Ron,

Revelation 4 and 5 are not the Judgment as you said in your post. EGW in the Great Controversy makes this clear:

"The holy places of the sanctuary in heaven are represented by the two apartments in the sanctuary on earth. As in vision the apostle John was granted a view of the temple of God in heaven, he beheld there 'seven lamps of fire burning before the throne.' Revelation 4:5. He saw an angel 'having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.' Revelation 8:3. Here the prophet was permitted to behold the first apartment of the sanctuary in heaven; and he saw there the 'seven lamps of fire" and "the golden altar,' represented by the golden candlestick and the altar of incense in the sanctuary on earth." GC, p. 414.

If it is in the Holy Place, it is not the Judgment. Another thought from Jon Paulien on the issue of Revelation 4 and 5, which I ran across recently when studying the Revelation, is very interesting:

"Most striking of all, however, is the fact that John studiously avoids the language of judgment in this throne scene. In the Greek language judgment is usually expressed by the nouns krisis and krima, and the verb krino. As the references indicate, John is quite familiar with the language of judgment but deliberately avoids using it in the first half of the book of Revelation. The seeming exception (6:10) is not a description of the judgment, but a call for the judgment to begin... the language of judgment in Revelation is reserved for descriptions of end-time events (Rev. 12-20)." DARCOM, Symposium on Revelation - Book I, p. 210.

Jon has examined the Greek here and makes a lot of sense. The book of Revelation is based around the tent of the tabernacle of the Jewish sanctuary. The first three major sections of the book are events that happen on earth while our high priest is ministering in the Holy place in heaven. They each have seven sequencial divisions: seven churches, seven seals, and seven trumpets. They all cover the same period of time, from the time Jesus ascended to heaven until He finishes His work there.
The last major section of the book begins, "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament..." Revelation 11:19. This section of the Revelation does not have seven sequencial divisions like the others. It has many smaller simultaneous sections which focus mainly upon the time of the judgment after 1844; the last period of earth's history. The door to the Most Holy place in heaven was not open to the view of John before Revelation 11:19. Hence Revelation 4 and 5 cannot be a discription of the judgment.

Tim

I agree that unsealing the book is related to the process of the IJ in some way because the book is the book of life for the saints. It tells who is saved and who is not. That is why John was so anxious that someone be worthy to open it.

But the question is -- are the seals speaking of the events leading up to 1844 or are they refering to events afterward?

in Christ,

Bob

Bob,

I am trying to understand how there is an investigative judgment in Revelation 4 and 5. The only investigation that is mentioned is, "Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?" Rev. 5:2. To which the examination returns, "And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon." Rev. 5:3. The only one that is worthy is Jesus because "...thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Rev. 5:9.

If this is the investigative judgment, and no man was found worthy except Jesus, then is no one saved except Jesus? Consider what Ellen White said:

"Attended by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the holy of holies and there appears in the presence of God to engage in the last acts of His ministration in behalf of man--to perform the work of investigative judgment and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits." The Great Controversy, p. 480.

Since none are worthy, are none entitled to the benefits of Christ's Atonement? And, why is some of the investigation done "in heaven"? Rev. 5:3. Since they are in heaven, are Moses and Elijah being investigated? And since they are not found worthy, are they not entitled to the benefits of Christ's Atonement? This investigation is only a determination to see who is worthy to unseal the book. Only Jesus can do it because He redeemed us!

God Bless,

Tim

Ron,

I would be very careful of saying that Revelation chapter 4 and 5 are talking about the judgment because of things such as, "unique phrasing is only found in Rev. 5:11 and Dan. 7:10." I have seen other instances where people have used similar logic. Just because A mentions B does not necessarily follow that B must be speaking of A. Let me give an example that I recently examined:

The Sabbath commandment says in part: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is..." Exod. 20:11. Therefore most of us SDAs like to say that Rev. 14:7 must be talking about the Sabbath because it says, "...worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." If that is the case, then what about its usage by the disciples of Jesus when Peter and John were freed:

"And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is." Acts 4:24.

This phrasing is almost identical to the phrasing in Exodus 20:11, but it has no connections to the Sabbath. Be careful brother, we will yet meet very intelligent men and have to answer for these things.

God Bless,

Tim

The day is coming, I believe, that to arrive at a more correct understanding of Dan and Rev and the other end time prophecies, including Jesus', we will have to distance ourselves from the interpretations of EGW's era and examine these prophecies without her influence.

The 1 day=1 year time assignment is erroneous, and cannot apply to the end time prophecies, otherwise one king in particular will cause the sacrifices to cease, then 1290 years later, he will set up the abomination of desolation. (Dan 12:11, Dan 9:27)

Days mean days, period. We may be living in the last few millennia, but certainly not in the Last Days.

I think the Last Days will occur after the 2nd Resurrection, when the 4 Beasts arise out of a turbulent sea of billions upon billions of people. Certain resurrected rulers will take charge of the world, and the rulership of the world will follow the sequence of 4 given in both Dan and Rev.

It's during this time period that the 3-angel's messages are presented to the world, and everyone must make their choice to be servants of God or servants of Satan.

Jesus warned us what to expect after the 2nd Resurrection in Matt 24. What we do in this life will affect our choice of whose mark we are branded with. Those who are branded with the seal of God will be easy targets. Their willingness to die for the LORD will prove their devotion to him.

Just a few years later, after the wars of conquest and destruction, and the seals, trumpets, and plagues, no more than 7 years after the 2nd Resurrection, the earth is all but completely destroyed in a cataclysmic earthquake.

After the sheep/goat judgment, the LORD will destroy everything evil and rule his Kingdom forever.

We don't have to throw the red books into the trash can, but we really should examine last day prophecies independently, then come back to the red books if our conclusions are similar.

Aliensanctuary, Your name certainly fits your doctrine... Tim

My point is this: We don't have to let others do our thinking for us, even if they claim direct revelations from God. We can take our 1844 sunglasses off and study the scriptures, riddled with end time prophecies, ourselves. We may arrive at some unanticipated conclusions.

Interpreting prophecies in symbols is not an exact science---so we can be tolerant of other's viewpoints. How often has radical fringe thinking become the mainline beliefs of a church? The early SDA movement is a good example.

TJH, would you at least be willing to concede that Rev. 4-5 is NOT talking about the Inauguration of Christ following His Ascension? For 150 or more years, this has been the majority view among Adventists. There has always been a minority view that Rev. 4-5 is talking about the Judgment (mainly because it is so obvious). It is time that this minority view became the majority view, don't you think?

Now, if you will at least concede that Rev. 4-5 is not talking about the Inauguration of Christ after His Ascension, then what else could it be talking about? What is the one highly important event yet to take place in Heaven before Jesus comes? Is there anything else other than the Judgment? What would Jesus most want to talk to us about in Revelation, especially to prepare the final generation to face the final conflict in preparation for His Second Coming?

TJH, I am aware of the poor use that has been made by some people of the argument based on similar phrasing. I have strongly decried the argument made by some in official websites vainly trying to show that Daniel 12 is an "explanation" of Daniel 11 by using a coincidence of words to tie Daniel 12:6 (pele translated as wonders) to Daniel 11:36 (pala translated as marvellous). Besides the fact that there is no logical connection--the "wonders" of Dan. 12:6 clearly refers to the wondrous events of the preceding verses while the "marvellous" of Dan. 11:36 actually refers to the blasphemous words spoken by the earthly power who would try to exalt himself above God and take His place--these similar words pele and pala are used in dozens of different places in the Old Testament. There is nothing unique about them.

But as I pointed out in my book, the extended phrasing in Rev. 5:11 and Dan. 7:10 (which is undeniably talking about the Judgment) are unique, appearing ONLY in these two places in the Bible, and they are much more than just one word.

I will grant you that this by itself does not prove that Rev. 5:11 and Dan. 7:10 are the same scene. But it certainly helps establish a strong likelihood that they are. And if the scholar responsible for that argument trying to link Dan. 12:6 and Dan 11:36 thinks that is a valid argument, how can he resist my argument linking Rev. 5:11 and Dan. 7:10, which at the very least is far, far, stronger?

I would also like to note that the similarity in phrasing between the first angel's message in Rev. 14:7 and the fourth commandment (especially Ex. 20:11) is not such a bad argument. While it may not prove the point, it does nonetheless show a good likelihood that there is a connection. An honest person should not overlook that.

This may not be laboratory proof; but in the forensic sense, this is a valid part of "weighing" the evidence.

Ron,

In answer to your questions:
"TJH,would you at least be willing to concede that Rev. 4-5 is NOT talking about the Inauguration of Christ following His Ascension?"

I have never held that view, although I have read some on it in the past. Whether it is correct or not I cannot say until I have more time to study the passage.

What you call the "minority view" is probably only a minority view to those who do much study. I have met some people through the years that believe that Rev. 4 & 5 are talking about the most holy place because of the "throne" that is mensioned there. The real evidence of the passage is that it is in the holy place as EGW also says. God's throne can be anywhere He chooses.

"It is time that this minority view became the majority view, don't you think?"

No, it makes no Biblical sense.

"TJH, I am aware of the poor use that has been made by some people of the argument based on similar phrasing. I have strongly decried the argument made by some in official websites vainly trying to show that Daniel 12 is an "explanation" of Daniel 11 by using a coincidence of words to tie Daniel 12:6 (pele translated as wonders) to Daniel 11:36 (pala translated as marvellous). Besides the fact that there is no logical connection--the "wonders" of Dan. 12:6 clearly refers to the wondrous events of the preceding verses while the "marvellous" of Dan. 11:36 actually refers to the blasphemous words spoken by the earthly power who would try to exalt himself above God and take His place--these similar words pele and pala are used in dozens of different places in the Old Testament. There is nothing unique about them."

I agree that the words "marvellous" and "wonders" have no connection to each other. Although I do believe that the time prophecies in Daniel twelve are clearly refering to events in Daniel 11. "How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?" is in reference to Daniel 11:40: "And at the time of the end..."

"But as I pointed out in my book, the extended phrasing in Rev. 5:11 and Dan. 7:10 (which is undeniably talking about the Judgment) are unique, appearing ONLY in these two places in the Bible, and they are much more than just one word."

The phrases are not identical. The both mention "thousands of thousands" and "ten thousand times ten thousand." There is nothing about the judgment in these prases. They are saying that the host of the unfallen angels, the beasts and the elders are all there. The passage in Daniel 7:10 just happens to be a judgment scene.

"I would also like to note that the similarity in phrasing between the first angel's message in Rev. 14:7 and the fourth commandment (especially Ex. 20:11) is not such a bad argument. While it may not prove the point, it does nonetheless show a good likelihood that there is a connection. An honest person should not overlook that."

There is no connection to the Sabbath in, "...him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." It is just a reference to the creator as it is in many other passages of the Scripture. You may find it in, "worship him," because the time that we worship Him is on the Sabbath.

I will give you more later, as I have to go right now. The wife is calling...

Ron,

As I was saying, you may argue that the phrase, "worship him," is refering to the Sabbath indirectly because part of worshiping God is to keep His day holy, but the rest of the phrase is just a reference to the Creator. It has no special reference to the Sabbath. The fourth Commandment in Deut. 5 ends instead, "And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out..." Instead of refering to Him as Creator, it refers to Him as Deliverer. Same God, different title.

It will be remembered that when the Millerite movement preached the first and second angel's message before Oct. 22, 1844, the Sabbath Commandment was completely missing. It was not until the third angel's message was beginning that the Sabbath Commandment was realized. "...here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rev. 14:12. The Sabbath, being the Commandment that was and is still being trampled on by the majority of Christians, can clearly be identified here, but not in Rev. 14:7.

Anyway, Rev. 4 & 5 is completely missing any type of investigation into the lives of God's people. It is not until the fifth seal is opened by the Lamb that God's slain children cry out, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" Rev. 6:10. The judgment seems to still be future at that time, and hence fits the traditional view that the seals span the Christian era.

What I have seen over the past 26 years is a gradual acceptance of futuist theology. The seals and trumpets are constantly being placed into the future rather then where they belong, spanning history. This closely follows the Protestant and Evangelical apostacy. It is done with Daniel as well as Revelation. The time prophecies, which fit perfectly in the day-for-a-year principle, are continually being placed into the future in some time setting fashion. Book after book comes out with this stuff, and all claim to have new light while throwing away that which created this movement. Like our friend above, Aliensanctuary, we will have to eventually eliminate EGW. If futurism is accepted it will destroy Seventh-day Adventism.

Does your interpretation of Daniel 12 eliminate the day-for-a-year principle?

Your Brother in Christ,