Revelation Chapters 1-22 Review and Preview Greg Bahnsen Revelation Verse By Verse Part 30 of 63

Being out due to the break at the seminary as well, if I went into anything of specific content, I'm afraid that I'd end up having to repeat it anyway. And therefore, it seemed to me last week it would be more profitable to do something of a general study to get some of the basic approaches to the Book of Revelation before you. And then during the week, it dawned on me that doing that would have been greatly facilitated by something in your hands to look at, an outline to see in a short study. So I put together this brief study in the Book of Revelation, and believe it or not, what we're going to do in this one hour this morning is summarize a year and a half of exposition of the Book of Revelation. And so you're going to get it all in one dose today. And then so you can kind of fill in the details from the remaining lessons as I finish up the Book of Revelation over the next few months. But I'd like then, you see, there's also some of you who have joined the class in the middle of the course. That is, you weren't with us a year ago when we began the study of Revelation. So it just seems to me, all things, you know, considered that is the nature of this weekend and the classes attendance being down, and also some of you not having been here, that it would be a good idea to do a brief study of the Book of Revelation as a whole. And so that's what you have before you. Three pages of a brief study of the Book of Revelation and then two pages of an outline with a brief interpretive guide to the main points of the Book of Revelation. And so what will happen here is if you pay close attention and then go home and use this, I would suggest you take maybe two or three weeks of your own personal devotional time, or your time to study each day of the Word of God and work through this outline in the interpretive points. I think you'll find it a blessing to you to have in mind in capsule form what the Book of Revelation is all about. It will greatly help you, I think, to understand the eschatology of the New Testament, the doctrine of last things. And it will also encourage you to, from time to time, study the Book of Revelation in a way which is calculated to benefit your life and to direct your steps. The Book of Revelation is not book to be ignored, but unfortunately, in the church it often is. So, Judy, if you finish passing out those studies, why don't we make them available for anybody who might come in late towards the Back here. And then I think we have a couple up here. What's that? Yes, page one. There are fewer numbers. That's right. I should have mentioned that. Well, let's begin with page one. If you didn't get page one, it's not going to be so terrible for the study because the important things are on pages two through five or two and three, and then pages one and two of the outline. And I'm just going to work through this very quickly because I want to work through the outline a little more detail toward the end of this hour. The first question that might come to your mind is the question that I began this course with a year ago was why should we study the Book of Revelation? You might think of a number of reasons in terms of curiosity. It's a current debate. I just don't know what's in the Book of Revelation. Something like that. But the answer that I offered at the beginning of our course is that God does not give us gifts which are useless. That is, he doesn't give us vain gifts that have no purpose and no end, no use. And revelation is precisely a gift to the servants of God. And therefore it would be wasteful of the servants of God. It would be ungrateful of the saints to neglect the Book of Revelation. I want to suggest to you in passing that just that wastefulness and ungratefulness may have characterized your life up to this point. A good number of you, I think, have admitted to me that you've really not paid any attention to this book of the Bible. In fact, Revelation 1, verse 1 says that the book is aiming to show us something, to reveal to us something, and thus we should not be blind in our outlook and our attitudes. To the extent that we ignore the Book of Revelation, we're going to be blinded. We're not going to see those things which God wants us to have in mind as we operate in this life. Moreover, the Book of Revelation throughout requires obedience. Chapter one, verse three says that we must keep the things which are written in the book. And therefore a life which is pleasing to God calls for following the Book of Revelation even as we must obey the Ten Commandments. You see, if we're going to obey the whole will of God, if we're going to see the whole counsel of God as it directs our lives, we must look at the Book of Revelation as well. And to the extent that we don't look at the Book of Revelation, our service and our morality will be crippled because we'll be overlooking God's direction for our lives. And so, you see, it's ungrateful to neglect the book. It's a willing blindness to neglect the book. And it's disobedience to neglect the book. In fact, it's overlooking of a great blessing as well, because Revelation promises great blessing to those who will read it and who will heed it. Then finally, I have down here what you should know from 2nd Timothy 3, verses 16 and 17, that all Scripture is profitable. And it's profitable for a number of reasons. For our teaching doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for righteous living. And so to the extent that you ignore Revelation, then you will not be adequately equipped to live as men of God or women of God in this world. And so, for all these reasons, we insist upon studying the Book of Revelation. We've been spending a good deal of time in it. But then, secondly, there is this retort to our insistence on reading it. But you see, the book is so difficult. It's just not fair to require us to pay attention to this book and to study it out and to make it part of our devotional living and all that, because the book is just so hard. And to that I answer that the book is entitled the Revelation. You see, the unveiling, not the obscuring of the truth, but the revelation of the truth. God wants us to understand his book. And that's why you will see that God provides an interpretation at all of the crucial junctures of the book. In chapter one, verse 20:20, John sees the first vision, and immediately God interprets it for him. At chapter 10, verses 1 through 7, at the end of the first major prophecy of the book, God interprets the prophecy. And at chapter 17, verses 7 and following at the end of the second major prophecy, God again sends an angel to interpret the prophecy for John. And so it is not a legitimate excuse to say it's a difficult book. God gives this book. And then God sends angels to in the midst of the book to interpret the book for us and for John. Moreover, the book pervasively uses concepts and themes and language which will be found elsewhere in the Bible. John uses many literary devices and figures more than once in the Book of Revelation. And for that reason, in a real sense, the Book of Revelation is the easiest book of the Bible to interpret. Because you see, the main principle, the main rule of interpretation for us who are Reformed, who are Calvinists in our outlook, is that Scripture interprets Scripture. And in fact, because the Book of Revelation uses so many idioms and so many figures of speech, so many metaphors, so many phrases and allusions to other portions of the Bible that should be the easiest book of the Bible to interpret, because God has given us interpretation elsewhere for the book. And so God sends an angel to interpret the book at the crucial points. God gives us all of Scripture as something in the context to help us in interpret it. And then, of course, we must say also, the book is undoubtedly going to be troublesome if you try to read it as though. As though it were something it's not intended to be. You might imagine somebody trying to take his TV Guide and to understand it as history or poetry or instructions for building a boat. If you approach the TV Guide that way, you're going to find the TV Guide an obscure book. It's going to be very difficult because you're assuming it to say things which it doesn't intend to say. And so, consequently, if you approach the Book of Revelation in the wrong way and see it as a kind of book which it's not calculated to be, obviously you're going to have trouble. And so we must take the Book of Revelation in the way it was intended to be approached. We must recognize the kind of literature it aims to be. And that is to say, it is highly figurative literature. It's dramatic literature, it's visionary literature. It is not newspaper literature. It is not even newspaper literature written in advance. You see, it's not as though God has given us to see the daily news a number of years in advance. The Book of Revelation is not written like a newspaper. It's written like a highly figurative drama. Because we in the 20th century should appreciate that perhaps more than anybody else, given the history of art and literary criticism and the theater and so forth, that should be very easy for us to accept that in the 20th century. It seems to me, we have all or more in the class confusion because people insist on reading the Book of Revelation in a way that it's not calculated to be read. The theme of the Book of Revelation, very briefly is the triumph of Christianity over all opposition. So that sounds, you know, so easy. You can swallow that one spoonful, right? You know, you just meditate on that. The triumph of Christianity. What a rebuke to so much preaching and so much theological writing, so much cultural outlook. The theme is the triumph of Christianity, and it's the triumph of Christianity over all opposition. Let's just go through this little paragraph I have here on page one to see that. You see, the Book of Revelation begins by saying that Christ is sovereignly present with his Church. That's the first chapter of Revelation. And it ties in with the Great Commission in Matthew 28. Moreover, Christ promises great blessings to those who are victorious in his name. Revelation 2 and 3. Revelation 1. Christ is sovereignly present. Revelation 2 and 3 great blessing if you will triumph in his name. And then we read on that his kingdom has been established with power, for he now rules over all as enthroned at God's right hand. Revelation 1, Revelation 5, Revelation 6, Revelation 7, 10, 11, 12 and 19. All of those chapters return to that theme that Christ is ruling and is in control. His kingdom has been established with power. And thus we read that he will destroy the apostate city of Jerusalem which persecutes his people. Chapters 4 through 11. And he will destroy as well pagan Rome's empire and City. Chapters 13 to 18. Remember, it's the triumph of Christianity. Christ is sovereignly present. Christ has established his kingdom. Christ promises blessings to those who triumph in his name. And it's the triumph of Christianity over all opposition. He will destroy Jerusalem that is persecuting his people. He will destroy Rome that is persecuting his people. Moreover, Satan has been toppled from power. Chapter 12 teaches us. And Satan is bound according to chapter 20. And because Satan cannot deceive the nations any longer, the kingdom of Christ is going to be extended everywhere. Chapter 19. That is the great Commission that can be and will be successfully completed. The kingdom shall be consummated in splendor and great blessing. Chapters 21 and 22. So you see, that covers all the chapters of the Book of Revelation. What is the persistent theme? The triumph of Christianity over all opposition. And the purpose for declaring these things is said to be to encourage and motivate a Church in the midst of tribulation and opposition. It's just because the Church would be prone to be discouraged, maybe tending to think pessimistically that it's going to be snuffed out. In the midst of tribulation and opposition, the Church is assured that Christ reigns, they will prosper, and he will defeat all their opposition. Page 2 then the next significant thing we need to note about the Book of Revelation is not only that it must be studied, that its difficulty is not to stop us, and the theme is the triumph of Christianity. The next thing to note is the date of the writing. And I had one lesson for the beginning of our series of classes in which I argued that the Book of Revelation was written in the latter 60s of the first century A.D. that is, the book of Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. I would suggest that John's persecution on Patmos corresponds to Peter's and Paul's martyrdom in Rome under Nero. In fact, internal evidence of the book shows us that the temple in Jerusalem is still standing, chapter 11, verse 1, and that the sixth emperor or the sixth king of Rome is presently ruling, chapter 17, verse 10. And that would place the book prior to A.D. 70. In fact, it would place it within the reign of Nero if we start counting the kings or emperors of Rome from Julius Caesar. All right. Fifthly, let's look at the time reference for the fulfillment of the main prophecies. And this is something of what I was getting into last week. The various approaches to the Book of Revelation. I have four listed here. The four basic positions are the idealist approach, the futurist approach, the historicist approach, and the preterist approach. And very quickly those can be understood in this way, according to the idealist approach approach to the Book of Revelation. The Book of Revelation deals not with specific historical occasions, but rather with axioms and principles or ideals which govern our lives and which characterize God's control over history. And so you have certain themes, if you will, certain ideals that are taught to you in the book, but it's not calculated to teach us anything about history or concrete historical events. The futurist approach to the Book of Revelation teaches that the events of. Of the central prophecies of the Book of Revelation pertain to the distant future. The distant future with reference to John. John would see these things are as way down the line of history, you see, they are events which will immediately precede the coming of Christ at the end of the present age or dispensation, as well as events to transpire in the establishment and end of the millennial kingdom. And so the main contents of, of the Book of Revelation are far distant to John. They deal with the tribulation and the establishment of the millennium and the end of history. Over against the idealist and futurist, we have the historicist approach to the book, which says that the events of Revelation take place successively throughout the span of Church history, that is from church from John's day down to the end of this age. The Book of Revelation is detailing for us the basic ages of man. And then finally the book preterist approach, which is the one that I. It's the perspective from which I teach in this class. The preterist approach maintains that the main prophecies of the book pertain to events which were to transpire in the near future, are briefly after John's writing. As such, they are, for the most part, past tense to us, having occurred in the days of the ancient church. That's quite a. Quite a turnaround on what is perhaps the most popular American approach to the Book of Revelation, popularized by the dispensationalists and Hal Lindsay and others that say the Book of Revelation is teaching us about things that's going to happen in the future. Well, there are some things in the future that the Book of Revelation teaches us about, but the book, for the most part, teaches us about what was going to happen in the ancient church and what has given us prophecies that have been fulfilled. To the extent that we don't see, therefore, fulfillment, we are losing contact with the encouragement that God intends to give us. God says, I will do such and such for my church. God did such and such for his church. Now, if we think that God says he's going to do such and such, and we're still waiting for it, then of course that approach to the book is going to deprive you of the type of encouragement and strength that it was intended to give. And I think there is clear internal evidence for the preterist approach to the Book of Revelation. If you look at Revelation 1, let's do this. Let's look at Revelation 1 1, 3. Here we have the very opening of the Book of Revelation. Already. John tells us the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show unto his servants even the things which must shortly come to pass. Verse 3. Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things which are written therein. For the time is at hand. These are things shortly to come to pass. The time is at hand. That's the way the book opens. I mean, you're told right away. And that's where the difficulty in interpretation begins. For those who won't take the preterist approach, they got to suppress that or reinterpret that and then immediately start, you know, reshuffling the rest of the book. But what happens when you come to the end of the book? Well, John is again reminded of that interpretive perspective at Revelation 22, verses 6 and 10, very last chapter, verse 6. And he said unto me, these words are faithful and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits, of the prophets, sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly come to pass. John, these things are going to shortly come to pass. Verse 10. And he saith unto me, seal not up the words of the prophecy. Of this book. Why? Why shouldn't John seal up the prophecy? Daniel was told to seal up his prophecy because it was going to transpire. The events of the prophecy were going to transpire in the distant future. But John is told not to seal up the events of the prophecy. The words of the prophecy for the time is at hand. So I suggest to you the Book of Revelation begins and it ends telling you these things must shortly come to pass. The time is at hand. Therefore, the preterist approach is to be preferred from the very outset on the basis of clear internal evidence, because the book is bracketed by those declarations, the time and at hand. Now that would rule out the idealist position, it seems to me, for specific events are going to come to pass. Moreover, the futurist perspective is eliminated since the main contents of the book are not in the distant future, but rather are said to be at hand. And the historicist is likewise ruled out because his interpretation includes far future events and everything in between, whereas the main contents of the book are at hand shortly to come to pass. Well, then, of course there are going to be some attempts to obvert the meaning of those words. And people won't be satisfied with the clear declaration of God that the events of this prophecy are near at hand. And I'm going to look at just three of those before we go on to the outline. First of all, there are those who will say that some portion of the book's symbolism must be interpreted as referring to the distant future. And then that passage will be set against the verses cited in our previous short study of the events of the prophecy being at hand. Let me explain this a little bit more. Here's somebody goes to the Book of Revelation, interprets some passage. This is, you know, somewhere in chapter 18, let's say. And somebody takes a paragraph out of chapter 18 and interprets it as having a future interpretation. Now, since that portion of the Book of Revelation has been interpreted as having a future interpretation, consequently we must have misunderstood the words the time is at hand, and these things must shortly come to pass. Do you understand the argumentative maneuver here? We know that this portion of the prophecy is future, and therefore these words have been misinterpreted that say that the events of the prophecy are at hand. What's the difficulty with that? I trust that you don't need a seminary course in hermeneutics to see what's wrong with that. That's just absolutely backwards. You don't begin with the obscure and then go to the clear words of the Bible and say, well, these clear words are obviously wrong, are to be interpreted in other contexts, or to be taken in some very unclear and very distorted way. Rather, you let the clear words, the clear interpretive words that God Himself gives to interpret his book govern how you interpret the rest of the book. We should reason from the clear passages I say in your notes to the unclear symbolic passages and not vice versa. I'll give you a good example of that. Turn to Colossians 1:15. In Colossians 1:15, Paul teaches us, speaking of Jesus Christ, that he is the image of the invisible God and the firstborn of all creation. Now I'd suggest that there can be no doubt in your mind that Jesus Christ is not in fact the eternal God, but in fact he is the first creature to have been created because he is the firstborn of all creation. That is, I think Arius has clear support for Colossians 1:15. Arius believed that Arius is a figure from church history. In the 4th century, Arius and Athanasius had this big dispute over the nature and person of Jesus Christ. Arius maintained that Jesus Christ was not one with the Father and eternal, but rather Jesus Christ was the first and highest of the creations of God and deserving of all respect and semi divine and all the rest. But that he was the firstborn of creation. Paul says so right there in Colossians 1:15. And now it's difficulty. Well turn to John 1, verse 3. Arius has had his day in court. He has spoken his feast and now comes along Athanasius and he looks at John 1, verse 3 and there the apostle John tells us, all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that hath been made. All things have been made through him. That is Christ is the creator of all things. Now Paul says Christ is the first creation, that is, he was first made. But John says Christ made everything, so there wasn't anything made that he didn't make. Well, there are few alternatives open to you say, well, John's wrong or Paul's wrong, or I'm wrong in my understanding of John 1:3. Or I'm wrong in my understanding of Colossians 1:13. Or in fact, there's some way to bring these two together. For instance, Christ created himself, but nobody is interested in that fifth option. And so we have to go back and say, well, which of those four options now we're going to prefer? Is John wrong or Paul wrong? If you to the infallibility of the Bible, neither one of them can be wrong. So that eliminates those two options. There's only options three and four open. Either we misunderstood Colossians 1:13 or John 1:3. Now, what will be your interpretive approach? Well, lo and behold, as you study all of the New Testament, turns out that Colossians 1:13 is the only passage that makes any suggestion along these lines. Whereas you can bolster your understanding of John 1, verse 3 by any number of parallel passages. In fact, in the very Context of John 1:3, you notice that the Word is said to have been from all the beginning, that it was with God from the beginning, indeed, that the Word was God. And despite all the Jehovah's Witnesses attempts to deal with that passage, there is no way that you can diminish the strength of that, that the Word is God. So in the local Context of John 1:3 and throughout the New Testament, you have support for the clear understanding that Christ is the creator of everything. In this one passage in Paul, you have difficulty because Paul seems to suggest that Christ is the firstborn of all creation, that is the first thing created. But it turns out that if you know something about Hebrew and Semitic writing, that that notion of being firstborn doesn't always signify the birth process. But sometimes firstborn is a legal standing for what happens to the firstborn in a family. Well, he is the heir of the Father's wealth and authority. And Christ being the firstborn of all creation would signify, you see, he is the one who inherits and is equal with his Father in authority over creation. He is the heir of all things. And isn't that precisely what Paul teaches in Colossians one? Now, you see, you can take two approaches. Then you can reason from the clear to the unclear or from the unclear to the clear. Arius insisted that Colossians 1:13 had to be our starting point and everything else, even though it took a lot of time and a lot of homework, everything else had to be reinterpreted in light of what Colossians 13 he said clearly taught. Whereas Athanasius and others maintain that John 1:3 and all the rest of the New Testament was clear, and therefore Colossians 1:13 could be understood a better way. So you see why we must reason from the clear to the unclear. And so in the Book of Revelation, we oughtn't to listen to those who say, I know exactly what this symbolic portion of the book means. And because I know what this symbolism means, the words the time is at hand cannot be taken seriously are at face value. That's backwards. Hermeneutically that's not the way we interpret the Bible. We begin with the clear declaration of God, the time is at hand, and we interpret the symbols in light of that. Well, that's one way to try to undermine the preterist approach. Another is to relativize the temporal significance of the words the time is at hand, and these are things shortly to come to pass. And there are those who will relativize the temporal significance by saying, well, one day is with the Lord is a thousand years, second Peter 3:8. And since one day is like a thousand years, we the Lord, we can interpret the time is at hand. These things shortly come to pass. To mean really these things would take a long time. Because you see, one day, what is short for us is long with the Lord. What's the problem? Well, in Revelation it is God telling John how long the time will be. He does not say, it will be short for me, but that as the church experiences time, it will be short. There is no need for God to tell John at this point how he experiences time in relation to man's experience of time. Moreover, note this, that premillennialists surely do not take this approach to the 1000 years of chapter 20. They're the ones who object to this, you see, and they say, now wait a minute. One day is with the Lord is a thousand years. So you can't take seriously this. You know, the time is at hand. But they don't like it when you suggest when you come to Revelation 20, that in fact a thousand years are like a day with the Lord. And so that millennium could be one day in length, one literal day. They won't allow that kind of reinterpretation there. Well, then there's a second attempt to relativize the temporal significance and says, well, what will count as short for you? The word short is a relative word, you know. So we bring Mickey Rooney in here and we say, now there is a short man until you bring in a dwarf. And then you say, well, there is tall Mickey Rooney. And then you bring in to see somebody like Will Chamberlain, and then you say, well, there is a short man. Well, now is he a short man or is he a tall man, or is he an extremely short man? Well, short and long are relative words. And so somebody says, john says, the time is at hand. These things will shortly come to pass. Well, that's very relative. And the answer to that is exactly right. It's a relative word relative to the context or the background of its use. When do you say that Mickey Rooney is short when the world chamberlain is present. When do you say that he's tall? When the dwarf is present. And so according to the context, according to the background, you say that the words short and tall are relative to the background. And in Revelation we read that God will avenge the martyrs of the church shortly, but that the kingdom will be established for a thousand years. Isn't that interesting? God says in Revelation 20, the martyrs shall be avenged very briefly, very shortly, very quick. But the kingdom of God is going to last a thousand years. So you have this brief time and you have this long time. Those are the two different contexts in which we must understand short and long. Relatively speaking, the kingdom will endure a long time, but the historical checking on Jerusalem and Rome will be shortly to occur. But that the kingdom will be established for a thousand years. Isn't that interesting? God says in Revelation 20, the martyrs shall be avenged very briefly, very shortly, very quickly. But the kingdom of God is going to last a thousand years. So you have this brief time and you have this long time. Those are the two different contexts in which we must understand short and long. Relatively speaking, the kingdom will endure a long time, but the historical judgment on Jerusalem and Rome will be shortly to occur. So over against the long span of history between the first and second advents of Jesus Christ, over against that 1000 years of the millennium, there's going to be this very short period of time in which God will bring judgment upon the enemies of the church. Or to put it in another way, the historical judgments will fall in the early segment of the kingdom's existence and growth on earth. And so you see, this objection to the preterist approach turns out supporting the preterist approach, we want to say that short is a relative word, and it will take place shortly in the very early days of the kingdom. And then the kingdom will grow on earth. And that's precisely what the preterist and post millennialist maintains. Well, then, here's a third objection to the preterist approach. Somebody says, well, Christ coming is quite going to be quick, but you don't take that in the same ways. Revelation 22, verses 7 and 10. Let's look at those. So you know what we're talking about. 227 says, Behold, I come quickly. All right, Christ coming is going to be quick, but you don't take that in the same way. And therefore you, Mr. Preterist, you're inconsistent. Well, the difficulty here, the problem with that equipment objection, is that the passages alluded to say that Christ will come quickly, not shortly or immediately. That is, they don't say anything about his coming being at hand. And in fact, as a creatorist and a post millennialist, I certainly do believe that when Christ returns, it will indeed be sudden and quick. In fact, you can find that in 1st Corinthians 15:52 in the twinkling of an eye, 1st Thessalonians 5:3 going to be suddenly. People will not expect it. And so when Christ comes, he's going to come quickly, to be sure. Moreover, the New Testament speaks of Christ coming in many senses. This is something that has often been overlooked by people writing in the area of eschatology. And I don't detail all of the senses in which Christ is said to come in the New Testament. We mustn't, you see, blindly and woodenly assume that every time you see the phrase Christ coming in the New Testament, that means his second coming. But among all those senses, you will find included, Christ comes in historical judgment. Maybe we should look at a couple of these passages just so you get this point. It's so often overlooked that perhaps should be illustrated. John 14, verse 18. Well, this one doesn't happen to be the historical judgment. It happens to be in history, though. Verse 18 of chapter 14 in John's Gospel, I will not leave you desolate. I will come unto you. Is Jesus there saying, I won't leave you as orphans in this world, the second Coming is going to take place? No, he says, I will come to you. And then in John 14, how does Jesus explain that he comes, I won't leave you orphans. I will do what I'll send you another comforter, the whole Spirit who proceeds from the Father and from the Son. But nevertheless, Jesus is saying that he will come in person of the Holy Spirit to his church. Matthew 24, verse 30. Here in the Olivet discourse which has been studied in this class, Jim Jordan has taken me through it and I've alluded to it on some other Sundays. In Revelation 24:30, we read, and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. Remember, then shall appear the sign that the Son of Man is in heaven. Not then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. That is what is in heaven, the sign or the Son of man? Well, many premillennialists mistakenly think that the sign is in heaven. That is, you'll look to the heavens, you'll see Jesus coming. But that isn't what the sign is. The sign is that the Son of Man is in heaven. That is the sign is that the Son of Man is enthroned on high, that he's ascended to his Father's right hand and rules from there. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Well, how is he going to come on the clouds? Well, Old Testament interpretation will help you there. God comes on the clouds, and he comes in this apocalyptic way, in this heavenly way, in judgment upon nations, in history. Moreover, we read here in Matthew 24 precisely that the fall of Jerusalem is being prophesied. If you go down a few verses, Verse 34, Jesus says, verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away till all these things be accomplished. Jesus came on the clouds of heaven in judgment before. Before that generation of hearers had passed away. Either that or the Bible's not inerrant. And of course, I'm not willing to accept that. And so I believe that all those things did take place within the generation of Jesus hearers. And we know that what Jesus was referring to is the destruction of the temple and the judgment of Jerusalem because of its rejection of the Messiah. So Christ comes, you see, in blessing on his church, Christ comes in historical judgment on Jerusalem. And then, of course, even In Revelation chapters 2 and 3, we see that Christ comes in history. Revelation 2, verse 5 says, Remember, therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works, or else I come to thee and will move thy candlestick out of its place except thou repent. Jesus threatens to come upon the church of Ephesus. He says, if you don't repent, I will come to thee. And that's not a coming and blessing. He says, I'll come and I'll remove your candlestand. That is to say, I will demolish the church. I will take away your witness. Revelation 3, verse 20. We read in the letter to the church of Laodicea. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hear my voice and open, I will come to him and will sup with him and he with me. Now there's a coming of Jesus Christ in history which is in blessing. Jesus says, I will have fellowship with those who obey the words of this letter and respond to me appropriately. So Jesus comes in history. We mustn't forget that. Why are we talking about all these things? Well, remember that even if we take the words in Revelation 22, that Jesus comes quickly as meaning Jesus comes near at hand, which isn't what it says. But even if it did say that, you'd still have to find out what type of of coming is referred to. Is Jesus coming in judgment upon Jerusalem? Jesus coming in judgment upon Rome? Is Jesus coming in blessing on the church? Is Jesus coming in judgment on the church? Is Jesus coming in blessing on the individual believer? Jesus comes in a lot of different ways in the New Testament. And so it still wouldn't settle the question, that is what kind of coming is being referred to. Moreover, if you interpret this to mean that Jesus coming is the second coming and that Jesus coming quickly means he comes at hand, that is it's near hand soon to take place, then I think you are really in a bind, because you would have to conclude on any ordinary reading that the Bible is mistaken. After all, Christ did not in any ordinary sense come soon after John's writing the book. You see, what I'm getting at is that this interpretation of the end of Revelation is a very dangerous interpretation. It's one which I think we should be very cautious in adopting. There are some people willing to adopt it and to reinterpret some other passages and to say a lot of apologetical things about this and still hold on to the fact that Christ's coming is soon at hand. But it's very hard, you see, to accept that on any ordinary interpretive reading of the Book of Revelation. And therefore, what I suggest is that the preterist interpretation has strong initial support from the clearly declared interpretation offered at the opening and closing of the Book. That these things shall shortly come to pass in the time is at hand that these three common objections are not very good objections at all. Now, let's review what we've said so far this morning. Why should you study the book? Well, because you're ungrateful. If you don't, you're willingly blinded. If you don't, you're being disobedient. If you don't, you're neglecting the blessing of God. If you don't, and in fact you're turning away the profit of how profitable the Scripture is in the full sense if you don't. The fact that the book is difficult shouldn't stop you from reading it, because in fact it is a revelation, not an obscuring of the truth. Because God provides an interpretation of the Book. And in fact, the Book of Revelation has the broader context of Scripture to help you understand it. The theme of the book is the triumph of Christianity over all office opposition. The book was written in the latter 60s of the first century. And the book is to be interpreted in a preterist fashion over against the idealist, futurist and historicist interpretations of the book. Anybody have any questions about that? Now, although I asked that some of the voice, you really must have questions. That's just too much and one hour to take without having at least something to be clarified or maybe some objection, something you'd like to know further. Wait. Such a scientific class. So nice, everybody's. Why is that? I can really go on. Nobody has any questions up to this point. You must read the book. You must read it as teaching the triumph of Christianity over all opposition. You must read it as having been written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. You must read it in preterist fashion. Yeah, that's worth repeating. I went over this at the beginning of our course in that one lecture. The dating of the book. The main reason for interpreting the book of revelation in the 90s. Well, there are two reasons, one of which is spurious from the outset. Some people dated in the 90s because that would indicate that Jerusalem must be rebuilt and then fall again. That is, if you're a pre millennialist, you have every reason to want to date the book after the fall of Jerusalem, because then when John predicts the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, that would require the rebuilding of the temple, the restoration of the people to the land, and therefore going through this again. But that's clearly a spurious way to approach the book. You can't date it according to your preconceived interpretation. So that won't work. The main reason externally for dating the book after this, I.e. external evidence, means it doesn't come from the Bible, but it comes from historical events or documents or something outside the book. The main external reason predating the book in the 90s is that many people feel there's this one statement in Polycarp that speaks of the revelation being seen in the reign of Domitian. Domitian we know to have reigned in the mid-90s, in the first century. And so it is thought that Polycarp's one statement is sufficient to establish this. Now, I want to emphasize that it is Polycarp who says this one. And I want to emphasize that Polycarp says it in one sentence of all of his extant writings. Now, the reason I'm stressing that it's only Polycarp is that you'll find in a lot of commentaries men who have done their homework. I'm afraid these statements that we have this mass of overwhelming evidence from the early church that the book of Revelation was written in the reign of Domitian. Well, we do have a lot of statements to that effect in the early church, but every one of them is citing Polycarp Polycarp as his authority for it. So if you read deceive, he says, as Polycarp has said, and you go over and over and over all this evidence, you find out that all this massive evidence is really an inverted pyramid resting on the point of Polycarp. Polycarp and one sentence in Polycarp. And now there's two problems. One, Polycarp is not a very good historian. Because if you read from Polycarp's writings, you'll find that he insist adequately and trust upon verge of heresy. If you deny it that Jesus lived to be 50 years old, you say, well now nobody is willing to accept that today. Very few people in Polycarp today. That's why he wrote with such vehemence about it. But Polycarp insisted that Jesus lived at least be 50 years old. He had to have 10 ions. He had to have 10 decades, I'm sorry, five decades in his life. For some theological reason, it turns out that Polycarp is not what we call the epitome of a good historian. He lets theological reasons govern the facts of history rather than interpreting the facts according to his theology. Secondly, it's one sentence in Polycarp and his doctor of Poor. You see, the Great triumphant of West Hawk, Horton Lightfoot wrote in his commentary in the Book of Revelation, it turns out that in fact the one sentence in Polycarp is an ambiguous sentence, and that it is probably best to read that he who saw the revelation was seen in the reign of Domitian. So it's not the revelation that was seen. It's not John seeing the revelation that took place in the reign of Domitian, but our seeing the one who wrote the Book of Revelation in the reign of Domitian. That would argue that John lived into the 90s, but not that he wrote the book in the 90s. Alright, so what I'm saying is there is only one reason finally, for people interpreting the Book of Revelation as in the 90s. That's because of this one statement in Polycarp, which is in fact suspect given Polycarp's historical credentials. And secondly, ambiguous, even if we were to accept whatever he had to say. Moreover, that is external evidence. Anybody who knows anything about interpretation, at least reformed interpretation, realizes that internal evidence is always of a higher priority. And strength than external evidence. And what's the internal evidence that I offer you? Well, the book tells us one, that Jerusalem's temple is still standing, chapter 11, verse 1. And it's going to fall. Moreover, the book tells us that the sixth king or the sixth emperor is reigning. And now is, as we read in Revelation 17. And moreover we're told the name. Here's you know, the mind that has wisdom. You'll know the name of the man, here's the number of the man. 666. And for all of the fun that interpreters have had throughout history deciding all the various combinations you can do with that, the fact remains that Nero Kaiseron fit 666 exactly. He is the sixth emperor of Rome dating from Julius Caesar. And in fact the Jerusalem temple was standing. We know that Nero persecuted Paul and Peter. It's likely that he would have exiled John to Patmos as well. So a combination of external and internal internal evidence which is highly, you know, to be given the priority, very strong evidence supports 380, 70 date. It's very hard to believe that if the temple of Jerusalem had already fallen that she wouldn't have some reference to that in the book of Revelation or any other New Testament book. By the way, I would suggest that all of the books in the New Testament were written prior to AD 70. But every time I say that all the New Testament people get unhappy because you see, I'm supposed to teach philosophy and all that. But in fact, the fall of Jerusalem was so significant theologically and historically that it is nearly incredible. Take the book of Hebrews, all of that imagery about Jerusalem and about the temple and all that. If the temple had was already broken down and trodden under the foot of the Gentiles, you would have heard about it. We wouldn't hear all this language as though the temple were there. Here you have this Paul speaking in second Thessalonians of the man of lawlessness setting up himself in the temple of God. Well, I mean, if the temple of God was already destroyed, how could he set himself up in the temple of God? Well, the premillennialist has got an answer to that. We're going to rebuild the temple and then we're going to let the man of sin, you see, and not let him. But I mean, that will provide the occasion for the man of sin to set himself up in it. I would maintain that Paul is referring to the man of lawlessness setting himself up in the already existing temple. So anyway, the external evidence of polycarp in the single sentence of polycarp is the only reason to prefer the AD90 date. And that's not only bad external evidence, it is to be suppressed in the light of very clear internal evidence. I think other questions about the study. This is not correct. I just study you just mentioned to could you comment on a little bit sort of caps away on second Thessalonians 2, the man of sin interpretation of that. Yeah, the caps away. I come in the book of Revelation in an hour and I'll cover the man of sin in three minutes. What we're going to do next week, by the way, is we'll continue with these sheets and so if you'll read them over during the week and especially look over the interpretive guide at the end of your outline dealing with with the main figures in the book of revelation, the 144,000, the enemy of the first section, the beast, the heads of the beast, the harlot, the second beast, the ten Kings, and Satan. I think it would be helpful for coming to class next Lord's day as we continue this brief outlet now to close today's class. Second Thessalonians, Chapter two. Please don't don't take these off the cuff comments to be very helpful in the book of Revelation. Probably not all that helpful in 2 Thessalonians 2. But I'll tell you what I think of it. Paul says, now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto him, I beseech you to the end that you not be quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet troubled, either by spirit or by word, or by epistle as from us, as though the day of the Lord is just at hand. I think supreme millennialists should read that over and over again. Paul says, now I don't want you to be troubled. I don't care what anybody else says. And in fact, even if they pretend it's an epistle from us, don't ever be troubled in mind as though the coming of Jesus Christ is imminent, as though it's at hand. Just forget it. Why? Let no man beguile you in any wise for it will not be except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed the sign of perdition. And here's how he describes this man of lawlessness, he that opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God, or that is worshiped so that he sits in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God. We're going to read in the book of Revelation and secular History tells us that is precisely what happened when Jerusalem was destroyed. Titus set up his incense in the temple and claimed himself to be a God. Well, false is. Remember ye not that when I was with you, I told you these things. That's what makes the interpretation so difficult. Paul says you already know all these things, so he's just summarizing for us. And we don't have the advantage of his personal teaching ministry, his background. Verse 6. And now you know that which restraineth to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. Verse 7. For the mystery of lawlessness actually to be interpreted, the mystery of his lawlessness, the man of lawlessness and the mystery of his lawlessness does already work. Only there is one restraining now until he be taken out of the way. And then there shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth and bring to naught with the manifestation of his coming. Even he whose works are according to the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, that is Pseudo miracles, and with all the seed of unrighteousness for them that perish because they receive not the truth that they might be saved. The book of Revelation teaches us that the beast works according to lying wonders. The second beast performs these miracles which awe people and which lead them to worship the beast as a God. Precisely what we read in second Thessalonians 2. But what's important for our purposes this morning in closing, is that Paul says the mystery of his lawlessness is already working, and we're only waiting for the restrainer to be taken out of the way. And when the restraint is taken out of the way, then the man of lawlessness will be seen for all of his colors and he'll be manifest. Paul is saying in his own day, the man of lawlessness is operating. The principle, the mystery of his lawlessness is at work. And it's as though, you see, Paul is writing of the man of lawlessness as just off stage, and he's ready to come on just when. And he's given his cue, which is the taking away of the restraint. So I suggest the man of lawlessness was the beast of Revelation. The man of lawlessness was one of the Roman emperors. I would specifically say Nero. But nevertheless, the man of lawlessness is a Roman emperor operating in Paul's day. And he was just waiting for his cue for the restraint to be taken away. Well, then of course there's this big question of what is the restraint? And I'll let you come back next week to find out that, no, actually, the restraint there, I can't do that. The restraint, as I understand it, is the continuing existence of the Jewish state. As long as the Jewish state was a standing religious entity in the eyes of the Roman rulers, it veiled the fact that Christianity was an illicit religion in the Roman Empire. And when that restraint was taken away, when that veil was taken away, the protective skirts of Judaism, then Christianity had all of the unleashed terror of Rome against it. And we know that from history. And that's precisely what you would expect, given the nature of the Roman Empire and its laws. And so, by the way, B.B. warfield has an excellent article in the prophecies of St. Paul in biblical and Theological Studies, which explores all of that. Let's close with a word of prayer. Father, we ask that you would take this great deal of material that we've had set before us and apply it to our lives and give us retentive minds that we might remember and know these things, that it might be beneficial to us in interpreting the word correctly. And Father, if we have erred and have fallen short of that correct interpretation that you would desire, we ask that we would be set straight, that we wouldn't remember those things that might be destructive to our living and our correct thinking. I ask you, Lord, that your Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth and that he would illumine our minds that we might behold those wondrous things out of your word that you've intended for us. We thank you for that blessing of the Book of Revelation. We thank you for how it can open our eyes and see how you work in history. We pray, Father, that all those things that we see as a result of this blessed book would lead us to praise you and to glorify you, to exalt your son, Jesus Christ, and keep our eyes set on him as the one who is sovereign over all events, the one who will indeed triumph in the name of the Lord. And we know that he does this in our behalf and for the sake of his Church. And thus we pray with gratefulness and asking forgiveness of our sins in his name. Amen.