They are one and the same. All right, let's close in prayer and then we'll take some questions. Heavenly Father, we wade into controversial grounds. and we do so not because we desire to be contentious. Lord, we have great respect for smart scholars, smart pastors, godly people who went before us, perhaps teaching these other things. Lord, we're not considering them as enemies, and yet, Lord, even as we remember the Apostle Paul rebuking the Apostle Peter so that the cause of the gospel would not be impeded, likewise, we wade into this contentious ground because we desire to have a biblical theology so that we would have effective Christian living. Lord, we know that we need to wrestle with these things. We can't stick our head in the sand because systems have let us down in the past. We can't stick our head in the sands because we're afraid of controversy. Lord, at the end of the day, we want to wrestle with the word of God. We want to be like Jacob who grabbed hold and refused to let go until he was blessed. Lord, we want to be Israel, those who wrestle with God and who see you face to face and who live out of what we have seen. Lord, at the same time, we want to be humble. We want to recognize that, Lord, we see through a glass darkly. And so while we wrestle and while we speak, while we dare to speak in specifics, Lord, we also just acknowledge for now we see only in part, but then we shall see face to face. So Lord, give us wisdom as we live between those tensions. And Father, by your Holy Spirit, open our eyes to see what you'd have us to see and to live according to it. We ask in Jesus' name, amen. Amen, all right, let's have some questions. Whew, mercy. Paul? Just see if I've got it straight in my head. In Revelation, or in 11.2, when he was measuring the temple, and he said not to measure the outside. In my Bible, he said it is reserved for the Gentiles. In the Old Testament, you were either a Jew, a follower of the Lord, or you were a non-believer, you were a Gentile. in this coming, because it's in the New Testament, I take it then a Gentile then is basically just a non-believer of the world, and those protected inside now are Christians, not per se Jews. Right, right. Of course, we would even remember, for sake of clarity, that probably the majority of people reading this letter were Gentiles. So it certainly does not mean, again this is symbolic language, he certainly does not mean to say that what we're going to discover is that at the end of tribulation the church is all Jewish, which would be a funny thing to write to largely Gentile churches living in the first century. So no, it's again using symbolic language. We're painting in colors at this point borrowed from Ezekiel chapter 40. And now remember, the whole city was considered holy by the Jews. Jerusalem was the holy city, right? You've heard that before. It's the holy city. The whole city is being trampled, okay? But basically what we're told is that through this trampling, what is revealed is an inner sanctuary, a naos, and an outer court though and this is uh... this is the sort of the weed in the weeds this is the sheep in the boats this is you know many will say to me lord lord minute through tribulation uh... and trampling the church will be divided into true church and false church and the false church will fall away the true church will emerge and be strengthened in her witness. That's what's being said there. Yeah, other questions? So Paul, when it says about where the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make organs and overcome them and kill them, so does that mean at that point there's no more church, there's no Christians even alive? No, it doesn't, again, we're in symbolic language. I think, and all scholars will agree, it doesn't matter, and I shouldn't say all scholars, Those scholars that we've been looking at, who I think would all fall within the category of reformed evangelical, Morris, Carson, Hendrickson, they all agree, and I'm sure you've read this in your commentaries. This is not to say that every single Christian on the earth is killed. To say that the church is overcome and conquered is to say that there is a widespread, all-inclusive, fiercely intense persecution of Christianity and the visible church is thoroughly put down. But the Apostle Paul says, we who are left, indicating there will be some. If you read the Apocalypse of Isaiah, they speak of this day, they speak of like, out of a ruined city, the song of the remnant emerges. You get this idea that, imagine a city that's been decimated by a nuclear bomb, and you think, wow, no one could have survived that, and then out of the shelter, out of the basement of some high rises, comes a small group of people, and then over there, a small group of people. Did anyone see that funny movie, The Day After Tomorrow? And it's not funny, as in humorous, I just mean. It was a bit quirky. But the idea being that there is this catastrophic climate change and the city of New York fell into the ice age and that they thought for sure no one had survived. And then at the end, the climax of the movie is these helicopters come and people come out from the basements of all these cities, of all these large high-rise buildings and a remnant of people emerges out of a thoroughly destroyed city. That exact imagery is in the Apocalypse of Isaiah. So I don't think we're to assume that every Christian will be killed, but the church as a whole will be put down. Other questions, Gary? In verse 13, it says at the moment, this is after the rapture. at the moment there was a great earthquake and a tenth of the city fell and 7,000 people were killed in the earthquake and the rest were terrified in grave glory to the God of heaven. Does that imply that after the rapture they still got a chance here or something? No. Because they're finally getting the light. But I guess we're all... I forgot to mention that. Everyone sees it at the end, right? Yeah, I forgot to mention that. Again, and when I say all scholars, meaning I'm sure you could find somebody on the internet who'll disagree with this or whatever, but I mean, the main, there's not a lot of disagreement about this point. No one suggests that gave glory to God means they became Christians. That phrase is used throughout the Old Testament just simply means, for example, Nebuchadnezzar gave glory to God, but he didn't become a Christian. He didn't get saved. For instance, when it says every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, some of that is like, You know, when Jesus comes back, even if you've hated him up until the moment of his coming, when you see him, what will you do? You will fall at his feet and say, Jesus is Lord. Does that mean you just got saved? No. No, no, the time is closed. It's sealed. We've already had the full number of the elect sealed. Right? It doesn't take a rocket science or a terribly inspired interpreter to suggest that the last elect person being saved, the sealing of the elect, and the removal of our protection are simultaneous. Amen? And no one gets saved after that. Now the fact that they fall on their faces before the coming of the Lord means only what you would think it means. Anyone in the Bible who sees the Lord falls on their face and says, you are God. That doesn't mean they became a believer or follower. Opportunity has passed for that. I mean, think about it. There will be no atheists at the final judgment, will there? When everyone's lined up about to be sent to hell, there's not going to be anyone going, you know, I don't believe in this whole thing. I still think that aliens from another planet seated panspermia still seems like a great idea to me. No, even Richard Dawkins is going to be on his face before the Lord saying, holy, holy, holy. Right? No. No. Yes? The question I have is for verse 11 where the breath of life from God enters them. Does that refer to Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones? Yes, certainly. I referenced it as a reference to Genesis in creation, but it is equally true to suggest it's a Valley of Dry Bones reference, of course. Yeah, this is what's called typology, right? So the original meaning of the Valley of Dry Bones is not this, right? So when the prophecy of the Dry Bones was given originally, it was not referring to this. It was referring to the national restoration of Israel, right? That how could Israel, who's been scattered and twice been swallowed by a giant empire and disseminated and twice destroyed, that this nation shall live again? Who would believe such a thing? That was the original meaning, but it's called typology, meaning it sets the stage for a greater and more ultimate fulfilling in the manner or in the trajectory of that. So when the church is thoroughly and totally decimated and destroyed, who on that day, when you're sending a gift to your neighbor going, finally, we're rid of those crazy Christians, civilization has spit out its sand, it's all pearl from now on, and we're gonna go on and have a great run here, we've taken the wrench out of the works and watched the machine of human civilization chug forward now, and in that moment, would anyone believe that you're gonna see the church resurrected and vindicated? No way, right? So in that same manner, typology. Yes? Let me ask you a question then. Oh, so you have a question, yeah. Yes, oh wait, Brian's coming with a microphone. It's right up here. We all want to hear what you have to say, Rosemary. Go ahead. By the way, people in other countries are going to listen to your question right now. I don't want to give you any... I've totally forgotten the question. No, it's good. Okay, when we're saved and we're taken to heaven, I've been told by other pastors that others can be saved once everybody's been taken to heaven. Is that true? No, but I agree it's frequently told. That's the substance of Rob Bell's argument in the book Love Wins, that there's a second chance that hell will eventually be emptied because people will repent in hell. There's much in that that appeals to me as a human being. There's nothing in that that appeals to me as a person who reads the Bible. We could have a very long conversation about why that's a very old heresy that can trace its roots back to origin. But the long and the short of it is that is certainly and unfortunately not true. Elect person is saved. This is another great conversation about election, predestination, moral responsibility. That's a really long conversation. I'll give you the short version of it, okay? We're all dead in our sins. The effect of sin is so corrosive on the human soul that no one without help from God is able to fully recognize the grace of God and Jesus Christ, okay? So God, in essence, there's an act of illumination that occurs before decision, that God has to open your eyes so that you can see what is offered to you in Jesus Christ, such that you can grab hold of that and claim it by faith. Now you say, well wait, hold it now then. Without help from God, if we're not able to lay hold of grace, then are people morally responsible for the decisions that they make? And the answer to that is yes. The Bible says two things which are very difficult to hold in tension. People are morally responsible for their decisions and therefore the wrath of God when it falls on them is entirely just. People choose. People exercise moral responsibility and choose evil. God doesn't make anyone do murder or do adultery or do whatever. It says that, and then it also says it requires help from God to see what he has given us in Jesus Christ. Spurgeon describes those as lines which seem to travel so perfectly parallel as to never cross. He says, but that's just because we live a very finite life, we have a very finite perspective on things. He says they ultimately do cross in eternity. Meaning it's akin to the idea that you cannot really explain to a fish what it's like to be a bird. These only live trapped inside the confines of water. Just because the fish can't fully understand what it is to fly doesn't mean that flight is impossible or irrational. It just means it's probably slightly beyond the realm of his understanding. Similarly, it's very difficult for people like us, trapped in space and time as we are, who live very short lives, to understand how it can be true simultaneously that we require help from God to recognize what he's done in Jesus Christ, and yet be held morally responsible for not choosing Jesus Christ. Very complicated. Nevertheless, that's, you know, that's the Bible. You can go to, the Bible says, the spirit and the bride say come. Let whosoever will, whosoever will may come. So there's a sense in which we can come. But then it also says, unless our eyes are open, we were all dead in our sin, by nature children of wrath. It says these two things simultaneously. It's also very difficult to understand how God can be perfectly loving and yet simultaneously perfectly just and holy. Right? It's very difficult to see how those things could be reconciled. Now, we celebrate that they are reconciled in the cross, and that they are reconciled in eternity, but in our day-to-day experience, it's impossible, almost, to think of how God could be holy. If God is holy, He hates sinners. If God is loving, He loves sinners. How does that work exactly? And these are complicated issues, which you really have to thoroughly read the Bible to comprehend. And it takes a lot of thought, a lot of energy, and a lot of humility to just say, I'm not sure I understand all that. Here's what I know, whosoever will may come. Meaning, there has never been a case when God has blocked someone's attempt to find forgiveness in Jesus Christ, never. Whosoever will may come. Yet salvation is always grace. There's no one who's worked it out on their own. There's no one who's solved the puzzle and said, aha, I see, Jesus, thanks. No, it's always grace, right? Complicated. Other questions? Maybe one that's not like that. I just wanted to draw attention to verse 5 and 6, the powers of Elijah and Moses that the church witness has in this time. Shouldn't we be looking forward to that rather than Just going on and looking forward to the destruction in verse 7. Absolutely. No, absolutely. So the question, if you didn't hear it, was, isn't the highlight of this story the thing we should be most optimistic about? This promise that, you know, through this process of trampling and tribulation, there's this promise that as the church is sanctified and separated, it's also empowered. Amen. Absolutely. Yeah, I don't think anybody should or would be looking forward to the when our job is done we all die part. That sounds bad and that sounds unpleasant. You know Jesus didn't look forward to the cross, did he? Do you remember he was in the garden and he prayed, you know, Father if it's possible for this cup to pass from me, nevertheless not my will. That should be the prayer of the Christian, right? Father, You know, I know Pastor Paul was all agitated about the pre-tribulation rapture, but if that's still a live option, bring it on! Yet nevertheless, not my will but yours be done. To be perfectly honest with you, I've said this, well actually, smarter people than I have said it and then I stole it, right? Well that's all good theology is stolen. If you're inventing theology, you're Creighton Harrison, right? So all good theology is stolen, but somebody far smarter than I has said that this North American obsession with the rapture, is no more than the projection of American exceptionalism onto eschatology. This idea that we are special. We are special, aren't we? And it's an expression of the American incapacity and incomprehension of suffering. I've said this before, a very famous theologian, T. Lickey, did a lecture tour of America. As he was about to depart back for Europe, he was asked to comment on what he saw the great strengths and weaknesses of the American Evangelical Church. Said some things about the strengths. In terms of weakness, he said they have absolutely no capacity to process suffering. Right? Americans poop rainbows, and they have for 200 years Right? Everything comes up sunshine. And now that that's starting to change, there's been no developed capacity for processing suffering. And we see that in all manner of theological distortion. Paul, was it back in the... Yeah, you're on. Okay, was it back in the 70s that there were so many books out on the rapture and everything else? And I don't know if there's as much today, but what precipitated that back in the 70s, and then why isn't it in vogue now? Well, a couple things. There's something called millennialism. which is the observation by those who observe theology over the historical timeline, that at millennial moments, meaning some significant event plus a thousand years, there is hysteria around systems and eschatology, trying to figure out when the Lord's coming back. So as we moved into the 20th century, There was a lot of hysteria around the number 2,000 must be magical. There must be a system which will allow us to find out that the Lord is coming back in the year 2,000. For example, when I was in Bible college, really the climax moment of American dispensational theology was in May of 1993. In May, see because everyone had figured out that the seven year, you take 1993, you add seven to it, what do you got? Year 2000, right? And 2000 must be magical because of all the verses in the Bible that don't say anything about it. And so we took the year, you know, 1993, we added seven to it. And so literally in May of 1993, I don't know if you remember, but CNN would like show, there were churches in Korea, in South Korea, where they sold all their stuff and they went up into the mountains and had praise and worship time, because it was going to be May, right? May of 1993. It was going to be the rapture. So there was a lot of hysteria around May 1993, and then there was a lot of hysteria around year 2000. Hal Lindsey was at the forefront of this. Hal Lindsey took the basic theological schema of the Schofield Study Bible, turned it into a book with charts and predictions and all this kind of stuff. And it all just kind of collapsed and was revealed as utter silliness. Dispensationalism had a brief run where it was the majority of evangelicalism in North America. It was never an adopted position of our denomination, for example. You know, the great, like, Shields. Shields was a vehement anti-Scofieldist. He used to call it the Scofielders and all that. He was vehemently opposed to them. And Spurgeon was opposed to it. Well, actually, sorry, it would be too much to say that Spurgeon was opposed to it. It was virtually unknown in Spurgeon's day, but Spurgeon would not have supported it. His system of eschatology would have been counter to that. It had a brief heyday, all that is to say. It was certainly fanned into flame by feelings of American exceptionalism, feelings of prosperity. But our generation, the only people who really still hold to it are baby boomers, to be perfectly honest with you. Baby boomers have grown up without any, they've always had what they wanted. Baby boomers are like the spoiled child of demographics, aren't they? They're such a big group that everybody gives them what they want. They've known, they're the only generation that's grown up with ever-increasing prosperity and peace. And so wouldn't you expect these sort of bizarre theological interpretations from the one generation in human history who's never experienced suffering? And that's what you have. On the other side of it, Theologians who were not a part of it, like for instance, you can't find any rapture advocates outside of North America. How could you? Talk to an Ethiopian Coptic Christian and try to sell him on the idea that Christians will know nothing but peace and prosperity and then the rapture will happen and then the tribulation will start. He's like, then the tribulation will start. Everybody I know has been killed for being a Christian. I can't get a job. I got friends who have been in prison and in solitary confinement for the last 15 years. This isn't the tribulation. This is peace and prosperity. Where do I sign up to become a Muslim? You can't sell this to anyone else. Paul, I was just wondering if you could elaborate on the Ark of the Covenant was seen in the temple. What would you like me to say about that? I don't know, just what's... I'm not laughing, I'm coughing, sorry. Just the significance of... I couldn't remember if we said something about that last week. So, the Ark of the Covenant appearing in the Temple. Again, in symbolic language, the Ark of the Covenant represents what? The presence of God with His people. So this is the end, this is where the Temple of God... What is the Temple of God? It's the place where God's presence dwells with his people. So it's piling up of symbolism, it's piling up. It's a way of saying the church is now prepared to be the dwelling place of God, right? Now, there's a tradition, it's not biblical, it's apocryphal, but there's an apocryphal tradition in Jewish apocalypticism that Jeremiah, during the time of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, took the Ark of God and hid it, and it will remain hidden until the true elect of God emerge, and then God himself will bring it out of hiding. In fact, I think there was a fictional Christian novel written recently about that, wasn't there? Yes, what was the name? That's a Joel Rosenberg book, isn't it? Yeah, isn't it? No. Anyway, there was a popular Christian book not so long ago based on that very idea. And whether that was in the mind of, or whether we're to understand that as part of the antecedent imagery, I don't know. Certainly we can say it's a piling on of imagery. Temple and ark are both symbols of God's presence with his elect people. Yep. Oh, there you go. My question isn't that deep or important. Anyway, you mentioned the ox thrashing the oats. Yes. Actually, the ox didn't actually trample the oats. I've seen a couple of sketches on that. I made you a little picture here. Yeah. The ox was actually outside. If the threshing floor was circular. So that's a technological advancement. The imagery in the Old Testament is actually the oxen themselves trampling it out too. So there were different ways that they accomplished that. I can double check on that, but I've seen other pictures which talk about a sledge behind the oxen, just a sledge, that they went back and forth. And they'll say the weight of the oxen, the oxen was selected both because it could pull a heavy weight, but also because it itself was heavy. I'm sure it was. Yeah, I'm sure it was. Do you remember the way that they did the... I'm sure that looks like a technological advancement. Some smart person sat down and said, hey, you know what? We can have cleaner grain if we did it thusly. But this is also the culture where they made olive oil and wine with their bare feet, right? Yeah, you put all the olive oils in a stone carved out area and then you got in and you trampled on it. They didn't have quite the hygiene concerns that we do. They didn't know as much about microbiology and all those wonderful things. Yeah, but your point is well taken. That's a much better way of doing it. And it maintains the symbolism. Yeah, nothing is lost. Yeah, last question. I don't know your name, so why don't you say your name into the mic when you say your question? My name is Peter Ray. I live over in Upter Grove. I've been coming here for a little while. Pastor, is there a difference? I just look in chapter 16. This might be a little bit early, but there has to be a difference between the wrath of God and persecution. Chapter 16, when I heard a loud voice from the temple saying to the seven angels, go and pour out the bowls of wrath, the wrath of God on the earth. Is the church there at that point? Are we going to experience the wrath of God? Well, we'll get to the bowls. One of the rules we had so far is that you can't ask questions too far ahead. We'll just try to limit ourselves to the content under discussion. Otherwise, we get too far afield. But let me just answer the issue of wrath, because that's the issue that's often brought up. I can't believe that Christians will experience wrath. And it's sometimes rooted in the text, there is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, right? But that doesn't mean that, what the word condemnation means is that we won't be condemned. It doesn't mean that you won't be present during times of trial. We mentioned that three purposes are achieved simultaneously by tribulation, by the outpouring of troubles. Number one, it's the ideal environment for people to get saved. Number two, the church is sanctified. Number three, the persistently rebellious are punished. The difference between whether you experience tribulation as wrath or as blessing depends entirely on how you respond to it. If in a season of tribulation you are sanctified, you're humbled, you take on sackcloth, so to speak, and you lean into the Lord, well then it was a blessing. If it was the thing that caused you to turn to the Lord in salvation, then it was a blessing. If you persistently hardened your heart, and it pushed you further into a state of obstinate rebellion, then it was God's wrath. And so, there's no question that Christians are present when these events are happening. In fact, it says that For example, in Trumpet No. 5, while there's this time of intense torment, it says that Christians were sealed, that they were not subject to it. Much like the plagues, if you recall. You recall the plagues that secured God's redemption of the people of Israel. They fell in such a way that the people of God were preserved, but they were present. In the Apocalypse of Isaiah, it also speaks of God supernaturally preserving his people through tribulation, right? Again, the church in Philadelphia is promised that they will be preserved through trial. Some scholars, and I'm not as convinced of this, I'm not convinced it's untrue, I'm just, I didn't mention it because I wasn't confident in it, but some scholars say, that in the same way that each of those seven letters address a real church with a real issue, so they're timely. We also talked about how they're timeless. They also apply to the church throughout the entire dispensation between the ascension of Christ and his return. Some scholars, therefore, say what that verse means to the church throughout history is that we will be preserved in trial, right? Not exempt from trial, but preserved in trial. Anyway, all that is to say there's tons of content in the Bible that suggests present but preserved. Any last questions? All right. Why don't we close in prayer? Let me pray for us. Heavenly Father, we wanna have humility before the text. Lord, we do see through glass darkly, and we do know only in part. And so we just confess that, Lord. We thank you that your Holy Spirit is our teacher and leads us into all truth. So we're confident, Lord, that if we wrestle with the text, And if we're in constant submission, constantly allowing our opinions to be corrected, our systems to be destroyed by the text, that you will lead us to a place of truth. You'll lead us to a place where our theology supports an effective living and ministering. And that's what we desire and seek, Lord. And if we have erred, have mercy on us. According to your patient kindness, we ask in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen.