¤  Fifthly because we have been told that the solemn messages of Revelation "have been given in their order." (8T302). The Daniel and Revelation Committee also tell us that "Revelation embraces a step-by-step progression through history." (Symposium On Revelation, Daniel & Revelation Series - Volume 6, p.19). This being the case, should it not be our first priority to make every effort to understand the events of Revelation as they have been given to us - "in their order?" If this does not enable us to unfold the book, then and only then should we feel at liberty to entertain the idea of a new scene or an event that takes place in a totally different time period. In this light, I find extreme difficulty positioning the white horse of chapter 6 at the beginning of the Christian era?

2-5-1  CRITIC: I think you are taking too much liberty with the statement above. Ellen White clearly endorsed the repeat and enlarge understanding of Revelation. It is used in her own commentary on Revelation as well as her endorsement of other books like Uriah Smith’s Daniel and the Revelation.

Please understand that I am not disagreeing with the principle, but I am saying that our application of this principle in the case of 6:2 to 6:8 is not at all justified. If Revelation is a step-by-step progression through history, a book whose messages have been "given in their order," it is our first priority to search for a sequential order of events, and such an order of events is well supported from 3:17 to 6:2. There is simply no Scriptural support for the opinion that the white horse finds fulfillment in the first century A.D.. A plain simple reading of 4:1, and a wealth of other evidence, assures us that this opinion is "out of order"

CRITIC: What she understood by this statement was that the churches, seals, trumpets and even the three angels messages are in order. But I do not see her saying this of the book of Revelation in any way hinting that each chapter follows the next in chronological order.

That is not what I am saying and my apologies if this is the impression I gave you. I have no problem with most of our “pioneer view,” and I myself feel convinced that there are logical, structural divisions to the book of Revelation – each of which has an eschatological culmination (see chart). I just honestly feel that our traditional understanding of 2-6:8 is somewhat “out of order” in that 1:10b to 8:1 is one vision not two.

CRITIC: Why? It [6:2] comes right after the revelation of the slaying of the Lamb (cross) in chapter five. By the cross Christ was able to redeem the world through His death. Now, in chapter six, He goes forth through His church conquering and to conquer hearts for the kingdom of God.

(REPLY 1): In module one we presented evidence showing that the primary focus of chapter five is not the slaying of the Lamb, but the empowerment of the Lamb to oversee end-time events. The way I see it, it is in chapter 2, not in chapter 6, that Jesus, walking in the midst of the candlesticks (churches), “goes forth through His church conquering and to conquer hearts for the kingdom of God.” And the end result, sadly, is Laodicea – a church that has serious need of the remedy that is introduced in 4:1 and outlined in 4:2 to 6:8 and on.

While “the slaying of the Lamb” is certainly central to the scene in Chapters 4 and 5, as it is to history and to life itself, the issue in these chapters, as discussed in module 1, is (a) the worthiness of God the Father as the originator of creation and as the sustainer of His creation (4:11) and (b) the worthiness of Jesus as the Redeemer of God’s creation to receive the kingdom and power from the Father (5:9). The extent of Jesus worthiness is attested to by the fact that every creature in all the universe will one day acknowledge His absolute worthiness (5:11-13). Thus, as the worthy right arm of the worthy Father, Jesus is entitled to receive power and to unroll the scroll and to play out the final drama on planet earth, and to sanction the unfolding of the last day judgments and events that are described in chapters 6 and 7 (See 15MR219.2). These judgments and events are all components of God’s backup plan for the Laodicean crisis, and this is why 4:1 points us to post 1844 judgments and events that culminate in white robes for the martyrs, white robes for the mixed multitude, and white robes for the 144,000 who are sealed.

Uriah Smith supports this view: “This song [of the 24 elders] is sung before any of the events in the prophecy of the seven seals take place; for it is sung to set forth [and this is the issue] the worthiness of the Lamb to take the book and to open the seals [the backdrop] on the ground of what He has already accomplished – their redemption.” (Daniel and the Revelation, p.374)

(REPLY 2) As we have already noted, “Revelation 6 and 7 are full of meaning . Terrible are the judgments of God revealed.” (15MR219.2). If chapters 6 and 7 reveal terrible judgments, then there is special significance in the fact that chapters 4 and 5 focus on the worthiness of God – for only a worthy God could sanction such judgments to the satisfaction of an on-looking universe. This significance is lost, however, if 6:2 takes us back to the beginning of the Christian dispensation – to Jesus riding out on a triumphant church, and if 6:2 to 6:8 are merely a replay of the history of the Christian dispensation? With utmost respect, every way we look at this matter, our traditional interpretation of 4:1 to 6:8 just does not fit.

CRITIC: Well I appreciate your attitude here though I disagree. As I explained earlier we cannot allow a statement to say more than it says. The judgments of God are revealed in Rev 6 and 7 but not in the entire chapters. Surely you can see this. Besides, Revelation 15, 16, 17, and 18 are wholly devoted to these judgments and easily connect and build on Rev 6:12-17 and 7:1-3.

I am not so sure if they do so "easily connect and build on" each other. You are saying that 6:2 to 6:8 are not judgments. I am saying that they are - and so far I sincerely and humbly and respectfully believe that the evidence is decidedly in my favor.

CRITIC: May I ask you. Have you done study on the pioneer view yourself personally and not just reading what someone else has written. It wasn’t until I did my own study on this that I could see more here than I had before for our pioneer position. Even if you disagree with them you should at least do this in order to speak intelligently about what they had to say and to help you to avoid taking their statements out of context.

Yes, to some extent I have studied what you call the “pioneer view.” So far I have no problem with most of it. But I could never find the satisfaction that you seem to have found as regards the portion of Revelation in question (I am happy to note that even the Daniel & Revelation Committee are not claiming that their interpretation of the seals is the last word on the subject).

Throughout this exercise I have tried hard to prove both of our viewpoints correct – but I now have even more serious questions about our pioneer view relative to chapters 4 to 6:8 - and I honestly believe that the evidence that I have presented is sound.

CRITIC: Well I can certainly understand that as I also had serious questions, so much so that I rejected them altogether for many years as I have mentioned.

May God keep us both humble and teachable and pliable. Only one of us is correct and that means that one of us is primed for a 180 degree turn and, ahum, with all sincerity I do not see that it is me :-) .

In short and in summary, therefore, I suggest that we are creating tremendous difficulties for ourselves, and losing our focus on what Jesus is trying to tell us, by trying to believe that the timing of the events in question is any other than that in which Inspiration saw fit to reveal them to us. To my mind, there is no question that God has presented Rev 2 to at least 6:2 to us as a sequence of events that are "in their order." (8T302)

CRITIC: In my opinion you have placed the direction for your entire interpretation upon this statement.

Not so. You can only say this by ignoring all of the other evidence that I have presented.

CRITIC: If your interpretation of it is true there is going to be a lot of confusion ahead of us in the book of Revelation, because, for example, as I mentioned in commenting on your last module, Jesus’ return is mentioned at least six times through the book beginning in the introduction.

The fact that Jesus' return is mentioned at least six times elsewhere in Revelation has no bearing on our interpretation of chapters 4 & 5. The confusion that lies ahead is going to be thanks to a confusing traditional interpretation of this passage - an interpretation that I feel ignores the obvious. Chapter 2 to at least 6:2 is easily and logically understood as a sequence of events. Why on earth our pioneers ever strayed from accepting this passage as a sequence of events I will never know or understand and, with all respect to you (and to our pioneers), you have yet to present anything substantial that persuades me to change my view.

Should my reader wish to contribute to this discussion, please click here to send an email. Should you wish to make an extensive contribution then press Edit, Select All and copy this entire page to MS WORD. Now, in the resultant MS WORD document, you may insert your comments into the copy in a unique color and then save this document as REV2-5 and attach it to the email above before sending it. TO ENSURE THAT YOUR EMAIL IS NOT REJECTED AS SPAM, PLEASE ENTER THE WORDS "REVELATION INSIGHTS" IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL.