Revelation 14:6 "The Everlasting Gospel?"

[prisonchaplain]

If the angel is bringing something new, then even the Restored Gospel would not qualify, since it too has already been taught. As for the rapture, amongst Evangelicals the disagreement is whether the church is taken up just before the 7-years of tribulation, in the midst of it (3.5 years), or, as Bytor suggests, right at the end, just before Christ's return at Armageddon.

[Justice]

And as long as we're taking it literally, the gospel-bearing angel was flying. I missed that in the Joseph Smith-History somewhere about Moroni.

As far as remember, every single description of him he was hovering above the floor. It stands to reason that he would have to fly through heaven in order to get to the earth. So, it can be taken quite literally if one desires to.

[Justice]

If the angel is bringing something new, then even the Restored Gospel would not qualify, since it too has already been taught.

Ahhh, but it is called the "new" and everlasting gospel, as it was delivered in the latter-days. :)

New, in this context, meaning that it was in the fulness of times and all dispensations were to be compound in one. All the keys that were held separately anciently at different times would be had at one time on the earth at the same time.

It can also be classified as new since it's teachings appear to be new, since they were lost and had to be restored.

I vote for the end of the tribulation "rapture." I call it rapture for clarity, but I do not believe people will disappear. I go for the "caught up" theory, something that will be visible.

[HoosierGuy]

I just finished reading a book by a noted (been on the History channel/Chapel Hill Professor) author on religion. He's agnostic and comes from that angle. The book I finished has a chapter near the end devoted to Revelations, the historical Paul and historical Jesus.

Revelations is all about Rome. 666 = Caesar Nero.

Revelations is an apocalyptic book. Like other apocalyptic books in the Bible, it explaines what has alread gone on but puts the story in the future and it's for the present (ancient) audiance. It was not written for us and not intended for us in 2011. That's the authors view, not religious view.

[prisonchaplain]

Justice--"newer" perhaps, but all the reasons that suggest "everlasting gospel" does not apply to the more traditional gospel of the Bible alone would also be true of the restored version. There is only a shade of difference. I would suggest that the everlasting gospel is either something brand new--based on all the reasons listed in this string--or that it could just as easily be a simple reminder that Jesus saves. The restoration is nearing 200 years, so it's hardly new anymore.

Hoosier: Your professor's views are quite common amongst secular religious professors, as well as some of the more "liberal" Christian ones. Additionally, there is a school of thought known as Preterism, which largely agrees as well (Preterism.info: Jesus Predicted a First-Century Return). I believe Hank Hanagraff, director of the Christian Research Institute (Walter Martin's successor) endorses this view--not that I would try to sabatoge the perspective by mentioning such names. :-) Hank Hanegraaff

Here's a great summary of viewpoints--though from an oddly named site: Book of Revelation - Monstropedia - the largest encyclopedia about monsters

Edited August 10, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[Traveler]

Justice--"newer" perhaps, but all the reasons that suggest "everlasting gospel" does not apply to the more traditional gospel of the Bible alone would also be true of the restored version. There is only a shade of difference. I would suggest that the everlasting gospel is either something brand new--based on all the reasons listed in this string--or that it could just as easily be a simple reminder that Jesus saves. The restoration is nearing 200 years, so it's hardly new anymore.

Hoosier: Your professor's views are quite common amongst secular religious professors, as well as some of the more "liberal" Christian ones. Additionally, there is a school of thought known as Preterism, which largely agrees as well (Preterism.info: Jesus Predicted a First-Century Return). I believe Hank Hanagraff, director of the Christian Research Institute (Walter Martin's successor) endorses this view--not that I would try to sabatoge the perspective by mentioning such names. :-) Hank Hanegraaff

Here's a great summary of viewpoints--though from an oddly named site: Book of Revelation - Monstropedia - the largest encyclopedia about monsters

Throughout the history of mankind there have been a number of notable figures. Many men that seemed to possess extraordinary abilities accomplished great humanitarian tasks. At first blush Jesus may appear to be one of many in the mix. As we consider Moses and the storied events that surround his life in bringing Israel from under bondage to the world power Egypt to a promised land we can only in part understand that the story is only a type and shadow; both to the mission of Jesus Christ and the final conflicts that will end life and society on earth as we understand it currently.

The workings of G-d in the “Last Days” are described in scripture as “A Marvelous Work and A Wonder”. I do not intend to take away, at all, from the very important contributions of good men throughout history but what is about to come forth is something of much greater magnitude. The world must be made ready for the triumphant return of its rightful king.

It is true that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints do not yet appear to be that much different than the efforts of so many other good Christians of enduring traditions. However, from the day when in infancy the Kingdom of G-d was cut from a mountain from an advent of heavenly angles and direct divine intervention - the Kingdom has grown in obscurity. A generation ago, when I was young and serving a mission; there were less than 2 million “Mormons” and to be honest, hardly anyone knew anything about this growing “movement - today things are a little different - but this really is hardly even the beginning.

According to prophesy the Kingdom is in the process of being “delivered” from obscurity and darkness. This will not be done with scholars like the ancient Pharisees or scripture experts like the ancient Scribes. The return of Christ may not be yet “At Hand” but it is close and coming closer. Greater things than the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the “Red Sea” will show forth Zion in divine splendor. And when this light is last shown and spread through the world for the “last time” then indeed the time is “At Hand”. Those that do not flee from “Babylon” unto “Zion” for safety and protection will be removed from off the earth.

There is much more than has been discussed in this thread or even this post. Though the angel prophesied in Revelation has returned according to promise - we are still at the beginning of what will take place and change everything.

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

As far as remember, every single description of him he was hovering above the floor. It stands to reason that he would have to fly through heaven in order to get to the earth. So, it can be taken quite literally if one desires to.

That's quite the extrapolation. Even I think that's a stretch and I already believe Moroni was a fulfillment of this prophecy. Question-begging indeed.

[mordorbund]

If God brings a plague, He will wait until that plague is finished before He brings it again. There is no need to bring a plague of crickets if you're already infested with a plague of crickets. In fact, it wouldn't be a different plague of crickets, the plague of crickets would simply get larger.

Actually, there's several instances in the OT (I'm thinking Isaiah and Jeremaiah here since that's what I'm currently reading) where a specific punishment is prophecied on different lands (Big Bad kingdom will destroy Edom, Moab, Judah, etc). Just like in PrisonChaplain's reading, it is a different audience that warrants this other plague (even if it's the same plague)

If the Gospel is already here, there is no need to have an angel bring it. The angel would need to show up and simply teach it.

This angel spoken of comes to earth with the everlating gospel to be preached to the inhabitants of the earth. It's simply logic to ask the question I have asked. If it is on the earth, why does he need to bring it with him and not just show up and teach it.

The gospel may be on the earth, but not everyone has it yet. It's enough to make even the most powerful of missionaries envy an angel and his gospel-bearing power.

The verse implys it is a time when the Gospel was lost from the earth and could not be found among men to teach other men. It must have come from God by an angel. That accurately describes what Joseph Smith claims.

If the gospel was lost, why is the angel carrying the everlasting gospel? There should be some fine print on the bottom of the screen when selling Christianity ("Enjoy the bounty of the everlasting gospel!!! WARNING: everlasting gospel may suddenly disappear and later reappear ).

[Justice]

WARNING: everlasting gospel may suddenly disappear and later reappear

I understand your words are for effect, and not necessarily to resemble truth, but the Gospel was in fact lost from the earth. It was in fact restored.

So many people think the Gospel is simply the knowledge of Christ. It's more. It includes the authority given to man to act for God on the earth. If that authority is lost, the ordinances become invalid. If the ordinances are invalid, why even teach?

At that point it wouldn't matter what you teach.

Not until the authority is restored would it matter what was taught. The authority was restored, as was the truth... in answer to this prophecy in Revelation.

[Justice]

Just like in PrisonChaplain's reading, it is a different audience that warrants this other plague (even if it's the same plague)

And, by the way, the scripture says "to the inhabitants of the earth," not a specific place or town. We could have this discussion if it mentioned a specific place.

It implies the Gospel was lost from the earth.

[mordorbund]

I understand your words are for effect, and not necessarily to resemble truth, but the Gospel was in fact lost from the earth. It was in fact restored.

So many people think the Gospel is simply the knowledge of Christ. It's more. It includes the authority given to man to act for God on the earth. If that authority is lost, the ordinances become invalid. If the ordinances are invalid, why even teach?

At that point it wouldn't matter what you teach.

Not until the authority is restored would it matter what was taught. The authority was restored, as was the truth... in answer to this prophecy in Revelation.

In what way is the gospel everlasting in this context? If the everlasting gospel disappears, in what way is it everlasting?

The angel's charge doesn't mention anything of ordinances or authority (and I would point out that Moroni did not restore authority or any ordinances), it focuses on fear and worship God because "the hour of his judgment is come" (now this is similar to what Moroni taught).

[mordorbund]

And, by the way, the scripture says "to the inhabitants of the earth," not a specific place or town. We could have this discussion if it mentioned a specific place.

It implies the Gospel was lost from the earth.

Not necessarily. The gospel is to be given specifically to "every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people". All that's being implied with this is that the Apostles' mission (to teach all nations) has not been completed. That could be because the gospel was removed, but it could also be because the gospel had not made it to every nation.

Further, the context places this angel between the Jesus appearing on Mt Zion and the destruction of Bablyon. Even for the LDS, the gospel should be on the earth before this angel appears.

[pam]

Let me make sure I understand this. Is there confusion as to whether the gospel was lost upon the earth at one time?

[prisonchaplain]

Let me make sure I understand this. Is there confusion as to whether the gospel was lost upon the earth at one time?

The question is whether "the everlasting gospel" referred to in Rev. 14:6 was lost on the earth at one time. I would agree that it seems to refer to the simple gospel of Jesus saves, escape judgment, rather than a completing-restoring work. The message of Jesus as Savior was never lost, but the distictive LDS teaching were obviously at least dormant for many centuries.

[Traveler]

The simple meaning of Gospel is the “good news”. If we understand that the “everlasting gospel” is directly tied to the Kingdom of G-d - then the restoration of that kingdom is an important idea.

In this case there are two important notions. The first concerns the Kingdom of G-d and those “saints” that have citizenship. According to scripture “how those Saints are recognized” is a very important notion. It is interesting because it appears to me that the method is by their works - not by their doctrine.

The second notion concerns those seeking the Kingdom of G-d and how such “seekers” are recognized. According to Jesus they have eyes that see and ears that hear. This is symbolic - as almost all things that Jesus taught.

And in these two notions we can understand and recognize the everlasting gospel and if the prophesy in Revelation chapter 14 has been fulfilled. In my opinion - the only possibility I have found is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. One reason for this opinion is that I have not found “others” willing to even claim their movement is fulfillment of prophesy.

The Traveler

[Justice]

In what way is the gospel everlasting in this context? If the everlasting gospel disappears, in what way is it everlasting?

It would be eternal, or everlasting. Whether or not it disappears from earth for a time has nothing to do with the fact that it's teachings are eternal, and the authority attached to it (Priesthood) has the abilitiy to bind and unbind for eternity. It is true in heaven and on earth. It will always be true.

The angel's charge doesn't mention anything of ordinances or authority (and I would point out that Moroni did not restore authority or any ordinances), it focuses on fear and worship God because "the hour of his judgment is come" (now this is similar to what Moroni taught).

It's all part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Again, if there is no authority (the same authority mentioned in the Bible) to perform ordinances (even the ones in the Bible like sacrifices and baptism) then the teachings are pointless. To make a binding "contract" or covenant with God one must have God's authority. An ordinance is a symbol use to denote the making of a covenant. Legal representation from both sides, and witnesses, must be present.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Justice

[Justice]

The question is whether "the everlasting gospel" referred to in Rev. 14:6 was lost on the earth at one time. I would agree that it seems to refer to the simple gospel of Jesus saves, escape judgment, rather than a completing-restoring work. The message of Jesus as Savior was never lost, but the distictive LDS teaching were obviously at least dormant for many centuries.

The authority was lost.

That really is the basis of the apostasy.

After the Apostles were gone, the Bishops took over officiating in the Church. They were not general authorities, and did not have the authority to do so. They were only local authorities. One Bishop could not correct or sensure the false doctrines that were being taught in another Bishop's congregation. They did not have the authority. With the Apostles no longer there to send epistles and govern the Church, it was doomed.

[Spartan117]

The authority was lost.

That really is the basis of the apostasy.

After the Apostles were gone, the Bishops took over officiating in the Church. They were not general authorities, and did not have the authority to do so. They were only local authorities. One Bishop could not correct or sensure the false doctrines that were being taught in another Bishop's congregation. They did not have the authority. With the Apostles no longer there to send epistles and govern the Church, it was doomed.

Corinthians is a perfecting example of how hard it was for the original apostles to keep the church from slipping into practices that were not in harmony with the gospel. Even when the apostles still lived the original church was heading towards apostasy.

[prisonchaplain]

The authority was lost.

That really is the basis of the apostasy.

After the Apostles were gone, the Bishops took over officiating in the Church. They were not general authorities, and did not have the authority to do so. They were only local authorities. One Bishop could not correct or sensure the false doctrines that were being taught in another Bishop's congregation. They did not have the authority. With the Apostles no longer there to send epistles and govern the Church, it was doomed.

I have a general grasp of the doctrines of the Great Apostasy and the Restoration. The drama of Revelation just seems so much more basic and intense--the call to each individual to respond to God, through Christ, and be saved from judgment. Perhaps this is the bottom-line question--is John's Revelation of Jesus Christ a call to individual repentence, or a call for the world to embrace latter-day restoration?

[Justice]

That is much like the question I hear by many Christians...

"Is it about believing in Christ or being baptized in water?"

Can it be both?

To answer your question: If latter-day restoration is the way Christ restored His church to the earth, prepratory for His Second Coming, then they would be one in the same.

It's the same answer for those who ask any question along this regard, like about baptism. If Christ commanded men to repent and be baptized in water, then in order to "belive" Him one would have to keep His commandment. Again, one in the same.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Justice

[prisonchaplain]

Justice, it dawns on me that this string is being read differently because, as an evangelical, I believe that salvation is individual, based on an "relationship with Christ." LDS and Catholics see the institutional church as crucial to that relationship. The Revelation passage does not address the issue, so we tend to read our own understanding of the gospel into it.

[Traveler]

Justice, it dawns on me that this string is being read differently because, as an evangelical, I believe that salvation is individual, based on an "relationship with Christ." LDS and Catholics see the institutional church as crucial to that relationship. The Revelation passage does not address the issue, so we tend to read our own understanding of the gospel into it.

One thing that the passage in Revelation does address - that in the last days a "relationship" with an angel is critical to being prepared for the return of Christ - or shall we say having the correct "everlasting" relationship with Christ?

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

One thing that the passage in Revelation does address - that in the last days a "relationship" with an angel is critical to being prepared for the return of Christ - or shall we say having the correct "everlasting" relationship with Christ?

The Traveler

And so we come back to where I initially entered. Revelation is a highly symbollic book. To fully apply the logic that

An angel carried the gospel to earth

ergo

I must find an angel-based religion to be saved

then we will find ourselves in a world of trouble. For not only does an angel bring the gospel, but another angel holds the key to the bottomless pit and other angels carry plagues. Perhaps the lesson here is to be cautious about which angels you befriend (maybe that's what Paul was trying to get across )

So to answer your question, I think the message here is before Babylon falls there will be a strong push to turn everyone to God.

[mordorbund]

It would be eternal, or everlasting. Whether or not it disappears from earth for a time has nothing to do with the fact that it's teachings are eternal, and the authority attached to it (Priesthood) has the abilitiy to bind and unbind for eternity. It is true in heaven and on earth. It will always be true.

I can concede on this (that the gospel itself is everlasting, so it's the same gospel in every dispensation).

I think what I have the most problem with is actually something you stated much earlier (bolding added).

The truth is, this verse is saying an angel will bring the gospel to the earth, and must mean that it was lost. An angel is not needed to deliver a message that is had on the earth. Just because people are wicked, the Bible and gospel will remain on the earth. You cannot confuse the fact that people reject it with it being removed.

To me, obviously, it can only be referring to the angel Moroni when the gospel, in it's simplicity and fulness, was restored after it was lost.

To think it means after or during a tribulation period yet in the future would mean the gospel and Bible would have to be removed from the earth. The scriptures (even Bible) are clear that they will not be removed again.

I don't think that's the only meaning of this passage. Joseph revealed that Moroni's visit was only a partial fulfilment of this passage; the gospel-bearing angel was indeed an angel, but the gospel-preaching angel (the angels are the same in Revelation) is no angel at all but servants. So the onus is on God's servants to see that the rest of this passage is fulfilled. A quick search for "everlasting gospel" in the D&C shows us that this charge has been placed on the Church's missionaries from early on. I would suggest that it is still in process of being fulfilled today as missionaries testify of the gospel and invites others to turn to God.

Now let's play degrees of separation. Young missionary where did you get that gospel from? <parents or missionary>. And where did <parents or missionary> get that gospel from? <parents or missionary>. ... And where did Joseph Smith get that gospel from? An angel, which in our case, is literally an angel sent from the courts of God; his charge has been passed on today to me to share this with you. The young missionary becomes a standin for an angel.

Now, let's remove the doctrines of Apostasy and Restoration for a minute. Good brother, where did you get this gospel that Jesus saves and I should follow him? <parents or missionary>. And where did <parents or missionary> get that gospel from? <parents or missionary>. ... And where did Paul/Peter get that gospel from? Jesus, who (like an angel) was sent from heaven to turn us to God. His charge has been passed on today to me to share with you. The young missionary becomes a standin for an angel.

The stories are very similar, but differs at whether the initial angel carrying the gospel was symbollic or literal. I see Moroni as a partial fulfillment, with more to come (I do not doubt more angels as well). I don't think the gospel has to be globally absent for this verse to be fulfilled, as we are seeing it fulfilled today with regular people standing in for the angel.

[Justice]

Justice, it dawns on me that this string is being read differently because, as an evangelical, I believe that salvation is individual, based on an "relationship with Christ." LDS and Catholics see the institutional church as crucial to that relationship. The Revelation passage does not address the issue, so we tend to read our own understanding of the gospel into it.

What I'm reading into it is not so much "knowledge" but "authority."

Either God, in truth and fact, givesm en authority to act in His name, or He doesn't.

If He does, which is how I see it, then that authority would be required, and yes, it would exist in His Kingdom... and not outside it.

If He does not, then the knowledge is enough, which would lend toward thinking the Gospel can be JUST personal.