I'm going to read Revelation 3, 1 through 3. And I'm going to actually in this series be using a translation of the majority text. And I'm doing so for three reasons. And the first is obviously I believe God has preserved His text in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts in every period down through history. And the new King James is generally pretty strong in the majority text. But in the book of Revelation, it's not quite there. So that's one of the reasons we're going to keep publishing it in the bulletin. And then secondly, you know, God wants us to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4 verse 4. So we shouldn't take a who cares attitude. If He's preserved every word, which He surely has, we want to live by every word. And sometimes there is a significance to these differences. And so reading from the bulletin here, the revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show to his slaves things that must occur shortly. And he communicated it sending it by his angel to his slave John who gave witness to the word of God even the testimony of Jesus Christ. the things that he saw both things that are and those that must happen after these. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things that are written in it because the time is near. Father I pray as we dig into your word that we would find great joy in who you are and what you are accomplishing and the glorious purposes that you have had from eternity past to eternity future. I pray that you would give us faith, that you would give us insight, you would protect me from teaching any error and enable me, Father, to faithfully preach your word in a way that helps these people to understand this magnificent, wonderful book. We pray this in Christ's name. Amen. Well, the first 11 verses of this chapter give us 30 divine principles by which we can understand the book of Revelation. You can think of them as 30 principles of hermeneutics, so to speak, principles of interpretation. God does not want us bringing our own interpretations or importing our own values, our own philosophies, trying to fit, you know, modern current events into the various chapters of Revelation. In fact, that's one of the things that has gotten many, many commentaries into trouble for some reason, they think. God's only interested in our generation and all of these prophecies have to be doing something to do with us. And so they're always importing these things. And I tell you, when you read some of the futurist commentaries from 20 years ago, 50, 100 years ago and more, it is a hoot. And maybe I should, first of all, define terms. This is going to be a whole series where you're going to have to learn some new terms that you haven't heard before. Some people think that you can divide the book of Revelation up into amillennial, postmillennial, or premillennial. It's actually not true. There are amillennials, postmillennialists, and premillennialists who all agree with my interpretation of the first 19 chapters of this book, okay? And there are all three who agree with the historicist interpretation. And there is the futurist and idealist. And we're going to be weeding out some of these different approaches to the book over time. But as I was saying, Gumerlach has written a book that documents over the past Well, actually, over the past 2,000 years, but you just look at the last 200 years of commentaries on Revelation, and it is just hilarious to see the constantly changing identities of who the beast of Revelation is, and the significance of Russia and Europe. the Middle East and various wars and other events. In fact, some people will publish a commentary and they will identify various parts of the Middle East. Well, those countries no longer exist and so the same guy rewrites the commentary and we've got modern examples of it with wars, of Wolvard being one of those. And it really is very, very interesting And I think part of the problem is that they have ignored several of these principles of interpretation that John has laid out for us in these first 11 verses. God has told us exactly how He wants us to interpret this book, how He wants us to read this. And when you once understand these stated presuppositions or these rules of interpretation, however you want to describe them, the rest of the book becomes surprisingly easy to understand. Now it's true there will be some rough spots where you're going to have to really put your thinking caps on, but for the most part it becomes an incredibly open book. I know some of you have learned to be cynics And there's a good reason to be cynical about various interpretations on Revelation, that's for sure. And so you're probably already thinking in your head, hey, Kaiser, if it's so easy to understand, how come there is so many diverse views on the book of Revelation? Well, I would just challenge you to pick out some of those commentaries, and there are literally hundreds and hundreds of commentaries in Revelation, and the ones that really diverge in these various ways, look at what they say about these first 11 verses. Most of them just slide right over them very, very quickly. They do not take these verses very seriously, and yet they're critically important. John put them here so that we would know exactly how to read this book. And let me illustrate how it is so easy for people to import their thinking into really any area of life. Dr. Carl Springer, who is the professor of English literature at Illinois State University, and actually he heads up the whole classics department, he has written a wonderful critique that you can get online of the literary critics that are out there and how they interpret various novels and poems and plays and different things like this. And he criticizes them for engaging in eisegesis, that means reading into the text something, rather than exegesis, letting the text itself speak to you. He said, for example, that there are over, quote, 25,000 books, essays, articles, papers, and other dissertations just on Shakespeare's one play, Hamlet. 25,000, that's incredible. And he says that even though, you know, some of those scholarly articles and books are worth consulting, He goes on to say, the vast majority of scholarship devoted to Hamlet sheds less light on the melancholy Dane or his creator than it does on the theoretical presuppositions and political agendas of the critics. What does he mean by that? Well, if you have been an English major in the university, you know exactly what he means. I was an English major in college, and one of the frustrating things that the teachers made me do was to read all of the different critical views of a various novel or a various play to tell you what it really means. You can't just take a surface knowledge. You've got to know what it really And as I wasted hundreds of hours reading radically contradictory commentators on what these various plays and novels meant, I became an incredible skeptic of literary criticism. Now there is good literary criticism out there that just takes the text seriously and the original context and who the author was and things like that. But they would make me read Marxist interpretations. So I'd read a Marxist interpretation, have to interact in my papers with all of his idiotic ideas, and then I'd have to plow through essays written by feminists and Foucauldians and Derridians and deconstructionists and liberationists, and believe it or not, Even back in the 80s when I was in university, we had to interact with queer interpretations of this literature. I tell you what, it was a weird experience. It took all the fun out of my studies. I hated it. And what I discovered is that when an author would get angry at one of these weird interpretations and he would say, I most definitely did not mean that in my writing." They would say, oh well, subconsciously he did mean that. He doesn't realize the degree to which he's been influenced by, you know, his environment. Or they would sometimes say, you know, authorial intent is irrelevant. And that's the direction that postmodern English literary criticism is going. And let me give you some sample quotes of how literary critics shamelessly read into novels what they want to see there. And I just pulled these off of a recent literature group. One of these critics said, authorial interpretation does not necessarily equate with correct interpretation, much less only interpretation. Art exists apart from the artist. Once created, an artist's interpretation is no more or less valid than anyone else's. He can tell you what he had in mind, but to what degree, that's what the story says. That's a question he's no more qualified to answer than any of us. Wow, you just ignore what the author of this thing has said it means and you read your own interpretation into it. Here's another quote, literary criticism no longer holds that what an author actually thought about his or her book is definitive in the interpretation of the book and it's perfectly reasonable to treat the text in absence of the author even if the author says things which entirely disagree with you. and to think I wasted more than $40,000 on my college education. Wow. If I had to do it all over again, I would have gotten an engineering degree or something like that. It wasn't entirely a waste, but you can understand my frustration with literary critics. They frequently ignore authorial intent. By that I mean, what was the intention of the author himself? When I'm reading a novel, I want to understand his background, his audience, his worldview, his use of language. But while most evangelicals have far better intentions than those English Literature critics, many of them still fail to take seriously the authorial intention laid out in the first 11 verses of this book and the style that John himself says that he is writing in. And they ignore the author's clues on timing and context and purpose and goals for writing and why he used Hebraic grammar. I mean, there's an entire grammar book that's just for the unique grammar of Revelation. Why did he write in that way? Over the past 30 years I have made it a hobby to read and study every view on the book of Revelation that I could lay my hands on. And with many of these commentators it's very, very clear that they have a system that they are trying to defend And on occasion they will run roughshod over the text of the scripture in order to defend or maintain their system. Okay, now I think it's a temptation for any of us to do that. You've got a beautiful system that's all worked out and then there's a text that doesn't fit. A lot of times people's first inclination is not to ditch their system. Their first inclination is, oh boy, how do I get that to fit into my system? I've even seen partial preterists do this, okay? And it's very frustrating. Our goal must be, when we're studying the book of Revelation, to pay heed to the repeated phrase in this book He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." So we are not going to go through these first 11 verses very quickly. You might be dying to get into the four horsemen of the apocalypse or the beast or the you know, the number 666 and all of those cool things later on in this book, but it's absolutely imperative that we lay a solid foundation first over the next two or three weeks. I'm actually not sure how long it's going to take for me to get through these 11 verses, but I want to make sure we've got a solid basis and then we're going to be able to build the book so much more easily. So today, We read three verses, but I'm only actually going to get through the first sentence of the first verse. And yet it is packed with meaning. It is packed with meaning. There's eight presuppositions, eight principles that we're going to look at. And the first principle can be seen in the two words, the revelation. This book is a revelation of truth, not a covering of truth. Now the Greek word is apocalypsis. You've heard the term apocalypse. That's where they get it from, apocalypsis. And the first syllable in that Greek word means the opposite of. It's the opposite of kalupto. Well what does kalupto mean? Kalupto means to cover, to hide, or to veil. Jesus uses kalupto in Luke 8 verse 16 to say, assuming in his right mind, is going to light a lamp and then put it under a basket because then the light is hidden. Well, apocalypsis is the opposite of being hidden. It's to uncover and to unhide. In 2 Corinthians 4 verse 3 Paul uses kalupto to refer to the veil that covers the eyes of unbelievers so that they cannot believe, they cannot understand, they cannot see the gospel clearly. Well, Revelation is the opposite of that. It is the unveiling of eyes or the opening of eyes so that we're no longer looking at life dimly, or maybe not even seeing it properly at all. In fact, some people liken Revelation to the difference between a comic book, which is Revelation, and a textbook, which are the commentaries on Revelation. And he said, really, it's like a comic book. When you read the book with the principles of these first eleven verses in mind, it becomes easy. It becomes very, very accessible. And let me explain Well, let me give the dictionary definition first of all. Apocalypse means, quote, to unveil, to cause something to be fully known to reveal, to disclose, to make fully known a revelation. So any interpretation that says that this book cannot be fully understood is automatically suspect. Somehow they're getting off to a wrong start with wrong principles. And if you get off on the wrong footing, yes, this can be an incredibly confusing book. And believe it or not, there are a lot of commentators out there that admit fully in their commentaries that they don't understand a certain passage, but they claim nobody else understands it either. It's impossible to understand. And I say, no, if you follow these 30 hermeneutical clues that we're going to be going through in however many weeks it takes us to, You will be able to understand the book. Now let me explain why an entire school of respected scholars have violated this principle. And later on we're going to see they violated other principles of these 30 as well. It's the historicist school of interpretation used by the Reformers. And I'm just going to pick on one guy. Adam Clarke. I love Adam Clarke's commentaries. He's a great commentator. He's written quite a few different commentaries, but his commentary on Revelation is absolutely confusing. He was trying to rescue the historicist interpretation that the Reformers used because it had been discredited because of so many failed predictions that they had made. Let me first of all define what historicism is. Historicism believes that revelation starts in the first century and then it progresses chapter by chapter throughout the rest of history until it gets to the second coming, which is at the end of the book. And as I mentioned, most of the Reformers held to the historicist interpretation. And there are amils and premils and there are postmils who hold to that. They're going to have slightly different variations on it. But I want to first of all say that it is a respected And it's got a long pedigree. It's a respected pedigree in all three main camps of eschatology. And they do say some things right. All of the different schools of eschatology, other than liberalism, they all say something right about this book. What do they say right? Well, they point out correctly that Revelation starts in the first century. And they point out correctly that it ends with the second coming and ushering in eternity, so they have the bookends right. And they assume, well, if this starts in the first century, this starts at the end of time, that there must be a linear progression all the way through, tying all of history together in the chapters that are in between. There have been endless attempts to try to fit Constantine, the Middle Ages, various popes, the Muslims, the Crusades, the Reformation, the end of the papacy, and all kinds of other things into those in-between chapters. One historicist saw the angel having the everlasting gospel in chapter 14, verse 6 as the Emperor Constantine. Another one saw it as Francis of Assisi. Another one saw it as Martin Luther. There is such a plethora of candidates for the two witnesses in Revelation chapter 11 that it's just an embarrassment to the school of historicism. And you look at their commentaries and you wonder, how on earth do they get the Muslim hordes coming up from the bottomless pit in Revelation chapter 9? I mean, it's clearly demons who are coming up out of that bottomless pit. But they say, oh, no, Abbadon, the ruler, of those locust demons. That's Muhammad. And all of these locusts that are coming out, those are the Muslims who are overrunning Christendom and taking it over. Now I should point out that not all historicists say that they are Muslims. I think that's the majority view. But there were some Lutherans who thought the Catholics were the demons from the bottomless pit. And there were some Catholics who thought the Lutherans were the demons from the bottomless pit. And so anyway, my biggest problem with historicism is I don't see any necessary exegetical connection between the text and what they say it is referring to in history. It just seems arbitrary. It seems like they've started with history, they're trying to fit it in, and they're saying, well, that doesn't work, that doesn't work, and they're trying to fit history. It's eisegesis. They're reading it into the passage. And that's why it keeps changing. The historicists have made just about as many adjustments as other schools of futurism and historicism and premillennialism has. One hundred years after the Reformation, the prediction that the papacy would fall didn't happen. And so historicists would refigure things and what the symbols stood for, but that meant they started later, they have to adjust all of the earlier chapters, and then that doesn't happen, and so they have to readjust everything in the text again. And it's become a moving target because they keep changing the interpretation when things don't fit. And the reason I'm even bothering to spend time on criticizing historicism is because well-respected reformers held to it. And there are people like Francis Nigel Lee who are resurrecting this. I've got friends who hold to historicism today. And if they're listening to this MP3 in the future, my goal is not to offend people. My goal is to convince them. But even if they're not convinced, Again, I don't want to offend people, but we have to clearly lay out what the text means and what it does not mean, or there's going to be confusion. When I was in my early twenties, I studied it a great deal because I loved the Reformers, respected them. I really tried hard to be a historicist. But it is so obviously wrong that there are very few historicists today. Now if you are a historicist, and I think there are a couple in this congregation possibly, if you are a historicist, maybe Adam Clarke's commentary might get you excited. because he predicted that Rome would cease to be the papacy in this year, 2015. Wow. How exciting. We could be on the cusp of something really, really great. And the way he came to that is that he took the 1260 days, which is the first half of the seven-year tribulation, The 1260 days, which I take as literal 1260 days, okay? But he changes 1260 days to 1260 years, which is rather arbitrary. But historicists do this, most of them do this. And then he has a rather arbitrary starting point. It's 755 AD. Now what happened in 755 AD? He thought that there might be some significance to the Pope's elevation from being a subject of the Byzantine Empire to being the independent head of the Papal States by means of the donation of Pepin. And others had started it at earlier dates, but it didn't work out, so he has to move it forward. Well, you add 1260 years to 755 A.D. and voila, we're going to begin the millennium in 2015. Pretty exciting. Now before you get too excited, let me read a confession that Adam Clark wrote on page 965 of his commentary. He said, nor can I pretend to explain the book. I do not understand it. Well, yeah, if you're bound to be a historicist and reading back into the text, you know, all of history, you're going to be confused. But he goes on, he says, I am satisfied that no certain mode of interpreting the prophecies of this book has yet been found. I repeat it, I do not understand the book and I am satisfied that not one who was written on the subject knows anything more about it than I myself." Now his publishers didn't put that on the fly leaf of the book. It wouldn't have sold very many copies. But I'm bringing this up because even though other historicists might be dogmatic and might not have the candor of Adam Clark, their books are no less confusing and no less arbitrary. I'm holding myself to the same standard. If what I teach over the next two years or however long it takes, I better not hold myself to two years, right? If what I teach is not an opening up of the text then I have violated this first principle of divine hermeneutics. It must be so clear that there is a necessary connection between the text and history, and I hope to demonstrate that there is. So once again, giving the dictionary definition of this word, apocalypsis means to unveil, to cause something to be fully known, to reveal, to disclose, to make fully known a revelation. The second principle is seen in the next three words. We must treat this book as a revelation about Jesus Christ. Now it's true that the of, it's a genitive in the Greek if you've been reading Greek, The of can mean that Jesus did the revealing, and later on we see that that is the case, but he's not repeating himself. So some commentators take it, yeah, Jesus did the revealing, or other commentators take it that Jesus is the subject that is being revealed. And that's the way that I take it. It's a message about Jesus. Commentators are divided. But I think that Reasoner and other recent commentators have shown that the grammar and the context weigh very, very heavily in favor of the subject of this book being Jesus. In other words, it's revealing what Jesus is doing in human history. It's about Him. Now here's how one commentator worded it. John's vision pulls back the curtains. So that's the first word, apocalypsis. It pulls back the curtains, revealing Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords. Now, Vic Reasoner explains why this is such a critical principle for us to understand. He says, the first three words of the Greek text clearly indicate that the subject of the book is the revelation of Jesus Christ. The fact that Jesus Christ is the central character of this book comes as a disappointment to carnal readers who are more fascinated with Antichrist than with Christ, with violence and destruction than with the Kingdom of Christ, with monsters and hideous creatures than with the Bride of Christ, and with speculation than with adoration. According to 19 verse 10, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Since the purpose of prophecy is to testify to the identity of Jesus, all interpretations of the prophetic passages which do not make Christ central should be considered suspect. Why is this so important? Well, I believe it's important because if all that your eyes see are the tribulations and the destructions and the deaths that occur in the first six parts of this seven-part book, you're going to get depressed out of your socks, okay? But God gave an introduction to every one of those seven sections that basically says Jesus is on the throne, do not worry, and that his kingdom is going to be invincibly advancing throughout the earth. In fact, those introductions make it clear that the very things that we are fearful of are tools in God's hand to frustrate Satan. And yet in too many commentators, Terry's, those seven introductions are lost in the forest. In fact, they don't even see them as introductions. But it's not just those introductions. All through the book are strewn encouragements to let us know that even though Satan may roar, he's really a wounded and a defeated enemy. For example, already in this first chapter, you see it, chapter 1, verse 5, It says that Jesus was even then, even during the time of tribulation that John was experiencing, he was ruling over the kings of the earth. Nothing could happen to the church without the permission of Jesus. Likewise, Revelation 2 through 3 is not just a message about churches. That's the way some people take it. Well, if you take it as just a message about churches, you're going to get discouraged because six of those seven churches were incredibly weak and they had problems and corruption. But there's an introduction to that section of the book, and that introduction starts in chapter 1, verse 12, and goes through 1, verse 20. What is that introduction? It's an encouraging introduction that Jesus Christ is walking in the midst of those churches. Why does that make a difference? Well, he's doing something with them. And what starts off as faltering, weak churches in chapters 2 through 3 ends up as churches that are overcoming Satan in chapter 12. And by the time you get to the end of the book, they are triumphant. Why? Because Jesus is working through those churches. Okay, all the way through this book, He is guiding history. He is the central focus. And if you keep your eyes focused on Jesus and what He is doing, it enlivens your faith. We must have a Christocentric perspective, and I think many, many commentaries lack that. The third principle is found in the words which God gave. Okay, now I'm not going to beat up so much on evangelicals as I am on liberals. Revelation is not merely a collection of the writings of men, as many liberals claim. These liberals recognize that the first 19 chapters of this book have so much detail about the first century happenings that they said it couldn't possibly have been written any earlier than 95 AD, maybe even later than that. Why would they say that? Because they do not believe in supernatural predictive prophecy. They think it's just inconceivable that anybody could have written these things years before the events actually happened. And so they claim that the writer pretended to be John, and he pretended to write a prophecy, but in reality he's describing past historical events after they happened, long after they happened. So they advocate a minimum of 95 A.D., some of them into the hundreds and some of them even into the 200s A.D. That's been so discredited. Almost nobody believes that anymore, but that was where they started. And we say, no, this is the inspired Word of God. God does indeed predict the future. Now, obviously, we reject liberalism, but I have found evangelical commentaries that buy into such liberal ideas. as the myth of Nero rising up again and troubling people through later time, or the late dating of the book. The earliest that this book could have been written is 62 AD. The very latest that it could have been written is 66 AD. And if you want a book that discusses all of the external and all of the internal evidences, Is it Ken Gentry? Yeah, Kenneth Gentry's book, Before Jerusalem Fell. Fantastic book. In fact, it's convinced lots of conservatives and even some liberals that they are dead wrong on their dating of the book of Revelation. There's actually a liberal who's written a fantastic book. He's been convinced by the overwhelming evidence. It's Robinson is his name. You remember his first name, Rodney? Anyway, Robinson redating the New Testament and he dates all of the New Testament books just like we conservatives would before 70 AD. But the evidence is pretty strong. But back to the main point, we must treat this book with the reverence due to an inspired book of God. Too many commentators brush aside certain descriptions as if they were irrelevant. And there's a reason they do that. Those little details are inconvenient to their system. But if this is really the inspired Bible, then every single word of this book is critically important. Some full preterists And some futurists on opposite side of the spectrums want you to look at the overall meaning of some of the paragraphs and not take too seriously every individual word. And we're gonna see, no, Christ commanded us to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. Even the tenses of the verbs we're gonna be seeing are very, very important for interpreting this text. And that means we must approach the text with reverence, see it as a gift from God, value it, and not allow our systems to drive our exegesis, but make the text drive our interpretation. The fourth principle is that God has freely shown the meaning of this book to all readers, not just to a secret few. Gnostics would not show anyone what was meant by their weird writings, except for maybe Orale in their secret meetings. But verse 1 says that God gave this revelation to show to His slaves the meaning. He wants his slaves to know and understand this book. Seven times God tells the church, he who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. And he repeats that in chapter 13. If anyone has an ear, let him hear. So if God wants us to understand the message, it's obviously possible for this message to be known. He's a good communicator. This is one of several things that distinguishes revelation from the Gnostic literature of the time. Now last week, I mentioned that some commentators treat Revelation as if it was apocalyptic literature. But the Gnostic apocalyptic literature was so obtuse that no one had a clue what it meant. They weren't supposed to. They were supposed to Look at what what does this mean and say well if you join our secret society We'll tell you what it means and once you get into the secret society You're given keys these special keys that decode the book of course They don't give you all the keys at once because you have to climb to higher and higher Levels of meaning as you it's sort of like Freemasonry. You know you got all these how many degrees do they have 30? 32, something like that. That's what it was in these Gnostic societies. They'd keep giving you more keys to understanding this book until finally knowledge is power. You're going to have the power to understand. So one commentator said, these mysteries are something which is meaningless to the outsider but meaningful to the initiate who possesses the key. So the idea is, once they gave you the keys to decoding their literature, you were in on the in circle. Well, if this was the case, that would mean we'll never know what the meaning of this book is because those keys were secret. And there are commentators who take exactly that approach. But that's not true of the mysteries or secrets in this book. God shares them within the book, not simply at secret meetings. For example, take a look at verse 20. It says, the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand and the seven golden lampstands. So there are mysteries, right? There are secrets. But unlike apocalyptic literature, he does explain it right in the text. He goes on, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches. So he's interpreting these symbols right within the book. Gnostics would not do that. The codes would always be kept secret. And yet in this book, God explains the symbols over and over again. Chapter 4, verse 5. Chapter 5, verse 6. Chapter 5, verse 8. Chapter 7, verses 13 and 14. You go on through the book. They are interpreted. He gives away the secrets to anyone who wants to read them. But this means, apart from ignoring some of the newer versions of full preterism and some idealists, there's a few people who take this as apocalyptic literature, It also means, as a tangential application, that you can't be a panmillennialist. Some people say that they're neither omnil, premil, postmil, that they're panmil, which means they're content that it's all going to pan out in the end. That's very clever, but it's not biblical. God says here He wants all of His slaves to know. He wants them to know things. There's a reason why He wants us to know, and that's the next point. The fifth principle is you are slaves who are responsible to do what your master has commanded you to do in this book. This is his instruction manual for his slaves. Verse 1 says, which God gave him to show to his slaves. Now if you're an American, you don't tend to think this way. New King James Version kind of softens the translation of douloise into servants. But I challenge you, you can look that word up in any Greek dictionary and you'll see it just means slaves. And we are slaves. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6 20 and again in chapter 7 verse 23, You're a slave. You're not free to do whatever you want to do. You've been bought out of the slave market. You are now Christ's slaves. Now, let me hasten to say that slavery to Christ is liberty, and people have a hard time wrapping their brains around that, but think of it this way. What is the only way that a train engine can be free and powerful and speedy and useful? It is when that train engine has been purchased out of the factory, placed on the railroad tracks, in the service and the slavery of the company. Okay? From that time on, it is bound to serve the company. If it wants to have humanistic liberty or humanistic freedom and it jumps the tracks, it actually gets bondage. Right? So to have maximum freedom, maximum liberty and power, it's got to stay on the tracks. And it's really the same with us. Slavery to Christ is like those railroad tracks. If you are faithful slaves, you will have power, joy, and liberty. Well, this book is the final installment of instructions to Christ's slaves and how they are to behave. We started with Genesis last week, and this is the last installment. Well, this means this book is not just for academics. It's for all his slaves. He didn't just write it to the people who, you know, like as a special hobby to study this book, like Phil Kaiser had a special hobby on this. He wants all of his slaves to understand it. And he doesn't give his slaves instructions that are optional. And yet, he doesn't give those instructions to make them miserable. Verse 3 says, Blessed is he who reads, and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written in it, because the time is near. So he is saying, this is not just for academics, it's for all slaves, and you will be blessed if you obey it. And the implication is that therefore this is an actionable book. It's a manual that's intended to be carried out. And hopefully as I preach through the book, I'll show you the practical ways that Christ's slaves can live this out as they seek to advance His kingdom. Now another critical point that's denied this time by idealists is that this whole book deals with history. He speaks of things which must occur shortly. They're real historical things and they occur, or as the New King James words it, they take place. Okay? So this whole book is dealing with history. Now that is in such stark contrast, not only to apocalypticism, but it's in such stark contrast to idealism, which says that the book gives us principles that can be applied, but you're never going to find a period in history when any of these principles are laid out or there's any historical fulfillment. They say it's an idea book. It's not intended to be a prophecy of future history. And we say, no, this is dealing with real history. I do want to make a clarification so as not to be misunderstood. And there are people who fail to make this clarification. The unseen spirit world of angels and demons is a part of history. And this book unveils what we cannot see with our own eyes. So, for example, the gospel of Matthew tells us that as soon as Jesus was born, what did Herod do? He sent his soldiers to try to kill Jesus. And he ends up killing all of the babies, you know, under a certain age in Bethlehem. Well, when we get to Revelation, what Revelation does is it unveils, that's the word apocalypsis, it unveils, it pulls back the curtains so that our eyes can see into the spiritual realm of what is going on behind the scenes. And so when the act that starts in Revelation chapter 12 has the curtains drawn aside, whoa, we see a spirit being that is symbolized by the dragon and this dragon wants to kill Jesus as soon as He is born. So what's going on here? The apocalypsis, the opening of these veil helps us to see it's not just Herod that's wanting to kill Him. There is a spirit being behind Herod that is moving Him. to do that killing. And so this book gives us behind the scenes information that enables us to engage in spiritual warfare. It's a spiritual warfare manual. And it's really important to understand that just because we're dealing with history does not mean we're fighting with flesh and blood. No, we are fighting against principalities and powers that are behind that flesh and blood. Now another clarification that I want to make is that the symbols of this book are often actual historical events themselves. They don't have to be. But they often are. You may remember that I explained last week that even though Revelation is filled with symbols, that does not in any way deny that the symbols themselves could exist in history. For example, I mentioned the sun was darkened in the middle of the day without a lunar eclipse. That the moon turned blood red. And that there were all of these incredible meteorite falls. You know, the stars falling to the earth. And those are symbols. The sun is a symbol of an empire falling, you know, when it is darkened. And yet the sun, the moon, the stars all through the Old Testament are symbols of the rulers of those empires as well. So some people just take it as symbolic. They don't look for anything in history. But if you read the first century historians, you'll see there was an incredible number of signs in the heavens, incredible number of signs on the earth. So it's not either or. It could be both and. I asked the question, was the rock that Moses struck in the wilderness, was it a literal rock or was it merely a symbol? We saw it's both. It was a literal historical rock that Moses historically struck that was a symbol pointing to Jesus. So it doesn't have to be either or, it can be both and. Anyway, Mounts says, symbolism is not a denial of historicity, but a figurative method of communicating reality. Now if this sixth principle is true, then it clearly rules out the whole school of idealism, which has great applications. I go to those commentaries for applications of principles, but which denies that this book deals with actual history. Okay, so we're kind of weeding things down. You don't need to worry about looking at that. You don't need to worry about looking at this. We're gradually trying to narrow the scope of what we have to deal with because there are so many interpretations out there and these 30 principles are going to help. By the way, I should point out that most of these schools of interpretation have some truth and there's stuff you can learn from them. When I was up in Minnesota, I was just telling my mom earlier, that when I was up in Minnesota, we went to an evangelical free church. That's where we take vacation, do our fishing and stuff. But we went there and he was preaching from Revelation and the Beast of Revelation. It was a dispensational interpretation of the eschatology portion I totally disagreed with. But I came away so blessed because his applications were right on, spot on. And so I don't think these kinds of things need to divide Christians. We can learn from each other as we're digging into the scriptures, but it is still important that we try to understand the reference. Now this principle also flies in the face of some commentaries that claim revelation is myth. And they're kind of taking C.S. Lewis's view of revelation. Lewis spoke of revelation as myth. Now he did not mean by that that it was false. Instead, he meant that it is a mythical story communicating truth just like Narnia is a mythical story communicating truth. That is a complete contradiction of this principle. God said that this book is dealing with things that must occur shortly. That's the language of history. Okay? If it was a myth, or if idealism were true, then it makes no sense whatsoever for Revelation chapter 17 verse 10 to be talking about seven kings, five of whom have already died, one of whom was reigning while Paul was writing, and that was Nero, and another one who has not yet come. That's the language of historical progression. So while I respect a lot of the idealist commentators, especially their applications, They are dead wrong in failing to see this book as a book of history. But the next principle tells us what kind of history he's going to be forth telling. Principle number seven, the word must, shows that what is being described in this book is predestined to occur. He's going to tell us about things that must occur shortly. It's not an accident. God has predestined this history. Now that does not make any of the players passive robots. Remember from our former teaching that you've got to hold to both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. People err on one side or the other. You've got to hold them both together even if it feels like it's intention. They are both true. But it does show that there is meaning to history. If a good, holy, purposeful, and a loving God is behind the events of this book, it gives tremendous confidence to the people who would face the events of this book, right? But in the process, it also encourages us because it shows us that God is at work in history. In a sense, this book gives us a biblical philosophy of providential history by making its focus on one period of history. So it shows us how he worked in one period, and since he's the same yesterday, today, and forever, it's going to show us how he deals with history in general. And let me explain the word must. The word must is the Greek word de, delta epsilon iota, or in English, D-E-I. It's pronounced day. And here is the dictionary definition of that word. Quote, to be under necessity of happening. It is necessary. One must. One has to." So you look at the various dictionaries and you'll see this is something that is determined. It will happen. It's not just something that might happen. No, this is something that absolutely will happen. And this word is used over and over again of Jesus in the Gospels. He could not die one day earlier than He died. Because it was necessary, the Gospels tell us, day, it was necessary that he die on the day of Passover. Let me just read you a few other examples. Luke 4 verse 43. But he said to them, I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, because for this purpose I have been sent. Luke 13 verse 33. Nevertheless, I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem. Notice that Jesus said that He had to die on a given day in a given place in the district of Jerusalem, which by the way was extended outside the walls. You know, some people think that's a contradiction in Scripture. No. Every city has a district called by that city name, and then there's the walls of that city. So he died outside the walls of Jerusalem, but it was in the district of Jerusalem. Anyway, God has destined every detail of his crucifixion, and yet it did not in any way make Jesus passive. He was very active. Both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are side by side. Matthew 16, verse 21. From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and be raised the third day. Matthew 24 verse 6, and you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled for all these things must come to pass. But the end is not yet. All of those wars and rumors of wars leading up to 70 AD must come to pass before the Old Covenant could be ended. There's no way of avoiding them. And yet the rest of that chapter gave them the comfort of God's good purposes in the midst of the trials. Matthew 26, verse 53, how then could the Scriptures be fulfilled that it must happen thus? Mark 13, 10, and the gospel must first be preached to all the nations. I think you get the point. I think we will grossly misinterpret the book of Revelation if we do not see it as representing providential history. I know some people who do everything in their power to explain away predestination, but that takes away hope. If all these things just happen by chance, we have no purpose. We have no hope. And so the fundamental question that the seventh principle addresses is this. Who is in charge? Who controls history? Is it Satan? Boy, that's sure the impression you get from some commentaries. You get the impression that Satan is in total control of history and there's not a thing you're going to be able to do to stop Satan. This book makes clear that even the most powerful of human agencies can be easily taken out by King Jesus. Amen and amen. I mean it's the exact opposite of what those commentaries say. Others say man is in charge. The way they talk about conspiracies, you would think that the Illuminati and the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderbergers and other organizations are in total control of history. They're unstoppable. They are invincible. And again, that's the exact opposite message of this book. Jesus is in control. And anyway, in the meantime, he uses those empires and those conspiracies as tools for the good of his church. And so this book makes clear that even Satan is no match for Christ's bond slaves. Now, sometimes it looks the opposite. You know, to the human eyes, it may have looked like Satan and or man had won the victory when the saints were being crucified and killed and tortured under Nero. But you know what Revelation chapter 12 says? It's the exact opposite. It says, they overcame him. And that's a reference to Satan, actually. They overcame Satan by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony. And they did not love their lives to the death. They were victors in life. They were victors in death. Their labors in the Lord were not in vain. And there was nothing Satan could do to stop the advancement of Christ's kingdom through the efforts of Christ's bond slaves. Not even death could stop them. This book is an encouraging message that the Illuminati is not in charge and Satan is not in charge. Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. Amen? He is truly in charge of every must, and that word occurs, but every must in this book. Things must turn out the way God has ordained and God has ordained that all enemies will eventually be placed under Christ's feet. But Principle 8, and we're going to stop with this one today, says that we must see the fulfillment or at least a partial fulfillment of all seven sections of Revelation as being soon, near, or about to happen. And that's very confusing to some people and so I want to spend a little bit of time trying to unravel that for you. Verse 1 says that they are things which must occur shortly. Now this principle rules out historicism and futurism of every stripe, whether all-millennial, post-millennial, pre-millennial. You simply cannot transform must-occur-shortly into must-occur-2000-years-later. The two are mutually exclusive. Some people take every letter to each church, and chapters 2 through 3 is representing a different age of the church. That's especially true of premillennial historicists, but there are other historicists that do the same thing. And they say, we live in the age of Laodicea, which is about to usher in the Great Tribulation. But that means that there really isn't anything in this book that comes shortly to pass, or as the Greek indicates, very soon. We have the same problem with aumil and post-mil historicists who don't see most of the book as happening very soon. Now let's say that you believe that at least chapters 1 through 3 occur very soon, but that the rest of the book is 2,000 years later. You still have a problem because the imminency of these events is scattered all throughout the book. It's not just in this chapter, it's even in the last chapter of this book. And so if you've got a Bible handling, let's just flip through just a few examples. Revelation 1 verse 3. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy and keep those things which are written in it for the time is near." The time for what? Well, the time for the things written in this book. Not just chapter 1 but the whole prophecy. And that is confusing to some people because there are some things in this book that are said to be a long, long ways away. So how do you reconcile those two? Look at verse 19. Right. The things which you have seen and the things which are and the things which will take place after this. Now that phrase will take place after this is literally are about to take place after this. It's the Greek word melee and it always refers to something about to happen. It's just on the cusp of happening. Okay. Look at chapter 2 verse 5. Remember therefore from where you have fallen, repent and do the first works or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place unless you repent. The word quickly in the Greek is takos, which the dictionary defines this way, quote, in a short time. It refers to a relatively brief time subsequent to another point of time, unquote. So whatever coming Jesus was talking about there, it was going to be soon. Look at verse 10, chapter 2, verse 10. Do not fear any of these things which you are about to suffer." That's the word mellow again. Indeed the devil is about... mellow... to throw some of you into prison that you may be tested. And you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death and I will give you the crown of life. I'll skip over 1 to chapter 3 verse 10. Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come, it's literally, is about to come upon the whole world to test those who dwell on the earth. And by the way, that trial from Nero, It was about to come. It was within weeks, maximum of months, but probably within weeks of this book being written. And throughout the world, Christians started getting imprisoned, tortured, and killed by the millions. It was the great tribulation against Christians. Not the great wrath against Israel, but the great tribulation. But it wasn't just Christians who suffered. Pagans in Israel and Rome also experienced great wrath. So when he says about to, he means exactly that. And it happened in every region of the empire. Revelation 3 verse 11. Behold, I am coming quickly. That's taku. I'm coming very, very soon. Taku. Hold fast what you have that no one may take your crown. Chapter 6 verse 11 has the saints waiting just a little while longer before judgment falls. And you can look up some of the other references yourself, some of which say Christ is coming very soon. He's about to come. Now, does that mean that every detail in the book has to occur in the first century? No. Now full preterists say yes, but all the rest of us say no. I believe that there are clear indicators in the text when it contrasts the things about to happen with the things that are going to be a long time away. But for these imminency time factors to work, at a minimum, something in every section of the book needs to have at least a partial fulfillment of the first century or these three Greek words have become meaningless. The book is divided up into seven happenings, and all seven happenings start in the first century, even though they continue on into the future. And so our position takes full account of the three words for soon, near, and about to happen, without falling into the error of full preterism. But the three words for soon, near, and about to happen rule out all historicist interpretations, all idealist interpretations, and all futurist interpretations of this book. Now, it's not as if they don't try to answer these objections. They do. Everybody wrestles with all of these issues in the books. And I want to give you the four interpretations, and there's only four, that you're going to find in the commentaries out there. Liberal commentaries will say that the church thought Christ's second coming was around the corner, and they were mistaken. Now we are evangelicals. We don't have that option, right? But I don't even know how liberals can say that because the texts in the New Testament are so clear. There's lots of things that are not about to happen. They're going to happen way off in the distance. All through the Gospels you see the church believing all kinds of things that have to happen before the end of history. So it's simply not credible to say that Jesus believed or the apostles believed or the church believed. that the Second Coming and the end of history was just around the corner. Let me give you just a tiny example of what liberals are ignoring. Matthew 24 through 25 says that Christ's coming and judgment upon Israel and upon Rome was soon, near, about to happen, within that generation, close and at the doors. These are all terms of imminency. He guaranteed that the generation of people then living would not pass away until he came in judgment. But then he goes on to talk about a different coming. This is the second coming, which he says will be delayed. Twice, he says, delayed. Chapter 24, verse 48. Chapter 25, verse 5. And it will be, quote, after a long time. Chapter 25, verse 19. I mean, those indicators are in stark contrast to the imminency times indicators of Christ's coming in judgment upon Israel. And by the way, even Milton Terry misses out on this. You'll notice in your hermeneutics book. Anyway, there are so many contrasts between the predicted coming and judgment upon Israel and the Second Coming, I think it's downright dishonest for liberals to say that the Scriptures are mistaken. Now, unfortunately, we evangelicals have given the liberals ammo. to use against us because many evangelicals naively confuse the coming and judgment on Israel with the second coming at the end of history. And so the liberal interpretation, that's the first interpretation of the passages. They say the second coming was promised to be near, soon, at the doors, and it didn't happen. It's just not a credible interpretation. Full preterists try to answer the liberals by saying that the second coming did occur in the first century and there is nothing more in prophecy to be fulfilled. They too fail to distinguish the clear, clear demarcators between the coming given in Matthew 24 verses 1 through 36 and the second coming in the rest of chapter 24 and chapter 25. For example, Christ said He didn't know the time of the second coming. Chapter 24 verse 36 and Mark 13 verse 32. But he did know the time of the first coming. And I won't give you all of these references but he did know the time not of the first coming but the coming in 70 AD. He knew the time. Chapter 24 verse 34 and Luke 21 is quite clear. Second, numerous signs are said to precede the coming in 70 AD and those signs would adequately warn God's people that the 70 AD coming was about to happen. Matthew 24, verses 4-34. All kinds of signs and precursors are listed. In contrast, no signs whatsoever are given before the Second Coming. Chapter 24, verses 35 through 51. At the Second Coming, you're going to be caught totally off guard. There will be no warnings given. Third, there is said to be terrible discontinuity of history and conflict and earthquakes and fear and wars and rumors of wars leading up to the coming in 70 AD. That's Matthew 24, 4 through 34. In contrast, there's a long period of peace before the Second Coming. Christ describes history as being normal in chapter 24 verses 37 through 39 and all of chapter 25. They're marrying, they're giving in marriage, life just goes on as normal. Fourth, The Great Tribulation, right before Christ's coming in 70 A.D., people will be able to flee to the mountains. They'll be able to escape. Chapter 24, verse 16. And they're warned, don't come back to your house to get your clothes or anything. Don't come back to your fields. That's chapter 24, verse 18. And the early church fathers say that they all heeded Christ's warnings and they escaped. As soon as Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, they fled and actually the armies left and allowed these Christians to flee and they survived the whole time of the seven year tribulation in Pella. We got that in the early histories. Now let's contrast that with the Second Coming. The Second Coming is going to be instantaneous and totally unexpected. There won't be any signs to warn them to flee. They wouldn't be able to flee anyway even if they wanted to. There's no point even talking about fleeing if it's instantaneous. Where are you going to flee to? Where are you going to come back to your house and get some clothing, you know, at the Second Coming? It doesn't make any sense. It would be too late. And there are so many contrasts between the imminent coming of Jesus in 70 A.D. and the long-delayed, long time away Second Coming that full preterism is not even remotely credible. They take the phrases for soon, near, and about to happen quite seriously in the book of Revelation, but they don't take it all seriously. The thousand years mentioned in Revelation 20. They say the thousand years is symbolic of the forty year period between A.D. 30 and A.D. 70. That's not even remotely credible. Okay, it's obvious in chapter 20 there is a long, long period after the Great Tribulation. And so we've dispensed with the liberal and the full preterist idea that the imminency passages refer to the Second Coming. The third interpretation is that soon does not mean soon and about to can mean thousands of years later. This is the interpretation of many amils, postmils, and premils. See, I'm being very fair, very even-handed. I'm even criticizing our own camp, right? Being very fair. Usually they cite 2 Peter 3, verse 8, which says, But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. And so they say, hey, only two days have passed since Jesus gave this revelation. Two days, that's not very long. I don't think that works. Peter is not saying that anytime God says short he can mean long and anytime he says long he can mean short. That would be to destroy meaning and language and it would turn people into utter skeptics when it comes to prophecy. God is simply saying that he is above time. He is not subject to time, to days, or to years, but we are. And he's writing this to us to communicate to his slaves how they ought to be conducting their lives. So he expects us to know. And it's so important to believe that God knows how to communicate clearly to His slaves and how to conduct themselves after all. He's just finished saying in Revelation 1 verse 1 that He is giving an apocalypse, something that will be fully understood. He's not trying to confuse us by indicating that 2,000 years can mean near, soon, and at the doors. It cannot. God told Daniel to seal up the book because the time he was predicting about, which everybody agrees is the first coming of Christ, the crucifixion, all of that. He says seal up the book because the time is far distant, a little over 500 years. That's pretty long, isn't it? Far distant. And yet, later on in the book of Revelation, God tells John, do not seal up the book because the time is near. It's a clear contrast with Daniel's revelation. The time is near. And so many people want us to believe that God is referring to something future to us when the time is near. If God says 500 years is far off and nothing to worry about, but 2,000 years is near, we better get ready, then it's impossible to understand anything God says with regard to time. That is simply not a credible interpretation. The fact of the matter is that liberals laugh at these explanations. The three Greek words cannot mean anything other than something that is very soon within one's lifetime. The word mellow means about to happen. The word tachou means soon. The word engous means close in point of time or near. And let me read you from three commentaries on why this is such an important principle. And failure to understand it has indeed led so many commentators into quagmires and ended up with interpretations that are utterly confusing. Reasoner's commentary says, If God is revealing truth to us by accommodating language with which we are familiar, and if God defines words differently than we do, then we cannot understand His revelation. When Scripture says, Shortly, speedily, or at hand, God is describing an event that is about to happen, or else language has no meaning. Farrar says, Milton Terry says, It is contrary to all propriety to declare that his statements allow us to believe the event is in the far future. It is reprehensible abuse of language to say that the words immediately or near at hand mean ages hence or after a long time. So I've given three views that are inadequate. Let me give you the view that was common in ages past in which I believe. The fourth view says that the coming of Jesus, that the verses I just referred to are speaking about, are not the Second Coming. Rather, it is a promised coming and judgment upon Israel in 70 A.D. when the Old Covenant would be definitively ended and the New Covenant would be freed up to begin making all things new. And this is exactly what Jesus predicted would happen in their lifetime. Let me read you some scriptures. Matthew 10, verse 23. When they persecute you in this city, flee to another, for assuredly I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." He's talking to the apostles telling them that after He dies they will be persecuted and they will not have finished going through every city of Israel before the Son of Man comes. It's obviously a different coming than the coming at the end of history. Matthew 16 verse 28, Now surely I say to you there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. He told the apostles some of them would die before they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom, but some of them would not taste death before it happened. Just some of them. Okay? He's not referring to the Mount of Transfiguration because none of them had died at that point and that wasn't His coming in His kingdom anyway. He hadn't ascended to His throne. That's not Him coming in His kingdom. It means that the coming He is talking about is in the lifetime of at least some of those apostles. Let me read that again. Matthew 16, verse 28. As surely I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." So when Revelation says, surely I am coming soon, he means it. He means it. At Christ's trial, Jesus told the high priest, Jesus said to him, it is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven. Did that high priest and the other rulers see Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven? Yes, he did. Yes, he did. The eyewitness reports of Josephus, Josephon, and Tacitus tell us that these rulers were still alive, that everyone in Palestine saw the coming of heavenly armies, the incredible battles that were taking place over an extended period of time between the good angels and Satan and the bad angels up in the sky, up in the heavenlies. God made sure that every eye would see it. The Roman eyes saw it. The Jewish eyes saw it. He came in judgment. And by the way, we have the record that the high priest was killed shortly after everybody witnessed these angelic warriors in the heavens. That was in 66 A.D. Now that's not the second coming. Second coming is a physical coming of Christ's body to the earth. Acts 1 says that the second coming will be just like His ascension. He will physically come to the earth just like He left it. Not in the sky as was promised to happen soon and which happened in 70 AD. That was in the sky but to the earth. We've got to distinguish between those two comings or you'll get confused all the way through the book. The first is soon, the second cannot happen until after the millennium. Now once you understand this principle, you're almost forced to take a partial preterist viewpoint, which is the viewpoint I'm going to be teaching this book from. It is a partial preterist, post-millennial viewpoint. And by the way, you don't have to be post-millennial to hold to this partial preterist. I've already mentioned that there are premales who agree with me in the first 19 chapters. There's all males. But obviously I have a post-millennial slant. Anyway, my position is a viewpoint that you can find in the ancient church. Though it was a minority position in the Reformation, you'll find Reformers who held to it. And this was the popular viewpoint of many Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and others in the 1700s through the 1900s. It's got a great history. We're going to end here, and I'll continue to look at the divine principles for interpreting this book next week. And I hope you're patient, you know, as we go through whatever weeks it takes, because I really want to lay the groundwork. If we really understand these 30 principles, it'll make understanding the rest of the book a cinch. But it is my hope that even what we've covered so far would encourage you to realize, hey, God cares about you. He wants you to have hope. He focuses your attention upon Jesus Christ and assures us that He is moving history forward by His providence to accomplish His perfect ends. And may we adore and praise Him that all things are ordered and ordered according to his perfect counsel in heaven. Let's pray. Father, we thank you for your word. We thank you. You've given us clues in your word to help us to puzzle through some of the issues that are in it. And I pray that as we go through this book in coming weeks and months, that it would be a book that would enliven our faith, encourage us, and give us a victorious attitude toward life rather than a passive attitude that throws up our hands and gives up. Pray that You would bless this, Your people, in Jesus' name, Amen.