Revelation - 3:1-10 - Part 2
Bible Study DOWNLOADS
[00:00:00] Dale. Well, welcome back. Thank you. Welcome. All right, I started things. So if you want to, open up to Revelation chapter 3. If you want to. Well- If you want it, if I want it ... we're not gonna stay in Revelation chapter 3, but, uh, I'm, I'm hoping to finish Revelation chapter 3 today. But, uh, uh, I'll start with a little bit of review.
Uh, we've looked at the first five churches. So we've gone all the way through Sardis, which is, uh, the first church in chapter three, but it's the, uh, fifth church that we're looking at. And just a, a few things that we looked at was, uh, uh, Christ said, "You-- basically, you think you're alive, but you're dead."
Um, the other thing that we looked at in a little bit of detail was the Book of Life, and, [00:01:00] uh, I tried to make the argument that ultimately it's the book of the elect. Um, also, I think it matters how you read it, and, and I don't think the English or the Greek tells you or necessarily hints how to read it.
But most of the time we, uh, interpret, uh, "I will not remove your name from the book of life," as if it were a threat. And, uh, I think it's better to interpret it as a promise. He's simply promising. Um, but anyway, we looked at that in some detail. Um, then we started looking at the church, uh, in Philadelphia, and we didn't get all the way through that.
Uh, but we had an interesting discussion on, uh, modern-day Israel. We didn't go into a lot of detail, but we talked about it a little bit. Uh, God calls them a synagogue of Satan. Um, and then in, uh, chapter 3 verse 11, uh, we come to another timing passage. Um, so would somebody be interested in reading chapter 3 verses 7 to 13?
This [00:02:00] is the letter, uh, to the-- to Philadelphia again, and like I said, we only made it halfway. I think we made it to, uh... We made it through verse 10. So, uh, if somebody would, again, just read, uh, verses 7 through 13. I can. And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: "These things says he who is holy, he who is true, he who has the key of David, he who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens.
I know your works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can shut it for you have a little strength, have kept my word and have not denied my name. Indeed, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie. Indeed, I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.
Because you have kept my command to [00:03:00] persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. Behold, I am coming quickly. Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown. He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out no more.
I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God, and I will write on him my new name. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." Okay. And like I said, we stopped at verse 10. Uh, but if you look at verse 11, we have another timing passage, and I just thought-- and I wanted to try it in a unique way, but I wanted to review the timing because it really does matter, and how you interpret the timing is gonna go a long way in how you interpret the book.
So, um, [00:04:00] but the words that Jesus uses is, "I am coming quickly. Hold fast what you have so that none of y- so that no one will take your crown." So I suppose there's two questions we could ask. Um, in what sense is he coming? We'll get to that momentarily. And, uh, when he says, "I am coming quickly..." I made a, I made a friend.
No, you're-- he's fine, Willie, but... Um, when he says quickly, does he mean quickly? Um, so anyway, everyone turn to Revelation chapter 6 Everyone turn to Revelation chapter 6. And then I wanna read, uh, we may not read the whole chapter, but, um, Brock, if you'll start and just read, uh, the first two verses, and then if Anna, if you wanna read, fine.
If not, Mike will read. But just I wanna go around the table and just everyone read two verses at a time, and I'll... We might go through the whole thing or I might stop you halfway, but- Yeah. But everyone, before you do it, uh, or before you start [00:05:00] reading, pay really careful attention 'cause I'm gonna, I'm gonna ask a pertinent question here in just a sec.
So go ahead. "Now I watched when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures say with a voice like thunder, 'Come.' And I looked and behold, a white horse, and its rider had a bow, and a crown was given to him, and he came out conquering and to conquer." "When he opened the second seal, I heard the second living-"[00:06:00]
When he opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, "Come and see." So I looked, and behold, a pale horse, and the name on him who sat on it was Death. And Hades followed with him. And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth to kill with the sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth.
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our [00:07:00] blood on those who dwell on the earth?" And there was given
to each of them a white robe, and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed, even as they had been, should be completed also. And I looked when he broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood.
And the stars of the sky fell to the earth as a fig tree casts its unripe figs with- when shaken by a great wind. And the sky was split apart like a scroll when it was rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. We'll keep going. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is [00:08:00] seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come.
Who can stand?" Okay. So here's my question, and I want you-- And this is gonna be hard for some of us, and, and that's okay, but I want you to challenge yourself. But here's my question: When does this take place? When does this take place, and how do you know?
And you can answer, "This is what I've been taught." Um, but I'm gonna push a little bit, not, not to be mean or anything, but just... I- my big question is, how do you know when this takes place? 'Cause I know what most of us have been taught But, but where in the context, how in the world would we figure out or decide when this is happening?
So that's my question to you guys Yoshi has an[00:09:00]
answer, right? I do. Jesus. It's a good answer. Wrong answer. During the tribulation. During the tribulation. Okay. Early tribulation. How do you know that? Uh, verse nine. Uh, souls of-
In verse nine, where? "When he broke this fifth seal, I saw underneath
the altar the souls who were slain because of the word of God." Okay. All right. But have not Christians been martyred in all of church history? Yes. So why would we interpret that as the great tribulation? Here we go
Okay? And, and again, I'm not, I'm not here to argue. I'm just-- I wanna push you because I wanna be biblical. And, um, we need to get past what we've learned unless we can back it up [00:10:00] with scripture. And so what we did, for you guys that just walked in, it was we read Revelation 6, which is the horsemen and the beginning of the breaking of the seals.
And my question was: When does this take place? And my follow-up question was: How do you know? In chapter six In chapter six. Yeah.
So any, I- Any, anybody else? I think I know what you're going to say. Um, what, what I've- I need a pen ... understood is that this is the end of time. Okay. So then my question would be
Why? I mean, where, what, what puts us at the end of time? I first look at, um, verse 12 to support that, and 12 onward. Um, particularly things such as stars of heaven falling from the earth and, um, the [00:11:00] sky being receded as a scroll and
Yeah. Okay. Language such as that. All right, and that's good, but I did a word study, and, uh, I probably missed- I, I didn't want to step into it. I, I-- No, that's fine. No, that's a fair answer, and that's an honest answer. However, one of the things I told you guys at the beginning of this study is all the wording, and all the symbols, and all the weirdness that we find in this book has its source in the Old Testament.
So I appreciate what you said, the sun turning blood, the moon turning black, stars falling, but I've got... I didn't write down how many verses. Um, multiple verses that I went to the Old Testament that use the exact same language, and almost every one of these, in fact, I would argue every one of these you can determine by context has already taken place.
In other words, I'll give you one [00:12:00] example, um, and then I'll get to you, Mike. I'll give you one example. In Isaiah 13:9 and 10, um, and I'm just gonna read verses nine and 10: "Behold, the day of Yahweh is coming, cruel with fury and burning anger, to make the land desolate, and he will exterminate its sinners from it.
The stars of heaven in their constellations will not flash forth their light. The sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will not shed its blood." But if you go back to Isaiah 13:1, this is concerning Babylon, and this is a historic judgment of the kingdom of Babylon, and yet it's described with the exact same, what most people call apocalyptic language, as we read in Revelation chapter 6.
And again, I can give you the verses, but I can go on. Uh, you've got Egypt, you've got, uh, Tyre. I mean, there's all kinds of nations that God has already judged that don't even exist anymore, [00:13:00] and the same language is used throughout the Old Testament. But I l-- I told Mike he could go first 'cause he had his hand up.
Um, it was just in the beginning there where-
Talk about the lamb? Mm-hmm
That's Jesus, yes And then going to talk to-- So he came out to conquer, conquering and to conquer. So is that an indication that it al-
Chapter in Isaiah, was that? Sorry. 13. 13. Thank you. Um, not necessarily, uh, because it would-- it, it's only gonna happen once the seals are opened. So the question is, when are the seals being opened? So if I understood what you were saying right, Jesus is the lamb breaking the seals, and in a couple of weeks we'll get to- Do you know where I can look at a list of the prophecies in there?
uh, the controversy of who the [00:14:00] horsemen are. Okay. 'Cause there's-- It's all over the place in terms of who the horsemen are, and obviously I'll offer you what I think. But, um, there's no, like, universal agreement. But anyway. Rhoda.
I've talked with you before about things that are in here- It's okay. It's okay ... that are also Old Testament, and you've talked about The idea of now but not yet, now and not yet. Could this be one of those instances? I know where you're going, but maybe that the interpretation here
that it's at the end of time is one of those now in the Old Testament, but not yet. Um, I would say that, uh-[00:15:00]
You would have to determine that from the text. So if you're gonna take-- Because we have passages like that in the Old Testament, so I'll give you an example. The virgin will bear a child, okay? Um, it is most likely, and the Hebrew word will bear this out, that it was Isaiah's wife that bore the child, okay?
But Matthew saw something deeper in the text, and he applied it to Jesus. So you had a, kind of a now, a primary fulfillment, and then a secondary fulfillment. "I called my son out of Egypt," okay? In the Old Testament, when Hosea uses that, that was the people of Israel being called out of Egypt, and yet again, Matthew sees something unique in it, and he applies it to Jesus.
But Matthew's an apostle inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so he has something that we don't have, and he can do that authoritatively. But the only way we can do that is if we have really good reason from the text. Because I don't know of anyone that takes this text that [00:16:00] way, but I know a lot of people that take Matthew twenty-four that way.
They, they want it to be in the future, but they also see enough in the text that, uh, it seems to be taking place back then, so they'll say it has a dual fulfillment. But again, I would argue you gotta find that in the text. Mm-hmm. Okay? We're not inspired like the apostles, so we can't just And I know you're not saying this, but some people use it as a crutch to preserve their interpretation when there's no reason in the text to go there
I have a question. Yes, sir. Um, you said the same language in Isaiah 13 as is in Revelation nine? Uh, six verse 12. Six. Um, I'm trying to find it, so I might be misspoken, but isn't it in Revelation where it says Babylon the Great has fallen? Yes. I believe it, it uses language like that. Is that still talking about the same Babylon in Isaiah?
Because [00:17:00] I thought it was the Babylon meaning how corrupt and evil this generation is, that it's like Babylon. Yeah. I would argue that in the Book of Revelation, and when we get there, I'll try to make my case, but he's talking about Jerusalem, and he's referring to Jerusalem as Babylon. So that was actually going to be my, my next question, uh, 'cause Babylon's referred to as like a euphemism for
That refer to Isaiah 13 as well? Uh, contextually, I don't think so. Um, and we'd have to go back to the text and spend a little bit more time, but Isaiah has a whole section where he goes through just a host of nations that are judged. Chapter six. Egypt is judged, Babylon is judged, Tyre is judged, just a, a bunch of nations, and we can identify them historically.
Mm-hmm. And, and most commentators-- I mean, there's not a lot of dispute on what Isaiah is talking about, even amongst dispensational commentators. These are historical judgments that have already [00:18:00] taken place, and yet this is the language that God uses in describing these judgments. So why bring it up again?
Why would John bring it up in Revelation? Because I would argue that this language is the language of, of the end of a nation, not the end of the world. And so it's applied to nations because as far as God is concerned, it's the end of the nation. So for the nation, the world is ending. So he describes it in this language, and that's the language that John is using here.
But it has, but- The old covenant Israel did. Old covenant Israel, but Israel is renewed. And I would argue that the Israel that exists today has nothing to do with the Israel of the Bible. That's true. Well. It was Revelation 17 about the mys-mystery, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abino-abominations of the earth[00:19:00]
And that's talking about Jerusalem I would say yes That in Revelation it's, it, it's-- And, and I will build my case, but I will build it as we go through the, the book. Um, but again, I, I-- Your answers, you're thinking biblically. This language, it sure does seem like it's the language of the end of the world.
Um, I would also argue because I got not just Old Testament texts, but I also have New Testament texts. Jesus uses that same language, and He uses the language about Jerusalem. And we see a lot of what Jesus said in Matthew 24 as having taken place, like not one stone will be left upon another. We know that took place in 70 AD.
And we also know that Jesus says, "It'll happen before this generation passes away." And in, uh, the Book of Matthew, He uses that expression 13 times, this generation, this generation. [00:20:00] Matthew 24 is the only place that we say it doesn't refer to the then living generation. Nobody argues in any of the other instances.
But because this one, we've got all this-- And I'm just gonna use-- I don't like this, but for the sake of argument, we got all this apocalyptic language, moon falling, sun, you know, must be future. And what I'm trying to argue is, if you go back to the Old Testament, that language does not automatically equal future.
It simply equals judgment. Is it, is it meant to be literal for going back to, um, Babylon? Did the sun darken during that time, or is that, is this figurative language? I think it's figurative judgment language So do we have any clues in the Book of Revelation itself? I mean, it w- wouldn't we go there first?
So what are the clues in the Book of Revelation that we might go to? [00:21:00] Before we do that- Clues about what? The timing. I mean, are we talking about like previous- The timing of the seals. What's that?
Are we talking about previous clues or just in chapter six? Well, I would think clues might be previous, but I mean, if you find clues in chapter six, that would work, too. But before we do that, everyone turn to Matthew 26
And if somebody would like to read, uh, it's actually a, a, a long reading, but, uh, if you-- somebody would like to do it or we could split it up. But Matthew chapter 26, and I want you to read verses 57 through 65
And they that had laid hold of Jesus led him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. But Peter followed him afar off [00:22:00] unto the high priest's palace, and went in and sat with the servants to see the end. Now the chief priests, elders, and all the council sought false witness against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.
Yes, even though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. And the last came two false witnesses. And they said, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and build it in three days.'" And the high priest arose, and said unto him, "Answer you nothing? What is it which these witness against you?"
But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, "I adjure you by the living God, that you should tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God." And Jesus said unto him, "You have said it: nevertheless I say unto you, hereafter shall you see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy; what further need we have witnesses? Behold, now you have heard his blasphemy." Okay, so I want you to focus in on sixty-four. [00:23:00] Okay. And I, and I want you to treat this as if this is the first time you've read it. Jesus said to him... Who's the him?
Caiaphas. Caiaphas. Jesus said to him, singular, "You have said it yourself," singular. So he's still talking to- Caiaphas ... Caiaphas. "Nevertheless, I tell you," plural. Now who's Jesus talking to? Plural. Everybody. All of them. The audience. The whole council. Okay, the Sanhedrin, right? Contextually, hopefully you remember the story.
He's before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, okay? So Jesus said to him, singular Caiaphas, "You," singular Caiaphas, "have said it yourself. Nevertheless, I tell you," plural Sanhedrin, "hereafter you," plural Sanhedrin, "will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." So based on this passage, who's gonna see that?
Everybody Caiaphas [00:24:00] and the Sanhedrin. Okay? And yet look at the language he uses, "The Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power." Anybody know, or maybe your Bible tells you, where do we find that? What's the hyperlink?
Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13. Okay. Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13. Okay. So he applies Psalm 110 to himself. We've been going through the Book of Hebrews. How does the book-- how does the author of Hebrews apply Psalm 110 to Jesus?
Anybody remember? Because again, what I'm arguing for is we gotta let scripture interpret scripture. What'd you say?
He was on-- He's making His footstool. Yes, He does that, but give me more information. I mean, how, how does the author of Hebrews understand the application of Psalm 110 to Jesus? And I think [00:25:00] there's three things that I have said repeatedly from up there that the writer of Hebrews says about Psalm 110 and Jesus.
Anybody remember? And I-- If not, I'll, I'll give you what I'm looking for, and you can tell me if you agree or disagree, but... Was literally quoting David in it. Uh, "Yahweh said unto Adonai, 'Sit you at my right hand until I make your enemies my footstool.'" Okay, where's that? Psalm 110:1. Okay. But how does the author of Hebrews use it?
Oh. And, and let me just jump to it and, and give it to you 'cause I'm not trying to trap or trick. Uh, Jesus is King Jesus is high priest after the order of Melchizedek, and it all took place at his first coming. That's how the author of Hebrews uses that hyperbole. Hebrews one. Well, it's Hebrews chapter one.
It's multiple places in the book of Hebrews [00:26:00] where he quotes Psalm 110. But chapter one, he quotes it. Chapter six and seven, he, he cites it, uh, seven especially because he's comparing Jesus to Melchizedek. So my point being is the author of Hebrews uses the same psalm. He applies it to Jesus in arguing that he's king, he's on his throne, he's seated at the right hand of the Father.
He's also our great high priest after the order of Melchizedek, which is pivotal to the entire understanding of the book And it's true of Jesus now at His first coming. Jesus uses the same Psalm, and He applies it to Himself, and He tells Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, "You guys are gonna see this." Okay? Then He quotes Daniel.
Okay? He quotes-- Jesus quotes Daniel 7:13 and tacks it on to Psalm 110. Now, [00:27:00] if Psalm 110 is applicable to His first coming and to the chief priest and the council, they're gonna see it, why would we separate Daniel from it? Especially when we go back and we look at the context of Daniel 7, and what we have in Daniel 7 is we have the vision of the four kingdoms.
So you have Babylon, then you have Medeo-Persia, then you have the Greeks, and then you have Rome. And Daniel rehearses that in chapter seven. And then you have one like the Son of Man coming on the clouds to the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom. Now, in chapter two of Daniel, those kingdoms come right after one another The Babylons, Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and right after the Romans, [00:28:00] a kingdom cut without hands out of stone, a rock that crushes all the other kingdoms.
And in Daniel chapter seven, you see the Messiah, the Son of Man, receiving his kingdom I would argue there's no reason to separate the timing. Jesus comes into his kingdom, Psalm 110, and crushes Rome. He comes into his kingdom right after Rome. The church conquered Rome in two short centuries, okay? Jesus is using that same language, his coronation language, and he's telling Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, "You're gonna see this
Now jump back to Revelation chapter 1[00:29:00]
Look at verse four. And again, I'm just reviewing with you. We've covered this. I just want to review it because, uh, not everyone's made every Bible study, and it's just pivotal to-- even if you disagree with me, it's pivotal to understanding why I see it the way I do. Okay? But if you look at chapter one verse four, John to the seven churches that are in Asia.
Did those seven churches exist when John was writing the book? Yeah. Okay. Nobody from any view, from the four different views of interpretation, nobody disagrees with that. Maybe the historicist might, but nobody else does. "John, to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and [00:30:00] the ruler of the kings of the earth.
To him who loves us and released us from our sins by his blood, and he has made us to be a kingdom of priests to his God and Father, to him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming on the clouds." Where have we heard that language? Psalm. Daniel. Daniel and Matthew Who's gonna see it?
Caiaphas. "Behold, He is coming on the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him." Who pierced Him? Well, hmm. Yeah. The Roman, Romans. The Sanhedrin. They are responsible. Jesus said, "The blood of all the prophets will be upon this generation, because this generation is culminating all that sinfulness by crucifying me."
Okay? So [00:31:00] behold, He is coming on the clouds. Same passage, Daniel 7, that He quoted to the Sanhedrin, "And every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him." Think of how the original readers would have understood this. These are Christians being persecuted by the Jews
And all the tribes of the earth, which is a way of referring to Israel, will mourn over him. So it is to be. Amen. Now, honestly, what, what I'm asking you to do is if you could set aside everything you've learned before or everything you've been taught, would you really interpret this verse differently?
And what my argument is, is Jesus is telling us when these things are taking place. Okay? So let's keep going a, a little bit further. [00:32:00] Um. What-- So I have a question. Yes, ma'am. Um
Why, why are we being told this?
So Are you being told what? The, these things about the apoca- apocalypse. It's If it's interpreted the way you say, then it's a judgment, which I think nobody would say it isn't. But why are they telling it to us here? Uh, or the, the part about, um, coming with the clouds, Jesus coming with the clouds, that it's a reiteration of other things that were said.
So the question is, why is it-- Don't wanna use the word redundant, but, uh, just stressing [00:33:00] it more, or what is the reason for telling it to us? So you're talking about why John is using the language, is what you're asking? Right. Okay. I- In Revela- in this, uh, book. I think that it-- I think John is using the language he's using for what I've been, uh...
Because he's using hyperlinks, and he, he expects his reader, his readers to understand what he's quoting, and he wants them to understand this is the fulfillment of Daniel. This is what's taking place here. Okay. And on top of that, readers, you've read the gospel. And what did Jesus say? Well, Jesus quoted Daniel as well.
And what did he say? Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin was gonna see the fulfillment of this. And now I'm using the same thing. In other words, they're trying to tie it all together. Well, but he came back before this was written, didn't he? Who came back?
Well, Jesus. Jesus [00:34:00] came back such that Caiaphas- ... Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin could see him before this was
written. No. No. Screwing my son up. No, I would say, I, I would say that this was written- Thank you ... around 6-- I'll, I, I saw you. This was written around 67
AD. Okay. Okay. Revelation. Jesus-- I believe that this was fulfilled. Jesus came on the clouds in judgment- It's only four years away ... in 70 AD Yeah. Powerful. So this was written before- So I think-- I don't know. I'm-- Now I feel like you're kind of talking past each other a little bit. Thank you. But may- Maybe I'm wrong, though.
I could be completely misinterpreting your question. But if your presupposition is that Revelation is a future thing for us now- Uh-huh ... then I would agree it's not gonna make a lot of sense. But if you [00:35:00] consider and take literally what John said in chapter one, it's written to the seven churches. For some reason, there's this idea that, "Oh, that's not really what John meant.
He didn't really mean those seven churches." That's kind of the- Well, it's a lot of- ... the modern- ... uh, literal and figurative- Okay. Well, I, I, I- ... stuff that's going on ... I agree with you. But like Mike has been saying, we interpret scripture with scripture. So- Right ... if we wanna go down that path, why do we not take Matthew 24 literally?
So- Because Jesus talks about this generation. So Mike actually answered my question. Oh, okay. I know, uh, but thank you for- I, I guess what I was gonna say is it, it seems redundant to us. Mm-hmm. But to his audience, it would've been a reminder or a, a future thing for them. It would've been a warning to them, "This is what's coming."
Well, see, when you said this was probably written in 67 AD, like we had discussed earlier, [00:36:00] difference of view from others who put it in farther in the future- Mm-hmm ... farther beyond. But then you believe that He, or your interpretation of that is that Jesus came back in 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed, and that is the fulfillment of this.
Yes. I didn't take that as
that. Okay. Okay. So that makes
more sense that you would-- it would be interpreted that way. Okay. Mike had his hand up first, and then Yoshi, and then We'll just queue up. Big numbers. So it seems like to me it makes a lot of sense that what you're trying to point out that who this book originally was written for, they knew the Old Testament.
So all this makes a
lot more sense when you read it, and we don't know the Old Testament very well today. Where do you think the chain fell off? Like- Wh- where do I think the chain [00:37:00] fell off? Yeah. When, when-- I mean, this all makes a lot of sense
I've never actually really... I don't have a stand on it because I've never really,
yeah, explained it
Some point in the beginning, you would assume like they, they
First of all, they knew the old system, but also they saw it all happen
Right
Yeah. Like when, when- No, I understand the question. I just, I, I don't, I don't have an answer. Uh, I think that the original readers, and we looked at this on day one of the study, but I think when, when you read the beginning of the book, John expected his readers to understand what he was saying, and I think the original readers understood what he was saying.
So the wheels fell off sometime after the first century. Yeah. And- But so the[00:38:00]
I mean, in, in recent history, as far as where we're at, if you, if you go back through church history, you're gonna find these different views scattered throughout church history, okay? I'm, I'm reading a book right now, um, that gives all kinds of early church sources as well as medieval sources that would interpret these passages the same way I'm interpreting.
So it was not absent in the early church, okay? Um, and we could go in and we could make some, I think, pretty good [00:39:00] historical guesses. But if you think about it, the early church, uh, they didn't have a complete Bible because these things were being copied by hand, and different books went to different places, and it probably wasn't until the third or fourth century that most churches started getting an entire New Testament that they could start to read and study together.
So you've got all these churches with, you know, six or seven books here, six or seven books there, and they're trying to make sense of everything, but they're, they're missing part of it. Now, I'm not saying it wasn't written, 'cause I believe it was all written by 70 AD as well, but it wasn't collected by every local church.
Um, when you study church history, Revelation was one of the many books that was considered disputed for a period of time. So many of the churches may have just ignored it. Um, I don't know if that helps answer a little bit of your question. I don't know if anyone can completely answer your question. I mean, wouldn't you say, though, [00:40:00] that this interpretation or this view, um, was held as recently as, like, the mid-17th century with the Puritan fathers, right?
Many- Oh, it's been held throughout church history. Right. So I mean, it's not like it-- this is, like, something that no one has ever heard of. It's, like, somewhat recent history- Yeah ... within the last 400 years that, uh, Christians, particularly the Puritan fathers that especially immigrated to the N- to the Americas would have held a similar viewpoint to this.
Right. I think, if you want my personal opinion, the wheels fell off during the Second Great Awakening in this country. It's just a very different, uh- It's way less scary to read it when you read it with, with these eyes and like who hasn't
Very
Wants people to be scared though- Yeah ... because then people take more of an interest Yeah. But who? Yeah[00:41:00]
That's super
But like it seems like you're, you're referring to it all the time
You know, w- a, a basic doctrine that most evangel- evangelical Christians share is what's called the persecutivity of scripture, and it basically says that scripture can be understood. It's meant to [00:42:00] be understood. And yet none of us seem to agree on, on what it means. We agree we ought to be able to understand it, but- Yeah
you know, some of it's sin, uh, some of it's our presuppositions, some of it is stubbornness, some of it is, um... I can't tell you how many times I've gone to my knees, I'm like, "God, why is this so hard? Why is there so much disagreement, you know, when it looks so clear to me?" But you know what? I love my brother who says it's so clear to him, and he sees it different than me.
And so yeah, it's frustrating. But anyway, Yoshi, if, if you remember your question. It's seven part. Seven part. Walk of land. Okay. Um, my, my Bible says the Book of Revelation was written sometime between AD 94 and AD 96. I have a note from your, one of your sermons said it was 67 AD, Nero's Domitian. He says it's 66 AD
So she's six and a half? So everything he's [00:43:00] talking about is just three and a half years before everything happens. So that's when he says it's coming soon, that's- Yeah ... what you're saying? Okay, so Matthew written 50 to 60 AD, does that sound right? Uh, okay. 'Cause I'm trying to put, like, from the m- from the book, the Gospel of Matthew to the Book of Revelation, and getting the Bible compiled enough to go out into the world for them to read all of this, by the time you get that done, you, you got probably less than three and a half years before people are getting Revelation and- But he was just saying that it was highly likely that it was-- the Bible wasn't complete when it was distributed.
So let, let me clarify. I, I think the Bible, the New Testament canon was complete by 70 AD, okay? And for most scholars, the, the only book that they would put outside of 70 AD for-- I, I don't know about most, but some, is there are those who hold that Revelation was not written until 93, [00:44:00] 95 AD, okay? Um, I don't know.
I, I don't wanna repeat myself every week or we won't get anywhere, but we did talk about that in some detail in, I think, the first study. Sure. So there are two main views of when Revelation was written, either the early date, which is around 67, okay, 66, 67, or the late date, which is around 92 to 95, okay?
And depending on where you land on the date, like if you're solidly convinced that Revelation was not written until the 90s, then what I'm saying is wrong because that would color the way you interpret the book, okay? But what I argued for is the internal evidence of the Book of Revelation argues that the temple's still standing, the Jews still exist as a nation, and it applies the Old Testament in a way that we ought to be able to understand.
Um, and I think there is good, uh, external evidence for an early date as well. But yes, that's another thing that [00:45:00] we don't agree upon. So in- But-- Go ahead. In Matthew 24, when he says there will rise many false Christs and false prophets, and they'll show great signs and wonders, he's talking about after he dies- Mm-hmm
before the destruction. Right. Yoshi, what you, what you read in the beginning of, uh-
When they, they decided that the Book of Revelation was written. If you look to the beginning of your Bible, you can see who compiled it, and you might be able to tell what their view actually was on all of that. Okay. Oh, you mean the editors of the- Yeah, yeah ... the version? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. And there would be motivation there, right?
Like Pastor said. There could-- Yeah, there could be. If, if the book was written after 70 AD, well then it's gonna point to this worldview, this view of the scriptures- Yeah ... versus otherwise. [00:46:00] And I, I'm gonna give another example of that in a minute, but- And you and I have the same Bible ... I want to get- For a confirmation.
Yes. Mine's actually not deviating too far from here. It's, um, in Matthew twenty-six, uh, talking about seventy AD. Um...
Um, i-if-- so if Matthew, uh, at-- in front of the Sanhedrin, Jesus is referring to 70 AD, um, would that not demand that all of the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas are still around in 40 AD? It would demand that most of them were, yes. Not-- I don't think it demands all of them, but- Well, if we're, if we're taking it literally-
and we know from Josephus that Caiaphas was there ... shouldn't it be all of them? What's that? If we're taking it literally, shouldn't it be all of them? No, because I think if you- That's- ... if you go back to-- The, the plural you is vague enough, vague enough- Okay ... and used in scripture enough that it doesn't have to mean every single person in the room.
It's just most of you sitting here are gonna see this, and we know from Josephus that Caiaphas [00:47:00] was alive in 70 AD and would've witnessed it, and so. But let me give you another example as, as we're going. Um, look at verse, um Chapter 1 verse 19. And this is interesting, and this will tell you that even-- That what I'm trying to demonstrate that is even translators have their biases.
Okay? So if you look at, uh, the Book of Revelation 1:19, Jesus is commanding John, "Therefore write the things which you have seen," okay, "and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things." Okay? Now, what's interesting about this is most people agree the things you have seen, that would be chapter one.
Uh, the things which are, that would be the letters to the seven churches, chapters two and three. Um, and the things that will take [00:48:00] place after these things, that would be chapter four through the end of the book. Okay? But here's what's interesting. There's a word that's not translated in most of your Bibles.
So I'm just curious, Yoshi, if you would, uh, would you read verse 19 from your Bible? "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter." Okay. Uh, Brock, I think you have a different version as well. Read your version. "Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are, and those that are to take place after this."
Okay. Um, what version do you have, Mike? ESV. ESV. Okay. Anthony, what version do you have? New King James. All right. Read your version. Oh, this is different. "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this." Okay. What version do you have? New American Standard.
Okay. The right one. Uh. Okay. Well, they're missing a word, [00:49:00] and the Greek word that they're missing in their translation is mello. And mello means about to take place, or soon to take place, or is going to immediately take place. But you don't see any of that in your translations. Now, if you want me to show you the Greek, I can prove that I'm not making this up.
It's in the Greek text, but it's not being translated. So is that adding a fourth type or in replace of, um, which will take place after this? Which will take place after this leaves it vague as to when it will happen. Okay. If you translate the word mello- Then that was it. Yeah ... it's gonna take place immediately after this.
Okay? So what Jesus is saying is chapter one is the things you've seen. Chapter-- Or chapter one is what has happened. Chapters two and three is what you're looking at. But beginning in chapter four, those are the things that are gonna take place after this, but they're gonna take place immediately after this.
So we have another clue in the text- [00:50:00] Oh ... of when this is gonna take place. Now, turn back finally to chapter three.
And in the letter to Philadelphia, we read these words. Look at verse 11, "I am coming quickly. Hold fast what you've seen so that none of-- no one will take your crown." And it's Jesus' words, "I am coming quickly." And he uses this Greek word that means quickly. And everywhere you look it up, and I found it 15 times, uh, in the Greek New Testament, and I, again, I can give you the verses, but every time you find it, it means quickly.
It means right away. And the only time we debate this word is if it falls into a quote-unquote eschatological verse. Okay? But every time you use it, it means quickly. I'll give you some examples. [00:51:00] In Matthew 5:25, "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you're with him on the way." Now, is Jesus saying, "Wait 2,000 years to make a friend if you're on your way to, to the court"?
No. Do it right now. Okay. Matthew 28:7-8, "Go quickly," this is Jesus talking to Mary Magdalene. "Go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead." Actually, it's not Mary Magdalene, it's the group of women. But, "Go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead. And behold, he is going ahead of you into Galilee."
Now, is he telling them when-- is the risen Christ telling those ladies, "Give it a few days, and then go"? No, do it right now. That's what the word means. Um, Mark 9:39, "But Jesus said, 'Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in my name and be able soon afterwards, quickly, to speak evil of me.'"[00:52:00]
Every time you see this word in the New Testament, it means right away 1:19? 5:25 and then Matthew 28:7-9. Those were the, the Matthews. So my Matthew 1:19 says, uh, "Write down what you have seen and what- You mean your Revelation 1:19. No, the 1:19 where he says, uh, "Write down what you have seen, the things that are happening and the things that will happen."
It says, "The things that have already begun to happen." Your what, what translation is that? NLT New Living. That's a paraphrase. That's a good tran- That's not a bad translation. But we saw how many times we didn't see it. Yeah. Okay. That's the same word, this "quickly," that Jesus uses in Revelation 3:11, "I am coming quickly."
But what we wanna do is it means immediately everywhere else it's [00:53:00] used, but here it has to mean 2,000 years or more 'cause He hasn't come yet, according to the futurist translation. What translations do you find the four translation? Right now I've only found it in one- Thank you ... and it's a paraphrase, the New Living Translation.
So you only find it if you read it in the New-
I forgot it was there. And as I was preparing for this evening, I was reading it, I'm like, "Wait, that's not in my trans-" Yes. So, so far I've only been able to find it in the Greek I haven't been able to find it in Chinese English translation So we need to be able to reach
I would say it's, it's very important Just to agree And no one Shall we?
I mean, that seems like they're taking away words out of the battle[00:54:00]
For, but I mean- Well, I'm sorry, it's almost our civics It-- Maybe it's the, the whole winsome attitude of like- All right ... we have to be kind. Go back 'cause we're running out of time. What time is it? Yeah, we're good. Go back to Revelation 1:3. Let me give you another example. Ooh. Revelation 1:3: "Blessed is he who reads, and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things that are written in it, for the time is near."
Okay, now this same word, and we'll look at these verses in a minute, but these, the same word is used in chapter 22 about Jesus coming. Soon. And again, if you do a word study, every time it's used, it means near, okay? It's used of distance, and it's [00:55:00] used of time, and it's also used of conceptually, like the kingdom of heaven is near, okay?
Or draw near to God. But even conceptually, draw near to God, that means get as close as possible, all right? And every time it's used in the Bible, and I've got the verses for you, it means a short period of time. And the only time it's debated is if it's an eschatological passage, and then what we have to do is completely change the meaning of the word.
And you can, you can go home. There's all kinds of lexicons online. Um, I don't recommend Strong's only because it's, it's a layman's lexicon, and it's not very critical, but you can get critical lexicons on- online. The word means near. You're talking about packages Uh, taku was the first one I was talking about.
Now I'm talking about the Greek word engu- engous or engizo. One is the [00:56:00] adverb, one is the verb. Okay? Now go ahead and turn to Revelation 22:10
And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." Same word, um Again, its usage throughout the Old Testament means near. Soon. One says at hand. At hand. That's another really good way of, of, of saying that. But to take a futurist view Or even a, uh, um, idealist view because most idealists, like I said, see the Book of Revelation divided into seven parts, starts at the beginning or Jesus' first coming, ends with Jesus' [00:57:00] second coming.
It is to... I really-- I hope I come across humble. But if... Okay. That was a devious- You're probably not. That was a devious laugh. You're, you're playing grammatical gymnastics if you try to stretch that out to 2,000 years. I mean, how else could John say, "This is gonna take place in your lifetime," than to use these words, to quote scripture that's been quoted by other people, Jesus himself saying, "Caiaphas, you're gonna see it"?
The word, um, I don't-- I didn't get turned quickly enough, but you're talking about verse seven? In where? Chapter 22. No, I'm talking in chapter 22, I'm talking about verse 10. Verse 10. Okay. Well, yeah. Well, [00:58:00] it's in verse 10:2, plus in, um, chapter one, verse three, and seven in 22. Talks about the prophecy. How is that word being used in those instances?
The prophecy- Of this book ... prophecy of this book. Yes. Is it talking about foretelling or is it talking about future? How is that word used? What's the definition? I, I would, I would say in this book, both. I, I'm not sure I, um,
understanding the difference between foretelling and- Okay. Foretelling means you're speaking with scripture, right? Okay. And you're prophesying in that case or you're predicting. Okay. And I-- then I would-- in-- with those categories, I would say it's predicting. This is all predicting? Yes. Okay. So, [00:59:00] um, "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy,"
the prediction. Mm-hmm. Uh, verse seven, "I am coming soon. Blessed is one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book," the prediction. Mm-hmm. So, okay. So again, they are predicting what's going to happen in 70 AD. Yes. So when John wrote this book, the events were yet future. Okay. Right. But they were soon to come.
Right. 'Cause that's, that's what I learned that the prophecy was yet to come, but that was with the view of Revelation 19
So, so just so you know, John was not a preterist. John was a futurist. Okay. Because he wrote in 67 AD, and it hadn't taken [01:00:00] place yet. For a few years he was. Yeah. So, um, so not to beat a dead horse, but I felt it would be good to review this because it's going to color everything else that we look at in the book.
And I will simply leave you with this challenge, and I think we're gon- I think the next time we meet, uh, because I think I've given you enough on the churches that you can look at the last two churches and interpret it. I think we'll begin chapter four. So we're gonna jump to chapter four, which is the scene of Jesus in heaven.
But, um-
The challenge I want to leave you with is this. How else could John or Jesus, in this case, communicate that these things were gonna happen immediately other than what he wrote?[01:01:00]
So, and I know for some of us it's, um, a paradigm shift. Geez. Okay? Um- I'll help you, buddy. My whole world's upside down. Help you through it. Get used to it, buddy. I'm here for
you. All right. So any last minute questions before I ask Matt- Sorry ... who has been mean to me all evening- What? ... um, to pray. I wasn't being mean to you. I was? Okay. 'Cause I left you in the lion's den? Yes. Yes, ma'am. So- And then Rich. Ladies first, that's the only reason I- Okay. Would you say then that the main debate, debate that's covered in Revelation is the timeline debate?
Or is there something secondary to that, that we're gonna get to, into that changes if you view it as happening at that age? No, I think it's, I think it's the timing. Once you land on the timing, then I think things fall into place. And it becomes very straightforward. I think so. Okay. I mean, don't get me wrong, there are still some things we don't [01:02:00] understand.
Okay. We're gonna get to the horsemen in a couple of weeks. Mm-hmm. There is even amongst preterists, there's so many options on who these horsemen are. Jesus. I mean, they're really hard to identify. Um, I will do my best to try to allow scripture to interpret scripture, um, but there's not a lot on the horsemen.
I mean, Ezekiel talks about horsemen, and we'll go back and we'll look at that and, um, but I think that what Ezekiel lays out, what we find in the book of Revelation, is actually the opposite. In other words, it's a twist on what Ezekiel's saying. Um, so yes, there are more difficulties to come, but I think this helps us understand the book.
Sorry. I have a slight secondary question. Why do you think that John uses so much, you know, really hard to understand figurative language, whereas it's not really seen as much in other books? Um, for two reasons. I [01:03:00] don't think they had as much problem as we do. I don't think it was all that figurative to them.
But also, this was a church under persecution, and I think he was writing in a way to purposely be cryp- cryptic- That's right ... to protect those reading it and what he was saying. Yes. How about he's playing both sides? I think there's something to that
Well, I just, I find it interesting how like when he uses figurative language, even in the first chapter, he's using many different figurative forms to describe like the same people, like the pastors or like, like the horsemen or... And he takes things and twists them in ways that for people back then who knew the scriptures really well, they might have been able to understand.
But nowadays, I feel like people can, especially 'cause we have so many outside influences now, it's really easy to take them in so many different ways, when back then it would've been like, "Oh, that's so obvious." Y- yeah. No, I, I agree with that, and I've argued in the past, and then we'll get to Rich, that it's [01:04:00] 'cause we don't know our Old Testaments.
And it really boils down to we have been taught. When we first got married, what did I tell you? "Why are you reading your Old Testament? We're New Testament Christians. Stop." Yes, stupid Mike Munoz, I will admit that, actually instructed his wife to stop reading the Old Testament. Okay?
It's a lot easier to go through it in a year that way. What's that? It's a lot easier to go through the Bible in a year that way. It is. You'd do it three times. And he said it to me very humbly. Something tells me I didn't. That's another shock. Here, here, here. Rich, go ahead. Say something nice, Rich. Okay[01:05:00]
Well, I will simply remind you of what I said during the sermon. This has come up in multiple debates. I've listened to multiple debates where, uh, on the veracity of the Bible, where they will bring up passages like this, and they will tell the Christian that basically the Bible's not true because Jesus didn't come.
And for most Christians that I've seen debate this, it throws them off their game because they ha- they have to now deal with this. It's not easy to deal with because you gotta twist word meanings, honestly. Okay? Yeah. Sometimes you don't know if it's a euphemism, other times you do, and I would argue that these words are used enough, they're not used euphemistically.
Right. Okay? I've only heard one debate where the guy said, "No, he came in 70 AD, and that's what he's referring to," and the debate just kept going. [01:06:00] And the unbeliever was the one mystified and confused and confounded and Okay. I promise this one should be easy. You, you said preterist twice. I thought you were a partial preterist.
I- Okay ... so, and I think I said that at one point. I will simply use the word preterist, but I am a partial preterist, and we talked about the distinctions.
You said that at first. Yeah. Yeah. All right, Matt, why don't you close us? If you have more questions, by all means, stay and ask All right, let's pray. Gracious God and heavenly Father, uh, just thank you for this time together. I thank you for this group and for what a blessing it is for us to be here to, um, to ask questions, to share, to laugh, and kinda jab one another, but also to learn about your Word.
And God, I just ask that as we go from here tonight, that, um, that you'll give us ears to hear and eyes to see, and open our [01:07:00] hearts
to, uh, what your Word truly has to say. And we ask all these things in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. Come quickly, Lord. And he did. I'm here for you. You missed it. Born in the wrong-
