Revelation: Introduction

All right. So the Book of Revelation, we'll, we'll go there. So a couple of things in terms of what I want to accomplish with this study, and just so everyone knows, um, number one, I wanna have some fun with it.

Um, the Book of Revelation is a fun book. Um, uh, part of what, in my opinion, part of what makes it fun is a little bit of the controversy surrounding it. Um, so I wanna have fun with it. The other thing is, um, I'm not, my goal is not to, is to not make this overly technical. Okay? Um, like for instance, we're gonna talk about the date tonight.

'cause tonight's more of an introduction and the date is very significant. There's, there's two options on the date. There's either it was written during the time of Nero, or it was written during the time of demean. If I'm saying that right, Dian. Um, and it changes because one means it was written before 70 AD and one [00:01:00] means it was written around 96 ad.

So determining the date really does affect how you're going to interpret the book in some ways, not with all the views, but in some of the, the views is very important. Um, so I'm just gonna give you guys an overview and feel free to ask whatever questions you want, bring up anything you've heard in the past, whatever you want to do.

But if we start to get too technical, I would rather put that off. And I'm more than willing to meet with anyone one-on-one. I don't want your eyes rolling in the back of your heads. Okay. Um, because you can get that way with the book of Revelation. So I want it to be more of an overview, more of an understanding.

I want it to be a challenge. Um, it will be new for most of you, and when, when I'm almost done tonight, I'll, I'll cover the different schools of thought on interpretation, and then I'm just gonna take a survey. Who, who thinks they fall into this camp? Who thinks they fall into this camp? It'll be curious to find out.

Um, uh, [00:02:00] I will try to stay somewhat neutral though. Most of you, I think, know where I am for tonight, but not after tonight. I mean, after tonight, you're gonna know what I believe and why I'm presenting the book the way I am presenting it. And then in two weeks, when we meet again, we'll start with chapter one.

And I'm gonna do my best for the most part to try to do a chapter a week. It's just an overview. So I'm not gonna get into the nitpicky detail. And I'll be honest with you, I don't understand every detail. I'm not even convinced that every detail of every vision is supposed to be picked apart. Sometimes it's supposed to be taken as a whole.

So I don't know that you have to pick apart every, uh, single word and syllable and, and everything in the book of Revelation. Um, so with that, and again, I like to make this a discussion and hear from you as much as anybody else, but with that who Yes ma'am. My very first question, which has been my question since you announced doing this, is you haven't actually [00:03:00] done a survey of the New Testament.

You put books here, there. Are you intended to do this at some time? Uh, a one, A one sermon overview? Yes. So my plan is, just so you all know, is when we finish the book of Hebrews, uh, then I will back up and we will do to the New Testament what we did to the old. We'll do start at Matthew. I might not go in exact orders, like we'll probably do Matthew Mark, we'll jump to Romans or something.

Because I don't wanna necessarily do all four gospels in a row. Maybe I will, I don't know. But I know this for sure when we do Luke, we will go to Acts the next week, because I think it's a two volume work. But yeah, I wanna do an overview of the New Testament. Like I did the old, so, um, alright, so who have you heard?

What do you understand? Can you refer to any passages in the book of Revelation? Who wrote it? John. John. John. Who? John the apostle. John The [00:04:00] apostle. Okay. That is the traditional view. I don't see any reason, uh, it, I'll say this as we get going to, like, sadly, like everything else in Christianity, there's nothing I will say tonight that somebody wouldn't debate in another setting.

Okay. Um, but yes, traditionally, uh, it's viewed as being written by the Apostle John. If you're taking notes, uh, somebody read chapter one, verse one. Somebody else look up Chapter 21, verse two. Actually, yeah. I'll have you read that one. So somebody read, whoever's gonna read verse one, read also verse four.

So chapter one, verses one and four. And then if somebody else will turn to chapter 21, verse two, one through four. Just one and four, the revelation of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to show unto his servants things, which must shortly come to pass. And he sent and signified it with his angel, un, his servant, John.

Verse four. John to the seven churches which are in Asia, grace [00:05:00] be upon you and peace from him, which is and which was, and which is to come. And from the seven spirits, which are better than his throne, okay. Which are before his throne. All right. Um, I'm going to restrain myself from getting into all the interesting things tonight, but I'll simply say this and I, I, well, who had the 22 chapter?

We'll do that first. Chapter 22, verse 2 22. Two or 21, 2 21. Two. And what version are you reading out of the correct. Okay. New American. New American Standard. No, the S esp. Oh, the ES. Esp. Esp. Alright. 21 2. And I saw the Holy City, new Jerusalem coming down out, having from God prepared as a bride going for her husband.

That's it. Any footnotes on that verse? And you can all look at your Bibles. I would all look at 21 verse two. Anyone have a King James version with them all? Mike, I'm gonna have you read [00:06:00] 52 1. Okay. Now are I looking for cross references or no? 52 1. Just an interesting footnote. Hebrew 1110, no. Okay, that's good.

That's good. Mike. If you have a KJV, read it. Same verse, team verse. And I, John saw the Holy City new Jerusalem. Stop. Did you catch that? Oh, read it again. And I, John, I John. So the King James version as far as I could research. Is the only version that includes John there because there's a textual variant that's included in the King James version.

So that's another verse that some scholars will go to. Since you're there, Mike, flip a page and read 22 8. And I, John saw these things and heard them and that should be in the rest of yours, John should be included in, in the rest of your translation. So, but here's the interesting thing, and this is why, uh, and I, I will tell you right now a lot of the questions concerning the book of Revelation, there is [00:07:00] what would be called external evidence, evidence from the church fathers and from history.

And then there's internal evidence. And I will tell you right now that my default position will always be internal evidence, okay? Not that we can't trust the church fathers, but they're not in errand. Uh, they're not infallible. They make mistakes. There are contradictions throughout. We'll talk maybe a little bit about that as we go.

Um, but here's the interesting thing. He, does he call himself an apostle? No. Doesn't call himself an apostle. Uh, he just says, John. Alright. But what's interesting about it is he would have to be a very well known John to write a book like this and just say, John, alright? Which is one of several reasons why, uh, the church has always believed that it was the Apostle John that wrote this.

Um, there are also some similarities with some, some other things in the writings of John. [00:08:00] So, like the Gospel of John, uh, first, second, and third John. But there's also some major differences. Okay? Uh, if you were ever to take Greek, uh, your first year, by the time you finished first year, your final exam would be to translate first job.

Because it is the easiest book in hall of scripture to translate because John writes, uh, just, he's easy. I mean, I wish they all wrote like that. 'cause it'd be easy to read. Very simple. Yeah. Just very simple. Okay. Revelation is the worst Greek in the New Testament. Okay. Radically different from what John writes.

And the reason, and this is the reigning theory, the reason that it's the worst Greek in the New Testament is it sounds like he's thinking in Hebrew, but he's writing it in Greek. Because if you look at the grammar, it's more Hebrew than Greek. I mean, he butchers the Greek language in this book. But if you [00:09:00] kind of in your head think of it, okay, I'm reading Greek words, but I'm gonna treat it like it's Hebrew grammar, then it starts to make sense.

Okay. Um, so that's one of the reasons that some would say maybe John didn't write it. But all in all, I think the preponderance of the evidence points to John. Go ahead. I thought Peter was. No. Oh, Pete Peter's bad. Alright, let's see if there's any, okay. Alright. Um, alright, second question. So John the apostle, and, and I agree with that, and I think, uh, he's the one that wrote it.

Here's the other interesting thing. I'm jumping ahead of myself a little bit. When I say all of it discourse, who knows what I'm talking about? What am I talking about? Aren't you talking about the, when Jesus was, um, speaking people during the, when he gave a, um, is it the attitude? No, that's the Sermon on the mount.

Okay. That's not the olive, that's not the olive discourse. Okay. The olive [00:10:00] discourse is Jesus leaves Jerusalem, he goes to the Mount of Olives, hence olive discourse. And his apostles ask him, are you, is this, when? When is all this gonna happen? And he starts talking about the sun will go black, the moon turns dark, all this wars, rumors of war, great.

T tribulation, all that. Which gospels, do you guys know what I'm talking about now? Matthew 21. Okay. Which gospels do you find that in? Matthew. You find it in Matthew, find it anywhere else, John? Nope. Do you find it in Matthew, mark and Luke? And interestingly enough, it's missing in John and many scholars would argue, this is John's oli it discourse.

This is John's oli. It discourse really expanded when compared to the other gospel writers. I, again, I happen to agree with that and that view would work on any of the [00:11:00] interpretations of the book. Okay. Because the all of it discourse has as many different interpretations as the Book of Revelation does in terms of schools of thought.

So that's another reason pointing towards John being the author, because John doesn't give any other information. So it's gotta be a popular John, there's some similarities while there are some differences, but John's the only one that didn't have an all ofit discourse and this fits, so, uh, okay. Genre.

What kind of a, what kind of book is this? What have you heard or how, how have you understood in the past? What, what kind of book is it?

You say Prophecy. Okay. Very good. I would 100% agree with you. It is a prophecy, but it is also, and sometimes we lose sight of this. It's a letter. So somebody look up Revelation chapter one verse four again, and somebody look up 22 verse 21. [00:12:00] Revelation 22, 21 and Revelation one, four. And whoever has the one four can read John to the seven churches which are in Asia, grace beyond to you and peace from him.

Which is, which was, which is to come, and from the seven spirits, which are before his throne. Okay? That's the way most of Paul's epistles begin. Okay? Um, he introduces himself, John, he tells who the recipients are, and he offers a kind of benediction to the readers. So this is an epistle. Somebody read, uh, chapter 22, verse 21.

So the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. Amen. That's the way Paul closes most of his epistles with a benediction. All right, so Paul. Paul, you said Paul. I, I said Paul. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And uh, what I'm saying is nobody disputes that Paul is writing epistles. [00:13:00] Okay. So what I'm trying to show is that John starts the book of Revelation and ends the book of Revelation, exactly how Paul starts his epistles and ends his epistles.

I see. In other words, this is a letter. It was a letter and we know who it was written to. 'cause verse four tells us it was written to seven individual churches. Okay? So there are other reasons for believing this, but one of the things that tells us, does that make sense? Does this, um, are you following me?

Yep. Okay. Um, one of the things that tells us contrary to what we see in the world today is John expected this to be understood. And there are other hints in chapter one where John expected his readers to understand it. So. Uh, we have to work really hard at how would his readers have heard this? What would their reference points have been as we're working through the, the different verses and stuff like [00:14:00] that.

Mike said it was a prophecy, and I'll save time. We won't read the verses, but if you're taking notes, chapter one verse three again, back to chapter 22, verse seven. Uh, John makes very clear. This is a prophecy. He calls it a prophecy. So this is prophetic. Um, most of the epistles aren't, so this is a different kind of epistle, but it is, it is a letter.

It was written to churches, but it's also a, a prophecy. Have you heard any other descriptive terms by which this book would be described? Confusing. Confusing. Okay. Um, have you, were you gonna say something? I was gonna say apocalyptic. Okay. Yes. Judgment language. Yeah. Apocalyptic. A lot of people will say that it's apocalyptic language.

Um, and there are some similarities between, uh, apocalyptic writings that we have. Most, uh, apocalyptic writings, uh, [00:15:00] um, would be apocryphal. Okay. Some might argue that parts of Ezekiel or apocalyptic, but I think it's better to understand John simply as a prophecy. Okay. Um, the other thing that we need to know, and this is really important, so if you're taking notes, if you are going to understand this book properly, you have to be saturated in the Old Testament.

All the symbols, all the hard to understand. Even 6, 6, 6. I'm gonna argue. You gotta go back to the Old Testament if you're gonna understand it. Yes, ma'am. I spent a long time reading traditional, because it took me forever to read through, but I read it. I reference the references they had in here. I'd go back and look at the notes and I,

and did see a lot of that, that a lot of it carried through. Yeah, yeah. Into this. But wouldn't that be [00:16:00] the case, because these guys grew up in the church, so they understood all of that history and background, and so it would, even though the Lord changed them, they thought process would still be the same.

Yeah, no, I, I would agree. They're, they're saturated in the Old Testament. John is saturated in the Old Testament, so it would make sense that he would use those signs. My point, and I'm dropping some breadcrumbs along the way, my point is that's not how all modern commentators interpret this. We're looking for helicopters and you know, things like that.

Would these guys, the original readers, would that have even crossed their mind or would their mind have gone to these same types of figures and symbolism found in the Old Testament? So, as we get going in the book, what I'm saying is the first thing we're gonna do when we come across anything difficult is, is this language used somewhere in the Old Testament?

And if it is, what [00:17:00] did it mean there? So back to what I've been saying during the sermons, these are hyperlinks. This, this. Then you don't have to cite a passage to have a hyperlink. You can cite concepts or symbols, and it can still be a hyperlink back to the Old Testament. And we have to understand how these symbols are used back then.

Then we can start to make application here. Because again, John expected his audience to understand it. What would they have been thinking of?

Again, if you got questions along the way, stop me. Okay. Late, uh, date, date, uh, and the date's kind of important because, uh, again, and, uh, either it's a late date or there's an early date. And just to be honest with everyone, the late date is the most popular view. The late date is the most popular view, and the late date says that it was written around 96 ad.

Now why would that be significant? [00:18:00] What took place before? 96 AD 94. 94. Yes. Very good. What did you, okay, yeah, Jerusalem. Okay. The fall of Jerusalem, uh, took place in 70 ad Now, if the book wasn't written until 96 ad it's likely not about the fall of Jerusalem. Why? Because John says it's prophetic. Okay. And prophecy is not always predictive.

Um, but most of the time, especially when we look at this, the way it's written, well look at verse four again, John, to the seven churches who are in Asia, graced you, peace from him. Who is and who was, and who is to come. Nope, that's not the one I wanted. Verse one, sorry. The revelation, the revealing of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his bond servant the things which must soon take place.

So whatever he is talking about [00:19:00] comes after the writing soon take place. And he sent and communicated it by his angel to his bond servant John. So whatever he's writing, it takes on the kind of prophecy that it's going to take place after he writes it down. So he's writing something to send to the seven churches so that when these things start happening, they're gonna have a clue on what's going on.

Okay? And I would argue. That this is one of the most encouraging books in all of scripture because he's assuring these saints who are going through and, and regardless how you understand it, we know that in the early church, I mean these guys were being martyred. They lived through the Ian, that's the way you say it, persecution.

So if this was written during Niro's time, they were in the midst of persecution. If this was written during Damian's time, that was like the second Roman persecution. So the church was undergoing horrible things. And this book is being written to assure them [00:20:00] that God is still sovereign, God is still in control.

And guess what? He wins. Okay? And if you're martyred for the sake of God, there's blessings. Not 70 virgins, but blessings awaiting you. Okay? Um, there's glory awaiting you. So, uh, the most popular view is the late date view. Um, just so you know, and again, I'm trying to be super honest here. The late date view for the most part is based on external evidence.

It's based on what the church fathers say about when it was written. Okay. Um, and this is where we could get super technical, but I'm not going to, unless you have specific questions. There is a lot of debate and a lot of dispute on what did the church fathers write. Um, there's translational problems, there's transmission problems.

And quite frankly, and this is no secret, the church fathers, many of them were not great historians. They contradict [00:21:00] each other, they get things wrong. I'm not saying that they're not good sources. I'm not saying we shouldn't read 'em. I'm not saying we shouldn't cite them, I'm just saying they're not inherent.

Okay. Um, so the late date is based mostly on outward, uh, or external evidence. The early date. Argues that the book was written during the reign of Nero. So it would've been written around the year 67 and 68 ad. Now I'm gonna give Yoshi another chance since he heard Rich's. Good answer. What happened after 68 ad

I just threw you a softball. The fall of Jerusalem. There you go. Yeah. 69 80. That's what I was waiting on. Okay. Yeah, the fall of Jerusalem. And if the fall of Jerusalem happened after the writing of this book, and if this book might John's Olive discourse, then the interpretation would take a whole nother look to it.

Okay. [00:22:00] Um, so, uh, let's see. So the, now here's the interesting, the late date. It's not that they ignore what the book says itself, but the majority of the evidence is external. The early date, the majority of the evidence is based on the text itself. They're arguing from the text. So I just want to give you a few examples of what they would argue from.

And then, uh, as we go through the book, I will point some others out. But look at Revelation chapter 1128, revelation chapter 11. We're gonna look at just the first two verses, and I'm just giving you two, two examples and then, then another, uh, kind of, uh, interior evidence. But, so in Revelation chapter 11 verses one and two, then there was given me a measuring rod, like a staff.

Can anybody think of anyone else who got a measuring rod and was told to go measure?[00:23:00]

No, you're in the, you're in the ballpark. Yeah. Damn. No, I'm not in my, I think you, you said it, Moses. No, Ezekiel. Ezekiel, Ezekiel. Ezekiel was given a measuring rod and was told to go measure and it just so happens that he was told to go measure a temple. Now John is being given a measuring rod like a staff and that word, like a staff, like a cannon.

That's the literal Hebrew. So we call the Bible the canon 'cause it's the rule of faith. He was given a ruler, a staff, a canon to go measure the temple and someone said, get up and measure the temple of God and the altar. And those who worship in it leave out the court, which is outside the temple and do not measure it for it has been given to the nations and they will tread underfoot the holy city Jerusalem for 42 months.

Okay? So many scholars would look at this verse and they would say that internally, the evidence says the temple's still standing. John's writing. Uh, [00:24:00] yes, we've got visions and stuff going on, but it seems when you take it all in context, seems like the temple's still standing 'cause John's told to go measure it.

Okay, so maybe yes, maybe no. Turn to Revelation 17, verse 10. And whoever gets there first, go ahead and read it.

And they, they're the seven kings. Five have fallen. One is the, the other has not come. And when he comes, he must remain a little while. Okay, so you got seven kings, five have fallen. One is, so what number would the one is be? Six. Six. Okay. Uh, the other's not yet come, but when he comes he must remain a little while.

So number seven stays just a little while, right? Well, if you look on your, uh, handout, I think if you turn the page. I gave you a list of the Roman Emper.[00:25:00]

So who's number six? Niro. Niro. Okay. So, uh, five have fallen. One is, so the argument goes, the one that is, is Nero. He's, he's given us a timetable here. He's riding when the sixth King is present. Nero. Okay. One is yet to come. And when he comes, he must remain a little while. Well look on your chart. Who comes after Nero?

Gba. Gba. How long does he reign? Year. A year. So the next three emperors reign, like 18 months combined. Okay. So some scholars look at that, it's internal evidence and they'll say, well, he's identifying this is being written during the Sixth King. And the sixth king is ne. That fits a time when the temple would still be standing.

So he is writing before 70 ad he's writing sometime in the mid to late sixties. Um, one other thing, if you look at your Roman [00:26:00] emperors, um, because this is something, and again, I just wanna give you hints of this without getting too technical, but it is argued whether or not Julius Caesar should be counted as the first emperor.

So I'm counting Julius Caesar as the first emperor. If you don't count him as the first emperor, then Nero is number five, not number six. So it's actually crucial to this particular interpretation that Julius Caesar is the first emperor, and there are some ancient historians that don't count in as such.

But the majority of ancient historians that lived during this time, and I gave you some more examples down below, count Julius Caesar as the first Roman Emperor. A lot of modern historians don't, but the ancient historians, including Josephus, counted him as number one. So if Julius Caesar's, number one, that makes Nero, number six, that gives us a timetable.

Does that make sense? Just trying to [00:27:00] give you a taste of why wouldn't Julius Caesar if you considered the first time, there's a long and drawn out argument for that. Okay. Um, so what did you say again? I think I, I missed it, but, um, but the passage says there are also seven cans that you were talking about.

GABA also

as well. It says, uh, seven King, five Kings have fallen one ear, not your son. Right. And when he comes, he's there for a short period. So what I was saying is the Five Kings and at Claudius Neros, the sixth King, the seventh King. Doesn't last very long, which is exactly what the text says. Looks like the eighth and ninth building.

Exactly. And I just made that connection that none of them lasts very long. So, so what, who would [00:28:00] be the last one? Or is he not on the list? He's not on the list. It goes a little longer. So, all right, here's something else. Somebody look up James chapter one, verse 12. Somebody else look up Revelation chapter two, verse 10.

Going back to that, would that not also, uh, make the, the argument that Michigan a little more difficult to make two, right? Because Yes, because now you don't have a, um, a or a link or maybe like a, a, a marker to start with that hasn't really logical right now. You have to do a completely different interpretation here.

I can't refer to the Roman emperors. However, and again, I'm trying to be quick here. Um, when you go to chapter 11. I'm sorry. When you go to chapter 17 and in that whole context, Rome is described the city on seven hills. And so it's all pointing to ancient Rome and now it's counting these kings, these emperors.

So [00:29:00] yes, on, on one understanding it makes sense. It gives us a timetable on another understanding, it means something completely different. We gotta try to figure it out even though all the other indicators are ancient Rome, um, point that the latency doesn't make as much sense if you try to, I think. But, um, alright, who has Revelation two 10 for none of those things which you shall suffer.

Behold the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that you'll be tried, you shall have tribulation 10 days. Be faithful unto death and that will give you a crown of life. Okay, who has James chapter one, verse 12.

James one 12. James one 12. Plus this is the man who remains steadfast in the trial for when he has stood the test, he'll receive the crown of life, which God has promised that. Okay, [00:30:00] those are the only two verses in scripture that speak of the crown of life in Revelation. It's Jesus talking and he promises those who are persecuted, the crown of life.

And then when James writes, he's talking to those who would remain steadfast and he says, the Lord promised the crown of life. And a lot of scholars see James chapter one, verse two, quoting the book of Revelation. They see it in that verse. Give you another one. Uh, somebody look up two Peter, chapter three, verse 13.

Now, this one's a little, not quite as clear in my book, but look up second Peter, chapter three, verse 13. And when you have it, let me know and you can read.

Okay, go ahead. Second Peter three 13. Nevertheless, we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth. Where in dwell with righteousness. Okay, so, uh, Peter is [00:31:00] talking about a new heavens and a new earth, but what's key here is he ties it to righteousness dwelling within. Okay. Can you think of anywhere else in the Bible that talks about a new heavens and a new Earth?

Revelation? Revelation Does Revelation chapter 21 anywhere else? 10.

The last chapters of Isaiah, like Isaiah 60 to 65, speak of a new heaven and new Earth. But here's the interesting thing in Isaiah. He doesn't tie it to righteousness Peter does, which is exactly what Revelation 21 does. So again, and all of this can be debated, but there are a lot of scholars that say Peter is again referencing the Book of Revelation because on the early view, just so you know, on the early view, revelation is not the last book of the Bible written on The Late View [00:32:00] would be the last book written.

But on the early view, second Timothy is usually seen to be the last book of scripture written. So Revelation would not be the last book. So books written after Revelation could be citing it just like Peter cites Paul, Paul cites Luke. I mean, there is some citations going on in the New Testament. So that's just, and if you have questions, I'll stop.

You guys can ask questions, but that's just some, a sampling, a smattering. We'll look at some more along the way of why some scholars. Understand that the internal evidence, the book itself, points to an early writing writing when the temple was still standing, writing during Nero's reign and writing at a time that other New Testament authors could actually cite the book or, or at least reference it.

All right? If you don't have any questions, that's fine. Uh, interpretive views. If you, uh, [00:33:00] look on your outline for interpretive views, um, and I, I kind of, I'm trying to do this in the order of popularity today, but what I want you to understand is we're gonna look at four different interpretive views. I'm gonna make 'em real simple for you, but four different interpretive views.

Then I'm gonna give you an example, use all four on one verse. Um, but what I want you to know and what most people today just don't know is all of these views. We're popular at different times during church history. So today we live in a time where the futurist view is the most popular. I have met Christians, but if you don't have a futurist view of revelation, you are not even a believer.

I mean, I mean, I have been accused of being in a cult all kind. 'cause I, you've probably figured it out. I don't hold a futurist view. Okay? I've been accused of all kinds of things. The heretic a cult leader, uh, because I don't hold, [00:34:00] because most people, that's all they know. That's what you've been raised up, that's common day evangelicalism.

But that is just not church history. Different views at different times in church history would've been the reigning view. And if you didn't hold that view, you'd have been looked at like a nut. Okay? So the most popular view today is the futurist view. And what the futurist view says, just to keep it simple, is the prophecies in the book of Revelation after chapter four.

These chapter one's an introduction, chapters two and three letters to the seven churches. So beginning in chapter four, all the prophecies to the end of the book are yet future, they have not taken place yet.

That's the simplest way. Uh, and the other thing that I would point out is, please keep in mind with each one of these, there are different schools of thought level. [00:35:00] So you have dispensationalist, which is the most popular form of futurism today, but then you also have historic pre millennialism, which is not dispensationalism, but it still sees it futuristically.

So, but the main thing is it, it applies to our future. Um, I wrote on your outline so you didn't have to write 'em down, but you may or may not recognize any of these people. Um, but I've, I've tried to go with competent scholars or at least. Scofield, uh, those that, uh, some would recognize. I personally not impressed with Schofield and Rry, but for the most part, uh, these are competent scholars, and these are some, you may recognize the names, proponents of the Urist view.

The second view, and this may be the second in popularity in the world we live in, is called the idealist, or the recapitulating view and what the, it's called two names [00:36:00] for a reason. So let me start with recapitulating. Um, what that says is you can divide the book of Revelation into seven sections. Each section covers all of church history from the first coming of Christ to his second coming, and each section is repetitive, and each section gives you more information.

So if you turn ano, if you turn to the last page on the outline that I've given you, I've given you two outlines of the book,

okay? The one on the left is an idealist or recap atory view. So according to this view, verses one through three, cover the first, coming to the second, coming chapters four through seven. First coming to second coming chapters eight through 11, same thing. Then you got 12 through, um, 12 through 14, 15 through 16, seven through 19, 20 to 22.[00:37:00]

What, what they're saying is each one of those seven sections begins with Christ's first coming, ends with his second coming, and they each build and give you more information. Does that make sense? And the guy that I cited is a guy by the name of William Hendrickson. You can see that on that outline, and I, in my opinion, he wrote the best recapitulating commentary on the book of Revelation I've ever read.

He's it. He makes a strong argument. The reason it's idealistic is because unlike the Historicist view that we'll look at in a minute, it's not referring to any specific events in the middle of history. Obviously, when it talks about the coming of Christ, it's talking about a specific event, and it's talking about the binding of Satan or the return of Christ.

It's talking about a specific event, but it's basically giving us principles [00:38:00] by which God wants us to live by. Does that make sense?

I am doing my best. I'm not making this stuff up. Um, but, but that's how they see it. So you got seven sections. They each begin at the first coming end of the second coming, and they're basically just giving you principles of how God governs the world. Principles, teaching that God wins, evil loses principles, teaching that we're gonna be persecuted at various times in history.

And we're supposed to, you know, continue to remain faithful and we will be blessed in the end with that view.

I don't know why reading the book of Revelation, maybe because I came from a certain, um, mindset, but it, that almost seems to me like they've taken, uh, [00:39:00] the concepts of the word and.

No, I, I, I don't, I don't think that would be a fair description. It might be a fair description of my vain attempt to explain it, but I don't think it's a fair description of the view. Um, and like I said, Hendrickson, you know, if you were to read his commentary, it makes a lot of sense. So, for instance, I'll give you one example.

The, uh, uh, the bulls and the trumpets, they're, they seem to be repeating some of the same plagues and stuff. So you've won sections on these bulls getting poured out. You have another section on trumpets being blown, and guess what? Seven bulls, seven trumpets. And when you compare them, they seem to be covering the same material.

So it's stuff like that in the book that has led to this understanding of the book, if that helps a little bit. All right. The, uh, third view then on the book of Revelation is the [00:40:00] P view. And what the, the pre's view is almost the exact opposite of the futurist view. The pre's view says that the majority of the prophecies in Revelation have already been fulfilled.

So they would say from chapter four, I'm sorry, from chapter two to about chapter 20, and there's more than one school of thought. But from chapter two to chapter 20, all those things have already been fulfilled. And what the book is talking about is the fall of Jerusalem in 70 a D, some preterists would say it's talking about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 a D.

And it's also talking about the fall of Rome around three 70 ad.

Um, so that's the pre of you Pres is the Latin word that means past. And just so you know, we're all pres to some extent. And what I mean by that is how many of you believe. [00:41:00] That the fact that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem was predicted in the Old Testament. How many of you believe that has that already taken place?

So you're a pist. It's just where you draw the line. Okay? How many of you believe that the Old Testament predicted that Jesus would be born of the virgin? Okay. What has Jesus already been born? Was she a virgin? You're a preterist. Okay. Again, it's just where do I draw the line on my pres? Okay. And we're all futurists.

How many of you believe that there will be a second coming of Christ sometime in the future? Okay, so we're all futurists as well. Okay? Um, and we're all idealists because we, when we do read the, uh, book of Revelation, if you walk away with anything, you should walk away with the idea that as a Christian, I need to persevere.

Even under trial, you're an idealist. Okay. And, uh, we're [00:42:00] also all though not quite to this extent, we, we all hold to the Historicist view as well because there are certain things like the crucifixion of Christ that we can date in history. Okay? And whether the whole book talks about the fall of Jerusalem or something in the book, we would be able to date that and, and specify that that's a specific event.

The return of Christ is future, but it's a specific event. So we all have historicist, uh, and I'll get to that definition in a minute. But we all have those tendencies too. So the question is, what do we think ought to be emphasized? And that's gonna put you in the school of thought you're in. Alright, so let's do the historicist and then, uh, I'll ask a question.

And I also want to illustrate, um, the historical view. This, just so you know, this is the least popular. It has always been the least. Popular. And this is the only view that [00:43:00] I have never read a commentary that took this view. Um, they're hard to find 'cause most of 'em are ancient. 'cause I can't think of, and if you look at the names on the proponents, I can't think of anyone living that holds this view.

I'm sure there is. Martin Luther's probably the most famous Historicist. Okay. But what the Historicist view says is this is an outline of human history and what it does. And here's the problem with the view is depending on when you live, is how you line things up. So I'll, I'll give you an example in a minute, but in chapter 11 where he's told to measure the, the, the Temple Luther's interpretation is that took place during the Reformation.

Okay. Somebody living today probably wouldn't identify it as taking place during the Reformation. They would identify it as something else. Does that make sense? So the Historicist sees the book of Revelation. It's giving us an outline of all of human history, and depending [00:44:00] on when I live, is gonna be how I interpret it.

What applies to what, what is yet future, what's already taken place. That would be the Historicist view. Um, you say never found thing written by one of Jewish people on that line. Not a commentary on the book of Revelation. Like Luther wrote a lot of commentaries. He didn't write one on the book of Revelation.

Neither, neither did John Calvin, um, Matthew Henrys. Yeah. I've never read Matthew Henry's commentary on Revelation if I could find them. Yeah, we, that's one that you could find today. That, that, yeah. Yeah. That's one that you could find today. Um, but also in all fairness is a lot of these guys had some historical tendencies.

They didn't interpret the book consistently this way, but. Those are the only names you can come up with 'cause it's not a popular view. Okay. Any questions on the four views? Is [00:45:00] there any of you that you don't understand? 'cause I can try, try again in terms of explanation, you're number three. Well, I'm not telling you that.

Yes, I'm number three. Yes, I'm a pres. Okay. I'm number three. But I wanted to find out, so the views that we went over, and this is why I want to know if you understand them. How many of you would consider yourself futurists in terms of the book of Revelation? Only one Brave soul. Two Brave souls. Mm-hmm.

Okay. I will say I'm on faith. Okay. Alright. And that's fair. And that's fair. Okay. How many of you would call yourself, uh, an idealist or a recapitulation? You. You would, okay. Interesting. Good. Uh, any pice in the house? I know Matt is Okay. I am. Whatever you tell me.

Okay. Three. We got three. No. Okay. Is the other one. [00:46:00] I'm on the fence. And, and part of the problem, and it's okay to be on the fence because as I've pointed out, we all have some of these things. And here's the thing. You can learn from all these different schools of thought as well. They're, they're different take on the book and stuff like that.

Um, I also have to say that my background is in futurist. Mm-hmm. What I learned when I became a believer and grew up. But also there are people I know who are pastors, been pastors, and they will take the point that the other. S being one of them. It's not biblical. Right? And I explain it in my eyes over and I go, okay, I trust you.

No. From whatever you've learned. But that's the thing I trust, you know, from your [00:47:00] education. But they contradict. Mm-hmm. They do. There's, there's no getting around that. Um, so I'll just give you a little bit of history on Mike Munoz. Like most of you, when I first became a Christian, I was introduced to your typical evangelical gospel and church.

And so I was a futurist. I read, uh, wolves. He's one of the names that's under futurist. Uh, in fact, I would still recommend it. Uh, Wolver and Zuck. Those are the two names of the author. One is Wolver, one is Zuck. They both, uh, taught at Dallas Theological Seminary. They wrote a two volume, you can actually get it in vol volumes now, but they wrote a two volume commentary on the entire Bible.

It's called the Bible Knowledge Commentary. And when I first started taking scripture serious, I don't remember who recommended that series, but somebody recommended to me and for a year I'd read three chapters a day in scripture. 'cause if you read three chapters a day, every day for a year, [00:48:00] you'll read through your Bible.

So I read three chapters a day of scripture and three chapters a day in that commentary. And I still think it's a great commentary except for its eschatology. Okay. But it's got charts and maps and graphs, and it's excellent. And the person who recommended that cost us a lot of money. Yes, he did. 'cause Amazon has not stopped delivering ever since.

That's what she means by that. Um, so anyway, when I first became a Christian, that's where I was. And then I was introduced to William Hendrickson, the guy that I already mentioned. He's the idealist. And I read his commentary on Revelation and it just made sense. Um, and so I became a, an idealist for a recapitulation and then further study, um, in some of the names you'll see on the pre view.

But, uh, now I became a preterist as I, so I've walked through almost all the views except for the historical view and I don't see myself going there. So, um, [00:49:00] but uh, that was my journey. Um, so depending who you read it can be compelling. Uh, everyone turned to chapter 11 verses one and two. And what I want to do with just these two chapters, two chapters, two verses, is I want to give you an interpretation from all four schools of thought so that you can see both the similarity and the differences in how some of these scholars do it.

Now, I'm gonna be upfront and honest with you, the overview that I will be giving of this book will be the pre overview, because that's what I believe about the book. However, I will do my best on key passages to, again, give you different interpretations. But I, I don't wanna get bogged down. I don't want to take two years to finish this.

Okay. Um, because I think it's, it's, I think it's more important to give you an overview to get you started on your own personal study. And then you can take off, I can recommend books. I will [00:50:00] give you a bibliography before the end of the study, just. And I'll have the books divided into different schools and stuff and we'll talk about millennial views in one of the upcoming, because obviously your interpretation of revelation is gonna change what you believe about the millennial or the end times.

So, but let me read Revelation chapter 11 verses one and two. Then there was given me a measuring rod, like a staff and someone said contextually, most likely an angel get up, measure the temple of God and the altar. And those who worship in it leave out the court, which is outside the temple and do not measure it for it has been given to the nations, just Matt.

'cause we were having this conversation earlier, the Ethnos, it was given to the nations and they will tread underfoot the holy city for 42 months. So let me walk you through the interpretation and the first one that I'm gonna give is the futurist interpretation. [00:51:00] Okay? This is how a futurist would interpret it.

Um, the temple is a future rebuilt temple. So the temple that's being talked about doesn't exist right now 'cause there's no temple in Jerusalem. But at some point in the future, futurists believe that the temple will be rebuilt. So what the book is talking about is a future rebuilt temple to measure has to do with preserving and protecting.

And in the futurist view, what John is ordered to do symbolically, is to demonstrate that God is going to preserve and protect his faithful Jewish remnant. Because this is during the seven year tribulation where the Jews, many of the Jews have turned back to Christ. And you have antichrist doing things.

So there's, there's a new remnant of Jewish believers, okay? And they're pictured by the, um, uh, the temple and the altar. The unbelieving Jews are pictured as the court. So the court [00:52:00] that's left to the Gentiles that's understood to be apostate Israel and the Gentiles are gonna tread on the temple, that Jews are gonna experience persecution during the second half of the seven year tribulation.

That's the 42 months, three and a half years. I did that kind of fast. But that's the future's view. Future temple, faithful Jews are being protected. The unfaithful apostate, Israel is in the courtyard and the gentiles, the unbelieving, well, the massive unbelievers, both Jew and Gentile are going to trample.

They're gonna persecute the Christians. And this takes place. This takes place during that 70 year period before the return of Christ. And it likely takes place during the last three and a half years. Ergo, 42 months. Make sense? Alright, that's the futurist view, the idealist view. The ideal is view says the measuring of the temple [00:53:00] is recognizing the true church.

Okay? Most views, uh, see the temple as representing the true church. And the measuring is in some sense letting God's people know that he knows who we are and he's gonna protect us. The court is the visible church. In other words, and you all know this, I, I've talked about a visible and an invisible church.

So when we gather on Sunday mornings, I'd love to think that everyone in this building is a Christian, but it's likely not true. It's likely that some believers are professing Christ, but maybe they haven't turned to him. So that's the difference. True Christians versus those who are professing but aren't really taking it serious.

So in the idealist view, the true Christians are measured and protected. The court is where the non-believers are, but they profess Christ the 42 months. Simply indicate a period of time. They can't tell you how long it [00:54:00] really is. It's just a period of time. Um, and the time limits are basically to help you connect the different sections of scripture because, or the different sections of the book of Revelation.

Because this concept of 42 months, what's 42 times 30? Rich 1,260. Yeah. So this phraseology 42 months and 1,260 days is used in multiple sections of the book of Revelation. So what the ideal is of view is these, these numbers aren't really real numbers, but they're just helping you tie the different sections together so you know that they're talking about the same thing.

That's the idealist view. And the one thing that I would say right now, because I'm looking at your eyes, I scholars in these different camps. Love the scriptures, believe the scriptures, [00:55:00] and they're doing their best to interpret the scriptures. These are, I'm not, these are not heretics, these are not cults.

These are genuine believers that we will share eternity with who take these different views. So they may seem odd to you, but that's because we're just jumping into it. Alright. The predator's view the correct one. No, I'm teasing. The, the predator's view. The, the predators. Again, see measuring the temple as defining the true church.

Um, and see if you catch what I say here, defining the true church, um, preparing them for what's gonna happen. Now what did I leave out that the other two interpretations put in courtyard? Nope, not yet. You Well, you're right. I just haven't got to it. Oh, okay. Um, the other two saw the measuring. As protecting, but in the P view, the Christians go through the great [00:56:00] tribulation, they're preserved.

Okay. I now, no, but that's passed. Okay. Back in.

Okay. So measuring is defining, and again, preserving, but not necessarily protecting the court is apostate Israel of the first century. That's Israel who rejected the Messiah, who with the Romans are persecuting the church. And, and again, that's factual. Prior to 70 ad both the, the Jews were persecuting the church.

And then during Nero's reign, Rome began to persecute the church. Okay. But when you read acts and you go back and you read the book of Acts, all the persecution in the book of Acts comes from Israel. Alright. Okay. It's the Jews persecuting the church and they've rejected their Messiah. So this sees the temple as the true people of God being defined and preserved.

The court is Apostate [00:57:00] Israel. And then the 42 months, and we will get into more detail when we get there, but the 42 months corresponds to some interesting things you'll find in the Old Testament. So if you were to read Daniel chapter seven verse 25, 42 months, if you were to read One Kings, uh, chapter 17 to 18, and again another 42 month period, well, what was going on during that time?

Well, when we understand that symbology, and we can bring it to this, it might help us better understand, but I don't wanna get into all that detail tonight. Um, here though, historically it does roughly, uh, uh, compare to the first Roman persecution under Nero. The first Roman persecution under Niro lasted about three and a half years.

So there is a, there is a correspondence, interestingly enough, it also corresponds to the Jewish War when Rome came and basically annihilated Jerusalem. It was [00:58:00] about a three and a half period, because if you remember your history, Rome came, Rome attacked, and then something drew him away and they departed for a little bit while, and then they came back and finished the job.

And it lasted for about three and a half years. So there is some historical correspondence there, but the pres would say, you gotta understand Daniel and one Kings and some other Old Testament passages to really understand this. And then the historical view, the temples of the true church, the courtyard is Rome.

And when I say Rome, the Roman Catholic Church, okay, this is the historical view. Martin Luther's view the temples of the true church. The courtyard is Rome. The time period is all this took place during the Reformation. This is what was going on during the Reformation. And the treading underfoot for 42 months was the persecution of the Pope to the reformers, and the 42 months is just a figurative number.

So there's just a quick walkthrough of [00:59:00] one passage giving you the different interpretation. And what I would like to see you key in on is more the similarities. The differences matter. But it is interesting that all four views recognize a true church, recognize apostates, recognize persecution, recognize a time period, and recognize that God is gonna preserve.

Yes, sir. The uh, hang on for historical view, 42 months. Does that end with the fall? That in the historical view? Yeah, historical. Excuse me. No, in the historical view, it refers to the reformation. Okay. No, I'm going back to the past point. The predators view. Excuse me. Yeah. Um, a again, I, I'll get into more detail when we get there.

Um, it can, on one understanding it does, it would end at 70 ad it doesn't include the massage. No, [01:00:00] no, no. 'cause that would've been, was that early or later? That was afterwards. Yeah. No, it does, it wouldn't include that you say because didn't include what ma Oh, ma, yeah, because on the pre's view, on the pre's view, when you, when you get to about chapter 20, that would be the end.

That would be 70 ad Now there's debate on when is Satan bound and what does that mean? And, you know, Haiti's getting thrown into the lake of fire. Most pres still see that as future. So predators become futurists in the last two chapters You. For the most part, yes, that's where I am right now. Uh, other than I've, I've got a different take on the binding of Satan, and I've shared this at Bible study before.

I believe Satan is bound now completely, 100% taken out of the picture. And I've explained that in detail because the New Testament talks about Satan roaming around. And I've argued that Satan was in charge of the Roman Empire, just like you've got angels in [01:01:00] charge of Greece and Persia and things like that in the book of Daniel.

So without freaking me out too much, um, yeah, I believe that Satan is completely 100% bound and out of the picture right now. However, there are still demons out there and they're still wreaking havoc and they're still basically following Satan's game plan. So you'll hear me speak of Satan every once in a while.

It's just shorthand for demonic activity. I still believe it's taking place, but I believe as the church grows and matures, we bind more and more evil spirits. Um, but that's for later in the book. Um. Questions, thoughts, don't throw anything yet, gimme a chance. You know, come back for a couple more weeks and I'll try to make my case as we go.

Um, but questions or thoughts? Is it fair to have a p view and then switch it halfway through the book? Yeah, sorry. 69. [01:02:00] Um, um, yes, because remember I pointed out we're all pres. The question is where you draw the line. So what the pre is trying to do is draw the line where scripture draws the line. So, and that's at chapter 20 in Revelation.

That's at, I always forget, does he have 21 or 22 chapters? I always forget, has 22 chapters. All right. That's a chapter four. Not to be contentious, but you could, if you, I Okay. Could throw the question back out to the futurist and say, is it fair to take the statements like for. Clearly John is addressing the book to the seven churches, an agent.

Well, what makes us step into that and say, well, this is for us in the future when he's literally talking to the seven churches an agent, right? I mean, it's fairly straightforward. Who book addressed to? So I would, I would counter by saying that, yeah, we all do that. We all draw the line. Some we do. So the futurist is looking at everything as somewhere off in the distance.[01:03:00]

And a lot of dispensational will be seeing less. Like today we're living through it, we're about to enter this period. But how does that square with what John wrote? You just take the historical viewpoint on that. What's that? You just take the historical point of view of the first three chapters and then the futuristic for the rest.

Right. But it's the same idea, right? You're, you're, you're drawing a line. You're, you're making a, a page break somewhere and saying, well. This was addressed to them, but everything else is now for us. Okay. Or vice versa. Now having, let me add one last little caveat. There are some PS that would take the past to the very last verse of revelation.

So there are some in the PS camp, usually I am what would be known as what's called a partial pice because I think scripture draws lines and I do think there are yet future things. Um, but you have what's called full pice or what some like to call hyper pice where they wouldn't draw those lines and [01:04:00] they would be consistent in terms of from chapter one verse one to chapter 22 verse, whatever it ends, it's all istic.

Okay. So you do have that school? No, she's brain is not gonna cut it off at the last two chapters. It's either one. So, or the, yeah, it's the second time. They, they think that all the, the coming passages, um. And I think many of them do. But they would say that all of the, what we call second coming passages are really Jesus coming in 70 ad to judge Jerusalem.

So he didn't physically come. No. No. But again, I've talked about that a little bit. We have all kinds of Cloud Cummings. We, Yahweh has spoken of coming to visit judgment on nation after nation, after nation after nation in the Old Testament. So when Jesus tells the high priest, and we're gonna get into this next, not next week, but the week after, when Jesus tells the high priest, you'll see the son of man coming on the clouds.

He [01:05:00] meant it. You're gonna see me coming to judge, not a physical coming. It's gonna be a spiritual coming, but it's no less real. So let me give you one example and we'll close with this. Look at chapter one, verse seven.

Uh, behold is coming with the clouds and every eye will see him. Even those who pierced him and all the tribes of the land will mourn over him. So it is to be Amen. Now, the pice, here's the question they would ask, who pierced Jesus the first century Jews, the Romans. Okay. If this is Jesus's second coming, then how do all the tribes of the earth see him?

Because Jerusalem's in one hemisphere, the people on the opposite side of the earth could not see him. But if this were speaking of his coming in 70 a D, and this word translated land or [01:06:00] earth, which is a word commonly used of the land of Israel, if it was referring just to Israel, then guess what? Every eye would see it.

The chief priests and the people who sentence Jesus would see it. Those who pierced him would. In other words, it does make sense whether you agree or not. It does make sense with a 70 ad coming. Of Jesus. In fact, I would argue it makes the best sense out of that particular passage. That does not mean there's not gonna be a future coming.

It just means that's not what this is talking about. But I'll try to make my case in two weeks. So here's the thing. Come be challenged. Have some fun with it. This is not a test of orthodoxy. I don't care what view you hold to, nobody's gonna call you in Christianity. You still be a member here. You still participate here.

You don't have to agree on this here. [01:07:00] Um, but I think the church needs to grow in this area and I think we need to be challenged and we need to allow ourselves to be challenged by other views. My own history, I've been challenged by all of them, but what, so, alright, let's pray.