Greg,

I’d be interested in your take on the book of Revelation.

It’s difficult to explain or critique SDA theology without addressing its references to Revelation. In particular, historic SDA’s place considerable stress on Jesus’ call to “overcome” in the letters to the seven churches as well as to the book’s depiction of Christians “keeping the commandments” (14:12) and being found “blameless”.

Aside from the fact that it’s suspect to place a book of symbols and apocalyptic prophesy above books in which theology is layed out more systematically (Romans), and that the “commandments” mentioned in Revelation isn’t necessarily the Ten Commandments, what do we make of this book, and in particular, its admonitions to “overcome”?

On the one hand, the book says it is meant to be heard by those at the time of the writing since the very first verse makes a reference to things which must “soon” take place. At the same time, the end of the book also seems to be speaking pretty clearly about last day events. How do we reconcile this? And what part does the book of Revelation play, if any, in Christian theology? If there are some good references you can think of for this please let me know.

Glenn

Glenn,

You raise many interesting points that could take a while to answer. My short answer is that nothing in the book of Revelation is at odds with what we find in the rest of the New Testament. Revelation is used by Adventists and others in an evangelistic way to basically scare people into joining their group. The beasts and images of Revelation are depicted in graphic terms with admonitions to “get ready” for the times of tribulation. But we know from Romans 8 there is nothing that can seperate us from the love of God if we are truly in Christ Jesus. So I take comfort in all of the New Testament promises and I read Revelation from this mindset.

There’s also a fundamental problem with the reading of Revelation 14:12 as referring explicitly to the decalogue. In John’s writings, the reference to “commandments” derives from the Greek word “entole,” which John generally uses to refer to the teachings of Christ. Another example of this is John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” This should really read, “If you love me, you will keep my teachings.” This is in distinction to the Greek word “nomos,” which is used more broadly to reference the Mosaic law (including the decalogue, which is a subset of the Mosaic law). An example is Galatians 2:16 “...a man is not justified by works of the Law (nomos), but by faith...” Unfortunately, people confuse “entole” (teachings of Jesus) and “nomos” (Law and Prophets, of which the decalogue is a subset), simply equating the two in their minds. It takes some scholarship and precision, therefore, to know what the word “commandment” means when it is used in the New Testament and to see the difference between “commandment” and “Law.”

Adventists seize on these references as pointing to the decalogue, but refuse to extend the law to other portions of the Mosaic law, thereby having a well-defined subset they can focus on. Because they see themselves as the only group actually keeping the “whole law” (even though they have defined the law as a subset of the Mosaic law), they are somewhat comfortable in reaching a level of obedience other Christian groups have not attained.

Even if we understand the words “nomos” and “entole” correctly, we are still left with the insurmountable task of keeping the commandments of Jesus. Although he did not specifically command Sabbath observance, he did command us to love our brother, showing that a harsh word said to a brother is like murdering him, that looking at a woman with lust was adultery, and so on. He also commanded us to care for the poor and the suffering, and to give of our time, talent and money for his kingdom. These are all commandments of Jesus, that can also be translated as “teachings” of Jesus. We don’t spend enough time talking about the higher law Jesus came to establish, instead preferring to go back to a well-defined portion of the Mosaic law we feel we can “keep”. But in so doing, we commit the same sin the Pharisees committed and that Jesus explicitly dealt with in the Sermon on the Mount.

To clarify this further, it is helpful to look at Jesus’ own definition of “commandments” as described by John, the author of Revelation:

“Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.” -1 John 2:21-24 (NIV)

We certainly have wandered far away from Jesus’ teaching when we place the emphasis of commandment-keeping on days of worship rather than putting the focus on believing in the name of Jesus and loving our neighbor as he loved us.

There is a lot more to talk about, specifically the Adventist assertion of being the remnant church because they “keep the commandments” and have the “spirit of prophecy”.

Greg

Just a quick word about Revelation 14:4-5: “It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb, 5 and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless.”

Here is what the Geneva Study Bible notes say on this text:
“They followed the Lamb as a guide to all goodness, cleaved to him and are holy to him, as by grace redeemed by him. In truth and simplicity of Christ they have exercised all these things, sanctimony of life, the guidance of the Lamb, a thankful remembrance of redemption by him and finally (to conclude in a word) they are blameless before the Lord.”

It would be stretching the bounds of credible exegesis to take this text and develop a perfectionistic theology, but of course that is exactly what some do.  From multiple other places in the Bible, we know that man is not righteous (Romans 3, Isaiah 53), his heart is wicked above all else (Jeremiah 17:9), that even after being born again he wrestles with the flesh (Romans 7, Galatians 5:16-17).  So any righteousness those who are born again can have is the righteousness of Christ.  Being found blameless, then, like the Geneva Study Bible notes say, is to be found in Jesus Christ.  Following his admission that he continues to wrestle against the flesh, doing the things he does not want to do, Paul comes to an amazing conclusion in Romans 8:1: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Glenn, you asked about books that might be helpful in your study of Revelation.  I don’t own it, but I have heard the book “Revelation: Four Views” by Steven Gregg is worthwhile, since it presents Revelation from four different angles.

Greg

Greg,

Thanks for the recommendation of Steven Gregg’s book. I think I’ve heard of this book before. Sounds like it’s worth getting.

There was an interesting reference a day or so ago at the website, Reinventing the Adventist Wheel, to the role of the Three Angel’s Messages in the SDA logo (and be extention, SDA theology), and to some commentary about the Three Angels of Revelation 14 from the Inter Varsity Press.

http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2007/02/fundamental-logo.html

I’m curious though of what people here think about the use of the word “overcome” by Jesus in Revelation in regards to the 7 Churches. This is a key element in the perfectionist theology lexicon.  Hopefully Steven Gregg’s book has some takes of this. The IVP commentary referenced in the link above might also have some thoughts.

I also want to make clear that my interest here is not whether the book of Revelation should trump any other book of the Bible for its theology. I think the symbology of Revelation is too complex and illusive for that. Nevertheless, I assume the book was written for an audience that knew what the author was trying to say (or maybe not--maybe the author’s intent or audience will remain opaque to us).

I’m aware of a couple of Roman Catholic books that deal with Revelation; Michael Barber’s Coming Soon and Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper. I have read parts of Barber’s book but have not read Hahn’s. All I know of the latter is that Hahn makes what seems to me to be a rather highly unique interpretation that links the book’s message to the Eucharist. 

One of the best books I have read on eschatology is RC Sproul’s “The Last Days According To Jesus”. This book emphasizes the gospels, but also correlates the gospels with the book of Revelation. But this is fascinating reading, as he takes the position that the synoptic gospels and the book of Revelation were both written prior to AD 70. He contends that most of the teachings of Jesus in the synoptics pertained to the Jews and the Apocalypse that was coming on the Jewish nation. Also Revelation with its symbolic imagery also was read and understood by the early church. Sproul even says that Revelation 14 pertained to AD 70. If this is true, then the strongest text that evangelicals use to support the doctrine of eternal torment in Rev. 14:11 then is a strong symbolic statement drawn from Isaiah 34, rather than a statement of eternal torture in the lake of fire. Adventists would be interested to note that.

However, those statements where Jesus talked about overcoming has to do with our position in Christ. All who are miraculously born of the Spirit will overcome by the blood of the Lamb that was shed for them. The blood shed on Calvary’s cross is 100% effective to save everyone who was to be saved. Revelation is the story of the victory that all of the born again saints will most certainly have. This victory was decreed from before the foundation of the world.

Stan

[quote author="Stan"]However, those statements where Jesus talked about overcoming has to do with our position in Christ. All who are miraculously born of the Spirit will overcome by the blood of the Lamb that was shed for them. The blood shed on Calvary’s cross is 100% effective to save everyone who was to be saved. Revelation is the story of the victory that all of the born again saints will most certainly have. This victory was decreed from before the foundation of the world.

So, is this overcoming a passive process, performed by someone else (Christ) on our behalf? Or is the overcoming a reference to overcoming a particular form of heresy (as was the problem in many of the seven churches)?

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]Also Revelation with its symbolic imagery also was read and understood by the early church. Sproul even says that Revelation 14 pertained to AD 70.
Stan

Though I am leaning more towards the preterist view of prophetic interpretation specifically in the case of Daniel, I can’t fully fathom how one can come to a conclusion of complete fulfillment of Revelation within the first century. Though I believe that there are dual applications for both bible times and our own, you cannot place the events of Revelation 13,20-21 any other place but at the end of the age of this earth.

Has anybody read any of Jon Paulien’s work? Apparently, he seems to be the foremost authority who ever was in the SDA church on Revelation. I’m sure many of you are leery of looking at an SDA aspect as it would most likely lean towards an SDA apologetic, but considering that Bacchiocchi fully endorses Paulien’s scholarship and considering that Bacchiocchi has been leaning to alternate interpretations far off the beaten track of traditional SDA prophetic interpretation, Paulien’s work might be something to look into more deeply. From what I’ve seen of Paulien’s views, he seems to be a scholar first and an SDA apologist second. If the first confirms the second, great. If it doesn’t, he makes no bones about it.

Glenn wrote:

“So, is this overcoming a passive process, performed by someone else (Christ) on our behalf? Or is the overcoming a reference to overcoming a particular form of heresy (as was the problem in many of the seven churches)?”
-----------------------------------------------------------

I believe we can only overcome by the imputed righteousness of Christ. But, because we are new creatures in Christ, and because of the ironclad promises in John 10 and Romans 8:28-39, we as believers will overcome as sure as Christ’s place in heaven is secure, since we are in Christ at the right hand of God. (Ephesians 2).

But this also means that because we are becoming transformed into the likeness of Christ, our lives will bear witness of this overcoming.

I see many Adventists using Revelation to contradict the cleares other scriptures in Romans and John’s gospel. Remember John the Revelator probably wrote Revelation before he wrote the gospel bearing his name, and in that book, the gospel is made abundantly clear.

Stan

Guibox wrote:

“Though I am leaning more towards the preterist view of prophetic interpretation specifically in the case of Daniel, I can’t fully fathom how one can come to a conclusion of complete fulfillment of Revelation within the first century.”
----------------------------------------------------------

I agree Guibox. RC Sproul is a partial preterist, in that he believes most of Revelation was fulfilled at AD 70, but, the only prophetic event left is the second coming of Christ which could come at any time.

Stan