Rev 4 & 5; Pentecost or 1844

[Robert]

Quote:

---

archierieus said:

Rhetoric, rhetoric, and of no factual value. It is easy to shoot rhetoric back and forth. But, doing so does not bring truth to light. No, your interpretation is NOT fully in harmony with every aspect of the text, for the reasons stated in my earlier posts on this thread.

---

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

What John saw was revealed in the seal itself as it was opened.

---

That is not stated in the passage. The passage states that when a seal was opened, then John could see what was inside the seal. To open a seal means that one may now see what was sealed before. The passage does not talk about what the seals are, but what was inside the seals, which John saw.

Secondly, even using your reasoning, it is quite impossible that the reading of this scroll constitutes the IJ. You said that the scroll cannot be read until all the seals are opened. Well, the sixth seal takes us through the Second Coming. The IJ began long before the Second Coming, which has not yet taken place.

Thirdly, there simply is no Scriptural warrant for the notion that this scroll is the 'book' used in the IJ. Always, 'books' (three, atleast) are described, and all are necessary in the proceedings. Your assertion that ONE of those books is described here, simply has no stated support, nor is it consistent with the other descriptions of the judgment. As you say, it is your 'deduction.' Well, it is not exegesis. All kinds of deductions can be made. Exegesis is the safe ground.

Regards, Dave

[Gus Foster]

In the early 80's I obtained Jacob O Meyer's "The Sacred Scriptures" and used it for a study Bible at work for a number of years. I really enjoy that as a excellent translation. Last week I dug it up and am now going through it. Every page has notes, and references to other passages. Many have notes on Revelation. The best way to understand Revelation is not to find a text that agrees with a predetermined understanding, but by a reverse exegetical, systematic, and repetitive study system or stucture. Scholars have assigned terminology to their studies; Desmond Ford used 'apotelesmatic'; Jon Paulien used 'duodirectionality'; and there are several others.

This simply states that there is no easy method to assign to a consistant, error free study of Johm's arrangement of the ingredients of his book. To assign times other than the fulfillment of OT prophecies is ludicrous. Times are established by the study of the sanctuary and its feast days used in context. John's prolepsis structure, when ignored, leads to all kinds of scenarios. He uses the old Hebrew writing method of prophecy; a statement, an enlargement, and then an explantion, and not necessarily in textual order, one following the other. Some scholars even use the phrase, 'a parenthetical insertion', when in fact it is an enlargement instead of a change of scenery or a change of direction in his writing. The prophecies of OT writings are not only fulfilled, but enlarged, and not considering a graduation from Daniel to Matt 23-25 in interpretation causes mis-discerment. Actually, Revelation is a synopsis of Ezekiel, a sanctuary setting, and an expansion of many of the prophets.

Notice those who claim strict exegesis leave their claim the minute they introduce a new word or thought into their explanation. There is no such acceptable method in understanding this book.

This disagreement over the word 'bow', Greek word 'toxon' is an example of I'm right, you're wrong theology. 'Bow' can be a wood stringed to play a musical instrument, an instrument used for projecting arrows, or a ribbon used to tie a wreath, as pictured on a Roman coin. In the textual setting in Rev 6:2, it really doesn't matter which one one chooses. It is not used in the text, other than the fact that it is mentioned that 'a rider held a bow', or 'in the rider's hand was placed a bow' and to say to ride forth to conquer does not entail immediate warfare. All who recognize this as the gospel going forth know that that in itself causes warfare, as in a two-edged sword (Rev 1:16--'out of His mouth came a two-edged sword). The best example that I can give to apply Rev 6:1-2 would be in Acts 2, where the gospel is presented; there is no opposition to this pure presentation, and results in conviction and conversion and acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah. And to be repetitious, this is the fulfillment of the feast of weeks (Pentecost).

The colored horses in the Rev seals represent something other than purity. From the standpoint of the presentor which you can find readily in the churches, and from the standpoint of opposition, as presented in the trumpets.

As to judgment; one can say that judgment exists in the churches of Rev 2-3. They were 'judged and found wanting', and the rememdy is the influx of Jesus and His character, His attributes, as described in Rev 1. The entire church age is one of judgment, otherwise it would be as in the scene in Zechariah 1; (vs 11, 'And they reported to the angel of the Lord, who was standing amoung the myrtle trees, we have gone throughout the earth and found the whole world at rest and in peace'.

Not many see any problem with that, until they realize that this is a parallel description of the life-style of those just before the flood, described in terms by Jesus in Matt 24. The gospel itself causes warfare; the greatest of all, in the mind, between Jesus and ANYTHING ELSE!

To say that Rev 5 introduces the IJ simply ignores the present judgment of the church age, where millions of martyrs are waiting in the 5th seal.

My whole emphasis was to apply the gospel of Jesus Christ to our understanding of Revelation, which when given in the proper light, not only give this text clarity, but puts our priorities in proper perspective; that of living our lives for eternity, worshipping and glorifying the One who is totally responsible for anything good in the world and in our lives.

[Ron Lambert]

Gus, that is what I have seen too, that Revelation frequently expands upon an idea or gives explanations to answer obvious questions. An example I like to cite is the way Revelation seven is designed to answer the question raised at the end of chapter six--"Who shall be able to stand?" The answer given in chapter seven is that it is those who receive the special, end-time seal of God. (And since the Grat Multitude is answering the same question, I suspect that they are the same as the 144,000. But that is the subject of another thread.)

When I have talked about using sound exegesis, I use that in a very broad sense. I mean using a text in its whole context, even if the explanation is given in the next chapter. Allowing the Bible to define its own terms and explain its own depictions (as in Peter's vision of the sheet lowered from heaven with the unclean creatures--where we are told later in the same chapter and again in the next chapter that the vision taught that no man should be called unclean, and the gospel was for the Gentiles too) all are a part of getting out of the text the meaning that is objectively to be found. To me, all this is exegesis--getting "out" of the text what is there. This is opposed to what some have called eisegesis, where they are reading meanings into the text based on their own agenda. Exegesis is anything that constitutes objectively interpreting the text. Eisegesis is subjectively interpreting it, which makes it a private interpretation, forbidden by 2 Peter 1:20.

By the way, Gus, one thing I think needs to be noted, is that the organization of Revelation is almost entirely decided by Jesus, not by John. Jesus decided what order in which to give the visions. John did not have the liberty to arrange the visions however he wanted, nor did he choose any of the prophetic symbols used. Jesus selected the symbols. It is clear what part of Revelation is John's own narrative (mainly the first chapter), and what parts are simply John writing down what he was shown.

Dave, the seals are prophecies. The prophecies do not have to be fulfilled before the judgment can begin. The Lamb being handed the sealed book/scroll is part of the judgment scene. The prophecies of the seals show us the events that will be taking place while the judgment transpires. In fact, I believe that the fifth seal--when the prophecy is fulfilled--may be the juncture between the judgment of the dead, and the judgment of the living. By the time the prophecy of the seventh seal is fulfilled, the judgment must be completed.

[Gus Foster]

There is another point that I have neglected to make that I usually make during teaching. Adventists glory in illuminating Rev 1:10, that John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and they do so rightly. How can anyone forget that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath day (Mark 2:23-28)? And I'm not sure we have put enough stress on this! For many to make this e(E)aster Sunday is ridiculous. Although some were in the first century had started to worship on Sunday to escape the persecution of the Jews, at the time of John's writing the Lord's day was still the Sabbath.

Adventists, have, however, almost completely ignored the next couple of verses in their attempts to identify the symbolism of the rest of the book. Notice that the 'trumpet' was the sound of Jesus' 'loud voice'. It was not a warning, but edification on what was to follow. Please notice in Rev 8:6 that the angels were going to "sound their trumpet" which does not necessarily mean that it is a judgment, but a notification of judgment, or even a 'degree'. We have been totally judgment concious, and have totally ignored other meanings of the sounding of the trumpets. Some may call the purging of dross in my life a judgment; I prefer to call it a blessing; even a necessary provision for my sanctification.

Then please notice Rev 1:12---the 'turned'. Greek word 'epistreho' #1994, taken from #1900, 'epi'; which is not just a turning around, but at a point in time turning about, around, back to, etc. Obviously, when Jesus speaks, His people should at least listen; but here John gets the message our Lord wants him to hear by turning towards Him, away from 'anything else'. I remember several years ago I brought this up to Dr. Hans K LaRondelle, and he was not too happy with me that I was suggesting some other turning other that a literal turning of the head, the body. But the more I've studied this book, the more I realize that one must be 'in the Spirit' to have any chance of understanding and living His Word. We must turn from 'our self' to receive His Word, especially in this last day. And when we 'turn', we shall see Jesus, and not just see Him, but hear Him, and 'His sheep know His voice', and joyfully obey.

Another point from revelation I see everyone murdering. Rev 8:1: 'the silence for ABOUT 1/2 hour'. Wow, do some have fun with this one! Where was the first silence for 1/2 hour? Gen 7:10: 'And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth'. Doesn't any one at all realize the omnipotent stress our God has put Himself through? Just remember the picture; God created Lucifer knowing the future, the torture of watching His magnificent creation rebel against Him. He endured the fall, from the beginning. And then He created man 'in His image', and again endured the fall, and all these thousands of years of evil, rebellion and even hatred of Himself. Jesus said, 'they hated me, they will hate you'! The Son of god hated by His own creation. !?!

And then the Father watched His Son murdered. And even after all that, it is God's UNNATURAL ACT to kill His creation. There is pause. God pauses before He destroys His own. Remember, Jesus died for every one, the whole world. We know the reward is conditional, but God still has to destroy the one He loves, the one He died for.

Did this change God? Not His character, but certainly His physical, literal appearance.

And the reault, He will have a creation that is closer to Him than we can imagine. This is all in the big picture of creation.

One can read about judgment of Eglog by Ehud in Judges (vs3:19) and there is a time of 'silence' before the execution.

There is some great interpretation to Rev 8:2-6 in Eze 10:2; Ps 141:1-2; and in Tamid 3.8; 5.6; and in Sukkah 5.6 of the Jewish writings.

Here again is the structure of John's writng; here is the happening, with the explanation to follow (Rev 8-11).

Again, my fellow students, we have a great, incredible God, who wishes to share everything He has with His followers.

[archierieus]

I notice the contrast between your earlier statement on this thread, and your latest post:

Quote:

---

The visions of the seals concern the events that must take place before the record in the scroll/book can be read.

---

Or,

Quote:

---

Dave, the seals are prophecies. The prophecies do not have to be fulfilled before the judgment can begin . . . The prophecies of the seals show us the events that will be taking place while the judgment transpires.

---

This illustrates the confusion which can arise. It is more accurate, and safer, to stick with the facts as they are stated in the passage. Attempting to go beyond that can be an exercise in rolling the dice.

As for the various terminologies and constructs which Gus reviewed in his most recent posts, all that is very nebulous and requires a number of important assumptions which may, or may not be correct. It is straying far away from the text as it reads. Your emphasis, Gus, upon Jesus Christ as the remedy, is sound. One cannot go wrong there. Some of the other, heady stuff looks like man imposing his constructs upon God's Word.

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Gus Foster said:

This disagreement over the word 'bow', Greek word 'toxon' is an example of I'm right, you're wrong theology. 'Bow' can be a wood stringed to play a musical instrument, an instrument used for projecting arrows, or a ribbon used to tie a wreath, as pictured on a Roman coin. In the textual setting in Rev 6:2, it really doesn't matter which one one chooses. It is not used in the text, other than the fact that it is mentioned that 'a rider held a bow', or 'in the rider's hand was placed a bow' and to say to ride forth to conquer does not entail immediate warfare.

---

Your comments here seem to illustrate the seriousness of the problem which seems to recur on this thread. You appear to be using sources such as Strong's and Spiros Zhodiates. You seem to be saying that your interpretation of the contextual meaning of the word, is on a par with lexical sources such as BAGD, Louw-Nida and Kittel. Although I do have background in Biblical languages and exegesis, I do not make such a claim. I recognize the competence and careful research contained in these recognized lexical aids, and I defer to them as having knowledge far superior to mine, unless there is an obvious error. By relying on your own understanding, you run the risk of grave misunderstanding of the true meaning of the Greek. Strong's and Zhodiates are NOT good study tools for formal exegesis. It is not so dissimilar from a layman attempting to diagnose medical problems using a home health handbook. While Jesus did promise the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, He also admonishes us to study to show ourselves approved unto God, as good workmen not needing to be ashamed. Good workmen need, and know how to use, the right tools. Ignoring those tools and trying to do it on our own, without them, will result in 'the house that Jack built.'

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

doesn’t the more accepted and ‘standard’ of Nestle and the Nestle-Aland rely in part on the W-H text? as does that of the UBS?

---

I understand that the critical text relies on Vaticanus and Siniaticus B. Perhaps John317 (Jim) could confirm or clarify that. I used to have several Greek texts, including the Byzantine text preferred by profs. at Wake Forest, but, due to a divorce, they now are 'nevermore.!

Dave

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, perhaps I was hasty to say that all the prophecies of the seals had to be fulfilled before the book could be consulted in the judgment. I should have said that the prophecies of the seals depict events that transpire on earth as the judgment is taking place. I was trying to make the point that the prophecies of the seals could not be intended to portray the contents of the book, which is what you were claiming. I have to maintain that it is just common sense that you cannot read the scroll until the seals are opened. That is the purpose of seals--to prevent you from reading the book until the seals are opened. However, it is also evident that the judgment is on-going during the seals, particularly from the fifth seal:

Quote:

---

9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

(Revelation 6:9-11

---

At first glance, some people might be tempted to say that verse 10 indicates that the judgment has not begun yet. However, on further examination, it is apparent that it is the executive phase of judgment that the "souls under the altar" are figuratively calling for--when the Lord will avenge them. This comes after probation closes, and the seven last plagues are poured out, particularly the third plague.

When we go on to read the last part of the prophecy of the fifth seal, we see evidence that the Investigative Judgment is already on-going. Notice the words: "Then a white robe was given to each of them." This conferring of the white robe of the righteousness of Christ imputed finally and forever, is what happens during the Investigative Judgment.

And also notice what comes next, in the last part of the verse: "and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed." It is just before the end of the Investigative Judgment that the last martyrs seal their testimonies with their blood. Then Probation closes, and the seven last plagues are poured out, when God avenges their blood.

The fifth seal may very well be the juncture between the judgment of the dead, and the judgment of the living.

I should also note something in passing for the benefit of those who may wish to use a too-literal interpretation of the "souls under the altar" who cry out, to support the view many Christians have that the dead go immediately to their reward, and there is consciousness in death. Notice that the martyrs were told to continue resting. So apparently they are not frolicking in Heaven's bliss.

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, after some thought, let me add an additional thought. We are not the ones who do the judging during the judgment, so it is not for us ever to see what is in the book/scroll. We will surely get to review it during the millenium, but not during the Investigative Judgment. What we see when the seals are opened has to do with our experience in the judgment. It does not tell us what is in the book/scroll.

[Gus Foster]

Quote:

---

Your comments here seem to illustrate the seriousness of the problem which seems to recur on this thread. You appear to be using sources such as Strong's and Spiros Zhodiates. You seem to be saying that your interpretation of the contextual meaning of the word, is on a par with lexical sources such as BAGD, Louw-Nida and Kittel. Although I do have background in Biblical languages and exegesis, I do not make such a claim. I recognize the competence and careful research contained in these recognized lexical aids, and I defer to them as having knowledge far superior to mine, unless there is an obvious error. By relying on your own understanding, you run the risk of grave misunderstanding of the true meaning of the Greek. Strong's and Zhodiates are NOT good study tools for formal exegesis. It is not so dissimilar from a layman attempting to diagnose medical problems using a home health handbook. While Jesus did promise the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, He also admonishes us to study to show ourselves approved unto God, as good workmen not needing to be ashamed. Good workmen need, and know how to use, the right tools. Ignoring those tools and trying to do it on our own, without them, will result in 'the house that Jack built.'

---

Well now--I guess I do depend on others for 'expertise' in exegesis; but my own conclusions are my opinion. The house that 'Jack built' is really based on concenses from my Bible study group. I've already been accused of clinging to some of our Adventist scholar's report, and to that I also plead gulity. I have been corresponding with Ford, LaRondelle, Hardinge, Doukhan, Paulien, Stefanovic, and others for years. You should read some of the letters I have received from our GC Study Committee members, many of which were not very complimentary, since I delve into territory where they forbid.

The fact that I conclude that the cleansing of the sanctuary is the cleansing of God's people does not provoke their acclaim.

I have explained in several threads that the Revelation Bible study I was involved with in all of the 90's was a f group of studies located in several areas, all comparing notes over the years. From Andrews, from CUC, from Jerusalem, from Toronto, from several in Virginia, from several in California, from Australia, from Dallas, and from Philidelphia; there were some others, but not consistant. It was originated by Dr Wm Liversidge, and joined by other professors and scholars, Jewish, Greek and German. There are doctors in Denver, Miami, Chicago, Boston (area) that are still fairly active, but it is no longer a structured study as it was during the 90's. Where do you think all these new commentaries on Revelation are coming from? Kenneth Strand tells me there will be at least 3 more new ones he is aware of coming forth this year.

About the scholars:

I love Mounce, but as look down the book shelf from this desk, I see; Peter Cotterell, Max Turner, David Levey, D A Cruse, Chomsky, Noam, P Cole, Morgan, Aitchison, Baldinger, K L Burres (from Northwester University, some great insight), Kathlen Callow (a genious in discourse translations), G KIttel (wrote his Lexicographia Sacra in 1938, the year I was born), Leon Morris (some great work), A T Robinson (genious on NT grammar), H Rieser (Textlingquistics), F deSaussure (who contributed from Paris). I really can't see the rest of the titles in my shelf from here, but we can't forget G Theissen, James E Charlesworth, Hillel Schwartz, Yarbro Collins, and I like Steven Thompson (The Apocalypse And Semetic Syntax). I haven't had a divorce and still have these and scores of others, and Akron has just built a $80m library with all world resources as close as their computers.

What in the world is the point? None of these scholars have 'uncovered' the 'book' to my sastisfaction, but I respect them all, many of whom are non-Adventists.

Let me re-emphasize; I quote my own opinion, my own conclusions. I pray they have helped others. I am not a Hebrew nor a Greek scholar, but can read them as well as anyone, we have all kinds of help. Knowledge is not descernment, nor the perfect conclusion; it is a gift. Knowledge of God and Jesus is eternal life (John 17:3) if in the heart and mind and soul. A way of life in Jesus.

In my heart I know that what I have stated about Rev 1-14 is what Jesus wants me to know, to teach, and to practice in life. Anyone has a right to their own opinion and to disagree. I shall answer the call; 'so send I you'!

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

Dave, perhaps I was hasty to say that all the prophecies of the seals had to be fulfilled before the book could be consulted in the judgment. I should have said that the prophecies of the seals depict events that transpire on earth as the judgment is taking place. I was trying to make the point that the prophecies of the seals could not be intended to portray the contents of the book, which is what you were claiming. I have to maintain that it is just common sense that you cannot read the scroll until the seals are opened. That is the purpose of seals--to prevent you from reading the book until the seals are opened. However, it is also evident that the judgment is on-going during the seals . . ."

---

Here is the problem, Ron. Dan. 7 DOES give a clear and unmistakable portrayal of the opening of the investigative judgment. On October 22, 1844, "the court sat, and the books were opened." It may be helpful to have some familiarity with jurisprudence here. The docket is called in the heavenly court, beginning with the first person who ever lived. That is the commencement of the IJ. The first step will necessarily be to consider the charges against an individual. In earthly jurisprudence, we call this the arraignment. Evidence then is considered, as well as mitigating factors. A verdict is pronounced, sentencing may be done either at that time or a later date set; and, finally, judgment is executed. The IJ is the first phase in this process. IN ORDER FOR THE COURT PROCEEDINGS TO BEGIN, THE BOOKS MUST BE OPENED!!! The proceedings continue, name by name.

This is one important reason why the sealed scroll cannot be one of the books consulted during the IJ. If it were one of them, then it would have to be unsealed before the IJ could proceed. Using your reasoning, Ron, all the seals would have to be removed, before the scroll could be read. All the seals are not removed until after Christ returns, still under the sixth seal.

The problem is very easily resolved by dropping any insistence on the scroll being one of the 'books' consulted during the IJ. It simply does not, cannot fit--not even a force-fit. Whatever the scroll may be, it is not THAT. It may also be helpful to recognize that the prophetic depiction of the scroll and its seals may not be restricted to the limitations of earthly scrolls and seals. IOW, the scroll may be presented as being opened in sections, each seal petaining to one section of the scroll. Certainly, that is suggested by ch. 6.

Once again, all this is a good reminder to take the Bible as it reads, and come to its study with inductive methodology. (Ha! The triumph of empiricism?)

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Ahh, Monsieur Gus:

Yes, you have listed quite an array of scholars. (Although, I would take issue with some of your characterizations, such as A.T. Robinson's NT Greek studies. His "Word Pictures" are a handy tool for a Sunday preacher in the Southern Baptist tradition, but not helpful to our understanding of Bible truth. Not a scholarly resource, but a homiletic aid for certain faith traditions.)

Looking at your position statements on this thread, however, I don't see the documentation that, for example, a Kittel would insist on including. You have presented your opinions. You seem to claim as final authority, the testimony of your heart: "In my heart I know that what I have stated about Rev. 1 - 14 is what Jesus wants me to know, to teach, and to practice in life." Without wishing to take away from the sincerity of your belief, the fact yet remains that such is a subjective proof, incapable of independent validation. It is not 'doing science.' The wise man's admonition also comes to mind, that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." I personally have listened to more than one person who used words very similar to yours in affirming their belief in immortality of the soul, eternal torment, Sunday sacredness, and so forth. Our faith, and our understanding of God's holy Word, must be grounded in the Rock, not in the shifting sands of the human heart.

Having said that, I wish to commend you for your noble pursuit of a better understanding of Revelation!

Regards, Dave

[archierieus]

Ach!!! I goofed. I was thinking of Robertson's 'Word Pictures.' Mea culpa.

Dave

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

jasd said:

Indeed, indeed…, though I should be the one to censure! as I obstinately and prejudicially prefer the KJV – which use of the TR is also censured by the Modern Critic. That said,

doesn’t the more accepted and ‘standard’ of Nestle and the Nestle-Aland rely in part on the W-H text? as does that of the UBS?

---

An interesting comparison of W-H and the TR may be perused at the following website:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html

Regards, Dave

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, the fact remains that the visions associated with the opening of the seals cannot be revelations of what is inside the book. That is what you contended, and it simply is impossible to read a book until all the seals are opened. THEREFORE the visions that John saw were something else, other than what is in the book.

Now, that does not mean that the scroll is not opened a lot sooner than the end of Revelation chapter six, when the Lord's coming is imminent. We do not need to assume that Christ waits months or even centuries between the opening of each seal. He does not open the first seal, waits while all the events of the vision are fulfilled, and then opens the next seal.

Jesus only waited until John recorded the vision associated with the opening of a seal, then immediately He went on and opened the next seal. So the whole book was fully unsealed in an hour or less, making the contents of the book available to be consulted in the Investigative Judgment, which is what Revelation five is depicting.

But John never at any time got to see what was in the book. If he did, he did not record it. All he was shown was the visions that Jesus chose to show him in association with the opening of each seal, one at a time as each one was opened. The events depicted in those visions will take place during the time while the Investigative Judgment transpires and finally comes to a conclusion.

As I pointed out to you before, the fifth seal tells us that at that time the martyrs from past ages are given white robes--which only happens during the Investigative Judgment, and then after that they are told to rest until they are joined by the final martyrs of the last generation who will seal their testimonies with their blood during the judgment of the living. This is why I say that the fifth seal brings to view the juncture when the Investigative Judgment passes from the judgment of the dead to the judgment of those still living.

[Ron Lambert]

Gus, I appreciate what you and Dave are trying to discuss with consideration of various textual sources, as you seek to establish precise word meanings. There is a very limited, minor value in this.

I must remind you, however, that focusing on such a strict, limited construction of the term "exegesis" is worthless by itself. The only thing that matters is understanding what the prophecy means. Scholars of many denominations have been spinning their wheels the way you are, and have made no progress at all in understanding the message of any part of Revelation. I am almost sorry I used the term "exegesis" at all, because of the way so many scholars misuse the term.

Exegesis means getting out of the text the meaning that is there, by any and all means, including seeing what the Bible says about it anywhere else. You have no right to say that exegesis is confined only to word study of the immediate text. Many scholars may believe that, but that is merely an example of what is wrong with modern Biblical scholarship. Studying studiously on and on, they come no closer to understanding what it means. This is a shameful excuse for Biblical scholarship.

The Bible is not just any book. It is the Word of God, and the key to understanding it is not mere intelluctual studiousness and unending anaylsis of every trivial thing. That is what people resort to when they are not being led by the Holy Spirit really and truly to be enlightened by the revelation of God's truth. They are substituting busy work for real work.

If you cannot tell me what Revelation means, then you have nothing to say that I care about. As for me, I know that I have been making steady and substantial progress in really understading the prophecies of the Bible that relate to the end time.

[Gus Foster]

You must know that I was snickering when I included some of these 'scholars', knowing some of their detractors. I want to respond to you, but before that I want to include an e-mail I received from one of my study friends on the subject of justification/sanctification, since the book of Revelation is really a treatist on this subject:

Hi, This is a quote from a book I have been reading. These thoughts are by a Lutheran pastor. Wish we had some SDA pastors that were this clear on justification and sanctification.

"Christ did not die on the cross so that we can learn how to live in our sin. He died that we might have victory over it. When the Lord forgave the woman caught in adultery and set her on her feet, He went much further than accepting her as she was. He forgave her sin and then sent her on her way with the admonition not to sin again. It is only the redeemed and forgiven sinner who can experience victory over sin, because Christ does not command the impossible. What He commands us, He gives grace---the strength and ability---to do. That's justification by faith and sanctification by faith. And "by faith," does not mean just an intellectual or mental assent, but a complete surrender of the life to God. Both justification and sanctification are necessary in the Christian experience. Without reconciliation man has no salvation, and without sanctification he has no victory over sins.

As my realization on this point developed, I began to get more concerned about the doctrine of sanctification and the experience of sanctification in the believer's life. The Christian life consists of more than justification by grace. To be sure, God can save nobody from the power and curse of sin unless that individual surrenders in faith to God's act of justification in Jesus Christ. But God also saves him for something, "to be conformed to the image of His Son." (Romans 8:29).

I had a difficult time with the doctrine of sanctification during my seminary years. The theological emphasis in the school centered around one-sided consideration of justification with little concern for sanctification. The life-style of the students showed the results of such an emphasis. The few who believed the Christian must take what God wants to do "in us" as seriously as what He has done "for us" received criticism as synergists or pietists. Synergism is the idea that God and I, in cooperation, achieve sanctification. Pietism, understood wrongly, makes the Christian life appear as a sad list of dos and don'ts. The seminarians saw both as legalistic self-efforts at holiness.

It is easy to forget that what God wants accomplished in us; He, by His Spirit, undertakes to do for us. Why one could not accept this by faith, equally as well as justification, I could not understand. But I came to the conviction that a lack of growth in sanctification in the Christian's experience leaves him in danger of losing salvation itself. One cannot stand still in Christian experience. What doesn't grow, dies. The physical body which never reaches maturity, never knows full and complete life. The mind which does not develop connot function properly. By the same token, faith which does not grow cannot bring forth the fruits of righteousness as God intended. Christianity in far more than a body of truth; it is a way of life.

To surrender to Jesus Crhist by faith means to give up all attempts to attain righteousness and to permit Him to give it to us. It means laying down our own struggles for goodness and simply accepting what Jesus Christ presents. We turn our lives over to Him to do with us as He pleases. Jesus Christ becomes the boss! Does it mean, however, that the Christian will have no virtuous deeds---good works---in his life? Certainly not. It means that what one does after surrender he does at the Lord's bidding, and thus his "works" are the result of true faith.

The role and purpose of the gospel message is to convert men and women to the Lord, who offers the Christian a life of victory through divine aid. When Christ first confronts the sinner, man must make and initial surrender. Then there follows daily surrender to Him throughout his life. When the pastor realizes man's need for surrender and conversion, he will find that his preaching must take into account that need".

Super, Huh?

At some later time he began to see that his church was in apostacy. How? Listen to this. It suerly fits the SDA church today.

"My church is in apostacy because it does not rely on the Holy Spirit, but on programs".

Dave, Ron, and all of you; this is the subject and purpose of the book of Revelation; and I shall continue on the next page.

[Gus Foster]

Our first leader in Revelation study was a master at inductive study. Finally, when we all realized that the gospel of John and then the 3 epistles of John were the best commentary, the real purpose and message of Revelation consumed us. It is just as much a manuscript on justification and sanctification as is Romans; and goes into great detail on how Christ enters into our life and the process of becoming 'His special possession'.

This morning I was at Akron General Medical Center for a cholestoral blood test, which my doctor insists I do annually, and while waiting for my turn noticed a gentleman seated accross from me, staring at me, and he was mouthing words. After dismissing discomfort, I observed. In his hand he was fingering a rosary, and I surmised he was saying the 'hail mary'. He was around 60, about 5 foot tall, and weighed in the neigborhood of 350#.

Well now, light a fire in me---but for once I hesitated. And finally, I just held the peace that one finds in Zechariah 1. This guy was wearing an 8" double cross hanging from a chain around his neck. I concluded it would be like counseling a Moslem who was demonstrating against one who drew an image of Mohammad. They both come from the same teaching, the same background.

Some of our Revelation study group made as 15 visits with our hosts Israelie professors. Our study of Du'uza was intriguing. You remember that Ishtar ascended into heaven, and after that Tammuz was resurrected every year. When the captive Jewish priest were indoctrinated and sent back home, they even named their 4th month after him (Nisson). And by the time of the Council of Trent (1550's), the church had adopted traditional teachings (pagan) and Scripture on an equal footing. This council freely incorporated the Babylonian religious doctrine into its worship practices and ceremonies, and thus one can see the customs and costoms today.

Mohammad started in the 7th century with the same teachings, but soon preverted them into his own 'visions'. I remember I stood at the 'altar' of Buddha in Bangkok, and saw the same rituals being performed. All false religion originates from Tammuz, which was Satan's counterfeit. To study this from the original Hebrew texts was fascinating, even for us non-scholars who had to muddle through.

A list of scholars does not impress me; and should not any one else. Revelation is an incredible treatist of how our God transfers us into His own, and failure to see that creates a little babylon. I hope you can see what Jesus wants to share with all of us; and He gives it freely, and explains it incredibly plain in Revelattion.

God's people have been under judgment since Adam, and are judged as he was judged. The aggressive weapons God's people have is the message of the cross; the past to the cross, and after the cross, from the cross. That never changed. The OT is about the coming Messiah, and those who accepted, those who professed, and those who opposed. The NT is about the Messiah came, and those who accept, profess or oppose. Tha is the battle, with or without a 'weapon' in the 'hand', or the quantity of knowledge and understanding in the 'head'. The mark is what we do, what we think!

Arguing sematics can be challenging, but will never house the Holy Spirit for convictions. That is why in my web-site I used John 17 as the basis for my understanding of Revelation; and quite frankly, why 1-3 John define the trumpets very demonstatively. This is Christ---This is the world! Where are you? How do you get from where you are to where you want to be? And to you want to be where Jesus wants you, and how much?

[Ron Lambert]

Gus, it looks like your Lutheran study friend is retracing the same steps as did John Wesley. He may wind up a Methodist if he doesn't watch out!

[Gus Foster]

Quote:

---

Gus, it looks like your Lutheran study friend is retracing the same steps as did John Wesley. He may wind up a Methodist if he doesn't watch out!

---

This is a doctor of language who lives in Colorado--I'm sure he would like your analogy of him. He has many years in the Middle East, and corresponds with friends there frequently. It is interesting that you call the process of sanctification Methodist. To a large extent, it is. So many of us have not experinceced Christ in us.

[Ron Lambert]

Gus, as I am sure you will recall, just as Martin Luther recovered the Bible truth of Justificaiton, John Wesley re-emphasized or recovered much of the Bible truth of Sanctification. Then Baptists came along and re-affirmed baptism by immersion. These truths were never completely lost sight of, but did for centuries drop out of common knowledge except for a very few people or church communities, such as the Waldenses, Anabaptists, etc. The early Waldenses kept the seventh-day Sabbath, and so did the Seventh-day Baptists, from whom we SDAs learned the Sabbath truth and became its chief proponents in the world. William Miller found the Bible truth of the time prophecy in Daniel 8:14, though he got wrong its significance; later us SDAs built on Miller and began teaching the cleansing of the sanctuary, the second apartment ministry of Christ, and the Pre-Advent, Investigative Judgment. So through the ages there has been a progression of truth.

I hope your friend does not make the mistake many of Wesley's followers did, and fail to continue to progress in the advancing light of "present truth." Some Methodists went off on a tangent, and devised what Ellen G. White disparaged as "a Methodist theory of sanctification," by which she referred to the "second blessing" idea, which led to holy flesh fanaticism.

I think the path of truth is a narrow path that is covered with smoothe, slippery ice, and is crowned so that it is higher in the middle and slopes dowmward toward each side. On such a path, you cannot stand still, for there is not good enough traction to keep you from sliding slowly off to the side. The only way to avoid sliding off the path is to keep going forward. Then your momentum prevents you from sliding off to the sides.

[archierieus]

As I have reviewed this thread, and had some time to reflect, I have come to the conclusion that at this point, the posts consist of various opinions and speculation about the meaning of John's vision. The final authority for these opinions has been severally stated to be deduction, and what one knows in his heart. There simply is not an objective, independently verifiable basis for the opinions stated. Ultimately, each interpreter of the prophecy seems to claim himself as the authority. Thus, this discussion no longer is exegesis, but speculation. I can find no objective basis on which to continue participating in the discussion, or to accurately evaluate the opinions propounded. For that reason, I shall excuse myself, and wish the contributors well.

Regards, Dave

[Gus Foster]

Dave---I am sorry that you have decided to discontinue to add to the discussion of this thread. Contribution should not be discouraged, especially since many who are not actively involved are esponging information. I, as well as many other readers, will miss any insight you may have added here; and for that and many other reasons, including the use of the trumpet the Lord has given you, you should reconsider. Possibly on a presentation basis, and not one of arguementation with other's opinion.

[Ron Lambert]

Dave, I have presented the objectively sound interpretation that is exactly as warranted by the text of Rev. 4-5, that it depicts the Judgment, and I take exteme exception to your disparaging what I said as opinion and speculation. My interpretation is the only one that does not violate 2 Peter 1:20: "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation" (NKJV).

You have been influenced, perhaps without realizing how much, by views that have been familiar and long-standing and traditional in the church, even though the truth is those views were never arrived at by sound methods of interpretation in the first place. It appears to me that you have just been looking for excuses (such as by quibbling over what constitutes "exegesis") not to accept the clear and decisive arguments and textual evidences I have presented. I must maintain that you are without excuse, no matter what you say. I told you the truth, and it will make more of a difference than you realize. This means much to the church, and it is in the Lord's hands. This truth will win out, with the Lord's blessing. You will not escape it just by cutting and running.