A Preterist Understanding Revelation

We are doing a special class tonight on the subject of revelation.

This was specifically requested by the class because we just finished our survey of the New Testament and As we went through the survey in the New Testament, it was only an eight-week class Really, it's a if anything we call it a introduction.

We talked about the authors of the books We talked about the themes the major points looked at a few scripture passages but it was really a an overview of each of the major sections of the New Testament and The canon of the New Testament and the chronology that was our major focus but the last class we did was on the subject of revelation and So I was asked would I give a lecture on my? Position on the book of Revelation and when I say my position, I want you to understand My position is not mine uniquely it is simply the position that I take and and it is unique in the sense that of the major positions it is probably the Minority view the only one that I would say might be more in the minority view would be the idealist position but but that would probably be the majority view in the Liberal schools.

So depending on where you are here.

Here are the four positions if you weren't here last week I I have to start with this because I have to give you at least something to frame tonight's conversation There are four positions on the book of Revelation And all of this is how do we interpret it? What the four interpretive grids or what we call hermeneutical lenses What lenses do we use to look at revelation? Preterism says that revelation was fulfilled in the past.

That is what the term means it means to be in the in the past or to happen in the past and so the idea of preterism is that Most of revelation has already been fulfilled The second position is historicism historicism is the idea that It is being fulfilled through time and it is not limited to a short time period But is over long periods of time and is being fulfilled through history.

That's the term historicism and it is still being fulfilled this was the This was the most popular view among the Reformers was the historic the historicist view and It makes sense If you read their writings that they saw themselves as actors on the stage of history and they saw history being Fulfilled as they were living and so it makes sense The third position is futurism, this is the view that revelation The vast majority of revelation is still yet to be fulfilled in the future the only thing they would say has been fulfilled is the first three chapters regarding the seven churches and even then some of them would see the seven churches as not Historical seven churches in Asia Minor, which we know they were but they would say those seven churches represented the church age So they would say the first three chapters of Revelation Represented the church age and then the future is Going to be Revelation 4 and beyond will will be the future At some time in the and depending on their view if they believe in a rapture that happens before Chapter 4 takes place.

They would say the church in church age ends with the rapture and then the rest of Revelation is fulfilled during the seven-year tribulation and then finally idealism idealism is Easiest way to understand that is it's the allegorical view.

It sees revelation very allegorically representing the ongoing battle between the evil and good the ongoing battle between light and darkness and as I said, you'll hear more of that in a more liberal school and so I Take the preterist position But but I take a partial preterist or what I call orthodox preterist Meaning that I do not believe everything in Revelation was fulfilled in the past Some people believe everything was fulfilled and those are called full preterist or I would call them hyper preterist I Take a what some would call partial preterist I call it orthodox preterist and I call it orthodox because it fits with the creeds of Christianity the Christian creeds such as the Apostles Creed the Nicene Creed All looked forward to something else that was going to happen The Apostles Creed says Christ ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty From there, he will come to judge the living in the dead So the Apostles Creed affirms were looking forward to something the Nicene Creed says very similar We're looking forward to something the full preterist would say no everything has already been fulfilled and I would say that's unorthodox and even heretical These three bottom positions that I have listed here are what are known as the millennial positions that refers only to Revelation chapter 20 verses 1 to 10 where it talks about a thousand year period of Christ ruling and reigning the amillennial position would say that Christ is currently ruling and reigning in the hearts of believers it began with his Ascension where he was seated at the right hand of the Father and it will culminate in his second coming The post millennial position says there is going to come a time in the future where Christ will rule Through the church on earth prior to his second coming that there will be ultimately a Christian ization of the world That the world itself will be evangelized and when that happens and they will still say it won't be a literal thousand years but there will be a time of peace and prosperity on the earth prior to the return of Jesus Christ and that's a very Optimistic view and that's why I call post millennial ism optimistic Amillennialism because both of these would say the the millennium is not literal and they would both say that the millennium precedes the coming of Christ Premillennialism says Christ will come then the millennium will begin and Christ will be here for a thousand years ruling and reigning from Jerusalem Where he will at that time put all of his enemies under his feet But physically literally on this earth not the new heaven in the new earth But on this earth for a thousand years and so on this position I would also on this side I would take the on mill position.

So if somebody said please describe your personal Eschatology I would say I am an orthodox preterist Amillennialist with a hint of historicism because I gotta have a little little sauce on it No, no, I do think there I think the historicists have a point and we'll talk about this in a little while how there are some things that seem to be cyclical in Revelation that seem to work their way out in history such as the Antichrist being there's as John said there are many antichrists have come, you know So, I think that I think that that idea can be seen from historicist perspective without denying the preterist perspective but I am NOT a futurist so I would say not that and I am NOT a premillennialist Normally those two will go together and if you've ever heard Revelation described this way Jesus is going to return and rapture the church.

The church will then be taken away.

There will be seven years of Tribulation during which Jews will be evangelized and they will produce a new congregation of Israel which will serve the Messiah and then Jesus will return after seven years and set up his thousand-year millennial reign and he will reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years and at that time the end will come that is that's usually described as That's what I just described as Dispensational premillennialism and I reject that I do not hold to that position now some very good Bible teachers Do John MacArthur being probably the most noted? Theologian today who holds to a dispensational premillennial view and as much as I care for dr.

MacArthur I don't care for his eschatology and it does seem to work its way into a lot of his teaching Because I think he has a wrong view of Israel and a wrong view of the end So that being said I'm not in any way discouraging anyone from studying.

Dr.

MacArthur's materials.

He is a wonderful man of God fair enough All right So let us then since you all came with bated breath to hear what I have to say why I hold to what I hold to we're going to now that I've explained it begin my explanation of why I believe it understanding partial preterism requires that we recognize and understand an important historical event the fall of Jerusalem the fall of Jerusalem in 8070 is one of the best attested historical events of the ancient world and I want to take you through that event.

I Have extensive notes tonight.

I don't normally read from notes this closely But I do want you to listen to how the event unfolded the Gospels wrote about the life of Jesus and Much of them took place in Jerusalem, which was under Roman occupation This began in 63 BC when the Roman general Pompeii captured Jerusalem The Jews despised the Romans for their oppressive taxation and occupation and in 866 about 33 years after the death burial and resurrection of Jesus the Jews revolted and This revolt was somewhat successful having established a revolutionary government in Response to this revolutionary government the Emperor Nero sent general Vespasian to meet the Jewish forces and the result was that the majority of the Jewish forces were pushed into Jerusalem Vespasian became Emperor in 8069 and in April of 8070 the Roman general Titus son of Vespasian besieged Jerusalem Josephus a Former commander among the Jewish forces was captured by Rome.

You've all probably heard of Josephus, right? Yes, please open.

Hey, brother Tim.

I'm going over what happened in 8070 Josephus sometimes referred to as Josephus was a former commander among the Jewish forces And he was captured by Rome and because of his position attempted to negotiate a settlement But this was resisted on both sides the Romans encircled the city cut off the supplies and drove the people within the city to starvation it was near the time of Passover and therefore it was filled not only with the military, but it was also filled with visitors and They were starving and some of them even resorted to cannibalism By the month of August The Romans had breached the final defenses and They massacred those who remained and in total there were over 1 million dead in the city of Jerusalem They destroyed the Second Temple they left only the Western Wall sometimes referred to as the Wailing Wall as the only trace of the Second Temple I Want to read to you a quote from Josephus who was an eyewitness Quote The rebels shortly after attacked the Romans again in clash And a clash followed between the guards of the sanctuary and the troops who were putting out the fire inside the inner court The latter routed the Jews and followed in hot pursuit right up to the temple itself Then one of the soldiers without awaiting any orders and with no dread of so monstrous a deed but urged on by some supernatural force snatched a blazing piece of wood and Climbing on another soldier's back He hurled the flaming brand through a low golden window that gave access on the north side to the rooms that the sanctuary that surrounded the sanctuary as The flame shot up the Jews let out a sort of dismay that matched the tragedy.

They flocked to the rescue With no thought of sparing their lives or husbanding their strength For the sacred structure that they had constantly guarded with such devotion was vanishing before their eyes that was the Moment that the temple began to burn Now that's just a short explanation of what happened when Jerusalem was besieged and what's amazing about it is that event was prophesied by Jesus Christ Matthew 24 verse 1 Jesus left the temple and was going away and when the disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple But he answered them.

You see all these do you not truly I say to you there will not be here one stone Left upon another that will not be torn down And Luke 21 says the same thing and while some were speaking of the temple how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings He said as for these things that you see the days will come When there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down Jesus told them this was going to happen 40 years before it did happen.

This event was monumental in regard to its significance to the Jewish nation They were now without their sacred holy place where they worshipped and made sacrifices It would be impossible not to ascribe some special significance to this event on God's prophetic calendar in fact, I mentioned this last week a Lot of people that I talked to who get all into in times stuff I'll say what do you think about 87? They'll say what happened in 87? Oh, yeah.

Oh Yeah You may seem surprised because I talk about it all the time But it's not a big marker on a lot of people's calendars because their futurist view makes them see everything forward and So they don't put much stock in what has already taken place Preterism teaches that the fall of Jerusalem in 8070 Was the major transitional moment in? world history it was God's way of discontinuing the Old Covenant ceremonies the shadows and symbols and Giving way to the New Covenant realities, which had found their substance in Jesus Christ himself 8070 closed the door on the Old Testament Therefore the last days When you see the phrase last days is Not necessarily speaking of the end of the world But rather the end of the Jewish system Which has now been made obsolete The writer of Hebrews tells us in chapter 8 verse 13 and Speaking of a new covenant He makes the first covenant obsolete and what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away When did it vanish away? ad 70 All right now I want to Give you a little evidence as to why I think this is what Revelation is about now that we know the history I Want to examine the evidence probably the most convincing evidence in my opinion for Orthodox preterism Is found in what is called the time sensitive passages? Which are found in the New Testament most specifically in Revelation itself turn to Revelation chapter 1 and We're going to read Revelation chapter 1 verses 1 to 3 Sorry, I keep reverting to my drink.

I just got to keep my keep my throat moistened.

All right Revelation chapter 1 The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must what? Soon take place do not miss the word soon That is very important The things that must soon take place He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John who bore witness to the Word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ even to all that he saw Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written for The time is what? Near the time is near What's the opposite of near 2,000 years is the opposite of near just so you know Because that's the argument of the futurist, right? These things weren't about to happen these things weren't soon to take place and Somebody says oh well with God a thousand years as a day.

This ain't written to God.

It's written to us That's an important hermeneutical principle When Peter tells us with God a year is as a thousand or day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as his day He's referring to God's timetable But when these words are spoken, these words are spoken with urgency for the reader These things are about to take place now If you want to write this down you can you can turn there if you like but in Revelation 22 the end of the book It says this and he said to me these words are trustworthy and true and the Lord the God of the spirits of the prophets Has sent me to show his servants.

What must soon take place and in Revelation 22 10 And he said to them or he said to me do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book for the time is near so at both ends of Revelation Revelation 1 and Revelation 22 we have the same phrases used This much this must soon take place This must soon take place.

The time is near the time is near the if they literally bookend the whole book to ignore that is Missing a major hermeneutical observation remember when you studied with me those of you who did how to study the Bible and the first thing you do is make observations and Observe you observe times and people and places.

That's that's what you do and There's the time soon and near now.

There are some other passages to consider one of the most important is Matthew chapter 24 verse 34 when Jesus is talking about what I think is Some of what is spoken of in Revelation This is called the Olivet discourse Where Jesus is speaking on the Mount of Olives speaking to his disciples.

He said truly I say to you This generation will not pass away until all these things take place Now I have heard many a Many a Bible teacher try to say that well what that's saying is Jesus is saying that this generation Referring to believers That believers will not pass away until all this takes place, but I do not think that that is a right Understanding because if that is the right way to understand that that would be the only time in scripture that that phrase is used To refer to believers in that way Generations were in Jewish terms periods of 40 years a generation was 40 years How many years from 80 30 to 80 70 40 years isn't that neat and when did Jesus say that? Around 80 30.

He said this generation will not pass away Until all these things take place so I've even I've even heard some liberal theologians try to argue that Jesus is a false prophet Because Jesus made a false prophecy He said these things will take place within this generation and they'll say see it didn't happen.

I say no.

No, no, it did happen Jesus is not a false prophet and we don't have to twist the meaning of generation We just got to understand what he's talking about.

It's going to take place If the position of Orthodox preterism is correct It solves the dilemma that is posed by the question of is Jesus giving a false prophecy.

No, obviously not Jesus is providing a prophetic announcement not of his return but of the fall of Jerusalem Therefore the statements regarding him coming in the clouds and people say well it talks about him coming in the clouds I do think there is a sense in which that is intended to be a picture not of his final consummation Necessarily, but rather of his coming in judgment and later on we're going to talk about Some of the some of the things that were actually witnessed in 80 70 Some of the things that were actually seen by eyewitnesses now nobody saw Jesus in the clouds understand but the idea that there would be That there would be supernatural markers that would mark this event.

I believe there were But we'll get to that in a moment Now I want to anticipate a response very quickly.

I Realize that for many people Even those of you who may be listening via live stream.

This wasn't even intended to be live stream You can blame Bobby Jones for that or Pat Foskey One of the responses that often comes up is that this is radically different than anything I've ever heard and Just because something is radically different than what you've heard doesn't mean it's not right.

It just means you haven't heard very much.

I mean, it's Not being ugly.

It just you know, most people haven't heard very much it's like the it's like the the Peanuts cartoon with Charlie Brown and Lucy and Lucy's writing a paper and Charlie Brown says what you're writing about.

She said I'm writing about church history They said well, how does it begin and she goes? Well, my pastor was born in 1925 That's when church history began.

My pastor was born 1925 you know, that's that's the way people have a view of Theology it's it's Very very narrow and an understanding of Scripture that is very narrow So I want to anticipate some objections first does preterism Require abandoning a literal Interpretation because often the futurist will say we take the literal view.

Well, I want to address That concept If somebody asked me if I interpret the Bible literally I typically say No, I interpret the Bible literarily And there is a difference Literarily means that I interpret the Bible according to the genre of literature Which it is written in So I interpret the Psalms as the Psalms With the same rules that I would use for poetic literature I interpret historical narrative with the same rules that I would use for any historical narrative a Noun is a noun is a noun a verb is a verb.

It's not some kind of Holy Spirit Greek You know, it's it's words and it's to be interpreted according to what the Reformers called the census literalis and The census literalis was the the the literal sense or the sense in which it was written Therefore every book of the Bible has to be interpreted in the sense that it was written and apocalyptic literature is Meant to be understood in signs and symbols and No matter what position you take You will interpret those signs and symbols as signs and symbols nobody even the most ardent dispensationalist will say that the beast with ten horns in Revelation chapter 13 is Is a literal Godzilla figure With ten horns.

No, they always say see the beast here is a man I say but wait a minute.

You said you were literal and If it's a beast and you're literal it be a beast Not a man.

You understand the point.

I talked about this last week with the Apache helicopters They'll say see these see these locusts They're actually not locusts they're Apache helicopters, I say you just left the reservation of literal I do not believe orthodox preterism requires any strenuous over-spiritualization of the text but it does take the interpretation of the signs and the symbols as they are given in Accordance to biblical contexts the Bible gives us contexts for serpents.

What is the serpent? This the devil from the very first Third chapter of the Bible first book of the Bible we have the devil.

In fact in Revelation.

What does it call him? the ancient serpent that old devil that Meaning the one that we you know that one you saw He's back.

You know, I mean that's the description is you see these pictures and You know who it's referring to But you still have to interpret the pictures you still have to interpret the signs And Not over spiritualizing.

In fact, I would say it takes just as much spiritualization and whatever To be a futurist as it does take a preterist because at least we have something to look back on and we can fit the pieces together Because we're looking on something that's already happened Versus having to imagine have you listened to some of the guys who tried to describe? Revelation in a future context come up with all kinds of crazy stories Have you watched left behind? There's a lot of there's a lot of liberties And it's not all literal be careful when somebody accuses you of not interpreting the Bible literally Because oftentimes they're not either they're interpreting it according to the rules that they have set forth in their own mind as to what it should say and Then they're reading back their own interpretation into what it does say and they're becoming the standard Which scripture must conform to rather than scripture being the standard to which they must conform So that's the first that people say do you take the do you take revelation? Literally? I say no, I read it apocalyptically Number two.

What about the date of Revelation? We've talked about this a lot.

So because we have I'm not going to Spend a lot of our time on it, but this is the question of questions if it could be proven That Revelation was written after 80 70 then I would concede the preterism is wrong and I'd become a historicist to say, you know, I still wouldn't be a futurist I I'm still not jumping off that cliff because I think there's so many holes in that dike It's just a it's just no we're not going we're not going there.

We are going to look at it as I believe it is supposed to be understood but a Lot of people believe Revelation was written in the 90s His Preterism requires that it was written prior to 80 70 but not necessarily long before because how long Did he say it was about to take place soon near so we're not talking about written in the 40s or 50s we're talking about probably in the 60s as a warning there are reputable scholars who argue for a much earlier dating for Revelation and there are external evidences and internal evidences And I want to read to you One of the external evidences For the late date now this I this is against my position So understand what I'm about to read to you is argument against me because I want to respond to it One of the arguments about that because you'll hear people say oh, we know Revelation was written later because Irenaeus told us it was Well, I want to quote what Irenaeus actually said Okay We will now 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 All right So the quote by Irenaeus is saying it's referring to the Antichrist And he's saying we we know him because he's mentioned in the writings of John He said the one who had the apocalyptic vision.

That's John and he said For that was seen no very long time since but almost in our day toward the end of Domitian's reign when was Domitian's reigned the the reign of Domitian was in the later part of The First century so the argument is well Irenaeus is telling us revelation is written later not necessarily the text of Irenaeus is An English translation of a Latin text of a Greek text that we no longer possess Furthermore Irenaeus is writing is not inspired and therefore it is possible that he is incorrect about the dating But he also talks about ancient copies of revelation something which would not have existed where it written as late as he seems to indicate So there's a lot of there's a lot of extra baggage that comes with Irenaeus's claim.

I would like to suggest that Clement Should also be heard Clement of Alexandria Disagrees with Irenaeus and he says this 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 what he's saying is all the books of the Bible were written by the time of Nero So who we gonna believe at this point we have conflicting or at least possibly conflicting early church fathers and in my opinion, I Think that Clement is correct because he not only says that Revelation was written before 87.

He says all of it all of the writings Were but again Clement is not writing under the inspiration of God So both of these men could be wrong But that is the that's the only external evidence we have Referring to the dating is what other men said about the book what we do know Is it existed in their lifetime as they're both talking about So it was around So anybody who says revelation wasn't written until the 2nd century 3rd century 4th century, they're wrong Because we have men who are talking about the existence of this book at the end of the first century So What are the internal evidences are there internal evidences, I think there are many The internal evidences for the dating of Revelation number one Revelation makes several allusions to the existence of the temple There is not a hint anywhere that the temple is no longer standing.

It speaks of the temple as having Presence during the prophecies and some would argue that's because the temple will be rebuilt.

That is a argument yet unproven Here's the thing for futurism to be correct the temple must be rebuilt Why do you think all of these dispensationalists get so excited every time they hear something about the temple being rebuilt? Then you know they do right every time somebody puts a brick on top of another brick in Jerusalem Everybody gets their their cackles in a bunch, you know, they get all excited because they think This is it they're going to rebuild the temple Because it needs to happen if their position is correct but this book makes It clear the temple is standing So I think that's evidence that it's being written while the temple is still standing Not some future temple, but the temple that we knew stood at that time Revelation never never mentions a rebuilt temple It is assumed There there will be a rebuilt temple because their position demands it remember what I said earlier they read back into the book their interpretation Because it demands it My position doesn't demand a rebuilt temple because my position is saying he's talking about the temple that had not yet fallen Everybody with me so far Yes, no, maybe so, okay good number two This is my internal evidence is number one the book never The book makes several allusions to an existing temple That's one evidence of it written before number two The book never mentions the destruction of the first temple or the the temple that was standing at the time of the writing Yeah What did I say? What was my I don't know if you remember this when I did the survey of the New Testament What was my biggest argument for all of the New Testament books being written before 80 70? None of them mentioned this huge event None of them mentioned this world changing event None of them mentioned this thing that Jesus prophesied about you think that's significant.

I think it's huge Jesus prophesied that this was gonna happen and none of them said hey guys look what happened now Revelation never mentions the historic destruction of the temple because it was written before him But the third thing the third reason third internal piece of internal evidence is found in Revelation 17 Revelation 17 verses 9 and 10 Says this This calls for a mind of 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 the other One is the other has not yet come when he does come he must remain only a little while All right.

You say what's that? What's that about? What's Revelation 17 9 and 10 in antiquity? Seven mountains or seven hills could have pointed to one of a few places Rome was known as the city on seven hills But Jerusalem is also called the city on seven hills the harlot who rejected the Messiah The Kings here are the are likely the emperors of Rome Jerusalem was under Roman occupation as you remember and though not called Kings.

This is essentially what they were Remember what the Jews said to Jesus or said to Pilate we have no king but Caesar So to call the Caesars Kings was not outside of the realm of possibility So we heat we see here seven kings, right? It says there are seven kings five have fallen one is and one is yet to come What does this tell us? The book is being written in the time of the sixth king if I've have come one is and one is yet to come right Now stick with me because this this is where it gets this where rubber meets the road here Julius Caesar did not receive the title of Emperor The first to receive the title of title of Emperor was Caesar Augustus Then came Tiberius Caligula Claudius Nero Galba followed by Otho Vitellius Vespasian Titan Titus and Domitian Galba Otho and Vitellius all had very short reigns and may not be included This could mean Vespasian was meant to be the sixth But you could begin counting with Julius Caesar And if you do begin counting with Julius Caesar though He was never actually referred to as Emperor if you began counting with him.

He would be the first And if you start with him Nero would be the sixth king the one who is That would mean the book was written during the time of Nero So a time frame I believe is given when it says there are five kings one is and one is yet to come so we have Julius Caesar one Tiberius to Caligula three Claudius I'm sorry.

I got a Julius Caesar was one Caesar Augustus was to Tiberius was three Caligula was four Claudius was five and Nero would be six and then again if we don't count Otho Vitellius or Vespasian whose rule was very short the one who actually brought the Destruction would have been Titus He would have been the seventh I would encourage you if you have never read it to read The last days according to Jesus by R.C.

Sproul he goes a little deeper into this particular Argument and I will also say this Ken Gentry's doctoral dissertation if you really want to be deep in your study Ken Gentry makes this argument and and Or makes arguments regarding the dating that I think are very Are very convincing Tried to get him on my podcast, but he was Unwilling he was he was too busy.

I understand.

He's very busy, dude All right, if we accept a pre dating or excuse me a pre 70 dating for Revelation We are able to interpret many of the events as it describes as being in their future, but our past Let me say that again the people reading it this this is in their future a few years But it's in our past by 1900 years But this leads to some questions number one.

What about the Antichrist? What about the Antichrist? I mean That's an important figure.

Everybody wants to know who the Antichrist is Well, the mysterious figure known as Antichrist has been a huge focus of futurist eschatology Every time a new leader emerges some will someone will accuse them of being the Antichrist somebody people thought Donald Trump was Antichrist Some people thought Barack Obama was Antichrist When Ronald Reagan was president old Ronnie Reagan Some people accused him of being the Antichrist.

I mean Ronald Wilson Reagan six letters Ronald Wilson six letters Reagan six letters he's proof Or that's proof he is the Antichrist All right, some people argue that Preterism was actually invented by Catholics to get the reformers off the back because the reformers were always saying that the Pope was the Antichrist So people some people think preterism was invented by Catholics to To say no, it's already happened.

Pope's not the Antichrist And that's why I say I could I can get down with historicism because I do believe the post I do believe the Pope Maintains an Antichrist position In fact, I remember a few years ago.

I was filling in for a Greek teacher at the seminary I was asked to come in and teach Substitute teach and so as I was teaching I was talking to the class about my sermon for that week my sermon for that week was called the heresy of the papacy and They like were stunned There's a group of Baptists and they were like I can't believe you're going to talk about the papacy I was like, I can't believe you're Baptist and you're not What do you mean you can't believe it? I can't believe your people listen to that Well now people get a lot worse than that But that's a story for another time.

So one thing to understand preterism does believe in the Beast of Revelation 13 We don't explain that away as some mystical thing.

We believe that the Beast is a literal figure We just believe he it would be Associated with what happened in 8070 therefore Some believe that the Beast refers to Caesar Nero or Nero Caesar as I already said he would have been the king at the time of the writing of this and There is a way to use the Hebrew alphabet Which also has numerical value to point to Nero, but I I want to say with this that you have to be careful because I don't want to end up in the same room or the same error as the people who Are saying Ronald Wilson Reagan is six six six, right? you have to be careful, but if this is written in the time period of the listener reader and they say it says You can discern who this is For it is the number of his name Yeah, that's what Revelation 13 says, right? It is the number of his name six six six Nero Caesar in the Hebrew alphabet is Essentially If we put it into this is kind of hard to explain because I had to read it in Hebrew and this is rather hard But essentially if the numbers represented fifty two hundred six fifty one hundred sixty two hundred it adds up to six hundred and sixty six noon rash Bob is fifty two hundred six noon Cove Samik is Fifty-one hundred sixty and another rash is two hundred ends up being six hundred sixty six.

So that is Nero Caesar in Hebrew the letters because every letter has a numerical value So if you add up the numerical value of his name It's not like, you know, six letters six letters six letters It's like if I said like we don't do this because we use the Arabic numerate numerical system We have one two three, we have numbers but in Hebrew they didn't have numbers They had letters that were also numbers and the letters represented numerical values So when we go back to read like in the book of Numbers, it's actually letters that spell that out for the numerical Citation so in Hebrews or not Hebrews, excuse me in Hebrew The letters Spell out or not spell out can be counted up to six hundred and sixty six But also I want you to consider this the term mark As in the mark of the beast not the mark of the tarot, but the mark That's mark tarot, by the way for those who don't know I'm making a little joke the mark of the beast Could refer to the stamp on a coin and that would mean that the mark is stamped with Nero's head and Is carried in the hand and you cannot transact business without it So the coin which bears the head of the beast and carried in the hand and Cannot be you cannot do business without it certainly makes sense I'll read to you from a commentator Craig Hill said this Said it is far more probable that the mark symbolizes the all-embracing economic power of Rome whose whose very coin Bore the Emperor's image and conveyed his claims of divinity By including the Sun's rays in the rulers portrait It was showing him to be God and had become increasingly difficult for Christians to function in a world in which public life Including the economic life of the trade guilds required participation and idolatry You couldn't work unless you were willing to Submit to Caesar to say Kaiser Koryos, which means Caesar is Lord.

In fact Yeshu Koryos is a political statement as much as it is a religious one Because yesu Koryos was the response to Kaiser Koryos Kaiser Koryos Caesar's Lord Christians would say no Yesu Koryos Jesus is Lord And then that was it So it was as much a political statement as it was and this is why John would later write.

No one can say Jesus is Lord unless it be given him by the Spirit Because to say Jesus is Lord was to stand against The very armies who would take your life if you were not willing to bow down to Caesar Understand when the Jews revolted in 80 66 one of the things they did was coin their own money they used They they refused to use Roman money because they refused to accept Roman authority The accepting of Roman money Was the accepting of the mark of the beast it was accepting your the authority of the Roman System all right, we're gonna take it because I got a couple pages left.

Let's take five take a break Okay, so we we ended talking about Antichrist and we're going to We're not going to move to our last portion where we deal with the question of the Great Tribulation and This is how questions normally come to me People will come to me and they'll say pastor.

Do you think we're going to be here for the tribulation? What is assumed in that question? One that the Great Tribulation is in the future so they're automatically taking the futurist position.

They're not proving it They're assuming it to them.

It is an a priori assumption.

That's already Doesn't need to be proved when they say pastor will we go through the tribulation? They're already assuming a futurist position and they're also assuming a pre-tribulation rapture is possible Because the whole reason they're asking the question will we go through the Great Tribulation is because they're assuming we might not Which is based on the pre the dispensational view that we will be raptured out prior to that So normally my response is very Well, I don't say very discouraging.

It's very confusing because when they say Pastor will we go through the Great Tribulation? And I say well, I think it already happened.

They go.

Oh That's really weird.

It doesn't fit into their paradigm at all doesn't fit into their Category and if I say if I if I say I think there are churches right now that are going through Great Tribulation There are churches right now that are being persecuted and so from that would be a more historicist perspective But when they talk about the Great Tribulation, they're talking about Revelation.

They're talking about the time period discussed in Revelation.

So Let us now look at the Great Tribulation It stands to reason because so much of Revelation describes a period of tribulation that this would be a concern for many people but Preterism would say that this tribulation is not a future event, but a past event For the ones of that generation it was future but for us it is now past How else would we describe what was happening in Jerusalem other than the word tribulation? The time of Nero was a time of tribulation which we can but hardly understand Believers were sown into animal carcasses and fed to wild beasts Others were dipped into pitch and lit on fire to provide light for the Emperor's garden Many were crucified like Peter and Andrew Peter Tradition says was crucified upside down Andrew was crucified on an X Cross rather than a T shaped cross the the if you ever see the X that's the what's known as the st Andrews cross Because that is the traditional understanding of how Andrew was crucified Years ago.

I remember attending a play.

I told you about this last week local church Had a play and in the climax of the play Christian teenagers were led to a guillotine They were called to recant or suffer death by beheading and many of the teenagers were beheaded on stage in a church like right in front of everybody Now obviously it was Theatrics, it was still pretty wild to see a giant silver guillotine and you'd see the person screaming and then a Limp and after the play was over the pastor came out And he used this scene to urge his hearers to turn to Jesus and as a plea his plea was essentially this You don't want to suffer this Tribulation so receive Jesus now so that you will be caught up in the rapture and not be faced with this persecution Now as I said a minute ago, I I'm not saying Great Tribulation isn't Going to happen.

I'm not saying it's not happening now, but I think that the tribulation that's referred to in Revelation was suffered by those in Jerusalem This leads a lot of questions on how we piece together certain portions of the prophecies, but no system no system Wraps up everything tightly with a little bow everything leaves questions to be answered This book is signs and symbols and has to be Interpreted and always that's going to leave you with some some questions I Consider the already and the not yet to be an important paradigm to consider Some things are already and some things are not yet.

Sometimes that term can be called eclectic preterism That is to say there was an immediate fulfillment in 8070 that was what John was talking about But that there will be yet Future fulfillments to come and this is why I said earlier if I wasn't a preterist I'd be a historicist because that's basically the argument of Eclectic preterism is that the main thrust of Revelation is what happened in 8070? But it will have reverberating effects down through the ages.

I think that's reasonable and Therefore I wouldn't say as I said, I don't think everything is fulfilled But I think the majority of it and some people say well revelation could not be fulfilled in 8070 because what about the Astrological signs the Bible says the Sun will be darkened the moon will turn to blood and the sky will be rolled back like a scroll But I want you to consider for a moment That much of the language that is used in Revelation is also used in the Old Testament Prophets to describe the times of God's judgment on certain nations.

I'll let you listen to this Isaiah 13 Isaiah 13 verses 9 to 13 behold the day of the Lord comes cruel with wrath and fierce anger to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it for the stars of the heavens and their Constellations will not give light and the Sun will be dark at its rising and the moon will not shed its light I will punish the world for its evil and the wicked for their iniquity I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless I will make people more rare than fine gold and mankind and the gold of Ophir Therefore I will make the heavens tremble and the earth will be shaken out of its place at the wrath Of the Lord of hosts in the day of his fierce anger That sounds like Revelation in time stuff, right? But that's not Revelation in time stuff that's about the destruction of Babylon these signs were symbolic in Isaiah Why are they not symbolic in Revelation? Isaiah 34 verses 3 to 5 Their slain shall be cast out and the stench of their corpses shall rise The mountain shall flow with their blood all the hosts of heaven shall rot away and the skies roll up like a scroll All their hosts shall fall as leaves fall from the vine Like leaves falling from the fig tree for my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens behold it descends For judgment upon Edom upon the people I have devoted to destruction Isaiah 34 3 to 5 notice what it says about the skies rolling back like a scroll Sounds like Revelation, right? But it's not it's about the destruction of Edom which did happen And has already happened Therefore it stands to reason that When John is writing he is writing in the same genre of literature as the Old Testament apocalyptic prophets and Therefore he would use the same vivid imagery moon turns to blood Sun turns to sackcloth.

I Remember I'm gonna tell a story about Bobby Bobby's always telling stories about me.

I'm gonna tell a story about Bobby When I was a kid Bobby and I went with our friends Eddie and Chris with our stepmom to SeaWorld We were riding in the Mercury Sable With the rear-facing seat Chris and I sat in the back Looking at the cars going backwards as everyone else was going facing forward we drove down to SeaWorld Pat took us and one of her friends and And at that time I thought Bobby was pretty cool so we tried to hang out with him all day Yeah But on the way back there was a red moon Bright red and I remember Bobby the great theologian.

He said yes He said The moon is red That's a sign of the end The moon will turn to blood I Never heard that before That night and I was scared to death I was probably nine Years old Bobby was five years older than me.

So we met when I was six and So about seven you were twelve.

So he was probably early teenage years and Bobby you ruined me that whole night.

I was scared Red moon.

I didn't know nothing about no Sailor's Delight, you know red moon night sailors I know nothing about that.

I knew red moon meant Jesus is coming Yeah, and and you know John Hagee a few years ago John Hagee John Hagee is a futurist instantationalist wackadoodle Sorry, don't be ugly Forget what I said the last part he is a futurist instantationalist and he makes a big deal about blood moons Which he says have significance for in time events, which again, it's just a red moon Well, the reason why the preacher of rapture has been so popular is several different reasons one The Schofield reference Bible was huge and this was popularized in the Schofield reference notes You know, it was it this this whole theology of pre-trib rapture Seven-year tribulation all this stuff was popularized by John Nelson Darby.

It was then later included in the notes of the Schofield reference Bible which were then popularized and used by many in both the Baptist and Pentecostal circles and so that is why so many of you have only ever heard that position because that became the position of the modern Christian evangelicals Now with that being said the it also appeals to the The base instinct within us to want to avoid Persecution Because what is the problem? What is the promise of dispensationalism? You're going to get out of here before this happens You're going to be snatched away thief in the night you're going to be taken away before the persecution comes Very American God's not going to let me Suffer.

Oh, I know the Chinese are suffering.

Oh, I know the North Koreans Can't worship anyone except for the Emperor.

I know That in certain lands Christians are right now being killed more Christians were martyred for their faith in the 20th century than any century prior By simple numeric value more Christians were killed in the 20th century for their faith than any voice of the martyrs Look it up.

I that's not my that's not my opinion.

That is a fact and therefore The idea that we're going to escape persecution is very American because we don't suffer persecution here And therefore we don't think we should Now don't you go being a prophet miss Daisy All right.

I got five minutes left.

Let me let me read to you this last part because there are there are some reports of amazing signs and wonders Which occurred during the destruction of Jerusalem in 80 70? I want to read to you from Josephus Josephus and from Tacitus two Paragraphs one is from the Jewish Wars and other is from Tacitus Histories, but just listen to what they write.

This is first one is from Josephus in the Jewish Wars Beside these signs a few days after the feast on the 1 and 20th day of the month of Artem Artemisius a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared I Suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable were it not Related by those who saw it and were not the events that followed it of so considerable in nature as to deserve such signals for before sun setting chariots and troops of soldiers and their armor were seen running among the clouds and surrounding the city Moreover at that feast which we call Pentecost as the priests were going by night into the inner court of the temple as their Custom was to perform their sacred ministrations They said that in the first place they felt a quaking and heard a great noise and after that they heard a sound as of a Great multitude saying let us remove hence So according to Josephus there were those who said they saw Visions in the clouds as well as hearing voices.

You might say.

Oh, well, they're just crazy.

Okay Were there not times in the Old Testament? We're during great moments of God's work where there were signs in the heavens and in the earth and things were heard and seen And he says it would be seen be a fable if it weren't seen by so many people If it weren't so well attested So that was Josephus, but let me read to you from Tacitus Prodigies had occurred but their expiation by the offering of victims or Solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs in the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict of Glittering armor a sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the temple the doors of the holy place abruptly opened a Superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it and in the same instant came the rushing Atonement of their departure few people placed a sinister interpretation upon this the majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as The very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judea would go forth men destined to rule the world so again Tacitus is just saying there were visions in the heavens Voices that were heard and they were heard so much and and so powerfully that those who heard them thought that this was Something from God or from if it was for the Romans from the gods ultimately When we read Revelation We have to read it Understanding that something will be interpreted figuratively So the question becomes Should we interpret the figures figuratively or should we interpret the time frame? figuratively The time frame is given to us twice at the beginning Must soon take place time is near It's given to us at the end must soon take place the time is near Not in figurative language, but in the basic language of man the people who interpret this Futuristically they immediately have to spiritualize the phrase near and soon to mean far and Distant so the question is what are we going to use as our interpretive grid? I would say the time frame references begin and in the book and therefore give us a lens through which to interpret and And an important question regarding preterism is this Are there still some events on God's prophetic calendar or have they all taken place? And as I said earlier No, not all of them have taken place.

There are still events on God's prophetic calendar And I think the most important one is the final return of Jesus Christ where Believers will be resurrected to meet the Lord in the air and then they will return with him to bring judgment and Usher in the eternal state.

I Do not think that there will be seven years that precede that Or seven years that come after that Preceded by an invisible rapture and I certainly don't think Jesus is going to hang around on this earth for a thousand years With enemies surrounding him, I want to read a quote from Keith Matheson he wrote this for Ligonier ministries if you're not familiar with Ligonier, that's R.C.

Sproul and This is what he wrote It's easy to forget when reading the book of Revelation that it is the capstone of the entire narrative of Scripture The bulk of the biblical narrative has concerned the story of Israel leading up to the coming of the promised Messiah We recall that most of the content of the Old Testament prophetic books Concerned the coming exile of Israel and Judah on account of their rejection of God the prophecies continued right up to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Babylonians in 586 BC in the first century Jesus foretold another coming judgment of Israel on account of her rejection of him and He connected this coming judgment with his Ascension to the throne of the kingdom of God in light of the history of Prophecy in Israel and in light of the redemptive historical significance Jesus himself places on the first century judgment of Israel Would it be terribly surprising if at the conclusion of the biblical narrative? God once again sent a prophet to declare the impending judgment of Israel as well as the ultimate future restoration When the genre the statements of the book itself and the larger biblical context are taken into consideration a basically Preterist approach to the book of Revelation emerges as the most appropriate approach to take It's finalizing God's judgment on Israel.

This is the end of the Old Covenant and We look forward to what we look forward to the consummation that when he returns and I have heard one argument.

I'll end by answering an argument.

What argument is this? Well, why would Jesus bring us up to the clouds only to come right back down? They were heard that they say that's why that's why they believe the rapture takes us up for seven years Because first Thessalonians 4 says he takes us up into the clouds.

Why would he have us meet him in the clouds? in the ancient world When the king would go away to battle when he was coming back in victory his people would come out and meet him and They would all come back together in victory We will be caught up together with him in the clouds to return with him in victory and usher in the final state I Hope this has been helpful, and I hope you have enjoyed this class.

Let's pray father.

I thank you for this time Pray that it will be encouraging to your people Lord be with us and bless us as we drive home in Christ's name.