Joined: 11 Feb 2004 Posts: 20 Location: Sterling, MA
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:22 am Post subject: Studying and teaching the book of Revelation...
Hello, Forum folks,
If you were to outline and demonstrate your personal "best way" to teach the book of Revelation, what would it entail?
How, and where, would you begin--and what would you pay critical attention to? How would you structure the study?
What makes your method or style effective?
Assume your student has a fair knowledge of the book of Daniel, and a reasonable understanding of Scriptural basics.
I am presently involved in such a study, and thought it would be a great topic with which to learn from others. You can never have too much 'revelation' regarding the book ...
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:59 pm Post subject: Revelation Study
Steve,
Remember that Daniel and Revelation are complimentary yet inseparable. There is similarity and contrast. As in physics, opposites attract yet can be beautifully harmonized. The book of Daniel was written with remarkable precision and invites us to interpret every detail with exact mathematical reasoning. However, the book of Revelation is primarily devotional and its meaning is conveyed through an artistic style. Don't be disappointed if you can't fathom the subtlety of every detail in Revelation. There is a lot there and much of it is to inspire us with the deep things of God. Overall, when you finish the study, you will be impressed that the revelation that God gave to Jesus Christ for John and for us is an astounding message of infinite importance.
I'm going to start posting a list of impressive details and essential facts that I hope you will incorporate into your study.
John wrote:
I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea." Revelation 1:10-11.
"What you see" refers to all that was revealed to John in this vision.
John wrote:
Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, "Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this. Revelation 1:12-19.
Verse 19 repeats the directive given to John in verse 11. Here it's broken down in delightfully simple terms. "Write the things which you have seen." The writing was to include the appearing of Christ to John (chap. 1). "and the things which are." John was to write about the condition of the churches in his own day (chaps 2-3). "and the things which will take place after this" (chap 4 onwards).
Rev. 4:1 says,
Quote:
After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this." Rev. 4:1.
Here is my outline of the book of Revelation:
1. A Call To Overcome (Rev 1-3).
2. The Court Assembled (Rev 4-5).
3. The First Scenario (Rev 6).
4. The Second Scenario (Rev 7-11).
5. The Third Scenario (Rev 12-18).
6. The Court’s Final Verdict (Rev 19-20).
7. The Reward Of Those Who Overcome (Rev 21-22).
Here is a crucial question. What do these three scenarios refer to?
Before I answer, let’s hastily display the literary structure of the vision of Amos 7:1-6, notice the “canceled conclusions” and mention, for emphasis, that Amos has three scenarios.
Quote:
This is what the Sovereign Lord showed me: He was preparing swarms of locusts after the king’s share had been harvested and just as the second crop was coming up. When they had stripped the land clean, I cried out, “Sovereign Lord, Forgive! How can Jacob survive? He is so small!”
So the Lord relented.
“This will not happen,” the Lord said.
This is what the Sovereign Lord showed me:
The Sovereign Lord was calling for judgment by fire; it dried up the great deep and devoured the land. Then I cried out, “Sovereign Lord, I beg you, stop! How can Jacob survive? He is so small!”
So the Lord relented.
“This will not happen either,” the Sovereign Lord said.
This is what He showed me: .... [a third scenario.]
The interpretation I am suggesting for the book of Revelation is this. The first scenario expresses the thought that an imminent return was possible for the Apostolic church. That conclusion was canceled and the prophetic drama shifts to a second scenario. The second scenario was the possible end of the world during the Millerite Movement in 1844. That possibility was also canceled as foretold in Scripture. We are now in the third and final scenario.
Here are the fundamental facts that I’ve listed elsewhere on the three scenarios:
Each scenario is a complete unit of prophecy, i.e., each scenario tells a story and reaches to an end of time.
The three scenarios emphasize one especially important feature: The gospel commission is fulfilled in each of them. The white horse of the first seal, the two ascending witnesses, and the three angels of Rev 14 all refer to the gospel being proclaimed with power and great glory just before the end of the world.
In each scenario, a percentage of the earth’s population is killed before the return of Christ. In the first scenario: 1/4 of the earth are killed with "sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth" (6:8). In the second scenario, a third of mankind is killed, by three plagues: fire, smoke & brimstone (9:17,18). In the third scenario, the great river Euphrates, symbolizing all the wicked that support Babylon, is dried up (16:12 cf. 17:1,15).
There are remarkable parallels between the seven trumpet judgments and the seven last plagues.
There are remarkable parallels between the first scenario and the Olivet discourse.
Regarding the second and third scenario:
Both scenarios refer to the cessation of Christ’s priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary (8:5 /15:8).
Both allude to the fact that none are lead to repent because His intercessory work is finished (9:20,21 /16:9,11).
There are parallels in thunderings and lightning (more on that later).
My interpretation:
“Evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). The longer God delays in pouring out His final judgments, the worse those judgments will be.
We’re seeing possible ends of the world in different periods of time. As God revises His threats with greater and more severe judgments, the previous scenarios are canceled.
I see the second and third scenarios as comparatively close to each other in time. This naturally accounts for the similarity in the trumpets and vials. Their dissimilarity with the judgments that were to fall in the first century suggests that the end of the world was delayed far beyond that time.
The many parallel events between the three scenarios are all comprehended by the term “multiple scenarios.” If the world were scheduled to end in 1844 but for whatever reason God delayed the end for another 45, 65 or 165 years, wouldn’t you expect the final judgments to be similar?
Conclusion: The three scenarios are linked by their separation in time.
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:41 pm Post subject: 2. The Court Assembled (Rev 4-5)
Focus on the Throne Room:
In the temple of God everything says, “Glory!” (Ps. 29:9). Consider Revelation 4-5; Everything says, “Glory!” The first thing we see is a door open in heaven (4:1). That door is to the throne room of God (4:2 ff.). The throne room is center stage for what follows. See Revelation 8:3,5; 9:13; 11:1,2,16,19; 14:15,17,18; 15:5,6,8; 16:1,7,17.
Court Is Now In Session:
The book of Revelation elaborates upon the judgment scene of Daniel 7. Consider the parallels:
A focus on the Ancient of Days and His throne: Da. 7:9 cf. Rev. 4:2,3.
Many thrones around the throne of God: Da. 7:9 cf. Rev 4:4.
A great assembly around the throne: Da. 7:10 cf. Rev. 5:11.
The Son of Man coming before the Father: Da. 7:13 cf. Rev. 5:7.
A focus on book/s: Da. 7:10 cf. Rev. 5:1-9.
The Lamb receives a kingdom (cf. Lk 19:11,12): Da. 7:14 cf. Rev. 5:12.
The heavenly court was assembled in the first century; that’s when Christ took possession of the book, but the book was not opened until 1844.
References and Notes
After quoting Revelation 5:1-3, which you recall begins with the Father having a sealed book in His hand, Ellen White states: “There in His open hand lay the book, the roll of the history of God’s providences, the prophetic history of nations and the church. Herein was contained the divine utterances, His authority, His commandments, His laws, the whole symbolic counsel of the Eternal, and the history of all ruling powers in the nations. In symbolic language was contained in that roll the influence of every nation, tongue, and people from the beginning of earth’s history to its close” (Letter 65, dated, August 23, 1898).
The book of destiny is also a title deed:
“The world does not acknowledge that, at an infinite cost, Christ has purchased the human race. They do not acknowledge that by creation and by redemption He holds a just claim to every human being. But as the Redeemer of the fallen race, He has been given the deed of possession, which entitles Him to claim them as His property” (E.G.W., Questions on Doctrine, p. 670).
Footnotes:
Respected commentaries agree with these identifications.
All scholars agree that no part of the book can be read (or executed) until all the seals have been broken.
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:36 pm Post subject: 3. The First Scenario (Rev 6 cf. Mt 24:1-35)
The fundamental insights that I've assembled for study for the first scenario are presented in this link. I also consider the following thesis to be essential supplementary material for your classes if they wish to study, in exquisite detail, the connection between the Olivet discourse and the first two scenarios of Revelation.
In Matthew 24, Jesus presented two irreconcilable prophecies that are blended together almost invisibly. One prophecy is an exact, unmistakable delineation of future events. The other insists on your ignorance of the future and cautions you to be ready no matter what.
The distinct prophecies Mt 24:1-35 and Mt 24:36-51 are to be interpreted according to the thesis of multiple scenarios. The first refers to a possible end of the world in the first century. The second applies to a certain indeterminable future. Jesus continues His instruction about the second scenario in Matthew 25.
“At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom” (Mt 25:1).
Verse 5 is a key verse:
“Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep” (Mt 25:5).
Following the parable of the Ten Virgins, Christ tells the parable of the Talents. Note the parallel idea:
“After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them” (Mt 25:19).
It is very evident that Jesus was referring to two scenarios in Matthew 24: the first applies to Christ’s Second Coming as the culmination of a possible end of the world in the first century; the second refers to His return after a long delay.
Quote:
Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, like men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”
Peter asked, “Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?”
The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.” Luke 12:35-46.
The second watch was from between 9PM to midnight. The third watch was from midnight to 3AM. I believe that the midnight cry of Mt 25:6, “Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him”, was given on the second watch.
What's your view of Ellen White's inspiration on the three watches that I posted to your inspired dream thread? I believe that Ellen White's vision corroborates with sufficient authority my Bible based arguments for multiple scenarios.
In comparison to the pronouncements by Babylonish churches and where Adventist scholars are at, I think of all this as stunning revelation.
Joined: 11 Feb 2004 Posts: 20 Location: Sterling, MA
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:04 am Post subject: Response to Eugene's first post: "Revelation study"
Hello Eugene,
Thank you for your very detailed replies. You certainly contributed material that called for much investigation, prayer and reflection!
I wanted to really mull your 3 responses over, study them (and the Scriptures) deeply, and present them at our study to see how our friends/’students’ responded to and understood them, before I replied to you. Hence, a lot of time has passed.
In my ongoing study, much of your material was presented to our students 'as is,' with some very good results. We read the Scriptures of Revelation chapters 1 through 6 (and some following), and used your commentary to enhance discussion of each passage. I also compared these materials with the SDA Bible Commentary, et al for comparison with the traditional Seventh-day Adventist interpretation(s).
I could probably respond to every point and/or subject that you discussed, but that would not be feasible for me, time-wise. Instead, I will try to focus on a few questions and comments. I'll respond to your individual posts separately.
Let me start by saying that your presentation was very thought provoking, in a good and useful way.
[Rev. 1:19 being quoted] "Write the things which you have seen." The writing was to include the appearing of Christ to John (chap. 1). "and the things which are." John was to write about the condition of the churches in his own day (chaps 2-3). "and the things which will take place after this" (chap 4 onwards).
Rev. 4:1 says,
After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking with me, saying, "Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this." Rev. 4:1.
1.) Virtually all SDA authors and commentators (and—I’ve read—some non-SDA commentators) place a great deal of emphasis, in one way or another, on the "application of the various messages to the seven churches to seven consecutive periods of church history" (SDA 7BC, p. 752, see "Additional Note on Chapter 2"), i.e. the seven churches of Rev. 2 & 3 as prophecy. This is probably due to Ellen White's statement from her book The Acts of the Apostles, page 585: "The names of the seven churches are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian era. The number 7 indicates completeness, and is symbolic of the fact that the messages extend to the end of time, while the symbols used reveal the condition of the church at different periods in the history of the world." You have only applied the messages to the seven churches to "the condition of the churches in his [John's] own day (chaps 2-3)." Do you see any validity and usefulness in the church's current and historical emphasis on the symbolic interpretation and application of the seven churches of Rev. 2-3?
2.) What you’ve broken down in the quotation above (what John had seen to that point in the vision, followed by the things “that are,” and then the latter events) are very basic details of the vision. That being said, I now believe that they are very important details for understanding the structure of the book that follows, and to provide a contextual reference frame. I had not noticed it before—good eye, Eugene.
3.) I’ll comment on the timing of "’the things which will take place after this’ (chap 4 onwards)” in my response to your second posting.
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Here is my outline of the book of Revelation:
1. A Call To Overcome (Rev 1-3).
2. The Court Assembled (Rev 4-5).
3. The First Scenario (Rev 6).
4. The Second Scenario (Rev 7-11).
5. The Third Scenario (Rev 12-18).
6. The Court’s Final Verdict (Rev 19-20).
7. The Reward Of Those Who Overcome (Rev 21-22).
Eugene, this is a very simple and elegant outline. In fact, it gives me satisfaction regarding a problem that I’ve had with the ‘traditional’ SDA interpretation of Revelation. Once, several years ago, I was asked to make up 100 questions from the book of Revelation for what we called a ‘Bible Bowl.’ This was a competition of Biblical knowledge for high school (SDA Academy) students, and Revelation was to be one of a few books they needed to answer questions for. My method of doing this was to try to make 4-5 questions from each chapter. It was challenging for me to make up sensible questions for each chapter, so I ended up reading the entire book through 4 times over a stretch of several hours, and I read it quite carefully. One thing that stood out clearly in my mind as I went on, was that the events of the book seemed to be reaching a crescendo, three times, but the first two times (what you refer to as your first and second scenarios,) they just seemed to—strangely—stop! I couldn’t reconcile the events of the 7 seals, 7 trumpets, and 7 vials/bowls as parallel events either. I had studied the book previously, but the repeated reading of the book at one sitting made me really look at the structure. I know different scholars and laymen offer many outlines, but this one is quite satisfying. I don’t know all the details of your application of the ‘scenarios,’ and how you parse them out yet, but I look forward to researching them.
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Here is a crucial question. What do these three scenarios refer to?
Before I answer, let’s hastily display the literary structure of the vision of Amos 7:1-6, notice the “canceled conclusions” and mention, for emphasis, that Amos has three scenarios.
[Amos 7:1-6 quoted…]
The interpretation I am suggesting for the book of Revelation is this. The first scenario expresses the thought that an imminent return was possible for the Apostolic church. That conclusion was canceled and the prophetic drama shifts to a second scenario. The second scenario was the possible end of the world during the Millerite Movement in 1844. That possibility was also canceled as foretold in Scripture. We are now in the third and final scenario.
[…]
Each scenario is a complete unit of prophecy, i.e., each scenario tells a story and reaches to an end of time.
The three scenarios emphasize one especially important feature: The gospel commission is fulfilled in each of them. The white horse of the first seal, the two ascending witnesses, and the three angels of Rev 14 all refer to the gospel being proclaimed with power and great glory just before the end of the world.
Eugene, this is great stuff—a new and (IMHO) valid interpretive paradigm. If one has read your 'thesis of multiple scenarios’ in depth, this makes tremendous sense. Amos 7:1-9 demonstrates a way that God sometimes works (including prophecy) in a wonderful way! This exchange between God and Amos shows that God is truly willing to—at times—negotiate with men, and work with them, while still pursuing His purpose. I also think that is quite interesting that in the third scenario in Amos 7, there is no revision, update, or cancellation of what God had spoken (similar to your view of the book of Revelation's scenarios): Israel would be measured and judged.
Having insight into the possibility that God has chosen to unfold prophecy by displaying “possible ends of the world in different periods of time” (Eugene’s specific application of ‘progressive revelation’) has been quite enlightening. The bottom line for me is this: Scripture that was complex, mysterious, and highly technical is now much more simple and understandable. In fact, it seems more simple daily.
Eugene Shubert wrote:
There are remarkable parallels between the first scenario and the Olivet discourse.
1) I completely agree. After studying this quite thoroughly, it now seems obvious to me. Reading Jesus’ words from the Olivet discourse now echoes Revelation 6, and vice versa.
2) I think it could be significant that in comparing the third and second scenarios with the first, the first has no related historical events surrounding it (or it may appear that way). I’m getting ahead of myself, though, and will comment on this in a later posting.
3) Before becoming a Seventh-day Adventist, I had always been stymied by the identity and symbolism of the white horse and its rider (Rev. 6:2). I don’t find it helpful that the Bible I normally use for study (the NASB) has a heading for Rev. 6:1-2 that says: “The Book Opened: The First Seal—The False Christ.” Ellen White has a rather well-known quotation from The Story of Prophets and Kings (page 725) that supports your identification of the horse and rider:
“Clad in the armor of Christ’s righteousness, the church is to enter into her final conflict. ‘Fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners’ (Song of Solomon 6:10), she is to go forth into all the world, conquering and to conquer.” (This is the wording of Rev. 6:2.)
The application of the ‘first scenario’ to the late-Apostolic Christian church alleviates any need to turn the horse and its rider into a satanic agent or agency.
Eugene Shubert wrote:
There are remarkable parallels between the seven trumpet judgments and the seven last plagues.
Once again, I completely agree, and it is now obvious also.
Regarding your closing ‘interpretation’:
Eugene Shubert wrote:
“Evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13). The longer God delays in pouring out His final judgments, the worse those judgments will be.
We’re seeing possible ends of the world in different periods of time. As God revises His threats with greater and more severe judgments, the previous scenarios are canceled.
I see the second and third scenarios as comparatively close to each other in time. This naturally accounts for the similarity in the trumpets and vials. Their dissimilarity with the judgments that were to fall in the first century suggests that the end of the world was delayed far beyond that time.
The many parallel events between the three scenarios are all comprehended by the term “multiple scenarios.” If the world were scheduled to end in 1844 but for whatever reason God delayed the end for another 45, 65 or 165 years, wouldn’t you expect the final judgments to be similar?
Conclusion: The three scenarios are linked by their separation in time.
As I said, this makes great sense and answers many questions that I’ve had for years. The only thing that I might add is that I believe it may be clearer to restate your conclusion “The three scenarios are linked by their separation in time” as “The three scenarios are linked by the magnitude of their separation in time” (if that is indeed what you were saying). It took me a while to understand the point you were making.
Once again, thank you very much for your response, Eugene.
(I’m wondering if any other folks have commentary on what you’ve presented…)
God bless, all—
Steve
Last edited by Steve Starman on Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Court Is Now In Session:
The book of Revelation elaborates upon the judgment scene of Daniel 7. Consider the parallels:
A focus on the Ancient of Days and His throne: Da. 7:9 cf. Rev. 4:2,3.
Many thrones around the throne of God: Da. 7:9 cf. Rev 4:4.
A great assembly around the throne: Da. 7:10 cf. Rev. 5:11.
The Son of Man coming before the Father: Da. 7:13 cf. Rev. 5:7.
A focus on book/s: Da. 7:10 cf. Rev. 5:1-9.
The Lamb receives a kingdom (cf. Lk 19:11,12): Da. 7:14 cf. Rev. 5:12.
Your assertion that the scenes of Revelation 4-5 parallel the judgment scenes of Daniel 7 is very interesting—and (IMHO) important. Adventism, it seems, has for the most part kept silent regarding these parallels. For example, the SDA BC makes several Scriptural cross-references to the similarities between Revelation 4 and Ezekiel 1 & 10 (which are valid), but as far as I could find, there are no cross-references whatsoever regarding Rev 4-5 and Dan 7. It is not even mentioned. C.M. Maxwell addresses the similarities in his God Cares, Vol. 2 (pp 170-171), but very briefly. He instead focuses on the differences between the two scenes:
a) In Dan 7, the Father is not seated until the thrones are set up; in Rev 4 the Father is already seated as the scene opens.
b) In Dan 7, the Son of man arrives before the Father dramatically on the clouds of heaven, unlike Rev 4-5.
c) In Dan 7, the books are opened before the Son of man arrives; in Rev 4–5 the scroll is notably sealed.
d) He states that Dan 7 is inarguably a judgment scene, while Rev 4-5 is not “labeled” a judgment scene.
Maxwell therefore concludes: “Daniel 7:9-14 and Revelation 4 and 5 describe not the same but two different events.” He then leaves the interpretation and application of Rev 4-5 to the reader, it seems (possibly because he had no better solution to offer). Eugene, your thesis “The Ends of Time” harmonizes these discrepancies summarily, and actually harmonizes all of the apparent problems (that I have seen...) regarding Old Testament vs NT prophecies. If one understands that prophecy is dynamic and conditional [1][2], and that traditional historicist interpretation of prophecy is based on circular argument [3], one is freed to realize that prophecies can have partial (or even zero) fulfillments and be updated later on, by God Himself. The article ‘The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy,’ (SDAs: study this article!) written many years ago by Raymond Cottrell (see SDA BC 4, pp 25-38) states on page 36-37 under ‘Conclusion: Principles of Interpretation’:
“In general, Old Testament promises and predictions were addressed to literal Israel and were to have been fulfilled to them, conditional on obedience. Partial compliance on their part with the will of God made possible a partial fulfillment of the covenant promises on God’s part. Yet many of the promises… could not be fulfilled to them because of their unfaithfulness, but would be fulfilled to the church on earth preparatory to Christ’s return, particularly to God’s remnant people, and in the new earth.
When the Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah, God in turn rejected them and commissioned the Christian church as His chosen instrument for the salvation of the world… Promises not already fulfilled to literal Israel either would never be fulfilled at all or would be fulfilled to the Christian church as spiritual Israel. Prophecies that fall into the latter classification are to be fulfilled in principle but not necessarily in every detail…” (bold highlights supplied by me, italics supplied by the author.)
Consider the crucial implications of these words. God certainly had every right to update the prophecy of Daniel 7 to reflect the choices that (literal) Israel had made. Remember that Israel, as a nation, rejected the Messiah between the times that Daniel wrote his book and John the Revelator wrote his. As stated in the quotation above, spiritual Israel would now fulfill God's mission—but the prophecies would now be "fulfilled in principle but not necessarily in every detail" by spiritual Israel—Christianity. Here's where traditional Adventism has fallen short regarding Daniel: it is a conditional prophecy. Revelation 4-5 is a clear update of the judgment scene of Daniel 7.
Eugene Shubert wrote:
The throne room is center stage for what follows.
This is a very important point to remember as the student continues to study the book.
Eugene Shubert wrote:
The Lamb receives a kingdom (cf. Lk 19:11,12): Da. 7:14 cf. Rev. 5:12.
The heavenly court was assembled in the first century; that’s when Christ took possession of the book, but the book was not opened until 1844.
Eugene, I noticed some things as I studied these chapters that seem to point to the timing you here refer to. In my last posting above I mentioned that I would discuss these thoughts. You may see accuracy and/or significance in them, or not.
You have stated that “each scenario is a complete unit of prophecy, i.e., each scenario tells a story and reaches to an end of time.” I see this applied in the book of Revelation, and it appears that Rev 4-5 segues beautifully into the scenario of Rev 6 (which could have been fulfilled in the days of the 7 churches of Rev 2-3... what you’ve called the ‘first scenario’). In Rev 4, the court is assembled. This activity is certainly appropriate if the latter-Apostolic church would have been faithful to its calling—the judgment would have taken place soon. But, let’s go back a bit and postulate that the court needed to be “set up” very soon, if the Jews had been faithful to God and accepted the Messiah (the hoped-for ending of Daniel 11-12). Rev 4-5 would then be a seamless lead-in to the scenario of Rev 6 as follows:
The Apostolic church understood that Christ was to return very soon, after: the predicted “falling away;” the activities of the “man of sin;” and the gospel witness being given to the entire world. After many years—and much tribulation—the original Apostles were almost all deceased. John was an old man, and imprisoned. He receives his prophecies, all of which are possible scenarios for the end of time, and all of which are updated so as to be contemporary. The book begins (and ends) with the assurance that the prophecies would come to pass very soon. God then reveals the current state of the Christian church, and states exactly what the churches, in order for Christ to return, must do very soon. Rev 4 and 5 then form a ‘bridge’ into the first scenario, by having the heavenly court ready for judgment, after presentation of the successful Messiah. Rev 2-3 and 4-5 then could be seen as providing some of the historical surroundings of the time period that the first scenario seems to be missing (the second and third scenarios both have spiritually significant historical surroundings in their narratives).
As I studied these Scriptures, I noticed, for the first time, a small mystery. After the Father is introduced as seated on His throne, holding the scroll that must be examined during the judgment, a strong angel asks: “Who is worthy to open the book [scroll] and to break its seals?” (Rev 5:2, NASB) The next sentence answers the question in a manner that is rather odd: “And no one in heaven or on earth was able to open the book or look into it” (vs. 3). I’ve always read this passage as a grammatical construct, used to dramatically introduce the successful Messiah in Rev 5:5-6. This time, though, I read it a bit differently. Could God be providing another clue that this scene was describing first century events (the ‘bridge’ into the first scenario)? Truly, there was a time in the first century, when there was no one in heaven or earth when worthy to open the scroll: when Christ was a man on earth, and had not yet accomplished His purpose as the Savior of mankind upon the cross. John next hears an elder provide the answer to the question—there is one worthy—and he then sees “a Lamb standing, as if slain.” The Messiah had now overcome. I see here a hint wherein God is showing that the court was assembled in the first century.
Eugene Shubert wrote:
All scholars agree that no part of the book can be read (or executed) until all the seals have been broken.
Another possible hint regarding the timing of this scene is the scroll itself. John states that as it rests in the Father’s right hand, it is “written inside and on the back.” This means that some small portion of the events recorded on the scroll could be read at the time of the assembly of the court, without the scroll being unrolled at all. Recall that the scroll contained “’the history of God’s providences, the prophetic history of nations and the church. Herein was contained the divine utterances, His authority, His commandments, His laws, the whole symbolic counsel of the Eternal, and the history of all ruling powers in the nations. In symbolic language was contained in that roll the influence of every nation, tongue, and people from the beginning of earth’s history to its close’ (Letter 65, dated, August 23, 1898).” The events that could be read before the scroll was unrolled might be events that occurred previously, or were contemporary to the scenes of Rev 4 & 5. (Of course, one could say that events yet future were written where John could see them, because God had foreknowledge of them.) It just seems odd to me that Scripture specifically points out that the scroll is written on the back (outside surface of the rolled scroll). I understand that writing on both sides of a scroll was not uncommon, as the medium was expensive and scarce. Still, in theory, John could have read some of the contents of the scroll in his own day.
This observation may also be void of significance—I don’t know. There are some disputes regarding added punctuation, etc in this text that could make the sentence read differently (but they aren’t that strong, IMHO). The important point is that the full scroll could not be read—and judgment applied—until one worthy to open all the seals opened them, and therefore the scroll.
Once again, thanks Eugene.
God bless, all--
Steve
Last edited by Steve Starman on Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:11 am; edited 4 times in total
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 65 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:35 am Post subject: A couple of questions
Hi everyone
Thanks, Eugene and Steve for some very thought-provoking reading!
I am about to start going through Eugene's Daniel booklet before digging deeply into these comments on Revelation, so please forgive me if I ask questions that are covered somewhere in all of Eugene's writing. But as I have been browsing, a couple of questions have popped into my head that I would like to ask. If it is not too much trouble, I would love a response from you, Eugene, or you, Steve. However, if the topics are covered elsewhere, I'd be happy with references, etc.
1) I was reading your comments, Eugene, on Matthew 24. I am interested in your idea that Matthew 24 offers two scenarios of the Second Advent. However, why can't the chapter be read as a prediction of the Fall of the Temple followed by the Second Advent at some time in the future? These seems to make sense to me at the moment.
2) Revelation begins and ends with the assertion that the coming of Christ would be "soon". Doesn't this count against the idea that God knew that the time of waiting might be lengthy and, therefore, provide three possible scenarios for the end? If this was a distinct possibility, why the apparent certainty of the "soonness"?
3) I'm wondering whether it is feasible that the original readers would have understood the idea of three potential scenarios as you are suggesting? If not, wouldn't this count against the idea?
Joined: 11 Feb 2004 Posts: 20 Location: Sterling, MA
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:47 pm Post subject: Response to Eugene's 3rd post: "The First Scenario"
Hello again, Eugene (and Forum folks),
As promised, here are my…
Observations on your third reply[“The First Scenario (Rev 6 cf. Mt 24:1-35)”]:
Eugene Shubert wrote:
In Matthew 24, Jesus presented two irreconcilable prophecies that are blended together almost invisibly. One prophecy is an exact, unmistakable delineation of future events. The other insists on your ignorance of the future and cautions you to be ready no matter what.
The distinct prophecies Mt 24:1-35 and Mt 24:36-51 are to be interpreted according to the thesis of multiple scenarios. The first refers to a possible end of the world in the first century. The second applies to a certain indeterminable future.
I had read other threads on this Forum regarding your interpretation of Matt 24 & 25 previously, but in a cursory fashion. I was looking forward to examining your claim in depth, during the course of our dialogue. I must admit that I was unsure I would be able to ‘get’ where you were coming from. What troubled me was your statement that there were two “irreconcilable” prophecies within the two chapters.
I truly appreciate and enjoy the way God works. As we were investigating these two chapters during our weekly group study, it just became apparent to each of us that, following Matt 24:35, the scenario is different—and irreconcilable with the initial portion of the chapter. Matt 24:4-31 is a full description of the end of the world based on the latter prophecies of Daniel. Jesus describes the end-time events from “the beginning of [the] birth pangs” (24:8) straight through to the birth of the Kingdom at His second coming (24:30-31). He even assured His immediate hearers that they would—themselves—see “all these things take place” (24:34). In this prophecy there is no place at all for what could be called ‘normal’ life (24:37-41, et al), since in Jesus’ initial description there is ongoing tribulation (24:9) followed by the most severe tribulation of all time, that if left unchecked would destroy all of humanity (24:22). It is extremely apparent that Matt 24:36ff through Matt 25 focuses on Jesus’ return after a delay (especially 25:5, 19 as Eugene notes), but that was also conditional (24:48, 50: “But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time… the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know…”) My opinion is that your thesis just plain works, looking at the totality of OT and NT prophecy, in context. I could probably resist this view, and try very hard to find support for, and keep my old opinion and understanding of these texts and prophecies, but to what end?? The ‘traditional’ SDA interpretation of these Scriptures is wrought with confusion. Reading Matt 24-25, Mark 13 and Luke 21 would require (at least) these questions to be asked for every single statement: does this apply to the time of the destruction of the temple, or to the second coming of Christ, or possibly both? You could then—easily—end up with an absolute hodge-podge mixture of event positioning with respect to time. Your thesis harmonizes Daniel, Revelation and the NT prophecies of Christ in an exceedingly simple manner. It couldn’t be simpler, IMHO. It also still supports Ellen White’s claim that Matt 24 is a blended prophecy.
Eugene Shubert wrote:
It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night. [Lk 12:38 being quoted]
[…]
The second watch was from between 9PM to midnight. The third watch was from midnight to 3AM. I believe that the midnight cry of Mt 25:6, “Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him”, was given on the second watch.
What's your view of Ellen White's inspiration on the three watches that I posted to your inspired dream thread? I believe that Ellen White's vision corroborates with sufficient authority my Bible based arguments for multiple scenarios.
In our monthly 'select' SDA study group, we studied the dream that I had in depth. One astute member found the following information from her study Bible, that establishes the "2:00 AM" time-criticality even further: The Romans and the Jews of Christ's day kept different night watches. The Romans used a four-watch system, with the 1st watch being from 6-9 PM, the 2nd from 9 PM to midnight (as Eugene pointed out), the third from midnight to 3 AM, and the 4th from 3-6 AM. The Jewish system of watches consisted of three periods, divided thusly: the 1st watch was from sundown to 10 PM, the 2nd watch was from 10 PM to 2 AM, and the third watch was from 2 AM to sunrise. Note that in the Jewish system, the 3rd watch begins at 2 AM, exactly when I was told that God would communicate to me; exactly when the "midnight" sun rose, which was followed immediately by the vision of the date of Jesus’ return—all in my dream!
It appears that Jesus is using the Roman watches in His statements of Mk 13:35-36, since there are 4 watches. In Lk 12:38, Jesus only lists 3 watches, so I suppose that they can't be definitively stated to be either the Jewish or the Roman watches. On the other hand, Jesus' words regarding the 3rd watch are revealing: "Whether he [the master] comes in the second watch, or even in the third, and finds them so [his slaves, alert and with lamps lit], blessed are those slaves" (emphases and bracketed commentary mine).
I see deep significance in the ‘3 watches’ vision of Ellen White, (quoted in this posting) being acceptably linked and/or applied to 3 scenarios of the possible ends of time in the book of Revelation. Jesus, in my view, repetitively used the watches as being symbolically relevant to the timing of His return. In this particular, I respectfully disagree with Tall73 (in this posting, and the following postings in the thread)—though I value and truly appreciate his postings.
I interpret the dream as being a direct announcement and revelation from God, that we on earth are now in the 3rd—and last—prophetic cycle of the book of Revelation.
As I stated in this posting, I truly believe that the "midnight cry" that "was given" by the Millerites "in the summer and autumn of 1844" was given during a conditional, end-time prophetic cycle that is now passed. Did those people accidentally give the "midnight cry" at the wrong hour of night? I think not! Angels were the ones that began this cry: "behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet to meet him!" (See Early Writings, p. 238, para 1-2). Consider this: In Ellen White's very first vision, she heard God announce "the day and hour of His coming" (Early Writings p. 15). Do we think that she came out of the vision (which she had, almost certainly, in December of 1844), believing, writing and preaching that Christ could come very soon, if her sense of the vision was that Christ would come in, say... 2006???
The "midnight cry" being given in the 2nd watch--Roman or Jewish, makes perfect sense. "The waiting ones were represented to me as looking upward. They were encouraging one another by repeating these words: 'The first and second watches are past. We are in the third watch, waiting and watching for the Master's return. There remains but a little period of watching now.'" “I saw that watch after watch was in the past.” Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church Volume 2, pp. 192, 193.
Once again, thanks very much, Eugene. I now look forward to your continuation of this discussion!
God bless, all--
Steve
Joined: 11 Feb 2004 Posts: 20 Location: Sterling, MA
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: A couple of questions
spozzie wrote:
If it is not too much trouble, I would love a response from you, Eugene, or you, Steve. However, if the topics are covered elsewhere, I'd be happy with references, etc.
1) I was reading your comments, Eugene, on Matthew 24. I am interested in your idea that Matthew 24 offers two scenarios of the Second Advent. However, why can't the chapter be read as a prediction of the Fall of the Temple followed by the Second Advent at some time in the future? These seems to make sense to me at the moment.
2) Revelation begins and ends with the assertion that the coming of Christ would be "soon". Doesn't this count against the idea that God knew that the time of waiting might be lengthy and, therefore, provide three possible scenarios for the end? If this was a distinct possibility, why the apparent certainty of the "soonness"?
3) I'm wondering whether it is feasible that the original readers would have understood the idea of three potential scenarios as you are suggesting? If not, wouldn't this count against the idea?
Hi Spozzie,
If Eugene doesn't provide an answer for your 3 questions fairly soon, I'll take my best shot at providing satisfactory answers for you. (It's certainly not "too much trouble"!)
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 65 Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: A couple of questions
Steve Starman wrote:
Hi Spozzie,
If Eugene doesn't provide an answer for your 3 questions fairly soon, I'll take my best shot at providing satisfactory answers for you. (It's certainly not "too much trouble"!)
Take care, and God bless--
Steve
That would be great... Haven't heard from him yet!
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:59 am Post subject: Re: Response to Eugene's first post: 'Revelation study'
Steve Starman wrote:
Virtually all SDA authors and commentators (and—I’ve read—some non-SDA commentators) place a great deal of emphasis, in one way or another, on the "application of the various messages to the seven churches to seven consecutive periods of church history." ... You have only applied the messages to the seven churches to "the condition of the churches in his [John's] own day (chaps 2-3)." Do you see any validity and usefulness in the church's current and historical emphasis on the symbolic interpretation and application of the seven churches of Rev. 2-3?
It has taken me a long time to answer this. I'm almost done. What I have written on the first six churches is complete. There is one more church to go. See The Literary and Prophetic Structure of Revelation 2 and 3. I have a very clear understanding of my view on the last period of Church history (Laodicea) but need one more week to meditate on it. I'll let you comment on the similarity and differences between my view of the seven churches and what Seventh-day Adventists have taught in the past.
Steve Starman wrote:
I wanted to really mull your 3 responses over, study them (and the Scriptures) deeply, and present them at our study to see how our friends/’students’ responded to and understood them, before I replied to you. Hence, a lot of time has passed.
I needed a lot of mulling time also. Thank you for asking the previous question and your recent email, encouraging me to write up my recent research and thoughts on the seven churches. I want you to know that I took your request very seriously. And I've spent quality time in carefully reflecting upon my thoughts and in assembling them. I now strongly believe that God was enabling me and helped me with the selection process in part II when I searched through a huge number of references and the writing.
In turn, I now strongly urge you to make a tape of your group study on the seven churches and all of Revelation. Grace bought a fancy tape-duplicating machine several years ago and I think it would be a good idea to use it. A tape recorder from Walmart will set you back about $20. I think that the importance of the message demands that all interested parties make provisions for wide circulation of it in all available formats. The Come To Christ ministry is happy to help with the distribution. I know that you too are interested in getting this message before the church. We all have our gifts to contribute. When you get comfortable with audiotapes, you should then move up to making videos. What do you think of the idea?
Steve Starman wrote:
Regarding your closing ‘interpretation’: "Conclusion: The three scenarios are linked by their separation in time."
The only thing that I might add is that I believe it may be clearer to restate your conclusion “The three scenarios are linked by their separation in time” as “The three scenarios are linked by the magnitude of their separation in time.”
Thank you Steve. Yes indeed—and without a doubt—your restatement is much clearer. I appreciate the improved rewording.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
