An Argument for Literal 24 Hour Days in Genesis 1-2

INTRODUCTION

This is the fourth article in a series entitled, The Relevancy of The Seventh-Day Sabbath. The series seeks to address issues that have been raised in dialogues concerning the Seventh-day Sabbath doctrine.The prior article in this series, The Relevancy of the Seventh-Day Sabbath: Differing Viewpoints and Long Ages in the Genesis Creation Narrative, introduced three sections, with two of them functioning as introductory elements towards the third. In fact, they form introductory roles to everything that will be assessed from this point on. These sections are: (1) the possibility of the correctness of a differing viewpoint, (2) the realization that there are descriptive and prescriptive verses and passages, and (3) a short introduction to long age interpretation of the days in Genesis.  We now move to the question of whether there exist enough evidence to support a literal reading, as in 24 hour time period, of the Genesis Creation narrative.

Although the majority of Christianity holds to the view that the days in Genesis account for literal 24 hour periods, there are still some that are on the fence concerning evidence that support such an interpretation. It is a crucial issue due to the foundational role that Genesis 1-3 plays within the framework of all of scripture. After all, it is the story of beginnings. The last article prompted questions of what can be found from a face value reading of these chapters. In other words, what can be supported if one comes to the text without the influence of anything but simply what the text says. This is an attempt to address the questions that were raised in response to that article. If one had to make a case for literal days in Genesis 1-2 these things that will be discussed below should be taken in consideration.

Read the rest at my new blog.

Advertisements

And the Worship Wars Go On and On: On Music Genres

In an article entitled “And the Worship Wars Go On and On: Musings on Why Adventist Worship is Changing for the Worst” I presented R&B as part of the change that has happened in Adventist worship. What I didn’t do is present my views on music genres. For those that don’t know I’ve been involved in worship as a musician since I was about 12-13 years of age. This year makes me 34. So that’s about 20+ years of ecclesiastical worship setting experience. This doesn’t make everything I say dogma. My perspective is simply one of many with flaws and all. Take it with a grain of salt.

There will always be differences of opinion on how to do worship. That much is true. The issue is finding that balance that doesn’t conflict with Seventh-day Adventist belief and lifestyle. The either/or approach doesn’t resolve anything. It encourages unnecessary labeling, and in some cases, demonizing of those with opposing viewpoints. The best way to address the various issues in the worship debate is to be honest about what we can be certain of.

Does the Bible specifically address music genres? I don’t think so. If you see it feel free to share. A big part of the worship debate is music genres. To be honest I think that most people who are addressing this issue usually ignore evidence that contradict their perspective. The arguments are un-fair and un-balance. They exaggerate points which they have no evidence for. This happens to everybody, no one is excluded. What makes the difference is those that, from time to time, step back and evaluate their own perspectives.

I’ve watched myself literally transition from one perspective to another base on what I believe the evidence was saying. This article is my current perspective on music genres in the ecclesiastical worship setting. I will not address the individual worship setting for reasons that will become clear as this article progresses.

The music commonly labeled as “gospel” can easily be classified, or associated with, R&B. The older versions of this music genre and others (rock, country, etc.) are easily accepted as proper in many Haitian Adventist congregations. Perhaps at their arrival they may have been an issue but now they are generally accepted as fitting, proper, and holy. Any sign of initial opposition to these older forms of music genres seem to have long disappeared in the fog of time.

However, a change has come. The change is brought about by the usage of modern gospel music which in some cases sound very different then the older ones. This change has brought about much concern and a “back to classical” movement which is equated with “holy music” in the minds of some. We have one side that wants classical hymns and another that wants modern gospel. I’m in the middle. I think the church will do well with a mix.

Most that are in favor of more modern approach to things share my perspective. However, I think there is a reason to be concerned and to be cautious in what we use and how we use it. First let me present my perspective on music genres. I do not find sufficient evidence to support arguments that claim one music genre is better than another. If I’m in error please show me the evidence publicly or send me an email.

I’m well aware of Lucifer’s role as musician in heaven. I believe that is enough to argue that he can do destructive things with music. However, I don’t think that is sufficient to say that a music genre is bad. On what basis can that claim be made? What’s the rubric by which to judge? These questions are often ignored as arguments are made against a particular genre. If we are going to use something to judge one genre it should be used to judge all.

With all that being said here is where I think we would do wise to be careful. With music genres come culture and lifestyle. Ever heard the phrase “Hip Hop culture?” Music genres can promote a lifestyle. It’s not simply about the sound of the music, it’s also about the ideas and feelings it brings to mind. There are many that gain their philosophical perspective on life base on the words of Hip Hop and R&B artists. These artists selected music that they felt merge well with their thoughts.

Is all Hip Hop and R&B negative? No. Should those Hip Hop and R&B that promote Christ and scripture be allowed in the ecclesiastical worship setting? It Depends. Some of you may be shock at this point. The best way to deal with an issue is to think it out all the way through. The allowance of Hip Hop and R&B should be particular to the congregation in question. If it would cause an issue with the conscience of those people in that congregation then it would be a grave error to allow it. However, if all is in acceptance and the theological nature of that church is not affected then why not?

I won’t say that a Hip Hop or R&B song is bad simply because it is Hip Hop or R&B. I will judge it base on what is being said. But this is not where it ends. It is important to understand that music genres have different effects on people. For some hearing Hip Hop and R&B doesn’t create a longing or a pull for street life. For others a distinction can’t be made. This is where it can really be dangerous.

I’m not against Hip Hop Christ-base gospel and the likes. Where I think it can be really dangerous is when consideration is not given to the impact of a music genre on an individual. Just because you are ok with it doesn’t mean it will benefit the entire congregation. Analysis is required to understand the impact of a music genre on your person. We need to think of what is good for the spiritual development of the entire church and not just ourselves.

_________________________________________

I’m always glad to hear from Readers. Please leave a comment below.

The Silent Resurrection

easter celebration white house_0.mediumOnce again it is that time of the year when all the world is a buzz concerning Easter. It is a word that mean different things to different people. For some, it may simply be about bunnies, eggs, and a spectacular meal with family and friends. For others it is described as “the most important festival in the Christian calendar” (BBC). The latter view is held by Christians who accept this time of the year as a celebration period marking the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Its association with the resurrection seems to make it an untouchable topic. To engage in analytical conversations concerning Easter with Christians is to, in a sense, disrupt the rapture-like mood of the season. In fact, this is true of anyone who celebrates something during this time. It seems that the intellect is placed to the side when celebration comes. This author dares to venture in anyway.

There has been many commentaries and discussions on the usage of the word “Easter.” Connections to paganism has been made, especially to Eastre, a saxon goddess associated with spring, and the Zidonian goddess Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11:5; 11:33; 2 Kings 23:13). Candida Moss,   Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Notre Dame, not only argues that similarity in pronunciation of words from one language to another and “dying and rising gods” in a variety of religions is insufficient to say that there was borrowing, but that the argument about borrowing shouldn’t be the focus of Christianity (CNN).

The origin of the word is not an issue to me. However, I understand and accept why it can be an issue for others. There is a case to be made for not using words that have historic associations with things that do not represent, or are at odds with, Christianity. This argument is often brushed aside as an ultra-conservative concern. This concern merits considerable attention on the part of those involved in how matters of faith are communicated. Ignoring this concern builds a foundation which will quickly allow usage of words that are more recent and troubling.

The meaning and usage of some words do change over time. The current season is a great example of how true this is. I’ve never heard any celebrant of Easter make a claim of praising a futility goddess. To say they are doing so sub-consciously, in my humble opinion, is also not a credible argument. Oftentimes, in order to prove a point, an argument will be advanced and supported by cliché like statements with no credible analysis to support the claims made. These and tactics such as intentional misrepresentations serve no purpose and should never be use in discussions of such magnitude in Christian circles.

If Easter is the celebration of the bodily resurrection of Christ by those who believe that there was such a thing then why is there not much talk on the resurrection? Sure many will flock to the churches during holy week–Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, and Good Friday–to hear meditations and sermons concerning what took place before and as a result of the crucifixion, but  why is it so quiet outside? Why hasn’t this bold belief concerning the coming to life of a crucified and buried savior not cause believers to spread the message like wildfire?

It seems that the Easter celebration period is not a time for evangelization. Rather, it is a time of reflection for those who are already believers. In other words the way Easter is currently celebrated is deprived of missionary expectations. Christians spend the time thinking and talking about the resurrection with each other. The outside world knows of the celebration but it’s not because Christians are going out to tell them. (This is not to say that there are no Christians talking about the resurrection. If this was the case the rocks would have cried out.) They know it because the media speaks on it. Thus, the resurrection, an event that caused the grieving disciples of Jesus to be strengthen and press on with the mission given, doesn’t seem to be motivational enough to get cultural Christianity–Christians that simply uphold ecclesiastical traditions–up off the couch and out of the pews to explain the story to the outside world.

Perhaps one of the hindrances to this missionary approach is lack of knowledge concerning the resurrection. How can Christians be expected to tell of a story they don’t know much about? This is an opinion and has no tangible support. But, I suspect that if churches were to assign a 100 word essay to their members to describe what happened before and after the crucifixion, they would be surprised. Assuming to know because we have heard it from the lips of another before is not proof that we know. The only way to know if what was heard was accurate is to investigate it from the primary source.

The lack of a major missional buzz from believers is proof that most are not reading and thinking of the resurrection. It is impossible to believe that all of that is being done and it only produce a few passionate souls. Christianity is prayerfully reading and thinking about the resurrection and only a handful feel moved to speak to the world? I think not. What’s likely is that most of us are not praying and reading, and as a result, no fire burns to share what is learned.

As an Adventist, I’m aware that there has always been major conflicts within our ranks concerning what to do with Easter. Where we have found common ground is not in a festival that incorporates imagery from all sorts of origins, but in reflecting on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, we don’t seem to be different from the rest of Christendom when it comes to sharing during this time. We are plagued with the same issue: a resurrection spoken of only at home and the church.

Is it the resurrection that produces silence? No. It’s our lack of understand of and appreciation for the significance of that resurrection. Somehow we have grown cold and are in dire need of a resurrection ourselves. At this time the best way to go about initiating this is to go back to the most important resurrection: that of Jesus Christ. May we study and experience a personal spiritual resurrection so we can talk about the risen one.

_________________________________________

I’m always glad to hear from Readers. Please like, share, and/or leave a comment below.

The Allure of a Foul Mouth: Curse Words and the Church

imgres-3These days it seems like everybody uses curse words. Although those that monitor the usage of these words in the media call for censorship, they allow just the right amount of letters to slip out of the bleep so that the intended audience can have some idea what the word is supposed to be. This type of censorship reflects the attitude of the culture that it’s in. If a large amount of those that live within the culture were bothered by the usage of these words then the censorship committees would be hard-press not to bleep them completely, or better yet, rework the dialogue so that there wouldn’t be a need for bleeping.

The existence of a censoring committee is evidence that a large part of the audience is concerned about words. The committee would not have existed and any attempts to create one would have been strongly protested if a large majority of the audience was fiercely against it. The majority of the audience is not anticensorship and if they are, they are not passionate in their conviction. However, over time it seems that the committee has become more lenient in what it allows. The partial bleeping of certain words and the removal of some from the bleeping list–that is to say they are not curse words, or that they are acceptable curse words–are indications of the progressive leniency of the committee. It is only able to do so because a lenient audience allows it.

In its day to day interactions the audience uses a vast array of curse words. A curse word is used when one wants to degrade another, to express anger when something goes awry, or as an adjective in a sentence. It seems like there is no end to the type of ways curse words can be use. It has gotten to the point that if you don’t curse you stand out as an anomaly. The reason that this is possible is because the underlying drive that pushed not only the explosion of curse word usage, but nudity and the telling of what use to be classified as “private business,” is the self-expression mentality.

The mentality goes beyond simply being yourself. It’s about allowing the world to see who you are without care for what is considered right and wrong, no sense of morality. Everyone reveals things about themselves to some degree. It’s natural. However, this mentality allows for the extreme: the revealing of everything without care for the opinions of anybody else. It allows for rebellion to be glorified and to be viewed as how things ought to be.

What happened over time is that the mentality has also grabbed hold of most of those that it initially was reacting against. So now it’s not really a reaction, its a norm. Part of the norm is the constant use of curse words. It is in this environment that the Christian is found. Lo and behold curse words are heard more than ever on the lips of Jesus’ followers. Is it for the better or the worst? It’s easy to get an answer within the confines of a faith community. But how do young Christians sort their way through this complex environment?

The existence of a faith community entails not only that those within hold to the same beliefs but that those beliefs are reflected in their lifestyles. There are Christians that don’t curse. This does not mean that they’ve never said a curse word. It means that they rarely curse. They hold to the view that using foul language is wrong so they don’t use it. They tend to be more cautious with what they say and therefore choose their words carefully. They are viewed as anomalies for their rejection of the everything goes communication system.

There are Christians that curse. Some of these don’t want to do it and are struggling. Others are not really concern with stopping and feel that it’s completely acceptable if they use some choice words here and there to get their point across. Making the distinction between those that are struggling and those that don’t care is important because Christianity recognizes the inward struggle of the believer between what is right and wrong. Whereas foul language may be an issue for one, it’s not necessarily an issue for another. The one that it is not an issue for shouldn’t feel superior.

The Christian can’t allow cultural environment to alter classification on what is right and wrong without significant thought. Whereas on one hand the culture applauds those that mingle Christian views with itself, it is quick to identify certain behaviors as unfitting for those who profess Christianity. One of those behaviors is cursing. If you were to ask non-Christians: do Christians curse? They would say yes. If you were to ask them: should they be cursing? They would probably answer no.

The reason that a Christian should not curse can’t be base on wether or not the culture thinks so. It should be base on the meaning, the impact, and the intent behind the usage of the word. If this concept is difficult to understand it is because there exist a lack of exposure to biblical teachings on speaking. The teachings speak against the anything goes approach. Perhaps this is the reason why they do not receive sufficient attention. This automatically puts Christians at odds with their surroundings. They are then face with conforming to the biblical stance or going the way of all the earth.

How do we help young Christians? We need to teach them what the Bible says about speaking. Adults need to be aware of their speech. There is a dual effect when teaching and living flow together, They shouldn’t only be told about it, but they should see it. Perhaps part of the failure may be that a large amount of Christian adults are now cursing and so those that come after are simply following in their footsteps. Sometimes what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander.

The allure of the foul mouth will keep calling. This contra-Christian, rebellious, mystical way of being will attempt to sink its teeth on any Christian who dare to stare longingly. It’s time to show the better way of communicating. One in which countless neglected words in our languages are use to communicate effectively.

 

_________________________________________

I’m always glad to hear from Readers. Please leave a comment below.

Ecclesiastical Elitist

From without, the church is often viewed as a fortress inhabited by arrogant and socially awkward laymen guarding the gate from attacks and candidates deemed unfavorable. From within, some of those supposing they are spiritually strong embark on everlasting campaigns in which they continuously bombard others with fire and brim-stone diatribes. Newcomers are perplex in their attempts to navigate through an ocean of unknown faces and sea monsters. Perhaps they are looking for a welcoming smile, but they are often greeted with a stern look and handled like surgical waste. Among the many that have been within for awhile, those who are not class amidst the ranks of biblical elites are treated as pseudo-humans, slaves to be commanded concerning when to turn to the right or to the left.

Unsuspected by some who are called to lead, certain fractions within organized ecclesiastical institutions seems to long for them to don the totalitarian regalia of the medieval church. Control is the top priority in the agenda and character modification is the policy being advocated as the means to that end. Heart transformation is of little importance, though it is the victim of much lip service. Waiting for the Spirit to mold and develop at His pace and concerning what He deems  of primal importance is considered too exhausting. Instead, mortal minds are ever developing and modifying techniques to hasten themselves and others to their perception of godliness. Thus, it can be said by the elitist  to the lowly, “you are godly, if you do what you’re told.” This creates a mechanical religion that paralyzes the soul.

Wrongs are not always intentional, but wrongs that are derivatives of malice–the desire to do harm–are. Is it that we, the church, have adjudicated our purpose as being the formation of ecclesiastical zombies by any means? Continuing down this trajectory, whether we intended to commence it or not, will result in a major scandal that will paint us as hypocrites. These are not the kind of brushstrokes we long for. Now is the time to acknowledge the wrong and seek correction. When a Christian realizes he/she is wrong and desire a change, that’s the first step. When wrongs are recognized, it is up to the so-called “repentant” one, the one responsible for the harm, to alleviate the suffering or suspend from acts that causes it. That’s the second step.

The mistreatment of those who are of lesser biblical knowledge by some in the church is wrong. However, it is not a recent anomaly. The indoctrinating process–which, despite the vicious ring to it, is enlightening and necessary–is not done in a shepherd-like manner. Instead cattle herders push their intended victims through a proof-texting labyrinth. Seems harsh? Well, it is.

Criticizing a system is not wrong. Yet, it is only one half of the solution. The critic indicates that you’ve located an area, or several,  for which improvement is necessary. Well, how should we go about correcting this area?

Should Adventists Celebrate Easter?

For many Christians Easter is the time of the year in which they celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a time for reflection, family, and festivities. Jesus Christ was crucified on a Friday, spent the Sabbath (sunset Friday to sunset Saturday) and the dark periods of Sunday in the tomb, and resurrected on Sunday morning. Christians believe that this sacrifice was done as payment for sin. The death that Christ died provides the opportunity for those who are willing to enter into relationship with Him to be barred from paying the ultimate sacrifice for their sins, death.

The corporate world sees the Easter period as a time for great revenue. The corporate world’s use of Easter in the secular realm has cause many to mistakenly argue that this is one of the reasons why Easter shouldn’t be celebrated. This argument has no substance because what corporate America decides to do concerning a moment of celebration for the Christian church is not the Christian church’s fault. They are simply capitalizing on a festive time. The same goes for Christmas.

Adventists find themselves in a debate over whether or not Easter should be celebrated. As is typical with most internal debates, the lines are divided between conservatives being against and liberals being for. The conservatives are against the celebration of Easter because they view the holiday as being of pagan origin. Their position is that of caution. What they would prefer to see is an exhaustive commentary providing evidence of Easter’s pagan roots.

The liberals have pretty much embraced the festive mood and may or may not be aware of Easter’s pagan roots. They are simply not interested in spending the time looking for what is wrong, but making the best of what is right. Their position is that we should look for the good in the moment. Both sides agree that Jesus should be emphasize, however, they have different ways of going about it.

I think fingers should not be pointed on those who celebrate it, with Easter bunny and all. Why? If one has ever read the council that Ellen White (whom people are willing to use only when it is beneficial to their argument) gives concerning the celebration of Christmas, then one can see why it is not a big deal to celebrate Easter. When White was asked, “shall we have a Christmas tree? Will it not be like the world?” She answered, “You can make it like the world if you have a disposition to do so, or you can make it as unlike the world as possible. There is no particular sin in selecting a fragrant evergreen and placing it in our churches, but the sin lies in the motive which prompts to action and the use which is made of the gifts placed upon the tree” (Adventist Home, p. 482.1).

Does this not contain a principle to use when it comes to holidays? I think it does. The idea of being different is often presented incorrectly and has led some to take positions that they would never have taken if they understood that one is not called simply to do things that are different just because the world (or other Christian denominations) do it a certain way. Should we not wear jeans just to be different from the world? Most would say of course not. Therefore, if our objective in doing something else is simply to be different then we are misled.

Is their a spiritual danger in celebrating Christmas? Yes, if your attention is not on Christ. This is a general observation. If your attention is not on Christ in any aspect of life, then you are spiritually in trouble. But Christmas in and of itself is not wrong unless one believes that the prophet is mistaken. If we rely on the same principle, then celebrating Easter won’t cause problems in terms of spirituality unless Jesus is not really the focus.

Ultimately the answer to the question really has to do with whether or not the individual is comfortable with the celebration of Easter. One should not be forced to do and neither should another be denied (or spoken of as if they are heretics). However, both need to immerse themselves in the talk of Jesus that is being done during this holiday. Make the best of the moment and find ways to talk about Christ.

Is the Secret Worth Knowing?:Why Bother with Revelation

The book of Revelation is not something that I hear much about from most of the young Christians that I know. The few that I hear talking about it are more interested in making historical connections. While it is a prophetic book, which does require those connections at some point, I’ve been wondering lately, as Jon Paulien,[1] dean of Religion at Loma Linda University, states: “[Adventists] get so absorbed in history that we fail to follow the story of revelation itself” (emphasis mine). This, he goes on, may cause us to miss things that are important in helping us understand the text itself and how it helps us understand history.[2]

In the spirit of this statement, I’ve begun walking through Revelation again. I came down this road several times before. When I first read Revelation, I was driven by an apologetic spirit; seeking out ways to defend the Adventist position. Over the years as my understanding of biblical interpretation, due to constant reading and some theological classes, deepened, I started to notice things that I didn’t see before.

This time around, I don’t want to bog you down by starting with background information, heavy explanations, or theological terminology (even though a big part of me wants to write this in more scholarly form). The reason: most people are more interested in devotional messages than the process that one goes through in order to develop the material for those devotions (smile). That being said, I begin with reflections on the first three verses which some bibles call, “Introduction and Benediction.”[3] It tells us: where Revelation come from; the beings involved in the process to get it to earth in the first century; and why we should read it.

Origin of Revelation

Where does the content of Revelation come from? The value that we put on Revelation is based on a claim that it makes concerning itself: it originated from God (Rev. 1:1). In fact, all of the versions I’ve read explicitly states, “God gave.”[4] Thus, there is no confusion about the origin of the content that is within this document. However, being the curious person that I am, I went on to ask myself about what does it mean when it says God. This question arose because I notice that a difference is made in the verse between “Jesus Christ” and “God.”

As one who believes in the trinity, I thought that If God gave the Revelation to Jesus Christ then the term God must be referring to God the Father, God the Spirit, or both. I don’t have a definitive answer at this point, but I believe that the answer must include God the Father. This is not to say that the Spirit wasn’t aware of the transfer of the communication, or what may have you. I hope I did not perplex you further concerning this already perplexing book. The point is that God is the source. This is the divine origin of the book.

I thought that it would be necessary to mention the human writer in this origin section. John, a writer with four other literary documents[5] in the Bible, is the human being that was, as the apostle Peter puts it, “moved” by God (2 Pet. 1:21 NKJV). This is an example of Peter’s words in action.

The Journey from God to Earth

John could have started the Revelation by simply stating it was given to him by God, but he didn’t. Instead, he decides to list 4 beings: Jesus, God, an angel, and himself. As stated earlier, it begins with God. Revelation unveils a God who took the initiative of sending something that wasn’t asked, but utterly necessary.

Thus, God “gave” it to Jesus, who then gave it to an angel. The Godhead gave an angel the opportunity to participate in the transmission of this communication. This adds to the grandness of the Revelation. Heaven embarked on a great mission to bring something to earth. This mission involved all the big names. The angel enters into the world of mankind and gives the prophet the secret that is to be unveiled.

Why Bother with this Book?

This may seem like a mundane question, but it is one that I’ve heard frequently. Before discussing the reasons, as stated in the first three verses, I would like to present an analysis of the contemporary climate. People are more interested in reading the stories in the Bible that they can easily understand. I reckon that the reason for this, that is to say, for those that are serious, is to find commands and principles that will tell them what to do. This is a good objective because the Bible aims at doing just that, providing guidance. The problem is that in the quest to find what to do some people develop a habit of being content with the quickest answer. Anything that challenges the mind to dig deeper receives a screwed face. It never ceases to shock me when I see college students do this.

But let’s get back to the topic. Other than the fact that it is in the Bible, which, I have noticed, is not a motivator for Christians to read something anymore, Revelation states that its’ readers, hearers, and doers will be blessed (Rev. 1:3). If this is not an incentive to invest time into this book then I don’t know what is. Everywhere you hear the pulpiters (preachers) storming about receiving God’s blessings, but nowhere is this book mentioned. If it is, I haven’t heard it. Here is an opportunity to be blessed, and all you have to do is prayerfully read and study.

There is something to note about this blessing that is being promised. The verse says that blessings will come upon “the one who reads,” and “those who it hear it and take it to heart” (NIV). An idea that may come to the mind of someone reading this is that there are two pre-requisites for this blessing. The first is that if you are a reader of Revelation then you will be blessed. The condition is that you simply read it. The second is that a blessing is reserved for those who don’t read it but heard it. The listeners, they reckon, also have to practice the counsels within.

Jacques B. Doukhan, professor of Hebrew and Old Testament Exegesis at Andrews Theological Seminary, comments that this section of the three verses is a reference to the worship service in which Revelation is to be read. He bases this on the fact that the one who is reading it is stated in singular form, and the hearers are in the plural. So does this mean that we only receive the blessings if we gather somewhere and hear someone speak on Revelation? No. Without going into too much of a discussion on meaning of words, Doukhan states that the word that is being used in reference to hearing also requires the understanding of what is being heard.[6] This will require more than just sitting in church and hearing a sermon.

What about Jesus? Any discussion on Revelation must include Jesus. Not only did he participate in the transmission process of the material, but it is also a revelation about himself (1:1). Perhaps the real issue with understanding this is due to the failure of some to show the church how Jesus is revealed. Jesus’ relationship to the rest of the book is pivotal in understanding it since it is a revelation of him.

Another reason that must come in under this section is Revelation’s claim to contain “what must soon take place” (1:1, 3). I’m sure that what will happen tomorrow, or even for the rest of today for that matter, is of great interest to many. Well, God doesn’t give us all the information about what is going to happen soon, but he does give us something. The only reason why we would deny ourselves this information is if we don’t believe that it is really there. Our belief in whether or not this document contain what it says it does will affect whether we read it or not.


[1] Jon Paulien, Ph.D., is a Seventh-day Adventist New Testament scholar. He specializes in Johanine literature (especially the book of John and Revelation).

[2] Jon Paulien, Armageddon at the Door: An Insider’s Guide to the Book of Revelation (Hagerstown, MD: Autumn House Publishing, 2008), pp. 63-64.

[3] Cf. Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible.

[4] Cf. ASV; ESV; KJV; NAB; NASB; NET; NIV; NJB; NKJV; NRS; RSV; and YLT.

[5] The apostle John wrote the Gospel According to John; 1 John; 2 John; and 3 John.

[6] Jacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse Through Hebrew Eyes (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2002), pp.12-13.