact is that I took a careful look, not only at the text, but at authoritative exegetical reference works, such as Kittel and BAGD, and on the basis of THAT study reached my conclusion. You can argue with them, of course, but you would need to present quite a weight of Scriptural evidence. The authors and editors of these reference works are professionals who are immersed in the everyday work of real exegesis, and are quite familiar with the primary sources and the critical text.

Quote:

---

Sound exegesis REQUIRES that all these passages be taken together with the account of the vision in Acts 10:11-16. When the Bible itself explains what it means, it is a failure to practice sound exegesis to refuse to accept this.

---

While I wouldn't call that exegesis, you still are correct that the Bible should be its own interpreter. The key is exactly what you said: "When the Bible itself explains what it means." I agree 100% with that. However, that is not making inferences. That is accepting the Bible as it reads. There is quite a difference. As you mentioned in your previous post, you made a number of inferences, which are not stated or objectively suggested by the text. They were the product of your own logic. That is not exegesis.

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Gus, I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from or what you're trying to say. It may be that you prefer a certain style of carrying on a discussion. Actually, some statements in your post sounded like the very thing that you were asserting and complaining about. The possibility exists that others are at different levels of understanding, and express their views in different ways, than you do. There is no problem with that. It would seem to be advantageous to let things be, and go their own course, trusting that the truth will prevail in the end, rather than attempting to control how a discussion is carried forward.

Regards, Dave

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, the Holy Spirit must enlighten our minds as we study Scripture, and spiritual things are spiritually discerned. You must allow room for that, if your concern is truly to receive the truth and know what the Bible text really says and means. Once we see what it means, we can see it is objectively established by the text itself; but your mind has to get to the point where it can see it. The main thing that has always stood in the way of advancing in knowledge of Bible truth is our human predilection for remaining within our comfort zone, and holding on to views that have become long-held traditions, especially when we foolishly associate these traditions with basic docrines of the church and pillars of the faith.

I wonder what the Lord is going to have to do to get through to many Laodiceans. It is His truth they are spurning, because they prefer their own familiar, comfortable traditions.

Yet I know the Lord gave these promises:

Quote:

---

"The book of Revelation opens with an injunction to us to understand the instruction that it contains....When we as a people understand what this book means to us, then there will be seen among us a great revival. We do not understand fully the lessons that it teaches."

Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers,

p. 113

.

"Those who eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of God will bring from the books of Daniel and Revelation truth that is inspired by the Holy Spirit. They will start into action forces that cannot be repressed."

Sabbath Review and Advent Herald,

August 17, 1897, para. 19

---

Let's not miss out on these things. The truth of God is much to be preferred over human tradition, even traditions of the church, long held.

[archierieus]

Now, Herr Lambert, as to your matter:

If I were going to do a thorough study of Rev. 4 & 5, I would start there, at those chapters. I would take a look at significant words, and seek to ascertain the correct meanings of those words. Having done so, THEN I would review the entire passage, ch. 4 & 5, as well as ch. 6, which describes the content of the sealed roll. I would be very careful to FIRST understand what is within those chapters, and then, having done so, expand my survey of the surrounding material. IOW, start with individual words, then go to the passage, then to the book, and only then, step outside the book. That methodology would reduce the risk of misinterpreting the true meaning of the passage, AND reduce the risk of circular reasoning--using the thing to be proved, to prove itself! Perhaps this would be a good time to embark on such a project.

As for inferences . . . I believe that the Holy Spirit DOES speak to us through the written Word. Two critical initial steps in coming to a study of the Word, would seem to be, firstly, submission to God's will and, secondly, accuracy and rigorous methodology.

Regards, Dave

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, you prescribe a detailed methodology for interpreting prophecy. But is that the way you determined the interpretation of Daniel 2? Did you not go by Daniel's explanation, see the clearly implied application to future history, and take that into account? And what about Daniel 7? How can you get anywhere until you allow the Bible to define the symbols? Doing word studies on "bear," "leopard," etc., to make sure exactly what those words mean in the original language, will not get you anywhere, until you compare the context which states explicitly what these symbols represent.

[Gus Foster]

Quote:

---

Gus, you seem to have taken offense at my statement that God leads those whom He judges worthy to be lead, according to His criteria, and not those who have tried to storm heaven by means of their own vain application to human courses of study. You accuse me of advocating a selfish intellectualism; but that is precisely what I am saying is wrong with those learned scholars who almost always stand in the way of every advancement of truth.

Let me repeat as simply as I can. When we study God's Word, the miracle is in the text, not in our intellects. Do you resist that? Would you prefer that people respect and defer to the judgment and give more weight to the opinions of people who possess academic degrees, regardless of whether or not they show real maturity in spiritual knowledge of Bible truth

---

I have definitely given a wrong impression if you believe that I am offended by your opinion, or your stand on Revelation or any other Bible text. I have already been down this trail will Ed and Robert on this forum, and I do admit that some times disagreement seems to border on personal attacks, and has motivated me to remind all of us that we are Christians. There is the lack of uniminity on church doctrines, especially in escatatology and prophetic interpretations.

I do, however, feel that you should adhere to your own prescription of understanding passages such as Rev 4 & 5. You have repeatedly stated that Dan 2 and Dan 7 have following commentaries within the context of the following chapters that clarify interpretation. And yet you refuse to let Scripture interpret the identity of the 4 living creatures, and deny that Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah saw the same beings centuries before Christ as did John, and the ascention of the the 24 elders, which most everyone agrees are ressurrected saints, now operating as priests as described in 1 Cron 24.

You use for your identification of the '4' as quoting Rev 5:9 & 10 as the '4' singing about 'us' being saved by Jesus' blood. You have been shown by several people and methods that the English text you quote is simply not there in the terms you have presented. The exact Greek quote does not indorse this commitment. And then, in what could be construed as at least irritable, you insist on comdemning anyone who thinks this way because it agrees with traditional teaching which you precisely condemn in unkind terms.

At this point, I can only speak for myself; my ten year Revelation study did not depend on any other work, and I personally only conferred with the writings of Ellen White to see if my conclusions were in opposition to hers. When we reached Rev 4 in about 1994, in our word by word, phrase by phrase concordance study, there was never any indication that the '4' were human, but were mysterious Seraphim and/or Cherubim. Obvioulsy, whoever they were, the were the covering beings of the throne, a picture that Lucifer had once occupied.

It has always amazed me that the identity of the 'horses' has been so maligned, since Zechariah goes into such detail, more than once, to show Bible students who they are and what there tasks are (Zech 1:8-11; 6:1-8). This indeed is very explicit, and yet you have made no mention of this. In you endeavor to prove your contention that the 4 living beings are redeemed men, and that the time is the time of judgment starting in 1844, you have ignored the purpose of these beings and the horses, which according to books of the Old Testament is to heal, to cleanse, to purge, to bring peace, 'to patrol the earth', and to bring the 'gospel' which will disrupt the 'peace', for it is a sword that 'divides'. Also, you seem to forego the definition of the seals which you claim start in 1844. Since they are the gospel and the results of the gospel going out to men in all forms and with varied results, why not elaborate on that? And what about the bow? Nowhere in your statements have I found the definition of this 'wreath', although that is very plain in the Greek. Or did you picture this as an arrow launcher as depicted by Billy Graham in his book, the "Four Horses of the Apocalpyse'? How does this horseman on a white horse wearing the wreath of peace and victory depict your start of judgment in 1844?

There is also the matter of Jesus' prophetic statements in Matt 23-24. Any good student knows that Revelation is simply an enlargement teaching by the same Author. Matt 24:14 sums up the meaning and reason for the text; the 'gospel'. Jesus reemphaized this to us in His earthly departure; Matt 28:18-20. Judgment is not for the saved, although it does sanctify, for Jesus will cleanse us if allowed. Jesus' disciples do not fear judgment; they yearn for it. There is no advent without judgment. But this is not priviledged only by those living in 1844, it is anticipated in the year 96 AD by those receiving Jesus words.

I have quietly stood by for weeks while you demeaned me and any others that would dare to disagree with your assessment of Rev 4-5. I have tried in all manner to show you another opinion, based on Scripture and even compared to known commentary authors, and yet you insist your thinking is the only correct one, and that all others fall into a traditionally wrong, misguided group.

Dave has taken the time to show some areas in which your conclusions might be reexamined, and you have brushed them off with disdain. What have we accomplished? What about those who read this forum thread to learn and grow? What about their understanding; what have we showed them? I hope I do not fall into the category of I'm right and to the dungeon for the rest of you. I pray I have shown enough Scripture and intuitiveness to present a reasonable, logical, scriptually based, Spirit led case.

[Clio]

Quote:

---

Gus Foster said:

Judgment is not for the saved, although it does sanctify, for Jesus will cleanse us if allowed. Jesus' disciples to not fear judgment; they yearn for it. There is no advent without judgment.

---

Amen and Hallelujah! I hope He hurries!

Quote:

---

I have quietly stood by for weeks while you demeaned me and any others that would dare to disagree with your assessment of Rev 4-5. I have tried in all manner to show you another opinion, based on Scripture and even compared to known commentary authors, and yet you insist your thinking is the only correct one, and that others fall into a traditionally wrong, misguided group.

---

Head-knowledge. It's the biggest pitfall there is.

Quote:

---

Dave has taken the time to show some areas in which your conclusions might be reexamined, and you have brushed them off with disdain.

---

He does it to everyone Gus.

Quote:

---

What have we accomplished? What about those who read this forum thread to learn and grow?

---

I stopped reading this thread a long time ago for precisely that reason. Today was happenstance. I clicked on the wrong thread, and bounced down to the first unread post.

Clio

[Ron Lambert]

Gus, for one thing, you said: "And yet you refuse to let Scripture interpret the identity of the 4 living creatures, and deny that Isaiah, Ezekiel and Zechariah saw the same beings centuries before Christ as did John,..."

When did I ever say anything like that? I do have some understandings of the four living creatures, having studied this for over 30 years, but I have not presented them here. You must have me confused with Ed White or someone else. I am well acquainted with the Apocalypse of Zechariah. And I have always followed the strict rule all faithful Bible students must follow: Basing my conclusions on what the Bible says.

I have also published elsewhere my view that the 24 elders are not humans, but probably patriarchs from other worlds--on the basis of the set of ancient manuscripts favored by such translations as the NASB, NRSV, which omit the "us" and use "them" instead--referring to the ones who are redeemed. I have in fact argued with Ed White about this several times over the past three or four years. While the textual arguments (and why certain ancient manuscripts should be preferred over the ones relied on by the KJV) are persuasive by themselves, my main argument is that it would be inappropriate for humans--if the 24 elders are humans--to preside over their own judgment, and even to sit on thrones and wear crowns.

I suspect that the real reason why you and Clio (apparently) and others are now turning to personal attack against me, and mischaracterizing me and what I have written, is because you cannot bring yourselves to come to grips with the truly substantive and overwhelming proofs I have produced against the traditional, majority view. You seem to be reacting as if I am attacking the basic pillars of your faith. If daring to differ from tradition seems like arrogance to you, then so be it. That is your problem, not mine. But I know Revelation 4-5 is talking about the Investigative Judgment beyond any doubt whatsoever and getting this right is important to the church.

Gus, I do not agree that Dave's arguments about the four creatures and 24 elders are persuasive or even valid. You make rather confident assertions about it. Shall we enter into a detailed debate on that?

Again, Gus, part of your criticisms seems to be confusing me with someone else; but there can be no possible dispute with the significance of the four creatures and 24 elders falling down at Jesus' feet and proclaiming their praise for the Lamb for being found worthy to open the book, and for having redeemed mankind. Can you honestly say you see no connection?

Opening the book is not what saves us, per se, but it is necessary for determining who shall be numbered in Christ's kingdom, and for determining what our rewards will be (how many stars in our crowns, etc.). To say that the opening of the book has nothing to do with our salvation (our judgment) is just plain denying what the whole text says. I ask again--why did John weep bitterly when at first no one was found worthy to open the book? And why was there such rejoicing, with explicit praise to Christ for saving humanity, when the Lamb was found worthy to open the book? Why are you resisting something so obvious?

Is not our part in the investigative judgment really for Jesus to be judged in our place? It is not we who must be found worthy, but Jesus who is found worthy. That is the entirely of the Investigative Judgment for us. Because Jesus is worthy, our faith and works can be rewarded by God. God can take note of these things, and determine whether we are truly in a relationship of faith commitment to Christ. He can show to all the celestial witnesses that we are truly on Christ's side in the Great Controversy.

[Gus Foster]

Ron; you must be right that I confuse you with another. I had assumed that since you stated that the four living creatures and the 24 elders were together singing Rev 5:9-10 that they we all singing the song of the redeemed. Certainly that could not have been other beings from somewhere out there. Also I am confused about who was singing the song of the redeemed from your messages. Since you say it was not the twenty-four elders, who is the 'They' in Rev 5:9? Your statements have totally confused me on your conclusions. Your wording of the translation is muddled. Now it's 4 redeemed men and 24 aliens? To some, that would be 4 arch-angels and 24 aliens; noone in this group would be from the redeeded.

Good night!

[Gus Foster]

Quote:

---

I have also published elsewhere my view that the 24 elders are not humans, but probably patriarchs from other worlds--on the basis of the set of ancient manuscripts favored by such translations as the NASB, NRSV, which omit the "us" and use "them" instead--referring to the ones who are redeemed. I have in fact argued with Ed White about this several times over the past three or four years. While the textual arguments (and why certain ancient manuscripts should be preferred over the ones relied on by the KJV) are persuasive by themselves, my main argument is that it would be inappropriate for humans--if the 24 elders are humans--to preside over their own judgment, and even to sit on thrones and wear crowns.

---

That is probably because it is not the judgment scene, but that of the coronation of Pentecost.

Quote:

---

Again, Gus, part of your criticisms seems to be confusing me with someone else; but there can be no possible dispute with the significance of the four creatures and 24 elders falling down at Jesus' feet and proclaiming their praise for the Lamb for being found worthy to open the book, and for having redeemed mankind. Can you honestly say you see no connection?

---

If you read thru the thread, you will see we have all stated this to be true, in fact, I even stated that the four angels of the throne and the 24 elders, the redeemed fulfilling priestly duties, are singing the Rev 5:9 song.

I have to agree that the seals contain the future, and the consummation of the cross on humanity, and your insistence that it is the IJ is OK as long it starts at Pentecost.

The churches in Rev 2 & 3 are under scrutiny and judgment. Repent, and overcome!

[Planey]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

• Head-knowledge. It's the biggest pitfall there is.

---

What do you mean exactly, Clio?

Why did God give us an intellect if He did not want us to use it?

Is it wrong to use logic, reasoning, inference?

What is wrong with knowing something clearly?

Is it better to 'know' something by intuition or because it 'feels right'?

I really do not understand a statement such as the one quoted above.

Graeme

[Gus Foster]

Quote:

---

When did I ever say anything like that? I do have some understandings of the four living creatures, having studied this for over 30 years, but I have not presented them here. You must have me confused with Ed White or someone else. I am well acquainted with the Apocalypse of Zechariah. And I have always followed the strict rule all faithful Bible students must follow: Basing my conclusions on what the Bible says.

---

Ron, you are exactly correct; my reference was to another thread and another quote, not yours. I was confused, and was incorrect. Forgive me.

However, as much as you are convinced that Rev 4-5 time period is in 1844, I am more convinced that it was at Pentecost; and I have made my unconfused Scriptural reasons very perfunct. And thus we stand. I do feel that you should consider the judgment involved in the early churches, Rev 2-3, and how they correspond to what you are saying is only applicable to the IJ and beyond.

[Clio]

Quote:

---

Planey said:

Quote:

---

Clio said:

• Head-knowledge. It's the biggest pitfall there is.

---

What do you mean exactly, Clio?

Why did God give us an intellect if He did not want us to use it?

Is it wrong to use logic, reasoning, inference?

What is wrong with knowing something clearly?

Is it better to 'know' something by intuition or because it 'feels right'?

I really do not understand a statement such as the one quoted above.

Graeme

---

Head-knowledge is wonderful. We need to use our intellect, logic, reasoning and inference. But not to the exclusion of the heart-knowledge and relationship with Jesus.

It's not about religion and understanding doctrine, and all that. It's about relationship, a loving, intimate, compassionate, communion with Jesus.

Without that, and the fruit of the spirit, the person with all the head-knowledge becomes much like the Pharisees of old. It's about the heart, not the head.

Jesus tells us to have faith like a child. It's simple, not hard, it's love, not knowledge.

It was the Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil that was the test.

It's not about the head, it's all about the heart. When the heart is right, all else will follow, including the knowledge.

If all the knowledge and "correct understanding" of every single doctrine in the Bible doesn't produce a heart that loves Jesus above all else, that enters into daily communion with Him, and strives to give Him first place in all they do, think, and say, truly making Him Lord of their life out of a heart of love, then that knowledge has profited them nothing, except to lose their soul.

Edited to add: It is the loving, grateful, yielded heart, which balances doctrine and keeps us from legalism. It is a loving, grateful, yielded heart that the Holy Spirit can work with to transform us into who we will be in Heaven while we are yet on this work.

It is from a heart of love, faith, and love (yes I know I said it twice) that obedience comes. Not from works, not from the law, not from anything we do or the knowledge we have of the Bible. It is from loving obedience after we receive Jesus by faith.

The Adversary has all the knowledge we have and more. It will not save him. In fact, it will damn him all the more because he can no longer be reached by love. He cannot see that it's not about what you know, or even the law, it's about a compassionate heart of love, for Jesus, and from Jesus. When we love, and have the heart knowledge of Jesus, we know Him intimately. His His Heart of Compassion, so great that He voluntarily went to the cross to spill His Blood for us, fills us, and overflows to all those around us.

And that, the difference between head-knowledge and heart-knowledge, is why what Robert is teaching is so insidiously dangerous.

It's NOT about works. Not at all. Just as the Adversary will accuse based on works, like what is happening on this thread, so will Jesus defend based on love.

It's not about religion. It's about relationship.

Clio

[Ron Lambert]

Gus, I forgive you. It was obvious you had me mixed up with someone else. No problem.

Now, you said that interpreting Revelation 4-5 to be depicting the Inauguration of Christ at Pentecost answers the questions I raised about how the 24 elders could be humans sitting on thrones wearing crowns and presiding over their own judgment, which is what must determine their worthiness for those things.

But Gus, that makes it even worse. How could humans be sitting on thrones, wearing crowns, presiding over any heavenly event, 2,000 years before the judgment which is to determine their rewards?

Of course, the identiy of the four creatures and 24 elders is a side issue, not really germane to the question of whether Revelation 4-5 depicts the Inauguration of Christ at Pentecost, or the Investigative Judgment.

I would like to underscore again the appropriateness of Revelation 5 depicting Christ being the One judged and found worthy. We know from the gospel that it is Jesus who is judged in our place. All that remains in the judgment is for it to be determined who is in Christ, and what their rewards should be, according to their faith and works. Thus the interpretation that Revelation 4-5 depicts the Investigative Judgment is the one that is most in harmony with the gospel.

Look, we know from Daniel 8:14 and other prophecies that the judgment is the final decisive point of history after the Cross, and is the one thing remaining that must take place before Jesus can come again. So of course most of Revelation must be about the judgment; of course this must be the primary purpose of Jesus' final revelation to us.

In a time when many people are arising from within as well as outside the church challenging the doctrine of the pre-Advent, Investigative Judgment, we need a right interpretation of Revelation 4-5 as depicting that Investigative Judgment, and a right view that most of Revelation is about this same time--the seven letters to the church coming just before, and the seals and trumpets coming during that judgment when it enters the Judgment of the Living phase.

One additional note: Recognizing that the letters to the seven church apply to the modern churches of all Christendom as they will exist just BEFORE they enter the Judgment of the Living, makes the last phrase of Revelation 4:1 make even better sense, where it says: "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this." (NKJV) Of course--after depicting Christendom as it is about to enter the judgment experience, the next thing that takes place is that judgment!

[archierieus]

Okay, let's take another look at this subject. Setting aside any pre-conceived notions or constructs, let's look at the passage as it reads. Firstly, ch. 1 seems to set a keynote: the revelation of Jesus Christ, the vision of Christ, and His claim to be the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. We also have the presence of John, the author of the book, and his perspective to consider.

The first vision John received, focused on seven existing churches in the province of Asia. These were real-life situations which were current at the time of the vision. To John, they would be present-tense. Many commentators view the seven churches as also representative of the historical progression of God's church throughout the ages, culminating in the Laodicean or last church. Other commentators see these churches as representative of every church. All of that, however, is quite secondary as to the perspective of John, the author. for him, this stuff was here and now, present-tense, the alpha. We cannot lose sight of this fact in seeking to understanding the timing and significance of this and subsequent visions. We cannot impose our interpretations or constructs upon John. We need to 'get into his head' to try to understand his intended meaning. THAT is what is important--not OUR meaning, but the AUTHOR's intent.

This first vision, the messages to the seven existing churches, consumes ch. 2 and 3. The next event recorded, is John's second vision (ch. 4 through 6) The timing is expressly stated to be things which shall happen "hereafter." 'Hereafter' as to whom? To our interpretation? No, that would be imposing OUR ideas on John, the author. Instead, the events of the second vision were 'hereafter' as to John's understanding--events which would occur AFTER the time the angel is talking to John.

Ch. 4 and 5 portray the events leading to the revelation of these events. There is NO REFERENCE to any coronation of Christ. There is NO REFERENCE to any judgment of people. THE STATED ISSUE is the opening of the scroll which describes the events which shall occur HEREAFTER. It is of greatest importance to stick with what is stated and revealed in Scripture.

One other note. The twenty-four elders are not identified in Scripture. Nor is their identity pertinent as to the opening of the scroll of events. Attempting to identify them is quite speculative, and, IMO, a distraction from the core issues of the vision.

Well, that is a start, for now.

Regards, Dave

[Gus Foster]

Quote:

---

Ch. 4 and 5 portray the events leading to the revelation of these events. There is NO REFERENCE to any coronation of Christ. There is NO REFERENCE to any judgment of people. THE STATED ISSUE is the opening of the scroll which describes the events which shall occur HEREAFTER. It is of greatest importance to stick with what is stated and revealed in Scripture.

---

This is indeed quite true, Dave; but let me remind you that most errors committed from the study of Revelation is by two sources: 1, by interpreting a literal word by word, paragraph by paragraph meaning, and 2, by interpreting the book in cronological order, especially in time standards. The symbolism must be recognized, and its true meaning traced to its Scriptural roots.

Quote:

---

This first vision, the messages to the seven existing churches, consumes ch. 2 and 3. The next event recorded, is John's second vision (ch. 4 through 6) The timing is expressly stated to be things which shall happen "hereafter." 'Hereafter' as to whom? To our interpretation? No, that would be imposing OUR ideas on John, the author. Instead, the events of the second vision were 'hereafter' as to John's understanding--events which would occur AFTER the time the angel is talking to John.

---

I have seen many references in dealing with time in dealing with a cronological order of the visions as related to real earthly time. Your expanation is Ok, but there could be others, such as 'this vision after the time of the first, or other, meaning the time of the vision, and not the occurrence of the visions fulfillment.

Time setting in Revelation is very subjective, and is usually used by the interpreter to prove his given point, which may or may not be correct. For example, a strict hitorical interpretation which traditional Adventists prescribe, denies application and understanding of Christians of other time periods. The 'book' was unveiled, uncovered in the first century. There is only one part that was left covered, that of the 'seven thunders', which EGW describes as God telling His people end time preparations at their given time.

I gave a talk today about Rev 11:1. God is telling us to measure our church and our 'self' in a worship setting; the theme of Revelation is worship, true or false; and He now expects us to choose sides.

I told the church today, to take a blank sheet of paper, and on one side under 'Jesus', and the other side under 'the world', to sit down and write all their activities and thoughts and place them on the proper side. Stop playing church, stop playing brother inspection, stop playing person judging, and put each and every one of us individually in the right order, in the right soul searching setting. Think of it as coming to the OT sanctuary, with our gift in our hand, the mind in the right order, and concentrating on the coming Messiah.

The book of Revelation from 1 to 22 is telling us to be ready to worship our God in the proper attitude and posture.