Eschatology - Partial Preterism (Part 2)

Suffering the consequences, but Lord even tonight.

We we do pray for our own people.

We pray for for the lost in our own families We pray for those that we have talked to for many many years about About the sovereign grace of God and the cross of Christ and for all that they still resist Lord.

We pray you'd be merciful That you would You wouldn't cut them off before Lord.

They come to know you What a terrible thing it will be in that day to have heard of the Savior the Redeemer the one who makes makes whole what is broken and to have rejected it and then to Have to suffer an eternal consequence for their rebellion so God be merciful Be merciful to us tonight Lord and may even our time in your word be a blessing Help us to understand your word Lord and help us to be mindful that It's your word not ours And that it's your truth.

Not our truth.

So maybe we'd be faithful to your word and maybe we'd be faithful to the cross of Christ Be with us in our words and in our thoughts in Christ's name.

Amen Okay So as I said, we we talked a little bit last week and before we go back into the Psalms I wanted to kind of bring up something because here's the reality if If brother Keith was going to do an extensive study on eschatology on end times or That whole area.

Hey, bro Good You couldn't do it in two weeks two months two years 20 years, I mean this is something that Men have considered since since the Bible was given to us and I'm sure it will continue Until the day we don't need the Bible no more And I hope we realize that when they won't need a Bible We'll see him face to face and and that will be a great day But having said that I wanted to bring up something tonight that that kind of goes along what brother Keith has been saying in the last few weeks and it has to do with considering Eschatology and I want to be very pointed because I have limited time and I want to make one clear Point for us to think about it has to do with end times it has to do really with Will focus in on Matthew 24.

So if you have your Bibles and you want to turn that would be great Matthew chapter 24 and Let me say this and if you not sure that the parallel passages for Jesus's discourse in the Gospels concerning This subject that's in Matthew you can find it in Mark 13 and you can also find it in Luke 21 The Apostle John not so much as his focus and his revelation was was geared in a different direction So I do want to focus in on Matthew chapter 24 We're gonna do a bit of reading through the chapter and and I'm gonna just make a couple of comments but I want to make sure that I Stay on point, so Here's what I'm trying to get across to us with tonight That in Matthew chapter 24 as well as those other passages of Mark 13 and Luke chapter 21 that Jesus answers The disciples Questions not question but questions in other words as we begin to read I hope you will see that these disciples ask two distinct questions and that Jesus answers two Distinct it gives two distinct answers and those two answers are many times misunderstood and they're either put together and And then that way it won't make sense or there Something is done to it.

So I want us to think about it and the focus will be this that I think I brought the kids board, but uh that Jesus is going to answer the two questions of the disciples and that one of the questions Really will find a historical fulfillment Okay, and the other one will find I'm gonna say Consummating there's probably many ways to say that.

So in other words what I'm going to try to ask us to think about is The two the disciples ask two very distinct questions one has to do with the temple in Jerusalem and the other one has to do with the end of the age and That Jesus answers those two questions and then in Matthew chapter 24 We need to try to see if we can understand it that way because if not, you're gonna wind up with a hodgepodge of understanding and thoughts to work through so One is a historical basically a historical question has to do with Jerusalem and as brother Keith has been talking about in the subject of preterism that that the way to consider it is that much not all but much and many of the Statements that are found concerning at times find a fulfillment in 70 ad Right when Titus comes in and levels Jerusalem and in that sense That's the end of it Concerning Israel and the Old Covenant and then from 70 ad onward is the time where we would find ourselves And that in these in Matthew chapter 24 I hope to show very quickly and very clearly that Jesus makes that distinction Between what will take place in 70 ad and what will take place after 70 ad at his Second coming.

So again, we won't have time to look at anything but the The narrative in Matthew.

So with that in mind if you're at Matthew chapter 24, I'm just going to read a little bit make some comments read a little bit more and use that as a Way to try to understand this.

So I Will I do want to say this though one thing you we need to understand the context so if you look just quickly at chapter 23 As the Lord Jesus Christ is Pronouncing his woes if you will on the scribes and the Pharisees the hypocrites We remember that section where he talks about them as white as sepulchers and and all of those things that he brings upon him He then says to them In verse 36 of chapter 23 assuredly I say to you that these things will come upon this Generation.

Okay, and that's important because that's the step That'll be the if you will the launchpad for what comes after that So again, it has it has to do with that specific generation And I hope you'll see this a little clearer as we go on and then across he talks about how He would have gathered Jerusalem under his wings, but they rejected him.

So now Matthew chapter 24 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple and his disciples came to him To show him the buildings of the temple and Jesus said to them.

Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say unto you not one stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down Well that sends the disciples into All kinds of thinking right Jesus makes a statement He had previously said the woes would come upon that generation And then he says that they would see the destruction of the temple now in verse Three now as he said on the Mount of Olives the disciples came to him privately Saying tell us when will these things be and I'm going to say that's the first question When will these things be what things the things that relate to the destruction of the temple? right and then and then they ask a second question and What will be the sign of your coming at the end of the age? And again, I want to stress that that's very important to understand that they ask two questions And he gives two answers and it's all In this section in Matthew, and if we don't understand where The answer to one question ends and the answer to the second question starts and ends You can get all kinds and that's where we get all kinds of different thoughts about what what is being said and who is being? identified in the gospel especially in this chapter So there's The first question when will these things be That's the historical question and Jesus gives the historical answer and then they ask him when will be the end of the age? and that's what I termed for now as a Consummating thing or an apocalyptic thing or an end time thing whatever way you want to term it But that it's a second question and a second answer.

Okay.

All right So having said that let's just read through it a little bit and try to come away with some understanding With this thought and again, this is my understanding and I believe brother Keith and even brother Mike are in in the main in agreement with this right that from verse 4 on down through verse 28 And we'll read it.

There is a Answer given to the first question When will the temple be destroyed? That's what they asked.

When will these things be the verse 4 through verse 28? He answers the first question Okay, I'm just trying to give it before we read the details of it.

I want to give you some thoughts from in verse 29 through verse 31 Where he says Immediately after the tribulation of those days the Sun will be darkened and the moon and so on and so forth that And and I'm going to tell you what I think But I will also tell you that there are some other thoughts about it from verse 29 through verse 31 I believe he's speaking about his second coming although I will say some believe that he's still speaking about it from a historical perspective and that It's still part of the first question and answer rather than the second and then from verse 32 through verse 35 He then speaks to them concerning What will take place? with the destruction of the temple and again Hopelessly as we just read through it.

So verse 32 to verse 35 He then is telling the disciples of when they should be able to understand this destruction That's going to come having asked the question When will these things be when the temple is? Leveled as Jesus has said and then in the rest of the chapter from verse 30 or the rest of the section from verse 36 through verse 44 that Jesus again is answering what's going to take place at the end or In the consummating aspect of it, okay, so that's where I'm coming from and and again, I Think it will help us if we keep that in mind and just read through it and seek to identify Some of the details Okay.

One other thing before we read the section.

I Believe that in order for us to truly understand This teaching the teaching in mark the teaching in Luke and the overall narrative in the New Testament That the overall narrative in the New Testament is of a first coming a Historical coming and a second coming or an end time event and That if we try to force and and that's what I'm going to use that term force There are there are some that try to force that thousand-year kingdom Supposedly of this rain on earth and that they they have no choice But to force it into the New Testament because I don't believe the overall narrative of the New Testament Has a if you will a third coming in view that it really only has two views one when Jesus came in history and one when Jesus will come again and bring it to its final end and Then we'll begin the new heavens and a new earth and there are many other scriptures in the New Testament Paul speaks about it very clearly in many sections particularly in 1st Corinthians, but we don't have time for that So again, I just want to try to give us an understanding that If you look at it this way, I believe it'll make more sense For us and we won't get as confused over Some of the things that people consider, okay So just to take a minute or so read with me So they asked a question Verse three is he sat on the Mount of Olives the disciples came to him privately saying tell us when will these things be? What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age and Jesus answered and said to them? Take heed that no one deceives you For many will come in my name saying I am the Christ and will deceive many and You will hear of wars and rumors of wars see that you are not trouble for all these things must come to pass But the end is not yet The nation will rise against nation kingdom against kingdom and there will be famines and pestilence and earthquakes in various places And all these are the beginnings of sorrows now If you for me with dispensational teaching or pre-millennial teaching many people will ascribe this in a future setting right I Truly believe that Jesus is talking about this in the setting of before 70 AD and that at 70 AD these things are fulfilled and Here's the reason why as you think about it, so verse 9 Then they will deliver you and I'm gonna emphasize that word you you see how many times it's used here.

They will deliver you Who's he talking to who's the answer the disciples who had asked a question? When will these things be? that says they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you and you will be hated by all nation for my name's sake and Then many will be offended and will betray one another and will hate one another and many false prophets will rise up and deceive Many and because lawlessness will abound the love of many will be will grow cold But he who endures to the end shall be saved and This gospel will be preached In all the world as a witness to all the nations and then the end will come therefore When you see the abomination of desolation spoken by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place Whoever reads let him understand.

Let me just stop there Many people believe that this is the Antichrist and That this is a future event Well, I know brother Keith mentioned it last week and I wanted to to buttress that up that if you if you understand that Jesus is giving a historical answer to what's going to take place at the destruction of Jerusalem and Then you understand the history of it That it's it's not that difficult to understand that.

He's really not talking about some futuristic Antichrist He's actually talking about the one who's going to come into that temple and destroy it Which ultimately was Titus as he came into the level Jerusalem But that's that's there's two different ways to look at it and there's probably other ways that people have considered it But I want you to understand because look what he says in verse 16 then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains Let him who is in on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house Let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes but woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing baby in babies in those days and Again I say to you that he's talking to them specifically about things that will happen and come upon them before this takes place in 70 AD and Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath night and I I want to just make a point If Jesus is talking about some futuristic event, that's going to take place at least 2,000 and some odd years later because we're already 2,000 and some odd years later and Jesus says and pray that your flight may not be in winter on the side or on the Sabbath Then is Jesus upholding that the Sabbath would continue for another 2,000 years.

I think not Don't think you can you can establish a Sabbath as it was understood to continue on along, but he's actually talking to those Who are going to experience this this? Desolation is this destruction and if you read historically What took place in in? Jerusalem in those last couple of years Between maybe 60 68 AD and 70 AD.

It was horrific but You have to understand what took place in history So again, I do believe he's talking specifically to that generation and to the disciples And then he says in verse 21 for there will be great tribulations such has not been seen since the beginning of the world Until this time nor shall ever be and unless those days were shortened No flesh would be saved but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened There then if anyone says to you look here is the Christ or there do not believe it For false Christ and false wit prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders.

So as if possible So as to deceive if possible even the elect see I have told you beforehand Therefore if they say to you look he's in the desert do not go out or look he's in the inner room Do not believe it for as lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west Also the coming of the Sun and be son of man be For wherever the caucus is there the Eagles be gathered together Now as I said verse 29 through verse 31 is is open to maybe several different ways to understand it But just read it with me immediately after the tribulation of those days the Sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light the stars will be fall from heaven and The powers of the heavens will be shaken and then the Son of Man Will appear in heaven and then all the tribes of the earth shall mourn and they shall see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory and he will send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet and They will gather together his elect from the four winds from one end of heaven to the other again there are some who will try to force verse 29 through verse 31 into that pre AD 70 Scenario and then in a d70 it's actually fulfilled which leads to all kinds of other errors and thought Okay now verse 32 now This is where he goes back and he talks specifically to the disciples to instruct them of how they can tell When this is finally going to take place as far as the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem Because that's one of the questions they had asked.

When will these things be? The second one is when is the sign of you coming at the end of the age? Two separate questions two separate answers.

So read what he says here In verse 32 now learn this parable from the fig tree when his branches are already become tender and puts forth leaves You know that summer is near so you also When you see all these things know that it is near at the very door Assuredly I say to you here it is again This generation will by no means pass away to all things are fulfilled Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will by no means pass away I believe he's given instruction to the disciples because they asked what how are we going to know that this is going to take? How are we going to know when this destruction of Jerusalem is about to take place and Jesus is telling him he gave them signs He said there will be wars and rumors of wars to be false prophets.

There'll be famines and pestilence Is there an application of it for for the end of the age perhaps? I'm not gonna I'm not gonna try to to just close one out and and not give it any any thought However do believe verse 32 verse 35 He's still answering Giving them counsel on how they are to understand when that event in 70 ad which is catastrophic Which is really when? the old covenant was done away Okay.

Now just to finish this thought before brother Keith comes from verse 36 on I believe he then gives greater understanding to their second question When will be the sign of the end of the age? One was when will be the sign of the end of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple? The other one is when will be the sign of the end of the age? When it's all over and in verse 36, he then says But of that day and hour no one knows Nor even the angels of heaven, but my father only But as in the days of Noah interesting as you've been preaching on Noah, right But as in the days of Noah So also will the coming of the Son of Man be for in those days before the flood They were eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage until the day that Noah entered the ark and did not know until the Flood came and took them away So also will the coming of the Son of Man be there will be two men in the field one will be taken and the other Left two women will be grinding at the mill one will be taken and the other left watch therefore for you do not know What hour the Lord is coming but know this That if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come He would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken Therefore you also be ready for the Son of Man is coming in an hour when you do not Expect him and that I am saying to you that from verse 36 through the through this end of this section verse 44 He's telling them of what is going to Transpire and how they should view what will happen before his second coming and again friends.

I Really think you have a very difficult time to try to force a thousand-year kingdom Even into Matthew chapter 24 I really don't know how you can do it because again, but the whole narrative of the New Testament is really a coming of the Messiah the coming of the Christ and then the other Part of that is the consummation at the end of the age again There are many ways to look at it You can look at it mark as I am you can look at it look although mark takes a little bit of a different understanding he's I think mark speaks more specifically about the destruction in Jerusalem then then Matthew does Matthew kind of in my way understanding Matthew gives the More expansive answer and then mark focuses on one aspect of it and Luke's Actually focuses on another aspect of it.

That's just my thinking so You probably have questions if you want to throw rocks throw my brother Keith because he's coming up here now I want to say I appreciate brother Andy Going through Matthew 24, it's an important part of this discussion And I want to encourage a reading of a book If I didn't mention it already, I want to mention it now If you're interested in a fuller treatment that I'm able to give of this position Then I would encourage you to read the last days according to Jesus by R.C.

Sproul He takes a position Very similar to the position that I have been Explaining and that brother Andy just explained Because when we look at the book of Revelation which has been our topic the last few weeks Trying to understand the proper hermeneutic or rather the proper lens through which to read the book Whether we should read it with an eye to the future or read it with an eye to the past or read it to an eye to history I think dr.

Sproul does a good job of laying out how you really have to understand it in light of Jesus's own words regarding his return And that's why the book is called the last days according to Jesus.

And so I would encourage you to read that book and I want to begin my portion tonight by Anticipating as it were some responses to this position as We have already heard brother Andy explained tonight The position that I've been teaching and that he has helped to explain is that not everything in the New Testament that regards tribulation or persecution or even the end of the age refers to the second coming of Christ some of it referred to the fall of Jerusalem in 80 70 and One of the immediate responses that people often say is well, that's not reading it literally and I want to begin by asking the question does taking this approach Mean that we don't read the text literally Or a different way of answering that question is are we overly spiritualizing the text? Are we are we? Allegorizing the text and To to answer that question, I want to say this if somebody asks me and hold your breath So I don't want anybody to gasp and swoon if somebody asked me do you interpret the Bible literally? Typically my answer is no.

I Literally and interpreting it literarily the the reformers Spoke of what is what was known as the census literalis? Which is simply Latin for the literal sense This is to say that when you interpret something you have to interpret it in accord with its genre of literature and the genre of Communication That's being used and one of the types of communication that we are least familiar with in our modern day is What is known as apocalyptic language? we just don't talk that way anymore and Most of us are unfamiliar how in the ancient world Those types of language were used So When we interpret the Bible we have to come at the Bible with on its terms Rather than trying to get it to mold to our Terms we have to come on its own What types of literature do we find in the Bible we find didactic literature which means literature that is Intended to instruct in plain language Paul's letter to the Romans would be very didactic there is historical narrative Which is intended to tell a story Much of the history books of the Old Testament the book of Acts and even the Gospels is written in the form of the historic narrative there is poetry and Poetry of course is found in the book of Psalms.

It's found throughout many of the books of the Old Testament we see poetic statements that are given and We see apocalyptic language and each one of those has rules for interpretation Apocalyptic literature is Meant to be understood in signs and symbols We are to understand this we are to apply this No matter what position we take no matter if we take the futures position or the preterist position for instance when the Revelation Talks about a beast with ten horns in chapter 13 Do we truly believe? that there will be a literal Godzilla figure Who rises up out of the ocean? with ten horns upon his head or Do we interpret that in light of that beast referring to a man? Well even the most ardent literalist Would say it's a man and That the ten horns represent ten things whatever those ten things are it's not ten literal horns You understand what I'm saying? So when someone says well, you're a preterist you don't take it literally I say well really no one does even the most Convinced dispensationalist who makes the argument we are literalists Will immediately abandon their literalism when they start to say well you see those You see those locusts.

That's that's really Apache helicopters.

I Say now wait a minute if they're Apache helicopters, then they're not locusts anymore and you've begun to interpret not literally but figuratively and I do believe that we have to take a figurative and Symbolic approach to understanding Apocalyptic literature because that's the way it's written that is the way that it is presented to us and Therefore, I don't think preterism requires any more strenuous or overt spiritualization or allegorization than any other Form of interpreting revelation Now another question that comes up is oh well and with that let me I want to answer a question I said all that because I last week someone sent a Facebook message while we were studying, you know, people are watching us.

Hello Facebook.

People are hopefully watching us right now and Somebody said because I made the statement that the the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem Was a fulfillment of Jesus's prophecy when he said see this not one stone will be left upon another and The question came across Facebook and it's a very common question when I've heard before Well, wait a minute.

There are still pieces of the Western Wall which are there therefore all of the stones did not Get thrown down and therefore Jesus this can't be a fulfillment of the prophecy because it's not literal And my response to that is I think again that we are missing the point Can we not see the absolute and total destruction of the temple in 8070 yes, and even if you look at the Western Wall, it's just pieces held together by prayer and and and you know and Gravity, it's not really a wall much of a wall anyway But the argument that but well because that piece of what the wall still stands the prophecy failed I think that's missing the point and taking a Overly literal approach to an obviously figurative statement Not one stone will be left upon another is a statement saying it will be utterly ruined.

That's the that's the figurative interpretation of that statement and Therefore I I have no no reason not to interpret the destruction of the temple in 8070 as a fulfillment of What Jesus said when he said not one stone will be left upon another and I want to add another thought brother Andy brought up the Sabbath thing about And you know me That's a big subject for me did a lot of study when I did my debate on the Sabbath and he's right one of the things that that prophecy Jesus says may it not happen on a Sabbath why because Because on a Sabbath it would be difficult to purchase or to get things that you need and there were rules about how far you Could travel and move on the Sabbath.

So not only does that limit it to a time period it also limits it to a geographical period Because the Sabbath traveling on the Sabbath wouldn't have mattered if you lived in China Traveling on the Sabbath wouldn't matter if you lived in Corinth, but traveling on the Sabbath would have mattered if you were in Jerusalem So not only does it provide a time constraint it it provides a geographical perspective and Because you've got my brain of thinking there brother.

There's also historic evidence that many Christians survived the fall of Jerusalem because there were still Christians living in that area and 80 in the in the late 60s, but many Christians survived Because when they began to see the danger They ran to the mountains and hid in the mountains.

What did Jesus say when these things happen flee to the mountains? get out of town and There's actual historic evidence that says because they interpreted the words of Jesus as when you see these wars and rumors of wars when you see Jerusalem surrounded by her enemies run and Don't stay and the Christians did and therefore they survived So if we understand Matthew 24 in light of what brother Andy has said and what we've been talking about for the last few weeks And are there difficult things to understand? Yes Are there difficult things to piece together Yes, I don't know everything and neither does anybody else who's trying to understand this But I do think that it helps Put more of a perspective Historically and geographically on what is being said.

So how do we interpret it? I think we have to interpret it at least According to the rules of the type of literature and the type of language that's being used now I said last week the other thing I wanted to talk about tonight is the dating of the book of Revelation because as I have stated on on a few occasions if it can be proven that The book of Revelation was written after ad 70 Then my argument would fall apart about Revelation still it still wouldn't necessarily mean that Matthew 24 wasn't fulfilled but but as far as Revelation is concerned and just for the sake of Reminding I'm going to erase your words here, brother If you remember that the time frame I gave you we starting with the cross moving to 70 you have 80 70 Right.

So this period of time would have been about 40 years Right, which is how long in Hebrew terms One generation one generation this generation will not pass away and I don't know if I mentioned this yet or not Did you know that there are people who say Jesus was a false prophet? Because he because he prophesied that he would return in the generation of those who heard him and he didn't Many many unbelieving scholars have pointed to Jesus's words and said see he's a false prophet He said he would return and the generation of those who were listening to him and he didn't RC deals with this in his book a lot because he makes the point that if Jesus did say This generation will not pass away until I return Then that would have been wrong because he did he didn't return in that generation and would have proved him a false prophet But if what he was saying is this generation will not pass away until the temple is destroyed Then he's not a false prophet.

In fact, it proves him a true prophet Because he couldn't have known that within 40 years of the death or own resurrection that it would have happened Were he not a prophet of God were he not in fact? Speaking on God's behalf but as I said if Revelation deals with the book or deals with the the fall of Jerusalem, then it would have to be Somewhere in here that it was written It would have to be prior to 8070 probably somewhere 67 to 69 would be the the potential dating So What is our evidence for that well If you look at your commentaries if you look at your study Bibles if you go and read Some of them some of the men who've written on this subject.

Dr.

MacArthur and others.

They will go to the mat to say that Revelation was written in the 90s They'll say it was written between the 80s and the 90s if you if you in fact if you're in our if you're in our Academy class Then I I made you didn't make you but if you had joined the class and you took a survey of the Old Testament and surveyed the New Testament you had to purchase a commentary and I Specifically chose a commentary that disagreed with me on this subject Because the commentary says that it was written in the 80s 85 I think was the date that the commentary makes the argument for So you say well, how do we know and I want to ask you that question? How do we know? When a piece of literature was written What do we how do we determine that? That's right.

That's right.

One of the things that help us to get to a point of a source of origin is What language is in the in the writing and when that language was used Right, when did this word come about and if this words in there and this word wasn't used before this date then we know that that is Evidence as to when it was written.

That's what we call internal evidence Internal evidence is evidence from within the piece of literature itself that we look to to Determine its its writing the internal evidence would be forms of forms of words What's what's another way that we find? That's that's right.

The what is the book say about what's happening, right? And that would be another form of internal evidence.

So not only would the choice of words and Language give us a key indicator, but also what does it say about the word what's happening? for instance Luke begins By telling us that Kyrenius was a governor of Syria when Jesus was born You know, this is this is giving us a time frame.

It's telling us something about that, right? Also, we can determine things like the when acts was written Based on the fact that acts ends rather abruptly with Paul in prison in Rome Doesn't talk about his death Doesn't talk about the death of Peter so one of the things we can assume about the book of Acts is that is written before the death of Paul and Peter because it doesn't mention those very important and significant It's given the whole first half of acts is about the life of Peter and his ministry The second half is about Paul not not specifically half But the book is broken into two parts ministry Peter ministry Paul, but it doesn't mention either one of their deaths So so that gives us a internal evidence about when it's written most likely before they died Because it doesn't mention either of their deaths.

So that's another piece of internal evidence Like you said what's going on in the in the literature? What's another way that we can know? That's right, yeah, like I said Kyrenius or Herod or Tiberius and if you know it mentions this person Well, then it had to be written after that person came on the scene That That yep, that's the that that's the one Because all that we've talked about earlier is internal evidence, but we also have what's called external evidence external evidence is outside sources that discuss the history of a certain book and One of the reasons why so many people are confirmed Regarding the dating of Revelation is because we have an external source Who claims that it was written in? the 80s We have an external source that claims that it was written here, what do I say if it was written there? Yeah I'm wrong, and I'm willing to admit that if that is the case that I am wrong At least about this But I I want you to hear Because it's Irenaeus Who wrote about this but I want you to actually hear what he wrote for just a moment Listen to his words this is in book 5 of Against heresies, by the way Did you know that there's an entire body of literature that comes out of the late first century early second century? What was called the early church fathers? Irenaeus Polycarp all these people who are writing there's so much that we have historically that give us so much information Many people never read they've only read you know, we've read the scripture and the scriptures great Obviously, it's the only inspired Word of God but all of these historical books Point us to How the church operated how the church functioned how the Christians lived what they were facing what heresies they were dealing with All all of this in the first few centuries you took church history with me Jackie Remember we went through this in the first two centuries of the church It's amazing to see these things, but this is what he wrote in his book now Irenaeus lived just just give you one give you a point here Irenaeus lived from 130 to 202 so He is not contemporaneous with this that's important because what he is going to say is based on a traditional Understanding not based on a contemporary thing that he himself witnessed.

Okay, that's important All right in book five of against heresies.

He makes this note quote We will not however incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist For if it were necessary for his name to be distinctly revealed in this present time It would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision For that was seen no very long time since but almost in our day toward the end of Domitian's reign It sounds maybe a little difficult to understand basically what he's saying is we don't know who the Antichrist was and If the person who wrote the Revelation wanted us to know he would have told us But it wasn't written that long ago.

It was written during Domitian's reign now Domitian was one of the rulers and he ruled in the 80s So that's where the argument comes for the writing of Revelation Irenaeus is saying that We don't know who the he has to be talking about Revelation, right? Cuz he's talking about the Antichrist He's talking about the ultimately this who this person is We don't know who it is in an interesting though that less than 100 years after the the church was was Came on the scene after Christ that people were already debating who the Antichrist is We still debate today.

They were debating it Yeah, Irenaeus is writing about it even then and he said we don't know who it is But but we have if they wanted us to know they would have told us if John wanted us to know he would have told Us but he didn't but we have his writings and it's not that old.

It was written during Domitian's reign That's the that's the argument now the question becomes One is he right? Because he weren't there He's he's obviously citing some information that he has maybe that we don't have But he is not he's he's not right He's not saying I saw John write this or I was even there when John wrote this he's saying this is when we assume it was written and We assume it's not that old and we assume these things are still to be fulfilled Right, so he certainly wasn't a preterist Because his position I agree Irenaeus wasn't a preterist He assumed these things were going to happen potentially in his own day and potentially the Antichrist was going to come in his own day We don't know who it is But we have this writing of John and it's not that old.

Okay Couple things to consider The text of Irenaeus is an English translation what I just read to you is an English translation of a Latin text and The Latin text is a translation of a Greek text that we no longer possess So there is some Difficulty in Trusting for sure that this is actually what Irenaeus meant to convey was the date of Revelation Furthermore Irenaeus is writing is not inspired scripture.

Therefore.

It can be incorrect.

He could simply be saying something.

That's just wrong and He also refers to ancient copies of Revelation in Another one of his writings Which would not have made sense if it wasn't that old So, how do you define ancient at that point right at this point and this one doesn't sounds like he's saying it's not that old but in other writings, he says there's ancient copies of this apocalypse, so Kind of kind of leads you to think this might not but again if you read your commentaries This is the source they cite.

This is how we know it was written in the 80s Okay, that's how we know is is one extra biblical Uncontemporaneous Citation That's it because here's my here's my rebuttal because I like to rebut it's what I do We have other external sources that rebut Irenaeus and They challenge Irenaeus one of them is Clement Clement Argues in his writings.

He was also a church father that the apostolic revelation that we have ceased during the time of Nero I'll read this to you This is from his book called the miscellanies And he says this quote for the teaching of our Lord at his advent beginning with Augustus and Tiberius was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius and that of the Apostles embracing the ministry of Paul ends with Nero So so Clement is saying all of the writing of the New Testament which began with Christ and ends with the Apostles was written before Nero's reign was over and Nero's reign was over in 68 Clement also adds some additional information which would encourage this earlier dating He tells us that after his release from Patmos John chased down a young apostate on horseback Seems a rather difficult thing for a 90 year old man to do Because he would have been 90 if that's when he was on Patmos writing See what we're saying is that John's exile to Patmos would have been in the 60s not the 90s or the 80s and Again Clement writes that it was he was able to get on horseback and chase down a young man.

I mean Paul What do you think you want to hop on the horseback and See if you can make it happen.

I mean and you're not here and you're not in you're not quite to your 90s yet Praise the Lord.

We hope you get there.

But that's that certainly is a different way of looking at it when we look from Clements perspective And it leads to credence to the idea that John is writing not under Domitian but rather under Nero Again like Irenaeus Clements Clements not writing under the inspiration of God So we have to kind of go at this point the same the same things that applied to Irenaeus apply to Clement It's not scripture.

It could be wrong.

We don't know for certain all right, but my point is simply to say we can't rely on these external sources as Absolutes Go ahead woman.

You look like Vanessa Josephus wrote during the time both before and after the fall of Jerusalem Yeah All right now I do want to provide to you a few internal evidences to consider as we begin to draw to a close in just a few minutes a Few internal evidences that we can use to date the book of Revelation.

I Already mentioned one of them which is in found in chapter 1 verses 1 to 3 where the writer John Tells us that it will happen soon and the time is near so that's that's one important Which makes sense if it's here Does not make sense if it's here again, just from the just from a pure logical standpoint if What he's talking about is the fall of Jerusalem, and he says it's near it makes sense if it's there but if what he's talking about is the end of time the Any any talks about that here? It certainly seems to me not to Not to make a lot of sense, but there's a couple other things just for your if you want to take notes number one the book makes several allusions to an existing temple Throughout the book of Revelation The temple is mentioned as still standing There is no hint that the temple has been destroyed yet.

It speaks as the temple is having presence during all of the prophecies and Some people say well, this is because a new temple will be built How many how many people have you heard say that well? We're waiting for the temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem So revelation can happen Why do you think they want their temple to be rebuilt because they think that has to happen so revelation can happen I? Mean that's that's the point right so the assumption in that is that there's a temple during the writing of Revelation Okay number two The book never mentions the historic destruction of the temple I mentioned this last week But I wanted to remind you the book revelation never mentions the destruction of the temple neither Do any of the other 27 books of the New Testament not one of them? I think that's one of the greatest arguments for Clements position That it was written before 80 68 that the whole New Testament was written before 68 because none of them mentioned the fall of Jerusalem I Know that I know we don't know for certain, but don't you think from a logical person perspective that somebody? One of the writers would have said oh, yeah, and what Jesus said happened and and no one does Revelation 17 9 and 10 this is this is one that's going to take a minute This will this is where we're going to end.

I'm going to give you this turn to Revelation 17 9 and 10 As we're now looking at internal evidence from the perspective of what's actually written in the book What we have in Revelation 17 9 and 10 is a time frame it says This calls for a mind with wisdom The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated They are also seven kings five of whom have fallen one is and the other has yet has not yet come And when he does come he must remain only a little while All right in antiquity Seven mountains or seven hills depending on which Bible you're looking at could have pointed to a few places Rome is known as the city on seven hills So certainly it could be pointed towards Rome But Jerusalem was also called the city on seven hills and it also is referred to as the harlot who rejected her Messiah The Kings here in that sense are likely the rulers or the emperors of Rome Jerusalem was under Roman occupation and Though they are not called kings.

This is essentially what the Caesars were they were kings Remember what the Jews said to G said to Pilate we have no king but Caesar Right.

So the Caesars were in that sense seen as kings Seven kings According to this passage there are seven kings five have fallen one is And one is Yet to come So we have that seven kings is five plus one plus one equals seven If you need math tutoring, I'm available anytime So What does this tell us There are seven kings five have fallen one is and one is to come this tells us that we are During this moment in the book right here Why Because he is five have fallen one is and One is yet to come So, so where's the writer at in his mind he is here Okay Now with that being said Let's just for a moment consider how many rulers there were in Rome Julius Caesar did not receive the title of Emperor Therefore the first Would have been Caesar Augustus Then came Tiberius Then came Caligula Then came Claudius Then came Nero Then came Galba who was followed by Otho Vitellius Vespasian Titus and Domitian I mentioned Domitian earlier Galba Otho and Vitellius all had very short reigns and may not be included in this Which would mean Vespasian was the sixth but if you count Julius Caesar as the first and You count him as a king, which he certainly would have been the the as it were the first of the Caesars Then that would put Nero as the sixth king and that would mean that the one who is is Nero so That is That's argued more definitively in Dr.

Sproul's book he really maps that out a lot better than I could in the two or three minutes that I had But again five seven kings five have fallen one is and one is yet to come If you follow it down You've got the five that have fallen and that lands number six at Nero Now There's a lot of questions that this leaves yet to ask.

What about the Antichrist? What about the tribulation? What about the mark of the beast? What about the? Astrological signs the Sun will be darkened the moon will turn to blood.

These are what we're going to look at next time Oh, you're excited, I hope you return but let me read the last thing to you before we end I do want to read the quote at the bottom of your paper Because I think it does help us to to see that that this is not just you know Brother Andy and I grasping at straws.

You're on my team now Gotta be careful now Okay, but I want you to I want you to hear this.