Now, I was talking to one of the brethren last week. They had a question for me. At the root of the question was the principle and the concept of Revelation 20 and the so-called millennium, the thousand years that is discussed there. And what about the millennium? I have been lately, as I indicated, been preaching on what I'm describing as obscure texts. I don't mean they're hard to find in the Bible, but what I mean by that is that they're general enough, indifferent enough from the other statements in the Bible And they lack the definitiveness in and of themselves where they're obscure in their meaning, at least at first glance. And so I thought, well, why not continue and preach on this concept of a millennium? I think it's laden with indefinite propositions, and it's shrouded in obscurity. And some people don't think so. Oh, no, it's really easy to understand. Well, let's just think about this a little more before you say that. And that's what we're going to do this evening. Think about it a little more. And I think dogmatism in this matter is far too prominent in many ministries and completely out of order. When I was amongst the fundamentalists, they were fundamentalist, soul-winning, sin-hating, devil-fighting Baptists, you know. And they used a King James Bible. Their women wore skirts and they meant business, you see. And, well, that's all nice and everything. But when you joined the church, you had to sign a piece of paper saying, I believe in the premillennial return of Jesus Christ. And so they'd go out soul winning, or they'd get someone saved. And then they'd put them through a six-week Bible course. They used to call it a Timothy course. At the end of six weeks, they would join the church. But they'd been a Christian supposedly. They'd been a Christian for six weeks. And to join, you had to sign a paper saying, I believe in the premillennial return of Jesus Christ. I'm thinking, how could anyone six weeks as a Christian sign that document? Oh, I know how they could. Because they think it's simple. They point to it, see, it says thousand years of resurrection, thousand years, second resurrection, that's the way it is. Oh, okay, so I can see the uninformed. How could they require that? Does it deserve, that doctrine, does it deserve to be laid out as one of the fundamentals of the faith that is to be required for church membership? You say, well, maybe they're not considering a fundamental, but just their doctrine. Well, that could be. But when you hear them preach, because we have some details in our own confession that I acknowledge to you, they're not fundamentals, whether or not you can take an oath in a court of law as a Christian. Some say yes, some say no. I don't view that as a fundamental of faith. It is in our confession. And what I describe our confession as, it isn't a list of the fundamentals that we require all believers to believe, but it's what we teach. And so if this is our doctrine, and you oppose some aspect of it, come and speak to the elders. And if we can't come to an agreement on it, and it's not a fundamental, like the resurrection of Christ or something like that, if it's not a fundamental, then we've got to agree to disagree, but you understand this is the position of the assembly, which means you don't go around trying to subvert the position of the elders behind their backs and win people over to the way you think. If you can't resist that, then go find yourself your own church. that believes what you think, you see? And as Pastor Cugino used to say, at Claiborne, the preacher stays, the people go. See, that's very admirable for him to say that, you know? And somebody would say, gee, he was a tyrant. Yeah, well, you go to your little compromise little Nancy Pansy churches. OK, so. So we need to approach this correctly and wisely and have it in its proper perspective. Maybe we ought to read Revelation 20. Let's read it first. Revelation 20. And starting at verse 1. And I saw an angel come down from heaven having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil and Satan and bound him a thousand years and cast him into the bottomless pit and shut him up and set a seal upon him that he should deceive the nations no more until the thousand years should be fulfilled. And after that he must be loosed a little season. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them. And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands, and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection. Obviously implies the second, right? And on such the second death hath no power. But they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison. and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth and encompassed the camp of the saints about in the beloved city and fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophets are and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever. I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God. And the books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged out of those things which are written in the books, according to their works. the sea gave up the dead which are in it and death and hell delivered up the dead which are in them and they were judged every man according to their words and death and hell were cast into the lake of fire this is the second death whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire now The sermon this evening is not about what does that all mean, how we understand it. Maybe next time, and actually it won't be next Sunday because we've got some preachers filling in for you next Sunday, but maybe next time I'll get into a little bit of that. But that's not my goal tonight. There's more basic fundamental groundwork. I'd like to be able to give you the groundwork so that you can come to the proper conclusion on your own. without me guiding you, so that we're thinking about the Bible correctly. So you know when to go slow, you know when to go fast, you know when to say yay, you know when to say nay, according to the word. So this requires a little review of some basic fundamental principles before we approach Revelation 20 and consider it and say, well, we'll interpret that literally. First off, understand this, there is no apostolic, authoritative interpretation of this text of scripture, I'm speaking specifically of the thousand years, anywhere in the whole of the Bible. It's nowhere. Whatever you say you believe about it is coming from your ability to surmise and put things together and then determine this is what God meant. You don't have any apostolic authority to interpret it. You don't have any apostolic authoritative interpretation. See, we're sort of left on our own here. Recognize that. That's important. Keep that in the back of your mind. And the reason that's important is because there's only one biblical hermeneutic that we all know of, and that we've taught many times at Clayville, and it comes from the Book of Acts. And the early believers continued, we're told, these are the true believers, these aren't phony believers, these are the ones that were filled with the Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts, and the Bible describes them as God's people, so we know this is the real McCoy. The early believers were told continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine. That is the only biblical hermeneutic that exists in the Bible. And those early believers in the early chapters of Acts, the only, but they didn't have Ephesians. They didn't have Romans. They didn't have the book of Acts either. The only thing they had for a Bible was the old Testament. And so they were studying Moses and the prophets. And it doesn't say that they continued steadfastly in the doctrine of Moses and the prophets, though by what they were doing, that's exactly what they were doing. But that's not how they approached it. It says they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine. So that means they're reading Moses and the prophets. They're reading the Old Testament, but they're reading it through the lens and the understanding of that which has been given to them by the apostles who give the authoritative interpretation by virtue of the fact Jesus appointed them to be our teachers. That's a safe interpretation when the apostles say, this is that, or this fulfills that, it's true because they say so. And it's in scripture. And that's how the early believers, that was their hermeneutic. They didn't say in those early believers in Acts, we use a literal hermeneutic. Every time we see the prophecy, we take it literally. No, neither did they say we use an allegorical hermeneutic. We'll interpret the Bible any way we want to wiggle out of the things that make us uncomfortable. They didn't say that. They didn't say, well, we use a 50-50. They didn't say that. By what authority would they say any of those things? What they did do is say, we believe what the apostles have taught. And whatever they said about the scriptures is our doctrine. Now, that's a biblical hermeneutic. And we have a New Testament. We have the New Testament they didn't have. We can even all the more adhere steadfastly to the Apostle's Doctrine because it's been written down for us. And what many of those Jews had in the early chapters of Acts, we have things they didn't have access to. Paul hadn't yet written, for instance, the book of Romans. We have it. all the more we should continue in the Apostles' Doctrine. When it comes to Revelation 20, we don't have apostolic comment. We have an apostolic dispensation of the truth. What I mean is, you know, John wrote Revelation 20. It's authoritative, but as to its meaning, we don't have any authoritative, divinely inspired commentary on how to understand it. Just understand that, okay? Also, these are my facts. I got a little list here. It's actually kind of long. But this is more important. This list is more important than figuring out Revelation 20. Because it'll serve you all the days of your life. We also got to remember the hermeneutic given to us by Moses that you should all be familiar with. We can turn to it again. Numbers chapter 12. I cannot overstate this because it is so applicable in trying to interpret Revelation 20 that we should see it again. Numbers chapter 12 and verse six. And he said, hear now my words. If there be a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches. And the similitude of the Lord shall he behold. Wherefore, then, were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? But in this little discourse, the Lord gives us great insight and wisdom into Bible interpretation. Because he tells us, when he spoke to the prophets, he spoke to them in visions and in dreams, according to verse 6. When he spoke to Moses, he spoke, we're told, apparently. and not in dark speeches. And the contrast is, but when I spoke to the prophets, I spoke to them in a way that is not apparent, and I spoke to them in dark speeches. It's a veiled language. When I spoke to Moses, I spoke in a straightforward manner. So we are being told the nature of prophecy. from God himself. So think about this. Think about this principle, and then think of dispensationalism. We use the literal hermeneutic. We're bold. We're courageous. We're strong. We're stalwart. When we look at prophecy, the prophet wrote what he means. He says what he means. It's as if it's as easy as reading today's newspaper. It's like reading a comic strip. They're saying that prophecy is apparent and easy to understand. Let's face it. If you're going to use the literal hermeneutic, Well, that would be true unless we don't understand English. But if we do understand English, they're saying it's apparent. God says prophecy is not apparent. When he gives it, he gives it in dark speeches and in visions and in dreams. When he speaks to Moses, what he says is apparent. Not so with the prophets. That's a regulator on our thinking. I don't care how many prophecy buffs are running around the countryside making hundreds of thousands of dollars off the backs of God's people for their personal prophet being dogmatic and saying, no, you can take it all literal. That just shows you how bold I am. No, it shows how ignorant you are of the word of God or how unbelieving you are. This is a hermeneutic, this is a hermeneutic not for the whole of scripture, but it is a hermeneutic for prophecy in the prophetic word. So we understand the prophetic word, he spoke in veiled language. We would not expect it to be apparent. Think of that. Also, turn to Deuteronomy chapter 18. Here's another thing we want to bear in mind. I've got lots of prerequisites for our contemplation. You say, I don't like these prerequisites. I want to just hurry up and get to what it means. Well then, if you want to hurry up and get to a wrong conclusion, you do that. I'm not going to help you do it. Deuteronomy chapter 18. I'm trying to give you the regulator that's given by God to His people. Deuteronomy chapter 18 and verse 20. But the prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, how shall we know the word which the Lord hath spoken? How do we know when a man truly is a prophet of God? And Moses gives the answer. When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass. That is a thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously. I shall not be afraid of him. So when the man says, thus saith the Lord, and it doesn't come to pass, he lied to you. They didn't come from God. And so that's why I wrote to the minister there from Norway, you know, we want to be slow in these things. It's, there's a temptation to appear like you got the, you're on the cutting edge of discovery ahead of all your peers, because the preachers compete with each other for personnel to sit in their pews. What a carnal. What a carnal world. The fear of God says you better go slow with this and we want to remember that. Another thing to consider, these are all preliminary considerations that are absolutely prudent. Two thousand years of Christian history and there is no unanimity of opinion on the thousand years of Revelation 20. group. So you had early on, like in the second century, third century, you had quite a few premillennials. Then the Schofieldites and the pre-trib rapture type, see, we were there. No, that wasn't you. Do you realize that a historic premillennial, those would be not dispensational premillennials, those are historic premillennials. And a historic premillennialist has more in common with an amillennialist than a dispensational premillennialist. And if you don't know what any of these terms mean, don't worry about it for now. For those that do, I'm telling you the way that it is. So yeah, there were premillennialists early on, but their doctrine is nothing like the premillennialism you see today. that they're only sharing the only thing they share in common is the thousand years is literal with a resurrection at each end of it that's the only thing well that's the heart of revelation twenty yet but that's what i'm saying this is not about revelation twenty the pitch is way bigger than revelation twenty If all we had was a difference of opinion on Revelation 20, well, to me that's not that big a deal. But it goes beyond that. So the premillennialists that existed early on were not dispensational. They were historic premillennialism. Maybe I can one day get into that. You had amillennialism came up. Amillennialism is the ah meaning like no millennium, but it's sort of a misnomer because there's no amillennialist that doesn't believe in Revelation 20 and the thousand years. All a non-millennial is saying is, well, there's no literal thousand years. The thousand years is symbolic of something else, and they've got their Bible text that they would go to prove that. People say, oh, see, that's just ridiculous. That's not taking prophecy literally. Well, where in the world would some nut get that kind of idea? Can it lend itself to people swinging wide with their own opinions? Sure it can. There's danger in everything that is good and true. That's how Satan works. But you have our millennialism, basically the millennium being symbolic of the whole Christian age, which some people find that hard to believe. That's because they haven't studied it. You study it more, you say, wow, there's a bigger argument than I think. You also have post-millennialism. And in one sense, post-millennialism has a lot in common with our millennialism. Because they're seeing Christ coming singularly at the end of a symbolic millennium. Although some post-millennialists will see the thousand years as literal, but Christ comes at the end of it. And some would see the thousand years as more symbolic, but Christ comes at the end. So very close to our millennialism, they do share many things in common. They don't ever share anything that's dispensational. They don't share that in common. Of course, you've got Praetorism, which is another view, and it was all fulfilled in 70 A.D., including Revelation 20. And then you've got what is popular today, and is of recent origin, Dispensational Premillennialism, which is a completely different horse, but it sort of rules the day now. So what I'm saying is 2,000 years of Christian history, and there's no unified opinion on the 1,000 years of Revelation 20. There's uniform opinion on the resurrection of Christ. There's uniform opinion that Christ died on the cross for our sins. There's uniform opinion that He is the Messiah and the King, and that He's our Savior, and that He was God in the flesh, born of a virgin, and that one day He will judge all men. There's universal opinion on that. but not on how do we understand Revelation 20. So the six-week-old Christian is dogmatic in areas that for 2,000 years theologians can't come to an agreement on. And for these ministers, To make these little young children, though they may be adults, these little young children of the Lord, confident and bold in things they know nothing of, is really a crime against those young Christians. They're inserting in their bosom prejudice and preconceived notions that if they're wrong, it's going to tie their brains a knot for the balance of their lives as they try and reconcile Scripture, and you're making it hard for them to learn. That's not fair. You know what? In a six-week class, you don't even get into Revelation 20. I would never do that. I've been here as your preacher for how long? I've never preached on Revelation 20. what these men are thinking. Well, maybe they're not all sincere. So what are we to conclude? After 2,000 years, there's no unanimity of opinion. Well, you be the judge. For one thing, at least you ought to be able to conclude, maybe I think I know so much, but maybe I ought to go slower and be a Berean and consider thoughts and perspectives I didn't before, because there must be something I'm not thinking of in order for that to be the case. And I think that's wise. So we've got the Apostles' Doctrine. The authoritative interpretation of the scriptures come from the apostles. We don't have that in Revelation 20. We've got the principle of Numbers chapter 12, okay? And Moses' speech gives us the hermeneutic of interpreting prophecy. Prophecy comes in visions and in Doctrines. It is not given in apparent language. But there's two more principles to bring out as far as hermeneutics are concerned. When you've got an obscure text that's difficult to understand and reconcile with other scriptures or seems to contradict other scriptures, you need to take the plain and straightforward text of scripture and let them guide you in your understanding of the more complex, vague, and problematic scriptures. You don't take the more problematic scripture that seems to contradict the other scriptures and let that principle guide your understanding of the many plain and simple scriptures. Instead, let that which can be easily understood in the Bible be a rock you stand on, and let that guide your thinking in the areas that are more complex. And very much related to that is another principle. When you've got a singular text that appears to contradict many other texts which appear to agree with themselves, and they are more plain and straightforward in their delivery and what they mean, you don't take all the many texts that agree with each other and make them conform to the difficult text that is somewhat vague. Instead, you take the many texts that confirm each other, you hold on tightly to that, and then you go to the complex text and say, I can't let go of these basic things. When I read this, this is confusing. Well, don't let go of what you can know And let those things guide your understanding of the complex text. And that's the heart and soul of the problem with the literal interpretation of Revelation 20. They're jamming the whole Bible into the thousand years of Revelation 20 rather than saying, wait a minute, rather than change everything that seems to be straightforward and plain concerning the day of the Lord and judgment, and making it conform to Revelation 20, is it possible that Revelation 20 needs to conform to the many other texts that are plain and that agree with each other? It's common sense. Another fact, I've got a lot of foundation here to lay. By the time I'm done, I don't even have to preach the sermon because you should be safe to go on your way. And some of these are obvious, but we've got to consciously think of them when we're in the midst of trying to figure it out. We can hear it tonight, and then a month from now you say, I'm going to figure out the meaning of Revelation 20. And you forget these principles because you're so hyped up of figuring out the big secret. that you figured all these principles, then I ask you a question, what good were they? So we need to consciously remember them as we go through the process. And here's another one. There is no book in the Bible, there is no book in the Bible that is as highly symbolic and apocalyptic as the book of Revelation. I mean, who in the world would disagree with me on that? And you have symbolism and apocalyptic language in other books, mostly out of the Old Testament. You have things like Ezekiel or Daniel or Isaiah. But even they don't compare to Revelation. And just a cursory read of Revelation, you say, whoa, what's all this? Well, okay, now see, now you're in the right frame of mind. Also remember that the book of Revelation is the last book in the Bible, probably the last book chronologically to be written by an apostle for the canon of scripture. And as such, we know the least about it. And one last principle, the disciples, the apostles, the disciples of our Lord, did not understand correctly much of Old Testament prophecy. They did not seem to fathom that Christ must needs have suffered. It is pretty apparent to me that the apostles of our Lord did not have an accurate understanding of Isaiah 53. They did not have an accurate understanding of Psalm 22. If they did, they would not be surprised of Christ going to Jerusalem to die. They would not try to stop Him from doing it. They would not be perplexed about His resurrection. And even when He told them, I'm going to die, and I'm going to rise again the third day, they didn't believe that it would happen. It was completely outside the realm of their thinking and their theology. And I want to say, they were good men. They were apostles. They were the disciples Jesus chose. They were familiar with the Scriptures. But guess what? Prophecy, their prophecy, what was prophecy to them, which is now history, a lot of it to us, because of the time that's passed and we get the New Covenant now, New Covenant Scriptures. But the prophecy for them was just like Moses said. It was written and it was delivered in visions and in dreams and in dark sayings, and that's pretty apparent by noting the lack of understanding on the part of the disciples. Were they bad men? No. Were they men who failed to love God's word? No. Were they men who failed to study it? No, sir. Were their hearts not right with God? No. They were right with the Lord, but they didn't know. Who are we? Now, when we have apostolic interpretation of the things they didn't know, we have no room to boast because we've been given the answers. We've been given the answers in the New Testament, so there's no room for boasting because we know more. But in the New Testament, now we've been given prophecy. It's there in Revelation. What was prophecy for the Old Testament saints, for instance, what we saw this morning, Psalm 110, right? Psalm 110, that was the future. And David's seed is going to be David's Lord and master. And David's seed was speaking with God the Father before David ever was. I mean, how can that be? And David's seed, who's going to sit in the throne, is going to be a priest and a king, which is against the law of Moses. So what do we do with that? See, now we have all the answers because we got the New Testament and the history of Christ. But now we have some things in our future and we think we're supposed to know it all. I mean, really, who do we think we are? Do we think we're morally superior and intellectually more astute than those apostles chosen by our Lord who have become our teachers? I'm not saying cut the book of Revelation out of the Bible and throw it away. I'm saying you go really slow. And don't be surprised you can't iron it all out. If they didn't, I would think, neither shall we. And prudence would say, rather than say, thus saith the Lord, and have it not be true, let's go really slow. Two-week-old Christian teaching the answer? You gotta be crazy, or you don't know what you're doing. Reverence for God and His Word says, that's not for us, that's not for you at this time. The preacher may say, as an old man, I'm still studying. And rather than it shaking his faith, he says, this is what it was like for Peter and John in the days when they saw Jesus going to Calvary. They couldn't understand, but they believed. They trusted him, though they couldn't understand him. Could it be the Lord may require a little bit of the same for us? So when he says, well done, thy good and faithful servant, we'll be saying it to the know-it-alls who have it all ironed out and go around the countryside boasting of all the detailed answers that they have supplied in their own wisdom. You think those are the ones he's speaking to? It doesn't seem like wisdom to me. Not when you consider all these principles. So those are my preliminary facts to consider before entering an examination of these things. Now, what I do want to say is this. Oh, I never hit go. Oh well. There are problems with Revelation 20 as far as our understanding is concerned. I don't necessarily mean mine. I mean there are problems that are apparent when you compare scripture to scripture. Do I believe there are problems in the scripture? No. But I believe there are things that are problems to us. Okay? Because God only says I'm going to reveal this much Some things you'll know, some things you won't. I will watch what you do with what I give you. I believe God does that. Don't be afraid of that. The answer to all of this is be honest. The problem with, the reason there's so many denominational divisions is people aren't being honest. We all got to be know-it-alls. We all got to have the answer. We all got to have one leg up on the other guy, and then we all of a sudden we take a minor point, we turn it into a major point, as if it's fundamental, and now you got to sign a paper saying, I believe a thousand years is literal. Martin Luther didn't think that. John Calvin didn't think that. Some of these men were willing to die for their faith, and they meant business. You're pretty sure of yourself. We have too great an opinion of ourselves and our own opinions. When I think of the nature of prophecy as it's given to us in Scripture, to me, the immediate call is go slow, be careful, and stick to the Word. I say there are problems. The problem isn't with Revelation 20, but I will say this, there's a problem with the literal interpretation of the thousand years of Revelation 20. In my sermon this evening, which I have 11 points. I'm making the decision right now to only cover the first one. You guys, you know, it's seven o'clock. I get going partway here. I don't want to finish it. Don't want to not finish it. Um, so I'll just give you the first one, but there are problems with the literal understanding of revelation 20, meaning a resurrection, a literal thousand years, a resurrection. One thing it does, particularly the dispensational form of that, is it diminishes and obscures the kingdom of Christ in this present day. And in doing so, thus it obscures the centrality of the gospel. You say, that's a pretty bold claim. That is completely deserving of its own sermon, its own series of sermons. But the reason I say, I can give you the Reader's Digest version, they're saying Christ's kingdom doesn't exist. It was postponed. We're in a mystery church age. He does not sit on David's throne. The kingdom of Messiah doesn't exist now. He's the Jew's Messiah. He's the head of the church. There's a whole world view that goes with that. But the nut and bolt of it is that kingdom doesn't exist now. Christ is not ruling from his throne now, not the throne of David and the throne of the kingdom of Messiah. They say that is the literal millennium. That's why this is not enough for them. It's no longer just eschatology. That literal thousand years is when the gospel of the kingdom is fulfilled. It is when he is actually the messiah governing his people as prophesied in the scriptures. It isn't happening now. But we ought to know that you cannot separate the kingdom from the gospel. They are absolutely, they're two sides of the same coin. But the dispensationalists have put things in nice little neat compartments and they have the millennium, the messianic kingdom over here. And this is the mystery church age of which Jesus is the head. and never shall the twain meet. And in the millennium, that's when he's a Jewish king. And we can go back to having rebuilt temples and animal sacrifices and all that kind of stuff. And it ends up going beyond a difference of how do we understand the thousand years of Revelation into an understanding of the gospel, an understanding of the very word kingdom. If you take a concordance out and look at Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and look how many times the word kingdom is used. It's shocking. If we're not agreeing on that word, we're having fundamental disagreements. We better know what the kingdom of Christ is. To say that it isn't now is a pretty big deal. The big deal isn't, how do I understand Revelation 20? The big deal is the answer they came up with to explain it. That's the big deal. But that's not my subject. That, I say, deserves its own sermon. This is more what I'm going to drive at. I'm only going to give you one out of 11 points tonight, and the rest we'll do next time. A literal interpretation of the thousand years of Revelation 20 overthrows and negates the continuity of message that exists in the New Testament concerning a general judgment and a general resurrection at the end of time and a universal judgment upon all men when Christ comes to this earth to destroy it. The balance of scripture agrees with each other. pre-trib, seven-year, pre-trib rapture, seven-year dispensation, a thousand-year millennium doctrine, which is they run the show, they own the, you know, they get the big ministries now and they're running, they own the TV stations, the Christian TV stations, the Christian radio. They're the scribes and Pharisees of our day. They run the religious show. They are the religious establishment for those that claim to be born again. They're not the religious establishment for the world. They got the World Council of Churches and all these crazy groups that, you know, you can't even, you know, who's going to fall for that unless you're just an outright pagan. But as far as the Lord's people are concerned, those who say he must be born again, In the Old Testament, or in Jesus' day, that would be described in Pharisees. They were the establishment of those who were supposed to be the hardcore true people of God. They weren't the religious establishment of the world, but of those who were supposed to be God's people. Well, that always exists. And in the establishment of what's supposed to be God's people, it isn't guys like me. It's these pre-trib rapture people. Now, when they hold that pre-trib rapture thousand-year millennium viewpoint, They are taking the whole Bible and jamming it into their literal understanding of the thousand years and causing all these texts of scripture that agree with each other in very simple terms that a child could understand every time he read them. And they're overthrowing them and changing all of them to conform to the one text. Revelation 20 and I say hey wait a minute follow that's not right and that's what I want us to consider and we'll just consider a tiny tiny bit of that tonight I'm saying that the scriptures agree with each other take out Revelation 20 for a moment Don't take it out of your Bible, but separate that for a second. And when you look at the scriptures, they are in natural, simple agreement with each other as to Judgment Day. The Bible teaches that there's a day coming, and Christ will come on the clouds, and he will return to this earth, and there will be a universal resurrection of all men who have ever lived. he will separate those men and he'll separate them you'll have the elect and then the rest of humanity it's judgment day they will be judged by Jesus Christ there is no second chance you don't have seven years to rethink your position then maybe get right with Jesus and die for it in no second chance It's nothing like that. When he comes, it's judgment day. It's doomsday. It's salvation for his people. And there's a resurrection of all men. And the judgment is meted out. And then, of course, we meet the Lord in the air, but it's the elect that meet the Lord in the air. And the wicked will be judged. And they will be left on the surface of the earth. And he'll rain down fire and brimstone and judge them in their sins. My opinion is when it says you create a new heaven or new earth, that doesn't mean the earth disappeared. But it destroys the earth, just like you destroy it with a flood, you destroy it with a fire. But the basic structure is there. You can find plenty of verses that talk about the earth going on forever. And this is why the post-millennials, or even the preterists, the earth is never going to come to an end. And there's lots of verses that talk about the earth going on forever and ever and ever. Well, yeah, that's because he makes a new heaven or new earth, but he will destroy everything on the earth and purge the wicked and the earth of the wicked and judge them with fire and create new heavens and new earth where we can enjoy him forever. And that's the universal teaching of scripture. Now, for tonight, I said I've got 11, and there's more than 11. I'm just going to give you the first one because of time. And to me, it's the most obvious one. I quote it so often. That's why it came out first. John chapter 5. John 5. You've heard me quote it many times. John 5 and verse 26. For as the father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the son to have life in himself, and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the son of man. Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in which all that are in the grave shall hear his voice and shall come forth, they that have done good under the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil under the resurrection of damnation. If we could empty our minds of any preconceived notion going into this, We could throw out all the theology books and the opinions of men. If we could really be Bereans and come from a, Lord, what will thou have me do position? And we could start as infants and babes in Christ and just say, show me Lord. And we said, what, what will the end be like? And then we came to John five and we see Jesus. This is our Lord, the one who died for us that we're now so much in love with. And Jesus is saying, there's an hour coming. There's an hour coming and the hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, not just the Christians who are in the graves. Neither is he saying just the wicked that are in the graves, but everyone that is in the grave in that hour when he comes, we'll hear his voice and guess what? They're going to be resurrected and they shall come forth. Now there's two kinds of people that are coming out of the graves. If everybody is being resurrected in the same hour, you've got all sorts of people, but they'll break down into two basic groups. God's people, the elect, the righteous, and then the unbelievers, the wicked. So all that are in the grave shall hear his voice and come forth, and shall come forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life. they that have done evil under the resurrection of damnation. How is it that modern theology, and it has only been modern theology, it has only been the last 100, 150 years where men have done this, how is it that we've said the hour is coming in which all that are in the grave shall hear his voice and they've interpreted the hour is coming to a 1007 year expanse. Why do they do that? Because that's what they do. They say, because the modern theology is, all right, so you've got the rapture. Those are certain people in the grave. Those are Christians in the church age for the last 2,000 years. It doesn't include the believers in the Old Testament. They stay in the grave. The wicked stay in the grave. It's a partial resurrection. It's just church-age Christians. There's one resurrection. Then you go through a seven-year tribulation because they misinterpret Daniel 9. They say, okay, seven years later, you get another resurrection. You get the tribulation saints, and they're resurrected. Oh yeah, and then you've got the Old Testament saints, guys like David, Jeremiah, because Jesus is coming to establish finally his millennial kingdom, which is the kingdom of Messiah. He's finally going to sit on David's throne and establish his kingdom. And when he comes after the seven-year tribulation, there's a resurrection of the tribulation saints, and then there's a resurrection of the believers from the Old Testament. But the wicked from the Old Testament, they're not resurrected. And the wicked from the New Testament, they're not resurrected. They still stay in the grave. There's two resurrections. Then a thousand years goes by. You get to the end of a thousand years, and there's a third resurrection. Three resurrections. Where in the world is this in scripture? You've got guys with churches with 10,000 people in it that say it's so, so they win and I lose. That is the raw facts of it. And that is how it works. I challenge you! Where did the Bible teach three resurrections? Because at the end of the millennium, at the end of the thousand years, you finally got the wicked being raved. You've got Jezebel. She doesn't get raved. I don't mean Hillary, but she won't get raved until then either. But you've got all sorts of Jezebels and Ahabs. They won't be resurrected until after the thousand years. Because none of the wicked in the Old or New Testament are resurrected to the thousand years. So you've got the rapture of the church, resurrection of New Testament Christians. Then seven years later, you've got the resurrection of Tribulation Saints and Old Testament Saints. Then a thousand years after that, you've got the resurrection of all the wicked of all ages. Three resurrections! Now, you know how they respond to that? Well, it's not really three, it's two. Wait a minute. One, two, three. That's two? Yup. Because they say, and I read this from John R. Rice, The first two are close together. They're only separated by seven years. They're really part of the same resurrection. No, no, it's separate resurrections. The seven years has transpired, and they're different people. You're saying the first resurrection is New Testament Christians. The second resurrection is mainly Saints from the Old Testament. So they try and say there's only two resurrections, and they say that's the two resurrections of Revelation 20. You got the first one, you got the second one. No, you believe in three. Why don't you face facts? Now see, let's forget the theories of men. Forget amillennialism, forget premillennialism, forget postmillennialism. And we go to Jesus as children without preconceived notions. And the language is not complicated. I don't see the place for controversy. Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming. The hour, it happens in an hour. The hour is coming, and I don't necessarily mean that it has to be 60 minutes, but the time is coming, and it's one time, not three times, separated by a thousand and seven years. For the hour is coming in which all that are in the grave shall hear his voice and shall come forth. They that have done good, they come forth for the purpose of receiving the resurrection of life. And they that have done evil, they're resurrected in that hour for the purpose of receiving the resurrection of damnation, that they're to be judged according to their works. It's as simple as that. So when you read this, you say, so what will the end be like? You say, well, Jesus is going to return and all that are in the graves are going to come out and the righteous will be rewarded in that day and receive their eternal life. And then the wicked are going to be judged in their sins. That's what you would conclude. This complicated scheme of how Lindsay's of this world, you know, you can't, you don't extract that from this. You read it into it. What I'm saying is they've taken Revelation 20 and two resurrections separated by a thousand years in Revelation, mind you, and they're overthrowing the simple meaning of this and they're making this fit that. That's backwards. I'm not saying you can instantly know the meaning of Revelation 20, although I can give you an interpretation. You know, like I always say to you in these kind of instances, I don't know if I should or I want to. I have to offer up some opinion there. That's not the point. The point to me, the point isn't to figure out Revelation 20. The point is approaching God's word with reverence, respect, propriety and proportion and biblical principles guiding you no matter what people say about you, no matter whether they laugh at you or they cut you off as being a know nothing. Jesus said some simple words here. I say I can understand that. There's nothing hard there. When I go to Revelation and there's swords coming out of his mouth and there's all sorts of strange things going on that seem impossible. There's symbolic language everywhere. And wait a minute, it's prophecy. And Moses told us the nature of prophecy. Am I going to make this conform to Revelation 20? Or am I going to, I'm not going to read revelation 20 and say, I'll try and understand it, but I can't let go of this because this is the plains book. I'll let this guide me so that my understanding in my piecing together revelation 20 doesn't contradict this simple text. And my point is this, if all you had to go on was the thousand years of revelation 20 in John chapter five, which texts must conform to the other? Right? Should we have the text here and what Jesus said conform to our understanding of Revelation 20? Or should our understanding of Revelation 20 be guided by this straightforward text given by our Lord? I would judge as the latter. But guess what, brethren? This is not the only text we have to go on. I'm saying if all you had was a two, I would still come to the same conclusion. Because this is too simple. but we don't have just the two. And what Jesus said here in John chapter 5 is basically repeated in principle time and time and time again in scripture. That means that's the thing we can be sure of and not let go of. Don't run away from the thousand years of Revelation 20, but don't put the cot before the horse. Let's bow heads in prayer. Heavenly Father, we are interested to know how to approach your Word. Although we are curious, perhaps, as to the intended meaning of the Holy Spirit in Revelation 20, and it is a part of Scripture, unless it should be read and studied, we do remember how the apostles did not understand all those prophecies that came by virtue of visions and dark sayings and dreams. Be mindful that some of that may be true for us as well. It doesn't mean we quit studying. But Father, guide our thinking. May we be a humbled people and a people that are quick to embrace with ease the principles of Thy Word May we be slow to offer up our opinions and quick to embrace that which has been spoken plainly, particularly when it comes from the very lips of our Lord Himself. I don't know that a text could be stated any more simply than what has been given here by Jesus. Let us hold these things in their proper order. and be quick to embrace what we truly can know and to be slow to develop strong positions in things that cannot be so easily known. Open our eyes to the degree it pleases thee for us to see these things at this time. We know many of the prophecies were made plain to the apostles after their fulfillment in the death and resurrection of Christ and it wouldn't be till then they could understand. And so we would judge, it may be much of what's in Revelation, it may be your divine appointment and intention that we don't fully understand until these things unfold and we say, We were ignorant, and the Lord was right all along. May we never misrepresent Thee in our musings in Scripture. Give us wisdom, deportment, most of all love for Christ, patience in love one for another. May we be quick to hear, slow to speak, and may the Spirit of God reign in our hearts. We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.