Well, I'm pretty excited about getting back into the Revelation series, and we're up to chapter 11, and we got two puzzles in this chapter that we gotta figure out before we can fully understand the chapter as a whole. Next time, I'll be missing next week, but the week after, next time we're going to look at the identity of the two witnesses, and today we're gonna try to just figure out verses one through two. I will read the first three verses, but I'm just gonna preach on the first two. I was given a reed like a measuring rod and the angel stood saying, rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who are worshiping there. and leave out the outer cord of the temple and do not measure it because it has been given to the nations and they will trample the holy city for 42 months. And I will give authority to my two witnesses and they will prophesy 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth. Amen. Father, we thank you for your word. It is our delight to study it. We pray that You would open our minds and open our hearts to be receptive to it. We pray this in Jesus' name. Amen. You may be seated. I would encourage you to take a look at the two pictures, perhaps even throughout the sermon that are on the back side of this. They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, and I've given you two pictures, so that's at least two thousand words less that I had to preach on this morning, okay? So if you take a look at that, it will really explain a lot of details that might otherwise fall through the cracks. This is a pretty complicated passage. You wouldn't think so. Just reading through it, it seems pretty straightforward. Moses Stewart, who's written one of the best commentaries on this book, he begins his comments on chapter 11 with words that are really not too encouraging if you are new to Revelation. But he says, the first two verses of this chapter have occasioned much trouble to commentators. and the variety of opinion respecting them is so great that even to give a tolerably full account of it would occupy many pages." And he was not kidding. I did a quick scan through the 92 commentaries on Revelation that I own. And I was absolutely astounded at the variety of opinion that you find on these two verses. Now just for fun, I'll read you one interpretation that's symbolic on this verse. Zagora says, the temple means the church, the altar, Christ. Or possibly the temple and the altar mean Christ, who with his two-fold nature is the temple of God and the altar of the church. The porch without means heretics and pseudo-Christians. To cast them out is to excommunicate them. I'm sure that was the first thing that popped into your mind, right? Probably not. But when I've read through these commentaries, I could give you dozens and dozens of symbolic interpretations that are quite different than this one, that are just all over the map. And these are good people. I'm just talking differences among evangelical scholars. OK, they are all over the map. And I'm going to list for you right now 20 exegetical problems that evangelical commentaries struggle over. And don't worry, we're not going to be covering all 20 and trying to interact with them, because if you can nail down the three exegetical issues that I've listed in your bulletins, and that's why I've given such detail there, if you can be comfortable with those three, Instantly, all of the other are resolved. You can answer it very simply, and I've crafted this sermon as efficiently as I could possibly do. What's the least words I could say that would be convincing, what would help you to just rule out all of the other interpretations? But here's the 20 issues that people fight over in the commentaries. What is the read, and what does it symbolize? Second, Why is it likened to a measuring rod? Why not just say, you know, a measuring reed was given to him? And connected with that, what Old Testament passages are the background to this language here? Because if you can figure that out, it'll help you to understand the passage as a whole. Third, is the measuring for construction? for preservation or for destruction. And you can find scriptures to back up all three of those interpretations. Fourth, which angel is this and where is he standing when he gives the measuring rod to Ezekiel? Your answer to that question will make a big impact on how you understand the rest of the verses. Fifth, why does he measure the temple, altar, and the people but not the outer court? And you got a wide variety of opinion on that. And again, how you answer that question impacts how you see the whole of the two verses. Sixth, since the altar is located in the outer court, why is it the only part of the outer court that is measured along with the people? Most commentators don't even address that question, but it is really very significant. Seventh, should we translate the Greek verb of the first phrase of verse two as leave out? cast out or excommunicate. All three are legitimate translations of the Greek. Eighth, is the temple destroyed or is it protected? Ninth, is the outer court destroyed or is it protected? Tenth, why is the outer court not measured? Eleven, When verse two says that the outer court is given to the nations, does that imply that the inner court, the inner part, is not given to the nations? That's what many liberals assume. They assume that they thought God would never destroy his temple, and that's going to survive, and then they were mistaken. Or there's some conservatives who take a little bit different tack. Or, as others think, is the outer court not measured simply because it was already accessible to the Gentiles? Or, as I believe, is the outer court not measured because only the temple proper is completely destroyed with not one stone left upon another, whereas the Gentiles are going to actually use parts of the outer court as their base of operations. It's going to have structures that will continue to survive. There aren't very many left today. The wailing wall on the back you're going to see is part of the very outer part. It continues to stand. 12, does this prophecy relate to the first century, the second century, the reformation, the second coming, or to something else? 13, is this a literal temple or a spiritual temple? 14, if it is a literal temple, was it the temple in John's day or is it some future temple that's still future to us? 15, who are the people that are being measured? Are they good people or are they bad guys? Are they under judgment? Or are they blessed? Commentators really do differ on that. Who are the nations? Some people think that they are the Roman armies. Actually, I'm one of those. I believe that it's the Roman armies. Some think they are the Jewish priests. And the reason they say that they are Gentiles or they're nations, the Greek word for Gentile, the nation, is the same word. The reason they say that the priests are called nations is because they're unbelievers, so they're being treated as unbelievers or Gentiles there. Some think they're the Edomians. Some think they're Gentile Christians on earth. Some think they're Gentile Christians in heaven. 17, is the 42 months the same period as the 1,260 days as many assume? Or are they two different periods, as I believe, and therefore distinguished by different counting? I think they are the two halves of the seven-year war, whereas most partial preterists believe that both of those apply to exactly the same period of time. They think it's 60 to 70 AD. I mean 66 to 70 AD. 18, is trampling the holy city a good thing or a bad thing? Some of it depends on how you translate it. Is it a blessing or a judgment? And again, commentators are divided. 19, what is the holy city? Is it Jerusalem below or is it Jerusalem above? Is it the church or is it something else? And again, you got a lot of difference. 20, does the trampling occur before 70 A.D. or after A.D. 70? I believe it occurs after from A.D. 70 to 74. Some people think it's hundreds of years after. Some people think it's thousands of years after. And if you dig into each of those 20 questions, you're going to get not only a lot of nuanced differences of answers, but some widely different answers as well. So Stuart was not kidding when he said that even a simple listing of the differences of opinion on this passage would occupy several pages. I'm not going to take the time to go through every interpretation, but I strongly believe that the interpretation I'm going to give to you this morning is the only one that takes every word and every phrase of these two verses into account. And the reason we're spending some time on it is the issue of the temple is an incredibly significant issue in understanding eschatology. So it's important that I park a whole sermon on these two verses here. Now before I dig into the passage, let me give you a summary of what I think it teaches. I believe that these first two verses are describing the literal temple in Jerusalem that was still standing in John's day, and it is not pointing to a future church. to a heavenly temple, to the papacy, or to anything else that happened after the first century. And I believe the context makes it crystal clear. He's describing a temple that is doomed to destruction, not to a spiritual temple being protected or being built or being honored as most partial preterists believe. I see, I believe it is quite clear that it is first century Romans who trampled the temple and the city, not Muslims several centuries later. And I believe they trampled it for a full 42 months. Now most partial preterists have never even considered a seven year war. And that's exactly how long the war was. They try to put everything into the first half of that war, and so they put both of these periods into that 66 to 70 AD, and it messes it up because there were no 42 months that the Romans trampled Jerusalem, or anybody for that matter, trampled Jerusalem and its courts from 66 to 70. I've only read a handful of preterists that can explain that satisfactorily. I believe the 42 months, 1,260 days, while they mathematically add up to three and a half years, both of them are three and a half year periods, they are mentioned differently, they're counted differently, so that you keep clear in your mind which half of the war that he is referring to. And Daniel divides the war against Jerusalem up into the two, three and a half year periods as well, and says it's a seven year war, and it was. First of those two periods goes from AD 66 to 70, ends with the burning of the temple. The second half goes from 70 to January of 74, during which the Romans literally did occupy Jerusalem, the outer court areas of the temple, before they handed it back to the Jewish authorities up until the second century. And I think that that narrative sticks with the text. It's a natural interpretation. It flows very naturally in terms of the argument of chapters 5 through 11. It fits every piece of the puzzle without any piece being forced. And if you can get a handle on those three exegetical arguments, even if you've never read all the others, now I've got the luxury to be able to read all of those others, you don't, but it doesn't matter. Even if you've never read those weird theories, you can instantly, very quickly, very easily dismiss them if you can understand these three. So we're gonna spend some time trying to solve these three controversies. First of the three exegetical issues that help us settle the debate actually rules out 90% of the interpretations that are out there. If you get this puzzle right, you've solved almost everything. Most commentators take this as something future to the first century, but let's look at some internal clues that that cannot be the case. And the most important clue can be found in verse one. I was given a reed, like a measuring rod, And the angel stood saying, rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who are worshiping there. The Greek is in the present ongoing tense and indicates that there were people worshiping in this temple at the very moment that the angel was speaking to John, which we've already demonstrated was in early 66 AD. Now all by itself, this proves it's not talking about a future temple, it's talking about a current temple. There are other hints that support that. For example, verse one's grammar speaks of a current temple, altar, and people, and stands in contrast with verse two, which uses the future tense to indicate that this current temple and city is about to be occupied by Gentile nations and trampled by Gentile nations. So the difference between what is verse one and what will be verse two is best explained by a first century war against Jerusalem that was about to start when John wrote. Another hint can be seen by comparing verse 3 with verse 7. And I've listed all of the verses in your bulletin. But in verse 7, it's quite clear that these witnesses were prophesying during the time of the beast. which we've already demonstrated was about to come up out of the pit in 66 AD and possess Nero and move Nero, so Nero's called the beast and the demon is called the beast. Well, that automatically places it in the first century, but we've already demonstrated that prophesying ended in 70 AD, so that too makes this a first century issue. But at least the Nero clue is clear. Yet another hint is that the Gentile nations occupy the temple and trample Jerusalem for exactly 42 months, not longer, not shorter. I know of only one period of time where this could possibly have been true. Now liberals tried to say that everything in the book is after the first century. They try to say this was about Masada, not Masada, Bar Kokhba in 135 A.D. Jerusalem was once again conquered. But there were no 42 months during the siege. There were no 42 months after that time. In fact, the early church historian Eusebius points out that once the siege was done in 8135, Hadrian decreed, quote, that the whole Jewish nation should be absolutely prevented from that time on from entering even the district around Jerusalem so that not even from a distance could it see its ancestral home. Well, that means after the Bar Kokhba rebellion, it was a lot longer than 42 months that Jews were not in the city and only Gentiles inhabited that city. So the liberal interpretation simply does not work. Nor can it refer to 66 to 70, the first half of the war, because the Romans for sure did not trample the temple courts and the city for a full 42 months. And yet that's where a lot of people place it. It does not fit. There's one period and only one period that fits the evidence that the Romans had a hostile occupation of the temple grounds and of the city of Jerusalem, and that is AD 70 through 74. That's the second half of the war. And that relates to the last hint on timing. Verses four through 11 make clear that the two witnesses prophesied before Jerusalem or temple were trampled. Now if that's the case, then it's clear that the 1,260 days of verse three must occur before the 42 months of verse two. Let me repeat that. if the prophesying of verses 4 through 11 occurs before Rome takes over the city, before the city and the temple are trampled, which it does, and if verse 3 is summarizing that prophesying of verses 4 through 11, then it's clear that the 1260 days of verse 3 occurs before the 42 months of verse two, and you might wonder, well, why? Why does John confuse this by making verse three occur before verse two? Well, it's actually rather simple. If you look at the text as it's written out in the bulletin here, you'll see that verses one through two is the heading of the entire seven-year period of time. It goes from when John is prophesying in 66, when he's measuring the temple in AD 66, all the way up to when Jerusalem is no longer trodden by the Romans in AD 74. And then verses three through 11 go back again. So that's the overall heading. Then verses three through 11 goes back again and shows what happens in the first half of that seven year period. Does that make sense? And then all of these hints then indicate that verses one through two covers the period from 8066 to 74. Well that very much narrows down our interpretive options. You do not have to argue with every detail of what people who are futurists might say. Just say no. The context makes clear we're not going to argue about the future. Context makes clear this is a first century interpretation. Now the second major exegetical clue that helps us to interpret this is answering the question, is this a heavenly temple, a spiritual temple on earth, such as the church, or a literal Judaic temple of John's day? Now there are people who agree with the first point. They agree with me. This is first century and some of them say that both verses one through two refers to the church of the first century or Like Chilton, they believe verse 1 is the church, usually the church in heaven, and verse 2 is the literal temple on earth. And I don't buy that. And I'll explain. I'll give you some reasons why I do not think that anything but the literal temple is in view in those verses. My first proof is the angel. Now, it's true that some people take this angel as being in heaven and speaking about a heavenly temple, to John, who is still in heaven, they say, but that is, if you investigate which angel is talking, you'll see that can't be the case. Verse one says, and the angel stood saying. Which angel? The majority ecclesiastical text says the angel. In other words, the angel that's just been talking over the last few verses. Some commentators point out the only angel it could be is the angel who had been talking to John in Revelation chapter 10. Now take a look at where this angel is when he's talking to John. Turn to chapter 10 and beginning to read at verse one. I saw a mighty angel descending out of heaven. So this angel's no longer in heaven. descending out of heaven, clothed with a cloud and a rainbow on his head. His face was like the sun and his feet like pillars of fire. And he had a little book open in his hand. He placed his right foot on the sea and his left on the land. So he is here on earth. That's the first clue. He's not dealing with something in heaven, but he's dealing with something on earth. But there's another little curiosity in chapter 11 and verse one. It says, and the angel stood saying, And the question is, wasn't he already standing? But commentators point out that the mention of his standing here is an indicator of a movement from the angel straddling sea and land to now standing on the land alone. So the focus is now not going to be Rome and Israel, sea and land. It's going to be a focus on the land of Israel alone. So you can rule out any interpretation that takes these two verses as referring to a temple in heaven or that isolates this temple from the land of Israel. You see, when we go through this passage and we start chopping it apart, the puzzle starts falling into place very, very naturally. Now, what about a future literal temple? That's what some people like to say this is. Well, we've already ruled that out with the first point, haven't we? The temple John is measuring is a temple that already had worshippers in it during the first century. Well, which temple fits that evidence? Which temple on the land of Israel? Well, the literal temple in Jerusalem. I think it's pretty straightforward. And that fits the flow of the argument within the whole chapter that this is the temple in the city of Jerusalem, a city intended to be the holy city, verse 2, but which has become like Sodom and like Gomorrah, verse 8. And I'm not going to get into all the Old Testament passages that that parallels till we get to verse 8. But there are passages that say, how has the holy city become a harlot? How has the holy city become like Sodom? It's exactly the kind of language that John wants people to see in their minds. Now, some people object. to the interpretation that I have given, and they say, well, it can't be, Phil, because the way this is worded, it's very clear that the author wants you to be thinking about the temple that was being measured with a reed in Ezekiel, Ezekiel chapter 40. And I say, yes, I agree. He wants you to think about that temple, but their claim is that the temple in Ezekiel 40 is not literal. So this one can't be literal either. Well, even if Ezekiel's temple was not literal, it would be a stretch to say that this one is not, but I want you to turn with me, if you would, to Ezekiel chapter 40, and I want to demonstrate that the temple that he is talking about here is a terra firma, very tangible, literal temple. And we'll begin at verse one. In the 25th year of our captivity, at the beginning of the year, on the 10th day of the month, in the 14th year after the city was captured, on the very same day, the hand of the Lord was upon me and he took me there. So the context is the imminent destruction of Jerusalem. They've already invaded the city. They're about to destroy this temple and destroy the literal city of Jerusalem. Then God is going to give uh ezekiel he takes ezekiel to that city he's going to give ezekiel a promise that in 70 years there's going to be another temple to replace it another temple built and um the messiah is going to be coming near the end of that temple and the Holy Spirit is going to be poured out as living waters into that temple and flow out of that temple and bring healing to the world. But it's my contention that Ezekiel is now going to start giving very precise measurements of Zerubbabel's temple, the very temple that Herod fixed up and the very temple that is being described in Revelation 11. So look at verse 2. Ezekiel 40 verse two. In the visions of God, he took me into the land of Israel. Where is he taken by vision? It's not taken into heaven. There are so many commentaries who insist that the temple being described in Ezekiel 40 is a heavenly temple, not an earthly temple, but he's not taken to heaven. He's taken into the land of Israel, terra firma earth, just like in Revelation that we saw earlier. Now continuing to read in verse two, in the visions of God, he took me into the land of Israel, set me up on a very high mountain. On it, toward the south, was something like the structure of a city. He took me there, and behold, there was a man whose appearance was like the appearance of bronze. He had a line of flax and a measuring rod. And actually, that word should be translated reed if you look up the Hebrew. And in the Greek as well, it's reed, not rod. a measuring reed in his hand, and he stood in the gateway. And the man said, Son of man, look with your eyes and hear with your ears and fix your mind on everything I show you, for you were brought here so that I might show them to you. Declare to the house of Israel everything you see. Now there was a wall all around the outside of the temple in the man's hand. was a measuring reed six cubits long, each being a cubit and a hand breadth. And he measured the width of the wall structure, one reed, the height, one reed. Then he went to the gateway, which faced east. And he went up its stairs and measured the threshold of the gateway, which was one reed wide. And the other threshold was one reed wide. Each gate chamber was one reed wide and one reed wide. one reed long and one reed wide. Between the gate chambers was a space of five cubits, and the threshold of the gateway by the vestibule of the inside gate was one reed. Now, I'm not going to keep reading on in the measurements, but if you were to keep reading on, you would discover that there is this incredibly detailed list of measurements, boring list of measurements, all the way up to chapter 45. And these include measurements of windows and windowsills, storage closets, staircases, ceilings, doorways, different floors of the building, insets, protrusions, how to construct the wood, what kind of paintings to put on the wood, curtains, canopies, vestibules, where the priests are going to store their food. It is inconceivable to me that this could be talking about heaven. He's giving detailed measurements so that they will know how to construct the post-exilic temple. If it was a symbol, why all the detailed measurements? So basically what he's saying, in 70 years, this temple that's about to be destroyed is going to be rebuilt. And when it gets rebuilt, here are the measurements you need to do it. Now some people say, well, that's impossible because the temple would not fit between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee. It's bigger than that. And that's because in some places, there is no mention of whether it's a reed or a cubit. If you put reed in, yeah, it's not going to fit in the land of Israel. And then people say, see, obviously it's symbolical. You put cubit in, you're back to Solomon's temple measurements. And cubit is definitely the way to go. Anyway, this is the temple that Herod later gave a major facelift to. And that he's talking about a literal temple can be seen not only from the incredibly detailed measurements, but all of the other parallels between Solomon's temple in 1 Kings 6-7. and Ezekiel's temple. Most people just skim over the stuff. They don't bother to do those comparisons. I'm not gonna go through all of the, I've got them in my notes here, so if you go online afterwards, you can see some of the detailed comparisons between Solomon's temple and this one. But there are so many other indicators as well that he was referring to literal temple, literal pots and pans, literal priests, and literal sacrifices. For example, the priests of the temple sweat in Ezekiel 44 and verse 18. Now I may be wrong, but I don't think they're gonna be sweating in heaven. In Ezekiel 44 verse 22, it gives this command to the priests of the new temple. They shall not take as wife a widow or a divorced woman, but take virgins of the descendants of the house of Israel or widows of priests. That does not fit a heavenly temple. Christ said there's not going to be any giving of marriage. And for sure you're not going to have widows and badly divorced people in heaven. That's just not the way heaven works. And you keep reading and you see that these priests in the temple are commanded that when they go into the holy of holies, the holy place, They may not drink wine, but when they go out into the outer court where they're ministering to the people, they may drink wine. That's where the communion happens. They have no inheritance in the land, chapter 44, verse 28. They can go astray, chapter 44, 10 through 11. They can sin, chapter 44, 10 through 14. They're supposed to take off their priestly garments when they leave the holy place and they minister like I'm ministering here when they preach to the people. And so there's no priestly garb. You know, when there's preaching, they're just dressed in ordinary clothes. They might be fancy clothes, but they're not priestly clothes. So there was a strict division between what was priestly and what was pastoral. In chapter 44 verse 19, they're not supposed to shave their heads or let their hair grow long. And you got all kinds of details like that that make absolutely no sense for a heavenly temple. These and many other details are simply ignored by those who take this as a symbol of heaven or a symbol of the invisible church. And let me give you just one more. They say that the prince there is Jesus. It cannot be Jesus because of all that this prince is forbidden from doing. He can't go in through certain gates. Only the priests are allowed to go through certain gates. He has to go through a certain gate. He can't go into the Holy of Holies. Really? And that represents Jesus? I don't think so. The prince has to make a sacrifice for his own sins. It is crystal clear to me on this and many, many other points that I won't bore you with that this was a literal earthly temple. Now, is the literal temple symbolic? Yes, it was, just like Solomon's literal temple was symbolic. Almost all of the symbols of Scripture are literal and symbolic, like this wedding ring here. You know, it's a symbolic wedding ring, but is it literal? Yes, it's a literal ring on a literal finger. And we need to see the symbols that way. Now, people say, well, what about the miraculous river that starts as a trickle out of the temple and it keeps growing into a wide river and eventually fills the whole world? I mean, no literal river could be that way. And I say, well, it depends on how you define literal. The Holy Spirit is a literal being, right? So I say, yes, the Holy Spirit was promised to be poured out at Pentecost using this image of water, and when the people left the East Gate, which is exactly in the only gate that they would have left the temple after Pentecost, they are carrying the Holy Spirit with them, and the Holy Spirit keeps filling more and more people and the river becomes wider until finally it fills the entire world. But it's a literal temple that Pentecost was poured out upon. So the bottom line is Ezekiel's temple is exactly the same temple that is measured for destruction in Revelation chapter 11. Now, I'm picking on Chilton today. I mean, he's a great guy. He's written some wonderful stuff, and there's a lot of good stuff, research, so I wanna be fair to him, but he insists that the temple of verse one is the true church being protected, that the temple in verse two is the false Israel being destroyed. Let me give you several reasons why I think that just cannot be the case. First, the text clearly distinguishes between the naos, the Greek word that's translated twice as temple, the altar, which is located outside the naos in the upper courts, and the people worshiping at the altar. If the temple represents the church, that's sort of like saying that the temple of verse 1 represents the people worshiping outside the temple in the same verse. That didn't make any sense. John clearly distinguishes three things in verse 1, temple, altar, and people, whereas Chilton kind of merges them. But more importantly, the word for temple in verse 1 is exactly the same Greek word for temple in verse 2. Now, if Chilton's theory were correct, and he's not the only one who holds to it, I'm just picking on him because a lot of you guys have his commentary, it would make more sense on his theory for verse 1 to use naos and verse 2 to use hieron. But it doesn't. Third, the mention of outer courts strongly implies that the naos is the inner portion of the same structure, which it is on the literal temple, but I don't see how it could possibly be so on the non-literal temple. Shelton cannot have it both ways. If the word naos refers to the church, then the outer court of the naos must refer to the outer something of the church, not the Judaic temple. Outer implies inner. If verse two is the outer part, then verse one is the inner part of the same structure. So you'd be more consistent to say that both verses apply to the church, as some people do, or both verses apply to the literal temple. Fourth, If we clearly distinguish between the na'as and the courts outside the na'as, everything perfectly fits in place. Actually, one of the weird things I keep finding in the book of Revelation is if you just read this like a child reads it, then you're probably right. It's like when you get into the commentaries, you start getting really confused. They make it difficult. But most of these things are very straightforward. By the time we get through all these arguments, you're gonna say, why'd you say all that, Phil? Why didn't you just read us and tell us what it was, you know? And that's the way you're gonna see it, hopefully, by the time I get through. Marvin Vincent's word studies accurately distinguishes between the naas and the outer court this way. The court which is without the temple, not merely the outer court or the court of the Gentiles, but including all that is not within the naas, the holy and the most holy places. Now, if that is true, then the next sub-point in your outline follows. Everything measured is destroyed And what is not measured is preserved for a season. That's what's going on. The fifth sub-point says that this preserves the symbolism of the ending of the Old Covenant. Everything related to sacrifices in the Levitical system, in other words, the na'as and the altar, is taken away while the Herodian buildings that are not specified in the ceremonial law are excluded from destruction because, why? They're not essential to the ceremonial system being done away with. On Chilton's interpretation, this is confused. He has the ceremonial parts of the building preserved while the non-ceremonial parts are destroyed. He's flipped it completely backwards. The noos is the ceremonial. He's saying, oh yeah, that's preserved. That's not going to be destroyed. No, that's precisely the thing that God is going to be destroying. Sixth, this makes sense of the unusual Greek, which has the word outside twice. The literal Greek in your outlines there is, and the court outside of the temple, leave out, outside. John was instructed to not bother measuring anything that was not exclusively related to the old covenant worship system. It's the old covenant alone that is being destroyed. That's the central message. With the coming of Jesus, it is blasphemy to cling to the ceremonial law. And seventh, this makes sense of the historical situation. What was destroyed in AD 70? It wasn't 100% of the outer courts. Some of the outer courts were destroyed, but not all of them. The Romans preserved those for their occupation of the city for the next three and a half years. The only things that were either taken to Rome or which were completely destroyed were things directly related to the ceremonial system. Everything in the naos, the altar, and the people who worshipped there, the priests and the unbelieving Jews. Not one stone, not one stone was left upon another in the portions measured But there were stones left upon another in the very outer courts that were not measured. Things like the Roman garrison, for example. That's not part of the temple. And what's now the Wailing Wall. That was not part of the temple. This passage explicitly excludes those things from being destroyed. And if you don't hold to this, you're going to have a hard time answering the dispensationalists who say, ha! Not one stone is going to be left upon another. That can't have been fulfilled. There's got to be another temple in the future that's going to be torn down and not one stone left upon another. That's their interpretation. Why? Because there's this tiny little section of the Western Wall called the Wailing Wall that still stands. I say, look at the pictures on there. It is not part of the Naas, and it's not part of the Hiran, the two words for temple. So it really is an important point. Now we've already anticipated the answer to the third interpretive issue on which there is controversy. The first two interpretive issues really should settle most questions, but one lingering doubt that some might still have is the measuring done in Ezekiel 40 was a measuring for the building of a temple not for destroying it. Some people conclude that since Ezekiel's prophecy was positive about the establishment of an ideal temple, this passage must be describing something positive too, perhaps like the Protestant Reformation. But I think you'll remember from Ezekiel 40 that the context was what? The context was the destruction of a literal temple Then in 70 years, the building of another temple and then prophesying that even this temple is going to be destroyed at the time of the Messiah. Shortly after the Messiah comes and after the Holy Spirit has been poured out into that temple. So even in the Old Testament, there is a destruction context. But there are all kinds of hints, even in this passage, that this is a measuring for destruction, not a measuring to protect or build up. And I've listed several words in your outline for you. For example, the word used for rod is a word that is used three times in this book for Christ's rod that smashes the nations. It's an ominous term, and the way this word is used elsewhere in the New Testament is ominous. For example, Paul warned the Corinthian church, what do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod or in love and a spirit of gentleness? There is a term in the New Testament for police officers that is called, if you literally translate it, rod bearers or rod users, because these police officers would beat people, keep them in line with this rod, exactly the same, electors is the name, but it's exactly the same word here. They carried a big stick, okay? It's sort of like a police officer. You know, he's got his baton, he's looking at you, beating the baton on his hand. That's gonna make you nervous, isn't it? It's a kind of an ominous feel that you get in the Greek. And I mentioned before that the word reed is used in this passage to connect it with Ezekiel. But then he says, what is he measuring with? He's gonna be measuring with a reed like a rod to make it clear that this is not going to be a measuring for building, but a measuring for destruction. And I'll get to that in a little bit. Look at all the other words that I put in your outline. Commentators point out that the word for leave out in verse 2 could be translated as cast out, reject, or excommunicate. And this temple is obviously going to be trodden underfoot. And the other words fire, devourers, killed, plagues, war, overcome, kill, Sodom and Egypt, and tormented are anything but positive terms. The whole chapter from beginning to end is about the judgment of God, the whole prophecies of these two prophets, these two witnesses, is what? It's for judgment. To read something so positive as protection of a beautiful structure of God's idyllic temple in heaven completely violates the context. And notice that it's not just the temple that is measured. The people are measured too. Verse one says, and the angels stood saying, rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there. The only other place in the whole Bible where people are measured is in 2 Samuel 8, verse 2, where David conquers Moab, after Moab had tried to annihilate Israel, and all of the soldiers of Moab were worthy of the death penalty, but he has all of these soldiers lying on the ground. It says he measures these men And for every one that was spared, two were killed, which interestingly is exactly the same ratio of people that are killed in the first century. Judaism during that war. In fact, some commentators say that this allusion to the people being measured is giving a hint at how many people would be killed during that war. But the external hints that I give in my outline are the Old Testament references that many commentators say play a background here. Each one of those verses shows a region being measured for destruction. Let me give you some samples. Psalm 60, verse 6 says, I will divide Shechem and measure out the valley of Succoth. God is measuring out exactly what is going to be destroyed, what's going to be cut off. Lamentations 2, verses 7 and 8 speaks of the temple in Jerusalem being measured and given over into the hands of Babylon for destruction. And again, it's a passage that what is measured is destroyed. What is not measured is not destroyed. Isaiah. 28 verse 17 uses a measuring tool to speak of destruction. Amos 7, 6 through 9 uses the image of a measuring line to guarantee judgment against Israel. 2 Kings 21, 12 through 13 promises judgment using the image of a measuring line. In fact, I'll just go ahead and read that for you. Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel, behold, I am bringing such calamity upon Jerusalem and Judah that whoever hears of it, both his ears will tingle and I will stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab. I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down. So I will forsake the remnant of my inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies and they shall become victims of plunder to all their enemies. because they have done evil in my sight and have provoked me to anger since the day their fathers came out of Egypt, even to this day. So I won't belabor the point anymore. Maybe you thought I've already belabored it, but I think if you can be convinced of those three points that we have just gone through, then everything else falls into place. Okay, let me go phrase by phrase through the passage very, very quickly so you can see what it is, now that we've just done away with the confusing parts. Verse one says, I was given a read. Though John speaks the judgment, it's God who gives the judgment. Though the Roman soldiers are gonna be used as the tool of judgment, it's God who brings the judgment. We have a tendency to look at politics and apostasy and unbelief and problems in America just from a human perspective. We wonder, what is with these people that they could be so foolish? They're constantly doing weird, weird things. Well, you just need to realize that's part of God's judgment. When he gives a nation up unto a depraved mind, Romans 1, that is a judgment. We're not waiting for judgment. in America, we are under God's judgment. You can see the telltale signs everywhere. And so, verse one goes on, I was given a reed like a measuring rod. Now we've already seen it's an ominous term. The rod is destructive, so he's refining, defining this as a measurement for judgment. And where will this rod come down? The angel tells John, the angel stood saying, rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who are worshiping there. The people worshiping at that altar are judged because they rejected Jesus, the final sacrifice, and it is blasphemy to continue temple worship when the true temple, Jesus, has been rejected. The temple, altar, and people are measured and found wanting. Here is the point, without a Christocentric view of life, we too are found wanting. We can have all of the trappings of Christian religion and miss out on the Jesus who is at the heart of our religion, just like those Jews did. Jesus was at the heart of their religion if they'd only believed what the sacrifices were typifying. But we can do exactly the same thing. We can have the trappings of religion and reject him. And Paul says that's having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. By the way, the dispensational idea that God will reinstitute a temple in the future and animal sacrifices in that temple is nigh on blasphemous. It is just as much an implicit denial of the finality of Christ's sacrifice as these first century Jews were engaged in when they clung to their shadows. But look at that phrase, the angel stood. By standing, the angel is showing the seriousness of what he is about to say. But John's involved in the process of judgment as well. God had already called all true believers to leave the temple and the synagogue system or they would come under those judgments too. And what judgments they were, not one stone was left upon another. Parts of the outer courts would survive, but not the temple itself. So here's the point. When John pronounces judgments against the nation, there is power behind those words. When the two prophets later pronounce judgments, it's God's word coming to the nation, there is power behind those words. When we, as a church, recite the imprecatory Psalms, what are we citing? the prophetic word, and there was the power of God behind those words. And I think the church needs to begin to take seriously the judgments that we are able to wield. Revelation says we need to be wielding the rod of iron that smashes the nations, and it's only overcomers who can do that. People of faith are sitting with Christ in the heavenlies. We have the authority to bring such judgments. And we'll get to that more when we look at the ministry of the two witnesses. Look at verse 2, and leave out the outer court of the temple. Do not measure it, because it has been given to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for 42 months. Now, as already mentioned, the reason the outer courts of the temple would not be destroyed in AD 70 is because God gave those courts to Titus' armies as a base of operations to destroy pillage and trample Jerusalem for the next 42 months. If you want the dates, it's Ab 9 of AD 70. which I convert to August 3, Ob 9 of AD 70 to Tebeth 29 of AD 74, January 15. Well, add that up, which I have, number of times, double-checking, triple-checking, it's 1,260 days exactly. Okay, it's 42 months to the day. At the end of that time, the Roman governor, Silva, turned Jerusalem back over to the Jews, and they left. They turned them over to the Jews, who would be their puppets, you know, puppet people, and it would be rabbinic domination until the second century after the Bar Kokhba rebellion. So very literally, Jerusalem was given over to the nations, or to the Gentiles, for 42 months. Not longer, not shorter. I've already made some applications as we've gone through the controversies, but let me end with four more. First application is we can trust every detail of the book of Revelation. Too many commentaries skip over key words and phrases and just give the general gist of the passage. They don't get into the nitty gritty, but if your interpretation is correct, then every word will have meaning and every word is critical for understanding the overall meaning. Second application is that God was in control of every detail of the disasters that faced Israel. We can trust his sovereignty. He is in control. Just picture God as being a master carpenter with a measuring tape, some things he is tearing down, other things he is preserving, but every square inch, every square inch of his work is non-arbitrary. God starts with this imagery of a measure to make clear. He's controlling each detail of what appears to be a mess to the Jews of that day. Now let's apply this to ourselves. I'm all for prepping for disaster, but let's not be driven by fear, okay? Prepping is good when it is done in faith. Proverbs twice says, a prudent man foresees disaster and hides himself, but the simple pass on and are punished. We do need to learn to foresee disaster, and the way we do so is by looking at prophetic books like Revelation and like Jeremiah that give all of the telltale signs of when it's going to be that a nation is going to be heading toward the buzzsaw of God's judgment. We need to understand that. I see the buzzsaw as coming closer and closer to America, where God cuts off large portions of America. I do not have confidence that Trump is going to fix everything. He may slow some things down, but I have no illusions that he will fix everything. Without the repentance of the church, the plank is heading into the buzzsaw. But the point of verses one through two is that God is in total control, and we need to have an absolute confidence in His sovereignty. David Chilton, since I picked on him, let me pick a couple of quotes that are great, wonderful. A lot of his book is great. But David Chilton made two excellent comments in other portions of his commentary. He said, in every age, Christians must face the world with confidence, with the unshakable conviction that all events in history are predestined, originating from the throne of God. When we see the world convulsed with wars, famines, plagues, and natural disasters, we must say with the psalmist, come behold the works of the Lord, who has wrought desolations in the earth. Psalm 46.8. Confidence in God's government is of the essence of the patient faith to which God's people are called. We are to place our trust not in man, not in the evil machinations of diabolical conspirators, but in God who is ruling the world for His glory. His judgment will surely come. The patient expectation of this is the perseverance and the faith of the saints. And I would add to that, we must not put our trust in our prepping. Too many preppers are fear-driven. They are not faith-driven. Prep, yes, but prep in faith that you are a steward responsible to do what you can do, but don't worry if there's not a lot that you can do. The key is to be in the center of God's will. As one pastor in North Omaha said, the safest place to be is in the center of God's will. Doesn't matter if you're in really dangerous territory. If God wants you there, that's the safest place to be. Third application is that we need to be prepared for the unthinkable to happen. This balances out the previous point. Trust is not presumption. When you read Josephus and the other early histories of this period, you realize that the Jews thought that the temple and the city were impregnable. And if you look at the way it was constructed, you can sort of understand where they were coming from. And added to their false sense of physical security was a false presumption that God would bless, and since things have always been okay, they're gonna always continue to be okay. That's their false sense of security. Well, this book warned Christians not to fall into that false sense of security. I use the metaphor of our nation being pushed by the master carpenter, into the buzzsaw, but many Christians are very, very skeptical that anything bad like that could possibly happen in America. They're skeptical, we can go through the buzzsaw. It's just unthinkable to him. So they invest as if their method of investment will carry them through any crisis. Or they depend on grocery stores week to week with no expectation that it's ever gonna be any different. Or they treat the American dollar as if it will always have the confidence of the world. You know, just a little bit of reading of history will convince you that just is not the case. Even American history. We've gone for a long period without major catastrophes, but you've probably heard the expression ain't worth a continental dollar. That's good old America, where people lost all kinds of savings because they just said, well, that dollar is not going to be used anymore. Worthless, absolutely worthless. People forget their history. There are any number of indicators that our current irresponsible debt is unsustainable. But forget about economic problems, because that's only one way that God can judge a nation. When you look at the rebellion of our nation on almost every level, from sexual ethics, to increased centralization, to the deterioration of the judicial system, etc., etc., etc., you can at least know that our nation is worthy of going through the buzzsaw. I think that much is undeniable. So if it is worthy of going through the buzzsaw, we need to be prepared just in case God does not show mercy. And the buzzsaw may not be economic. It may be solar flares or terrorists taking down the power grid. It may be nuclear war. It could be cyber terrorism. It could be nations going off the American dollar. It could be them selling back our T-bills. There's any number of ways that God could take out our nation and bring absolute chaos into our system here. He could do it. Now, am I saying he will? No. And does it mean we should be scared? I say, no, we shouldn't be scared. Previous point says we can trust God 100% during such times. If it's our time to go, well, be confident in your death, right? We do not need to be afraid. If it's God's purpose to save us, we are safe wherever we are. But we cannot use a trust in God's sovereignty to relieve us of our responsibility to try to prepare to the best of our ability. God gives the prophetic books of the Bible to show us how to recognize his normal hand for measuring and cutting, measuring and cutting. And we need to realize we are not invincible from total social chaos in America. So be prepared for the unthinkable to happen. Be prepared. Just like those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it, those who don't learn from the prophetic books of the scripture may end up suffering right along with everyone else because we've ignored the telltale signs God's already given to us. It was unthinkable for this temple to be destroyed. Even Titus, the Roman general, did not want this temple. He forbade anybody from destroying the temple. It was so gorgeous. It was one of the wonders of the world. It was unthinkable. and some soldier just ticked off, threw a torch through the window, it started a fire, and the whole thing went up in conflagrations, and then the gold started melting, and getting in between the cracks, and they were trying to get the gold, and they couldn't, so they had to pry every stone apart to get at all of the gold, okay? So even though everybody thought, this is unthinkable, the unthinkable happened. Now, can we know for sure it'll happen here in America? And I say no. and thus my last application. Verse three shows two witnesses who brought God's word to bear upon the culture and by wearing sackcloth called the culture to repentance. If they could do that right up until the very end, I think the Church of America could do that right up until the very end. Now why would we bother if we already know we're on a downhill slide to judgment? Well, it's because Jeremiah 18 verse seven says, The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. So may we as a church pray for repentance, work for repentance, and on behalf of the nation, grieve over the lack of repentance, just like these witnesses did, but like these witnesses, let's look to Christ for salvation and for security. Do not act like the Jews and put your trust and your security in the dollar, in the temple, in the city, in the political leaders and their social structures to protect them. Without repentance, it was foolhardy. May we be more like the witnesses and less like the Jews who continued to worship before the altar. May we be Christocentric in our view of life. Amen. Father, this is a tough sermon. Tough passage to look through, but I pray that you would give us spiritual eyes to see life around us. Help these scriptures to so infiltrate our worldview that we would see clearly what you are doing in America. And I pray that we would be in a position where we could step in the gap and we could provide a voice to those who are stumbling around and a light to those who are walking in darkness. I pray that you would bless us as a congregation as we seek to do what we can to prepare and where that's not possible, to just trust you in the providences where you have placed us. Do bless us, we pray in Christ's name, amen.