Good afternoon. My name is Josh Dykstra. I am part of the Spring Conference Committee that helped organize. We want to welcome you to the Mid-America Reform Seminary for the Spring Conference. We are very, very blessed to have Dr. Beal with us this year. We hope that this time is a good time of learning and refreshment that the Spirit would work in all of us. Before we begin, We would also like to welcome those that are live streaming. For the first time, we are actually going to be live streaming this event, as well as have an audience here. For those that are live streaming, by all means, please type in your questions into the chat box there. They will be relayed, and hopefully some of them will be answered during our question and answer period. We will have three lectures beginning at 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock and 5, sorry, 2 o'clock, 3.30 and 5.30. We will have a brief meal between the 3.30 and 5.30 meal or the 3.30 and 5.30 lectures. If you are interested in that, there is still space available and you can come see one of the committee members. either myself or Pete Ventoff who's up front right now, and we will sign you up for the meal. It's a light meal for $5. Before we begin, let us pray that the Lord would bless this time. Gracious Lord, Heavenly Father, as we come before you this afternoon, we ask that you would bless us here in this place. As we meditate upon your word, O Lord, we ask that you would be with us, commune with us by your spirit. We ask that you use your servant, Dr. Beal, to instruct us faithfully in your word. that we may learn, that we may grow closer to you, and that you would be glorified in this place. This we ask according to the dear name of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. Our speaker for the 2015 Spring Conference is Dr. Gregory Beal. He is the J. Gresham Mason Chair of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He has a bachelor's from Southern Methodist University, a master's also from Southern Methodist University, a master's in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. He was ordained in 1992 by the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference. He has an illustrious teaching career at Grove City College, Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, the Wheaton College Graduate School, and he took his current position at Westminster in 2010. He's the author of many books, including a New Testament Biblical Theology, We Become What We Worship, The Temple and the Church's Mission, and the commentary on the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. Without further ado, here is Dr. Gregory Beale. And having been a Congregationalist for many years, it wasn't mentioned that I am ordained now in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. So hopefully I'm now acceptable. But even when I was a Congregationalist, my version of Congregationalism was the ecclesiological statement, was the Cambridge platform created in 1650 that had a synodic framework somewhat like Dutch Reformed churches. So it wasn't hard for me when Westminster wanted me to come. I said, would you be willing to become Presbyterian? I said, sure, no problem. Ecclesiology, my own Granted, a lot of Congregationalists don't hold to that 1650 statement, but at any rate. So I thought having heard that resume, I should say something that I do have a lot in common with you. And so I'd like you to open your Bibles. I hope you have your Bibles. We're going to be doing a lot of industrial strength exegesis. old and the new. This first lecture is titled The Purpose of Symbolism in the Book of Revelation. We're just going to start just by looking at one verse, Revelation 1 to kick us off. Revelation 1.1 says, the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show to his servants the things which must shortly take place. And he sent and communicated it by his angel to his bondservant, John. We're going to let that set the pace for us. Let's just ask God's blessing on our time again. Father, we do ask that you give us eyes to see. ears to hear heart to understand your word that we might be conformed increasingly to your image reflect your glory in Christ's name amen many of us have heard the statement that's almost a proverb whether in churches or businesses or homes we've done it so long this way why change it it's often a proverb in churches and when something goes on for a long enough time even if it's a bad habit and sometimes especially if it's a bad habit it really the longer it goes on the longer it is And the harder it is to change because we get accustomed to it. Sometimes it takes something radical to get our attention to change. Many of us who are parents who have children are aware that children can fall into these habit patterns. And sometimes we have to use various forms of discipline to get their attention and to stop the bad habit patterns. Sometimes we've heard over past years young people who get captivated by a cult, and then the parents hire some detective to go steal them from the cult. Then they have to be deprogrammed out of the worldview of the cult, sometimes by various methods that will shock them into the reality of the normal world. Over the last few years, of course, we just heard about the massive earthquake in Nepal, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes. I mean, these things are are happening all the time. And when we hear them, and they seem to happen so much in our world today, you just hear it on the radio, it may not make as much impact. I remember when I heard about the tsunami some years ago, massive tsunami. I said, Oh, that's, that sounds pretty bad. But then you saw the pictures of it and made a much more, much deeper impression on me and on us. I'm sure many people are moved to actually send support when they see the television news. I actually see pictures of these things happening. Now, if this is true on an everyday level, how much more true must it be spiritually? We're people who get accustomed to our sinful habit patterns as well. And what I want to look at is what radical actions God takes to get our attention in this book, this book of Revelation. Now, you notice it has Revelations symbols. I want to make a point about that. Notice the apostrophe. This is not the book of Revelations, but it's Revelation. And therefore, now I'm speaking of the possessive here, Revelations symbols. So don't think I'm speaking in the plural. in many churches, popular culture, talk about the book of Revelations. And that is not, as we saw in verse one, this is the revelation, singular, of Jesus Christ. So the book of Revelations, a good place to see what radical way God attempts to get our attention about these matters of sinful habit patterns and how does he communicate to people in this book. Now, one popular approach to interpreting the book is to interpret literally as much as possible, unless you're forced to interpret symbolically. That is an approach in some scholarly circles, especially dispensational circles, and circles where people don't realize they're dispensational, but basically hold that kind of a view. And so it's not an uncommon approach that's popular in many, many evangelical churches, not only here. around the world. So this view understands most of Revelation's pictures as a depiction of literal realities. There's a one-to-one correspondence between what's being pictured and what will happen in history, since most of the book is taken to be something to occur in the future. And the reason for that is because they take the symbols. They take the pictures literally. And they say, nothing like this has ever happened. This has to be something we're still awaiting. in the future. So I want to investigate that programmatic hermeneutical statement by what I will call the exclusive futurist, who take chapters four to the end of the book as exclusively future and literal, and that is interpret literally unless you're forced to interpret symbolically. And I want to look at Revelation 1.1 in that regard. Let's look at it again. the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show to his servants the things which must shortly take place, and he sent and communicated it by his angel to his bondservant John. How does this help us in understanding this issue of whether revelation is predominantly to be understood more literally or perhaps predominantly to be understood more symbolically? Well, it's interesting when you look at the translations. I tried to find a pointer today, by the way. So I got this. I was told that sometimes it's used to sort of tap students on the shoulder if they're falling asleep. Actually, they didn't say that. It was in a rescue mission where they said this happened. But at any rate, so what we have here, I want to give you the various English translations that render this Greek word a samanin. And it is the word that's translated. I'm reading from the New American Standard. That last phrase, you see that? He sent and communicated it by his angel to his bondservant, John. And that word, you'll notice that some translations have communicated, New American Standard. Some have made known at this point. A number of them, RSV, NIV, Jerusalem Bible, ESV, New English Bible. Some have signified King James, ASV, and the Catholic Douay. And some have made clear Net Bible. The New American Standard does have a marginal reading of signified. You can see whenever, by the way, if you're a student preparing for the ministry, It's very important to have about six or seven Bible translations. Why? Because when you're preaching or teaching a Bible study, you need to know where the interpretative problems are in order to make clear what the text is saying. So in a certain sense, you have to say, OK, in this case, you would say, well, This translation says this, that translation says that. Which is it? And what this does is, I'm not sure if that's going to work on the blue. They told me it doesn't work on the blue background. So I'm going to have to be very prehistoric. Thank you. So what this does is, immediately, we've got a problem, don't we? When scholars disagree on various translations committee, translation committees, that's a problem. So how do we solve it? Well, perhaps in this postmodern, even postmodern evangelical context, we'd say, well, you know, you have your view communicated, and I have this view signified, let's just agree to disagree. That's the way we solve these kind of problems, right? No, that's wrong. We don't agree to disagree. Now, sometimes we have to do that. There's certain things that are not clear in certain passages of scripture. And, of course, the clear interprets the unclear. So what do we do in a case like this? Well, in this particular case, you could do a word study and that would be helpful. But in the process of doing that word study, what you would find is that in the Greek Old Testament, this word is used in the book of Daniel. Now, at this point, I want you to look, if you have your Nessalalon 28th edition and your 27th edition, if you didn't bring it, that's okay. But if you do have it, I want to point it out. One of the most important things for preaching redemptive historically, and if you want to preach in a Christ-centered way, understanding how the old relates to the new, when you're preaching the new, for example, what you want to do is look at the margins, the left margin and the right margin of your Nessalon Greek text. And I would say even if you don't know Greek, if you're a pastor here, you don't know Greek, get it anyway. Don't worry about translating the Greek. The margins have these amazing references that are not only quotations but a number of allusions. And they'll help you to see when a New Testament writer is using the Old Testament. It'll help you, therefore, to have a more redemptive, historically contextual message and be sensitive to that. In this case, my Nessel-Alan text. Anybody have a margin in their text, by the way, at this point? A marginal reading that has references, even in your English Bibles? Anybody have anything to the Old Testament? Who said that? Daniel, yeah. Daniel 2, 28 and 29 and 45. So we'll go there. And let me show you the wording here. First of all, note the references in Revelation 1, 1 that are in common with Daniel 2, 28, 29 and 45. The reference to revelation, apocalypsis, the reference to God, well, you know, some of us say, well, that's pretty common. But then the reference to show here, though they're synonyms, not exactly the same Greek word. Then the whole phrase, what must take place, and then this word, semino. Sorry, I couldn't indicate long vowels for the omega and eta there. But at any rate, And this is just what we have in Daniel 2, 28 and 29. And even the editors, the German editors here, agree that this is an allusion to Daniel. There is a God in heaven who reveals, it's apocalypto, the verb, instead of apocalypsis, mysteries, and he has shown What must take place? And then Daniel 2.45 concludes the vision with, God has signified, semaino, what must take place. So there we get that. So not only the phrase hadagonesti, but sho, revelation, and semaino, all of that together. This is why most Bibles in English and in Greek have this as an allusion. Now if my wife were here, she would say, so what difference does that make? Big deal, because when we were first married, I loved to find illusions that perhaps not many people had seen. I'd come home real excited from doing my doctoral work, and I'd say, look what I found. I don't think anybody's seen this. She'd say, OK, so what difference does that make for interpretation and then application to our lives? So what difference does it make that this is an illusion to Daniel? Well, what we want to find is? What? Since it's an illusion, how is Se Mino being understood? Remember all the translations differed on that? Remember that? Well, here's what you do. You try to understand the context here of Daniel 2 and understand, you know, does Se Mino and Daniel 2 mean generally to communicate or to make clear? Or is it more specifically to be understood as signify, communicate by symbols? You can see that if you're someone who takes the book more literally, then you're going to take the word here, semino, you're going to take that generally. Well, this is communication. This is just making clear. It's a literal communication. You're not going to go with the idea of signified. I mean, your overall framework of Revelation will make you favor that particular group of translations and not the ones that say signify or communicate by symbols. Okay, what does it mean in Daniel? If we can understand what Semino means in Daniel, then I think we can understand how John's using it. Now, there's a big debate in New Testament studies, even in Evangelical, even in Reformed, Presbyterian evangelical studies. And that is, does the New Testament use the Old Testament with the same contextual idea as in the Old Testament? And I think it does. And I can't demonstrate that. But if you come up at a break, I can tell you the books I've written to try to demonstrate that. And I can give you the books that have been written that disagree with me. So now. What does it mean in Daniel? Well, let's try to get to the bottom of that. In Daniel 2.45, we've seen this word occurs, the end of the vision. What's going on in Daniel 2? Remember, Nebuchadnezzar has a dream. And in that dream, what does he see? He sees a big statue in four sections. Babylon is the head of gold. And then the next section is the Empire of the Medes and the Persians. The next, the Greeks. The next one, probably the Roman Empire. There's some disagreement by commentators on that. But they represent the evil empires of the world. And then a stone cut without hands smashes the image. And it says that that stone grew and filled the earth and that it represents the kingdom of God. And then the conclusion is, oh Daniel, God has say my note to you what must come to pass. Well, it's what Nebuchadnezzar, it's what he saw in the dream, the vision. Does that have a one-to-one correspondence with? history. In other words, is there going to be a huge statue that's going to kind of walk through the earth and through cities, kind of like the Godzilla film, as Godzilla did in New York City? Of course not. This is the same kind of thing as you find with the donkey representing Democrats, you know, in the newspaper sections, or the elephant representing the Republicans, or the bear representing Russia. It's the same kind of thing. And so however you translate this at the end of Daniel 2.45, the likelihood is, and this is the Greek Old Testament, which John is more dependent on here than the Hebrew. Sometimes he's dependent on the Hebrew. But in this particular case, he's dependent on the Greek, saying that the Greek is elaborating and unpacking what was in the Masoretic Aramaic text. likely, highly probably, this is a communication by symbols, right? It's a communication by symbols. This signified, and so probably the translations then that had signified or communicate by symbols, that is the best translation. What have we tried to do here? We tried to solve a big interpretative problem by letting scripture interpret scripture. In this case, the old and the new. And that will often be very helpful. So when you come across a problem, one way to sometimes solve it, yes, is a word study. And more specifically, if you've got old and the new, you don't really need to do the word study as much as you need to find out if this is a definite reference to the Old Testament text, understand what it meant, and how does that shed light on our text here. So I think what we have here, then, is that this is a communication by symbols, and it can be translated signify as well. But even if we didn't have this, even if this word wasn't there, and I think it's there to make it very clear, but even if it weren't there, even if it was some general word, like Magnon or whatever. It really wouldn't matter because of the context of Daniel. Daniel is concerned about interpreting the symbolic vision that was given to Nebuchadnezzar. But this word is used to make it very clear that this was a symbolic communication. And even this word If you look at your text again in Revelation 11, the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show to his servants what must come to pass, and he signified by sending through his angel to his servant, John. Notice that phrase there, the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show. Now that word show in Greek is deknoumi, and wherever you find it in Revelation, without exception, it's found about four times, it's always introducing clearly a symbolic vision. It's very clear. In chapter 17, verse 1, it introduces Babylon the Great, who's sitting on many waters. That was not a literal picture. She's not on this giant apocalyptic inner tube. It's floating on some kind of weird ocean. But she's, you know, it's a symbolic vision. This word in 21.9, in 22.1, introduces again visions of the new Jerusalem. And in chapter 4 and verse 1, also visions, symbolic visions of God on His throne and of angels around Him. In the light of this, if chapter 1 and verse 1 is to be translated as that last phrase, and he signified or he communicated by symbols, by sending through his angel, then the popular hermeneutical dictum translate or interpret literally, unless you're forced to interpret symbolically, is to be turned on its head. Really, expect symbols. Interpret symbolically, unless you're forced to interpret literally. And certainly there's literal material in the book of Revelation. So I remember when I was teaching on this at one point at one of the institutions I've taught at in the past, a student came up to me after class and said, you know, in my church, if you take the book of Revelation symbolically, then and you don't take it literally, then you're on the road to liberalism, because you're going to start spiritualizing stuff like resurrections and Jesus' resurrection and so forth and so on. And I said, you know, I just talked about one Revelation 1-1. I said, because I take chapter 1 and verse 1 literally, I take the book symbolically. And so I'm very interested in literal interpretation. But what's the intention? The intention to be symbolic or not? So it's very important that we start out that way. Now, if the main mode of communication in Revelation is that of symbolism, how should we interpret the symbols? Now, I can't go into great detail on that, but some are defined. Some we have. I mean, you'll remember some of them. For example, seven lampstands, seven churches, seven stars in chapter one of the seven angels. The great dragon is Satan. The saint's fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. The bowls of incense are the prayers of the saints, and so on. That doesn't happen very much. If it happened a lot, our commentaries would be a lot smaller, a lot smaller, because John's giving his own commentary. But most of the time, we don't get those definitions. So what happens then? Well, most of the time, sometimes you'll find in one verse of the book of Revelation that you'll have three Old Testament allusions. And you go back to the Old Testament, find the meaning there, just as we did in chapter one and verse one. Going back to Daniel 2, you find the meaning And about eight times out of 10, it'll help a great deal with getting a handle on what it means. And whenever these symbols, even the defined symbols, when they appear once and John explains them, you'll find a lot of them appear again and again and again. And people start debating about them and what they mean later. And we'll see this in the second lecture on Revelation 11 today. But if it's been defined once, John doesn't need to define it again. We can assume that it has the same meaning when it's used elsewhere. And that has significant bearing on how we interpret the book, and a significant bearing on how we understand the two witnesses. Are they individual prophets? Or what? What are they? And I think one of the images used for them is lampstands. So we want to understand, what does that mean for us? How does that apply to them? The numbers are symbolic as well. Seven, the number of completeness, based on the seven days of creation, the seven day week. Even Proverbs talks about wisdom, building her house on seven pillars, the fullness of wisdom. So it is completeness. And the first shot, the first symbolic shot in Revelation, right in chapter one, verse four, it talks about God. The seven spirits before his throne in Jesus Christ. Well, it sounds suspiciously like a Trinitarian formula. And some commentators actually want to say, no, these are seven apocalyptic angels. And you can find different angels, sometimes seven in apocalyptic literature. But in fact, it's speaking of the fullness of the spirit. It is a Trinitarian formula. Seven right there. The first number in the book is clearly symbolic. What we want to do then is to begin to ask, if the main mode of communication and revelation is symbolism, then why? Why is that the main mode? No other book is quite like this. Some say, well, Jesus spoke in parables. Yeah, but the Gospels are historical biographies. Yes, Jesus spoke in parables. He did a lot of other things. And it's a whole narrative. It's a historical narrative. It's not as central in Paul. Of course, all of Scripture does use symbols, but not quite as intensely as the book of Revelation does. Well, why does John do this? Well, it could be that The visions could not be expressed by abstract language. So he just writes the picture down and leaves it at that. Some would say, well, it's to show continuity with the Old Testament. Because some of the symbols we find in the book, we find in the Old Testament. Some have said, well, it's to make the diligent reader of God's word dig deeper to get the richer treasures. That may be true. But I think the Old Testament connection is probably the best way to go. And more specifically, John is a prophet like Jesus in the Old Testament prophet. So if we can find out what is the use of symbolism by the Old Testament prophets and by Jesus, then I think we're going to get the key to why John is using symbols. So the next part of my address today will be titled, The Old Testament Prophets and Jesus Use Symbolism in Response to One Situation. Prophets in Jesus use symbolism only in response to one situation. When did they use symbolism? Well, the prophets living toward the end of Israel's history had the primary role of warning Israel to repent, or they soon would be judged, thinking here of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. By the time of their ministries, their message was that judgment was coming. You could repent, And if the nation repented, it might stop, but it was already in the process of coming. They prophesied it was coming. And so judgment was coming. Now, they delivered their warnings in very rational and sermonic manner, convicting their audience of this habitual sin that they become accustomed to, self-serving sin and moral lassitude. trying to recall to them the lessons of the wilderness generation. But they didn't listen to it. It had little positive effect. And in the midst of this kind of communication and preaching, they would also speak in symbols and act out things symbolically. So they took up forms of warning which might, perhaps from one perspective, gain them a better hearing. Now, such a change in warning form is effective only with regard to the faithful remnant, who have ears to hear and eyes to see. But those who don't have ears to hear and have hard hearts, symbolic language and parables cause them to misunderstand further. So this is very important, the twofold effect of symbols. Now, for hardened unbelievers, the literary form of symbolic parable appears whenever ordinary warnings are no longer heeded in the midst of those warnings. And no warning will ever be heeded by those so far disobeying. But the believing remnant are affected to some degree by these symbols. one of the best places in the Bible to see this is in the book of Isaiah. You remember here Isaiah says, Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, Whom shall I send who will go for us? Then I said, Here I am. Send me. And he said, go and tell this people, keep on listening, but do not perceive. Keep on looking, but do not understand. Render the hearts of this people insensitive, and their ears dull, and their eyes dim. Lest they see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and return and be healed. Then I said, how long, Lord? How long will this hardening last? God says, until cities are devastated without inhabited houses or without people, and the land is utterly desolate. The Lord has removed men far away into captivity, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. Yet there'll be a tenth portion in it. They'll return from captivity, and it will again be subject to burning like a terebinth or an oak whose stump remains when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump. They have eyes, but they can't see. Ears, but they can't hear. Heart, but they can't understand, verses 9 through 10 have said. Then, all of a sudden, in chapter 7 of Isaiah, and in verse 3, we find a parable. In chapter 7 of Isaiah, we find that Isaiah names his children with symbolic names. For example, in chapter 7 of verse 3, one of his sons is named, a remnant shall return. Now when little remnant shall return is late for dinner and his mother says remnant shall return. Where are you. Please come home for dinner. You know most Israelites are saying you know typical prophet naming this kid some name like this weird biblical name. And so that may have been the majority opinion but those with eyes to see and ears to hear would say you know Isaiah is no fool. He's a prophet and little remnant will return is really a parable for us. We're going to go into captivity. then we will return, but only a remnant. And then in chapter eight, he names another son, Swift is the booty, Speedy is the prey. And when Swift is the booty, Speedy is the prey, he's late for dinner. His mother says, Swift is the booty, come home. Same thing. Many might not see the significance, just think, oh, that's weird. But the remnant faith will see that this is really a walking parable, that there's going to be judgment from Assyrian, ultimately, from Babylon. So the parabolic aspect of the prophet's message is closely linked to the hardening commission of chapter 6 and verses 9 through 10, and may be considered one of the means by which the people are to be blinded and deafened. In other words, you have 6, 9, and 10. You have ears but can't hear, eyes but can't see, heart but can't understand. And all of a sudden, you get a parable. What's the connection? I think there is one. And the connection is the parables are a flag saying, you are deaf. You are blind. You have a heart that doesn't understand. And the parables come as part of the judgment. They're the first stage of the judgment for the majority of Israel. The remnant, however, on the other hand, are shocked, stimulated into the meaning of the parable and are able to trust. Take the walking parable in chapter 20 of Isaiah. Remember that Isaiah walked around for a number of years in chapter 20 and in Verses two to six says, Lord spoke through Isaiah the son of Amos saying, go and loosen the sackcloth from your hips, take your shoes off your feet. He did so going naked and barefoot. The Lord said, even as my servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot three years as a sign and token against Egypt and Cush. So the king of Assyria will lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, young and old, naked and barefoot, with buttocks uncovered to the shame of Egypt. And the Israelites too would suffer in the same way because they had fled to Egypt. wrongly to find refuge there instead of staying in the land and trusting in the Lord. You remember Ezekiel 12. Ezekiel digs through a wall and carries baggage through it as a sign that in fact that would happen to Israel. And chapter 12 is introduced by the phrase, they have ears but can't hear, eyes. but they cannot see. So again and again, you find this, for example, also in Chapter three of Ezekiel. Chapter three ends with this statement. Thus says the Lord, he who hears, let him hear, and he who refuses, let him refuse. And then Chapter four verses one through three starts with a parable again. And what is the parable? He gets a brick. Ezekiel will take a brick, write Jerusalem on it. And it's kind of like playing in a sandbox. Conduct siege works on it, and put a ramp against it, and ladders, and this sort. It's a little model of what's going to happen to Jerusalem in judgment from a foreign invading power. And so just as he has just said at the end of chapter 3, you have ears, but you can't hear. Then you have the parable. The parables, I think, are one of the instruments by which The hardening is intensified. The blindness is intensified. And yet it does shock the remnant back into the reality of their genuine faith. So now when we come to Jesus, why did Jesus speak in symbolic parables? Remember they ask him in Matthew 13. But before they ask him, notice what we have. He who has ears let him hear, and the disciples came and said to him, why do you speak to them in parables? He answered and said to them, to you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. whoever has to him will more be given and he shall have an abundance but whoever does not have even what he has shall be taken away from him therefore I speak to them in parables because while seeing they do not see while hearing they do not hear nor do they understand he's quoting Isaiah 6 and then notice what he says there are some he quotes Isaiah 6 here and Then he says, but blessed are your eyes because they see your ears because they hear. In other words, the remnant represented by the disciples are going to understand the parables, whereas the majority are not. And so, Jesus is saying the purpose of his parables is not to enlighten unbelievers. for the most part. It is to judge them. When you see parables in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, it's what we might call, you use the phrase around here, redemptive historical, I'm sure. It's a redemptive historical sign that judgment is here. And only a remnant will be delivered. Only they will be stimulated and understand the parables. So yes, Jesus spoke in very rational terms and historic terms about Israel, but in the midst of it you have these parables. So like the prophets, Jesus took up symbolic forms of warning. Symbolic action, parables and words. But this change in warning was effective only with regard to the remnant represented by the disciples who were not 11 and they're not 13 they're 12 because they represent the restoration of true Israel in themselves. Now it's interesting there is a problematic passage in the Gospels with regard to this Isaiah 6 hardening language in Mark 8. Listen to this language Jesus is speaking to the disciples and he says To them, do you not, this is Mark 8, 17, do you not yet see or understand? Do you have a hardened heart? Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? Do you not yet understand? Sounds like that they're just as hardened and blinded, and they're gonna be judged just like the rest. But notice the difference. Saying, do you not yet see or understand? Do you not yet understand? They're part of the hardened lump. They become conformed to the world, if you will. That is, at that time, to the majority of unbelieving Israel. And they're slowly, perhaps, but surely coming out of the anesthesia of that lump, which they have been conformed to. Those who have ears to hear and hear not have become irretrievably hard-hearted. However, symbolic language and parables cause them to misunderstand further. Now, there is a middle group because God is always at various points bringing people out from the hardened lump into the remnant. So yes, this does happen, but generally speaking, This was language, these symbols was a flag showing that judgment was upon Israel, as it was in the Old Testament. So it's come in a much greater escalated way in the latter day, prophet Jesus, the prophet par excellence. So let me just stop here. As with the prophets of old, Jesus' parables were a sign that judgment then had come upon the majority. So symbolic parable enlightens the believer through shock, but hardens the unbeliever. And what I want you to get is the pattern. To observe that the hearing formulas, having eyes but not seeing, ears but not hearing, in the Old Testament and Matthew 13 precede parables. They go together, that language. of what we might call sensory organ malfunction language, if you want to put it that way. Your eyes and your ears are not working. Then you get a parable. Why? Not only to show that you're hardened, that they're hardened, but it's one of the ways that further intensifies their hardening. They're not going to understand. And yet, for the small remnant, they will be shocked into it. Now, this is supposed to be a series on Revelation. Where did Revelation go? Well, here we are. By the time Revelation is written, John stands at the end of Israel's very existence. As a nation, they've rejected Christ and his warnings of judgment. But how does this help us understand Revelation's use of symbols? By the time Revelation is written, he stands at the very end of theocratic Israel's existence. And it's very intriguing that at the end of each of the letters, and in Revelation 13, you have the phrase, he who has an ear, let him hear. Now, this is an illusion. to Isaiah 6, as we saw, notice, their ears are dull, and Ezekiel 3, 27, he who hears, let him hear, as well as Ezekiel 12, 2, but especially also to Matthew. I mean, Jesus says this not only in verse 9, but verse 43 concludes with he who has ears, let him hear. He's probably alluding back to those Old Testament passages. Originally, Isaiah's the first one, and So this is an illusion, probably to what Jesus said, but also including at least Isaiah 6 and perhaps the Ezekiel passages. So what difference does that make? Well, it's a kind of summary of Jesus' use of Isaiah 6 to explain the way Jesus used symbolic language is the way John is using it. As he began, as Jesus began speaking in symbolic language to Israel on earth, he continues to do so through John to the seven churches. And as in the Old Testament and Jesus' parables, the hearing formula of the letters. Now notice this. Remember, you always got having eyes but not seeing, ears but not hearing, then parables. You kept getting that pattern. What do you get? The introduction to the book of Revelation, seven times at the end of each letter. He wasn't here, let him hear. Seven times. And then what do you get in chapters 4 to 22.5? Parables. It's the same pattern. And so I think the symbols are being used in the same way. In what way is that? The church, the continuation, and by the way, it's not the replacement of Israel. I do not hold to a replacement theology. It is the continuation of true Israel. Why? Because Jesus is the continuation of true Israel, Isaiah 49, 3, Galatians 3. And because we identify with him and we come into union with him, we also are the continuation of the remnant of true Israel. He summarizes the remnant in one person, Jesus, and then all those who identify with him are part of that remnant. The church, the continuation of true in time Israel, had become spiritually like Israel of old and were in the same danger. In fact, both in the Gospel of John and in Revelation, the plague signs of the Exodus are repeatedly alluded to in the trumpets and the seal judgments to show that both Israel and then later many in the church were spiritually destitute and were beginning to undergo judgment. Now, I confess that this is not an optimistic post-millennial perspective. What do I mean? Well, you look at the seven churches. There's a literary pattern. The first and the last, they're on the verge of losing their identity. Remember Ephesus? I'm going to remove your lamp stand unless you repent. In Laodicea, if it could be worse, maybe a little bit worse, I'm going to spit you out of my mouth. And in the middle, three churches are not far behind. And the middle verse, of all of the letters. Listen to it. Chapter 2 and verse 23. What does it say? I will kill her children with pestilence and all the churches will know that I am he who searches the minds and hearts. I'll give to each one of you according to your deeds. This is pretty tough stuff. It's only the second church and the sixth that are good. It's a minority, it's a remnant of the churches that have no accusation. And the only way I think we can understand this is through a concept of the visible and the invisible church. The invisible, Israel, covenant community, and the invisible. And so, Paul testifies to this. You remember Paul, 2 Timothy chapter 1 and verse 15? You're aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. So it's a remnant theology. It was a remnant in the Old Testament. It does not stop. The remnant theology does not stop in the New Testament. It continues on. So the reason then, the prophets Jesus and John use symbols is so that Israel and the church, in time Israel, And we should perceive spiritual reality and not merely listen to abstractions about it. So the next part of my lecture is titled, Revelation Symbols Either Sedate or Shock Us Back into the Reality of our Relation with God. Revelation Symbols Either Sedate or Shock Us Back into our Relation with God. This is the main point of the repeated phrase in Revelation, He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. One of the essential meanings of parable in Hebrew and Aramaic is comparison, application. That's one way to translate it. People are to look at the picture, apply it to their lives. This can cause us to look at truth and reality in a different way in order that we can be shocked back into the reality of our faith. God's people, we, often don't want to hear about the reality of our spiritual condition. And that's why we've got to go into the pulpit and faithfully preach the word of God. And that homiletical dual effect proverb, I think is so appropriate, afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. We ought to always have something like that in our preaching, in our Bible studies, as was the case with the prophets and Jesus and with John. If the truth is presented straightforwardly sometimes to us to convict us of sin, we won't accept the fact of our sin quickly. How many of you are married? There's a problem. Maybe the husband's done something wrong. Or the wife has, for example, when I do something wrong, and my wife says, Why did you do that? I'll say, You're right. I'm so sorry. Please forgive me. I have to confess to you. My first mechanism of reaction is me. What did I do? And we were a people that don't want to admit sin. If you think about it in your heart, that's not our first response, is to say, I'm miserable. Well, we can tend to rationalize it away. This is what happened when David sinned by committing adultery with Bathsheba and then killing Uriah. David comes before him, you remember, and he presents a parable, doesn't he? Listen to it. There were two men in one city, the one rich, the other poor. The rich man had a great many flocks and herds. The poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb, which he bought and nourished. And he grew up together with him and his children. He would eat his bread, drink of his cup, lie in his bosom like a daughter to him. A traveler came to the rich man. He was unwilling to take from his flock or his own herd, to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him. Rather, he took the poor man's ewe lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him. Then, this was something that didn't happen, right? It was made up. It was a parable by Nathan. How does David respond? His anger burned greatly against the man in this parable. As the Lord lives, surely the man who has done this deserves to die. He must make restitution for the Lamb fourfold because he did this thing and had no compassion. Nathan then said to David, you are the man. And so he said, judgment will come upon you. Son will die. So there will be judicial ramifications. But the symbolic story catches David off guard. It causes him to focus. Objectively, something separate from himself, when he understands it, then comes the hammer. You are the man. And that, when we read the book of Revelation, these symbols are not depictions from John's perspective of some kind of technological militaristic future, or some amazing thing where you get flying giant apocalyptic scorpions, and so forth and so on. These are things that give a spiritual reality. both about ourselves and about forces outside of ourselves that could affect us. Only after David had fully understood the pictorial story, felt its emotive impact, does Nathan apply it to him. You are the man. Or some areas of our lives, perhaps in which as pastors, as students, as teachers, to which we are spiritually insensitive. One general area could be extreme poverty and suffering. I know some churches will send mission trips out to poorer parts of the United States. They did that when I was in New England. My children went. And they really got a close-up picture as to what poverty was. But when we don't expose ourselves to that, make ourselves aware of that, we don't see the live picture, if you will. We're not as alarmed. We're not as concerned, perhaps. Hitler's Germany. I'm sure if people had seen the concentration camps, they might, a few more at any rate, might have taken action and reacted. They just, they heard about them, they knew about them, they heard about them. Some sectors of the American church need to make themselves more aware of these poverty-stricken areas here, shocking the reality of their existence, not only to help them socially and physically, but to be a witness to them. That might be one area. in our own lives? Is it a wrong relationship that we've gotten used to? Husbands and wives, have we become complacent about nourishing one another and our children with God's Word? As parents, maybe we're so busy in our jobs we don't see each other often, don't spend much time with the children. Pastors may become complacent and not take time to prepare their sermons in the text, in the Word of God, in order that they may preach it faithfully, and apply it pastorally. What sin are we complacent about? And what do we need to be shocked about? Each of us needs to go to the Lord in prayer about that. So Revelation symbols either sedate or shock us back into the reality of our relation with God. Now an example of the jarring role of the heavenly parables, this shock treatment of the parables, is given to us in Revelation 2 and 17. And I want to look at that briefly. In chapter 2, If you have your Bibles, you can go to Revelation 2. Chapter 2, verse 20, it says, I have this against you that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, Jesus says, who calls herself a prophetess and she teaches and leads my bondservants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent. She does not want to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will cast her upon a bed of sickness and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation unless they repent of her deeds. And I'll kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am he who searches the minds and hearts, and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds. And I say to the rest who are in Thyatira who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan as they call them, I place no other burden on you. What is this false teacher teaching? Well, we know that there were trade union, a number of trade unions for silversmiths, for sheep herding, and the woolen industry, banking industry, and each union had a temple, and there was a deity that was their protector that supposedly blessed them each year, and you at least once a year would have to go to that temple. and in worship and to show your loyalty. It's kind of like paying your union dues, if you will. And Jezebel was saying, you can do that. It's OK. Just pray to God when they're praying to the false god. Or the deep things of Satan here, you'll notice. It may be that she was saying, hey, if you really want to know what the enemy is like, go into the enemy's den, come back, and tell us about it, and share it with the other Christians so we can know better how to fight the devil. All of these were rationalizations. And it would have totally ruined their witness. Can you imagine out in the city saying, Christ is the only way. Depend only on him when people think he may have been worshiping at an idol's temple. So it was a false teaching. And it says that they tolerated her teaching. The elders were tolerating her teaching. Now John wants to shock the sluggish Christians. So they will discern the gravity of the situation. And what does he do? Chapter 17. Now, this is what happens in Chapter 17. One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying, Come here, I'll show you the judgment of the harlot who sits on many waters. With whom the kings of the earth committed acts of immorality, and those who dwell on the earth were made drunk with the wine of her immorality. And he carried me away in the spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns. The woman's clothed in purple and scarlet, adorned with gold and precious stones, pearls, hat in her hand, a gold cup full of abominations, and the unclean things of her immorality. And upon her forehead, a name was written, a mystery, Babylon the Great, mother of harlots and the abominations of the earth. And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered greatly. And the angel said to me, why do you wonder? Or why are you amazed? I'll tell you the mystery of the woman and the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns. And then I think in verse 8, you see one more relevant verse there. No, that's it. Yeah, in verse 6, he says, when I saw her, I wondered greatly, or I wondered with great wonder. I was amazed with great amazement. I mean, he's really bewildered by this vision. Now, what in the world does this have to do with chapter 2 and Jezebel? John wants to, I think, shock the sluggish Christians in Thyatira, cause them to discern the gravity of the situation in tolerating this false teaching. And so he paints Jezebel in her true colors. For example, chapter 17 and verse 16 says of Babylon the whore, that they will eat her flesh. That is the other forces who are part of the state. They will eat her flesh. They will turn on her. And that is from 2 Kings 9.36. They will eat the flesh of Jezebel. And Jezebel's destruction likewise happened according, quote, to the word of the Lord, end quote, 2 Kings 9.36. And so you have that same statement in Revelation 17. 17. In fact, in my commentary on Revelation, I have an excursus. There are about 11 parallels between Jezebel and Babylon. the Great, between Jezebel in the Old Testament and Babylon the Great. They both seduced people, they were queens, they deceived by sorceries, persecuted and killed the saints, and so on. So who is Babylon the Great? She is the, she's not the state. Now the Scarlet Beast, she rides on it, that's the state. At times she's in corporation. But Babylon the Great is the corrupt economic religious and social system, including that religious system, including the apostate Israel and the apostate sector of the church. And so the commentators have differed. I've just chosen one of these, but I think they're all together. And so what are we saying here? The link between Babylon in chapter 17, who is painted according to the Jezebel of the Old Testament, It's now linked, therefore, with the Jezebel in Revelation 2, and it suggests that this false teacher Jezebel, whether it's figurative as a leader as a false teacher, or it's an actual false teaching female, that she precisely represents the apostate sector of the church through which The religious economic system of the world is now invading. It's invading through her. She may be using the same vocabulary of the Christian church and of orthodoxy, but Babylon is making herself aware and making herself present through the false teacher Jezebel. And John wants to impress that on the people. This Babylon, the great you're seeing in chapter 17, this is who Jezebel is a part of. She's bringing the world's ideas in. and trying to combine them in some way and say, yeah, you can be a faithful Christian also. So he wants to shock the sluggish Christians so that they can discern the severity of the situation. So as we read in chapter 17, John presents Jezebel in chapter 17 in her true colors as Babylon the Great. Notice we focused on his shock, his astonishment. The angels questioned, why have you become astonished? It's not merely a question about why John was amazed. Several ideas are evoked, and it actually comes out of Daniel 4, where Daniel's shocked by the vision of judgment of the Babylonian king. He's appalled. He's fearful. And so there's this. this language of amazement and wonder, it actually has something about being appalled, being shocked, being in fear. Why? Well, maybe it was because he saw the blood being spilled by Babylon the Great in this vision. But probably contributory to John's shock may have been the parabolic portrayal of Babylon, not only as Jezebel, but also in the guise of a religiously faithful figure. Notice in chapter 17 and verse 4, She's adorned in purple, scarlet, gold, precious stones, having in her hand a gold cup full of abominations. So what? Well, that same language is used of the bride in chapter 21 as well. And furthermore, the high priest in the Old Testament is described according to these same descriptions. Purple, scarlet, gold, precious stones, pearls, The bride in chapter 21 is depicted as a priestly figure, and so is Babylon the Great. So John is perhaps a little confused, the seer himself. He says, God, this is a lot like the bride. This is like a priestly figure, and yet he sees. the dissonance. She's causing the blood of persecution to flow. And so his shock, his dismayment is expressing the dissonance that he is having. Maybe the same kind of dissonance that the elders of the church had about Jezebel. Well, she does some good things, some good teachings, but she's got some bad stuff here. So like the leaders of Thyatira, With regard to Jezebel, John may have been temporarily captivated by what appeared in part to be a spiritually attractive figure. And he's saying, don't be captivated like that. Jezebel, indeed, is evil. As much as she may appear to be a faithful person, she is not. So the point in chapter 2 and verse 20 As long as the church of Thyatira allows Jezebel to teach such things within the confines of the church, the church itself is beginning to have spiritual intercourse with the devil's whore and with the devilish beast himself, upon whose back she rides in chapter 17. She's the opposite of the pure woman of chapter 12, who symbolizes the pure, true people of God. John's saying to the Christians in Thyatira, oh, you want to tolerate this teaching, which you don't think is too bad? Well, if you do, you're dealing with the devil himself. and you'll be destroyed. What they thought was insignificant compromise and sin was really a crack in their spiritual dykes, which could have let through a flood of spiritual evil. They needed to be shocked like John to the true deceptive and evil reality of the false teachers in their midst, who in some ways could have seemed to be godly. John's saying revelation symbols then either sedate, there's some who are really not moved by this, But others are shocked into the reality of their relation with God. No doubt it is the remnant. Is there a sinful area in our lives like this or in our churches? So the reason John uses symbols is so that we should actually see and perceive spiritual reality, not merely listen to abstractions about it and accordingly be shocked concerning those sins. which we become anesthetized to. You've heard the expression, a picture's worth a thousand words. I'm sure you've certainly heard about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I'm sure you've seen pictures. But if you only read about it, it wouldn't make the impact on you that the pictures make. It's the same in our spiritual lives. Not just the book of Revelation functions this way. Symbols are throughout the scripture. They're more concentrated in Revelation. But God's word generally functions to cause us to give an account of ourselves, to shock us back into the reality of whatever sins we have drifted into. Yes, to comfort us when we're afflicted as well. But Revelation is focusing a little bit more on this shock treatment out of sin and worldliness. I remember a few years ago, I had an appointment with a dental hygienist. And I hadn't been to one for many years. And she took a break at one point. And I looked at the wall by me. And there was the different stages, pictures of the stages of gum disease. When she came back in, I said, where am I on that chart? She said, well, you're going in the direction of very serious gum disease. I said, well, my gums feel fine. What's the deal? She said, well, usually they don't start hurting until it's just about too late. And so likewise, that's the way it is often with sin, whether it be theological sin or sin in our own lives, actions that we have done is wrong. So sins like gum disease, we may not feel the spiritual hurt until significant harm has happened. So revelation symbols either sedate or shock us back into the reality of our relation with God. The phrase about Israel and unbelief, not hearing from Isaiah 610 and Matthew 1315 is turned by John actually positively to he who has an ear, let him hear. The transformation makes an address to the faithful who have begun to fall under spiritual anesthesia, but nevertheless still have ears to hear. Those within the covenant community of the Asia Minor churches never responding to Jesus exhortation show that they have no ears to hear God's exhortation because they do not know the Lord. Such people will suffer the same judgments that John depicts of the world. I remember I was just about finished with my commentary and I got to chapter 22 and hit me between the eyes. Oh my gosh. The judgments John's talking about throughout the book are not only from believers outside the church. He also has in mind those within the church who are not faithful to him and in fact are pseudo believers. Just shocked me. I was like, oh my gosh, that's amazing. Lord, help us. Those who don't know the Lord, the need to trust that Christ came as the God man, took the penalty of sin upon himself, rose again from the dead, declaring himself as Lord God of heaven and earth. If people are not motivated by these symbols or by the word of God in general, then maybe they don't know the Lord. Or maybe at least if they're never stirred up in themselves by the word, they shouldn't be assured that they know the Lord. That's a condition that lasts over years. Only two of the seven churches are without blame. Now others in the church have their ears very attuned to God's voice in scripture, the remnant. And God gives them pictures. The last picture is a very encouraging picture. It's a picture to comfort the afflicted in Revelation 21. Chapters 4 to 5, the picture of God on his throne is another one. So we do have pictures that actually comfort the afflicted, but we have many pictures that afflict the comfortable. Revelation promises great blessing to those who hear and obey its message. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy. Chapter 1 in verse 3, and keep the things which are written in it for the time is near. May God give us grace, so if we have ears, we'll hear what the symbols are saying to us. Thank you for your patience. I went a little longer than I wanted to. I do think we have some time for questions. Yes. We do have a couple minutes for questions. If you have a question for Dr. Beal, if you'd raise your hand real quick. I have a microphone that way the live streamers can also hear it, and we'll have you ask your question. We'll just take a couple questions now. If we don't get to them now, you can always ask them after the second or third lecture. Can we start again at 3.30? 3.30, yes. Anybody have a question? Yes. So the focus was on rightly discerning the mode of communication John is using in the book of Revelation. And misunderstanding the mode, if I'm understanding you correctly, is a sign of judgment. So I wonder if I could hear you comment on whether or not some interpretations of Revelation actually betray a kind of judgment on a community that reads Revelation that way? That's a good question. I mean, first of all, we do have to confess, Revelation is a very difficult book. Let's start that way, even though I've expressed much conviction about my view today. So I do think that it is a book filled with symbolism and that's predominant. So then you have to ask the question why. I've tried to show from the use of the old and the old and the old in Matthew 13 and then the old in Revelation with those hearing formulas that this is probably the way to understand it. So, you know, certainly we have genuine believers. who would disagree with the way I take the book. And to the degree that all of us don't hold to the truth, to some degree, that's going to affect us detrimentally. I think that's the way I'd want to put it, because we know these are genuine believers. you know, for the most part, as far as we know. And so we know within our own ranks, you know, not all of us hold infant baptism. We have debates about that. We have debates about ecclesiology. And we have convictions about those things. And I think that if You know, if I asked you why you disagree with infant baptism, you'd give me some reasons. And we'd probably both agree that to some degree, there's a detrimental effect of me not holding your position or you not holding mine. So I think that's the way I would put it. It's a very good question. But I think I'll leave it there, and we can develop that a little more later. We have time for one more. Does anybody have a short question that they would like to ask? Yes. In Isaiah 59, 17, excuse me, 18, where he's been talking about the sins of Israel, the sins of his people pre-exilic, And then in 18 it says, according to the deeds to repay wrath to his adversaries, repayment to his enemies. Would it be acceptable to think that those are not synonymous, and just repeat it for emphasis, but applying directly to the unfaithful, unrepentant people of God in the covenant community as well as those standing outside? Well, I'd have to look at the context, but certainly you do find that the judgment in not only Isaiah, but in the Prophets does certainly affect the majority of the hardy and the blind in Israel. So I'd have to look more carefully at this kind of judgment. Certainly the same, if this is only about those outside the covenant community, certainly there are other places that are very clear that you have judgment inside the covenant community. One more question. Sure, I guess we could do one more. Yes. Yeah, who is John? Who is John? He's a prophet. I think it's the Apostle John. A viable case can be made that he was a prophet different from John who lived in Asia Minor. There are certain traditions that argue that. But on the basis of certain, I think, unique themes that he has, for example, Jesus as a lamb and as a suffering lamb. and some of the Greek style. My colleague at Westminster, Vern Poythress, has written about the way John uses conjunctions, inter-sentence conjunctions, and how that fits better with the style of the Gospel of John. But then we could go back and say, who's the author of the Gospel of John? As well, there's some debate about that. To me, I mean, at the end of the day, I wouldn't go to the stake that it's the Apostle John. What I will go to the stake on is that this person is named John and he's a prophet. So I think, you know, I'm at like 68.9 conviction that it's the Apostle. I mean, there's certain things that I'm hoping that will not be detrimental to me spiritually in that regard as well, at any rate. All right. Well, thank you again, Dr. Veal. We will take about a 15-minute break. So if we could all be sort of coming back in at about 3.30, and we'll start shortly after that.