Bruce Gore Interview on the book of Revelation

Well, hello and welcome to the Reform Rookie video podcast. I'm doing a Zoom meeting today.

My name is Anthony Eugenio and I'll be your Reform Rookie host for this interview. The goal of this video cast is to take the rich truths of the

Reform faith and help you see the beauty of them and to see God in a new and wonderful light.

And understanding these truths will help you, us, better understand and know the God of the Scriptures and to Him be the glory.

And to that, I also say Semper Reformanda, which means always be reforming. Well, today I'm very excited because I have a guest on board,

Bruce Gore. I'm going to call him Professor Bruce because he was at one point in time a professor at a college.

And I'd just like to introduce him to you real quickly. He's been a Christian for, oh gosh, well over 40 years.

He was a professor, an adjunct faculty of Whitworth University in Spokane, Washington.

He's also a practicing attorney, and I don't want you to hold that against him. Professor Gore is a popular lecturer, teacher, and preacher for many years.

He offers educational materials in Bible history and theology from the Reformed perspective.

In fact, his book, The Historical and Chronological Context of the Bible, has helped many people understand the cultural background behind the accounts in the

Bible. Bruce is now retired, but continues to develop and upload material that helps many Bible -believing

Christians like myself to dive deeper into the things of God. So welcome,

Bruce. Thank you for joining me on the show. Well, thank you, Anthony. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you.

Oh, my pleasure. Thank you. So the reason why I brought you on is because in my

Bible study, we're doing a study on the book of Revelation, and you are doing, actually, a tremendous series on that, and I just can't wait to dive into that.

But before we do, what I normally like to do as a first -time guest, could you tell me how you came to be

Reformed? But basically, what is your testimony into Reformed theology? Sure.

It's a question I like to answer because I grew up in a very different tradition.

I grew up Baptist. I'm not unhappy about that. It was a great little rural Baptist church with a lot of great little

Sunday school teachers and other experiences that were very formative in my early years.

But it was certainly a very strongly dispensational background, and so I grew up with a very distinct sense that I was living in the end times, that I'd probably never live to be old enough to get married, that a rapture was going to happen any minute now.

And so it does tend to affect your psychology just a little bit as you're growing up.

But as it turns out, the rapture didn't happen, and I graduated from high school and wound up attending

Woodworth University in Spokane. And so that was really the beginning of my exposure to something outside the world of my

Baptist tradition. And even though I was there four years,

I was still pretty much a confirmed Baptist and dispensational person by the time

I graduated. But I had at least learned something I'd never suspected before, and that that was a person could actually be a

Presbyterian and a Christian. I didn't know that, you see. I had grown up thinking if you were anything but a

Baptist, you were suspect at best. And if you were a Presbyterian, you must be lost, so that was kind of my instruction.

So it was nice to be exposed to some remarkable, powerful men of God and women of God, really, at the school that certainly did impact my perception, at least, of that.

I've always been a bit of a talker, and in fact, when I graduated from college, I was already working in Christian radio, and I thought

I'd probably be doing that for the duration. But as it turns out, after two or three years, there was a little

Bible school that started here in Spokane. At the time, it was called Inland Empire School of the

Bible, and eventually was purchased by Moody Bible Institute, but that was years later. But anyway, it started, and I had enough bluff and bravado in me.

I just walked in one day and asked if I could teach. I had no credentials.

I had no particular reason that they should take an interest in me. And the brass there at the school kind of rolled their eyes and thought, who does this kid think he is?

But they did offer me a job teaching speech, because I was in radio, and so I could at least teach speech and homiletics and that.

So I bluffed my way into that job. And after about a year and a half,

I was full time, so I was able to morph into a full -time faculty member over about an 18 -month period.

The irony was that one of the teaching assignments I was given at that school was to teach church history.

I'd never taken a bit of interest in church history. In fact, I'd never taken a bit of interest in any history.

You know, as a kid, the history I took was always from teachers who weren't interested in the topic themselves.

In high school, the history teacher was the football coach. And so all we learned about in history classes were different great football plays.

I mean, I remember the pictures on the board of the Xs and Zeros and how to run plays.

And so I assumed that history was just kind of a rite of passage, but there was no particular reason to take an interest in it.

And so I was somewhat nonplussed when I was at the school and they said,

OK, you're going to teach church history, about which I knew virtually nothing. And so I just kind of dove into it.

It was my task. And I started reading and what happened was that as I taught church history, really just starting from zero,

I tripped across what's called the Protestant Reformation. You know, I'd heard of it. I knew

I was a Protestant, but I really didn't know why I was called a Protestant growing up. I didn't have much background on that.

And so I discovered people like Martin Luther and John Calvin and John Knox and other characters who are important in history.

And the more I looked at them, the more impressed I was. It was like discovering a whole different world out there that I'd never really, even through college, never really been exposed to because even in college

I'd avoided history. And so I started reading these guys.

And as I read them, it just hit me that this was a quality of insight and thought and understanding that was at one of the same time completely different from something that I'd been exposed to.

I mean, these were people, obviously, that believed the Bible. I mean, in that sense, there was a great deal of common ground.

But the style and the attitude by which they approached the topic, the great confidence they had, they didn't see the world as getting worse and worse.

They saw it, in fact, just the opposite. They saw that God was working in history and that they expected better things to happen in the future.

And they expected for this work of Christ to go on, especially in Calvin, for a good long time.

And so, you know, really it didn't happen suddenly, but just over a period of time as I taught this year by year and kept dealing with these characters more and more and then broadened my understanding to other areas as well.

I just woke up one day and looked in the mirror and said, you know, kid, you're not a dispensational anymore.

You're not even a Baptist anymore. That I'd been pretty much converted just by reading these characters.

At some point along the way, I came across a guy named R .C. Sproul. I know you're probably pretty familiar with him.

And he was very helpful in clarifying some of the kind of the loose ends.

I actually met him personally back in 1976. I went to the Ligonier Valley Study Center and spent a month there.

And that was really helpful. And but by then I was already kind of on a different path.

And so so anyway, that's the that's the short version of it. It happened when I was in my 20s. Probably by the time

I was 26, 27, I'd say I'd probably jump ship and wound up in the reformed camp.

And I was also very taken with history. In fact,

I when I was 28, I went out and got a master's degree in history from a local college called

Eastern Washington University just because I discovered that's what

I should have been doing all along. You know, this kind of big shock that this was really the area that I was much more interested in than I ever suspected.

And that's kind of the short version of how it happened. Yeah, that's that's a little act of God's providence getting you started with history.

And then because when you said that you didn't like history, listening to your lectures, you know, online,

I'm saying, my goodness, how did he how did he transition? That that's a work of God in your heart, because the history that you teach and the things that you bring out is just excellent.

So after you came to an understanding of reformed theology, was that a shock to the people around you?

Did you get opposition? Did people did did you tell people you were a

Calvinist and what was their reaction and how did you work through that? Yeah, well, the school where I was teaching was definitely cut out of the kind of,

I would say, non -Calvinistic dispensational mold. I mean, they would they might call themselves

Calvinists, at least some of them, but not in any thoroughgoing sense of the rich reformed tradition.

But it was actually more the sharp difference that I came to really appreciate between what was reformed tradition in connection with eschatology and the views that were really required at the school.

I had to sign a doctrinal statement every year to keep my job there, affirming my conviction that I believe certain things that were all dispensational in character without mental reservation.

Well, I was getting increasing mental reservation every year and I was getting more conflict of conscience every year, you know, as I as I was signing such a document until finally in 1980.

I just couldn't do it anymore. I had to and it was kind of an open secret, really.

I think people realized that I was kind of pointing my nose in a different direction here and they were tolerating me because I did well and I was well liked and so on.

But I realized at a certain point it just couldn't go on this way. So we had an amicable parting.

I wrote a nice letter to the school and said I appreciated the years I'd been there. And I was

I was really more committed to a kind of covenant theology approach to things. And my views on dispensationalism had really been pretty much abandoned.

I really embraced more of an amillennial or postmillennial outlook in that regard. And we all shook hands and shed a couple of tears.

And they actually made me the graduation speaker that year. And that was my kind of swan song.

And I bounced around for a couple of years after that and then wound up going to law school.

So I was that was kind of a new chapter in my life at that point. What a great honor that is to be able to speak at the at the university like that.

Yeah. Yeah. So do you regret coming to reform? Maybe not.

Regret is not the right word. But is there ever a pullback like, hmm, you know, maybe

I should rethink some things or has it positively affected your life?

It has transformed my understanding of what it is to be a

Christian, how to live as a Christian. I, you know, I I think

I was from my very earliest childhood memories, I had faith.

I don't have any conversion story, you know. I mean, virtually from my most early memories,

I never had any doubt in all my life. I've never had any doubt that God is out there, that he's a reality to be reckoned with, that Jesus is his son, that we need to come to terms with Jesus if we want to get along well in eternity.

You know, so that was never a debate. It was never even a question. But what happened in terms of appreciating what it means to be a

Christian, what it means to be a Christian, living at a certain time in history, that was radically transformed.

I remember when I was in college going to a conference at the

University of Idaho in which the speaker was a character named Hal Lindsey. And you probably know that name, famous for the late great planet

Earth. And at that time, it was before he was really famous. But he was still with Campus Crusade for Christ, and he'd travel around and he'd give lectures and stuff and talk to college kids like me.

And this was in a group of 500 people, 500 college students. And his closing lecture or his talk was on the end of the world.

You know, we're living in the end times. And he had quite a compelling case to make based on Ezekiel and Daniel and Revelation and other texts.

You know, you're probably familiar with all of those. And he said in this talk that he gave, this was in 1968, that he couldn't imagine that the return of Christ would take place any later than 1975.

That he thought he wasn't going to set a time or a day, he knew better than that. But he just couldn't imagine, given all that was happening in the world with Soviet Russia and the rise of China and blah, blah, blah, you know, all of this stuff.

And he pieced it together. And it was pretty compelling to an impressionable college kid. And he convinced me, at least for a moment when

I was a sophomore in college, that, hey, you know, Jesus is going to return at or before 1975.

And I tell you, I almost dropped out of college. I mean, why go to college if Jesus is coming back that soon?

We should be going out, you know, preaching on the street corners. It changes your whole view of how to live when you think that you're living in the end of the world.

You know, not just that Jesus might return soon, but that he's definitely going to and that therefore you need to make some changes.

Well, when I embraced reform thought, it had the same kind of revolutionary impact, but in the opposite direction.

You know, my view from then till now has been that, hey, I think I want to live my life to do good things for my kids, my grandkids, my great grandkids, my great grandkids and kids

I'll never meet. But I want to do things today that I believe will trickle down to their benefit generations from now.

To me, it just was an entirely different way of thinking about the meaning of what it is to live out a

Christian life with an eye toward a long range perspective and hope for what

God is doing in history. So it was it was a very and I've never looked back. It's never been. I've always felt like this was almost a second conversion to come to that understanding.

Sure. Amen. I mean, I mean, eschatology matters and what you believe about these things is going to change the way you live.

Like you said, I'm just praying that the church in America sees what you're teaching and what the church has historically taught throughout the ages with regards to eschatology, because this rapture theology is really,

I think, doing damage to to not only our witness, but the transformation in our country.

If you think that you're going to be pulled out at any minute, like you said, you know, why polish brass on a sinking ship?

Yeah, that's right. I just might as well just coast until he comes back, you know.

But when when you realize that the work we do now is laying a foundation for future generations to stand on and we're actually part of something that's going to be built and and going to glorify

God in the end. What a what an incredible look forward that is. Yeah, absolutely.

So with that, thank you so much for that testimony. With that, this is why

I sought you out on the Internet and started watching your videos about the book of Revelation.

So what I'd like to do now is just talk a little bit about that book. So I know I was amazed.

And when you said that you memorized the whole book. Yeah, yeah, I know that was when

I was young and foolish. How long did it take you to do that? Oh, it took about a year.

I wasn't in a big hurry. I you may have caught the story. I was on a wonderful vacation trip with my lovely wife.

And we were in this was in 1993. And we were on the deck. Well, we were on a cruise ship in the

Greek Isles and had just visited Patmos. And of course, that's a wonderful little place to visit.

And it's just rich with they're very proud of the book of Revelation. And they've never heard of Hal Lindsay Fairhotel.

But anyway, you know, I thought to myself, this was 1993. I'd been in the reform world for, you know, some 20 years by then.

But I was always afraid of Revelation. I didn't know what to do with it. It was like it was a part of a different book.

And so I'd never really I kind of avoided it in my Bible teaching and so on.

And I thought to myself, you know, the only way to really wrap my head around this thing is to force myself to teach.

And I think I'll a year from now teach Revelation, just jump in, you know, flail around.

And at least I can say I've been there, done that. And then I thought, well, maybe the best way to tackle it would be to memorize it.

And that seems like kind of an auspicious thing to do. But my plan was just to memorize one verse per day and add it to what

I already knew and just kind of have a discipline of adding one verse and kind of trying to think about the verse.

Not just memorize it, but really try to digest it, you know. And so it's a learning technique.

Took about a year and it was well worth it. It's a wonderful exercise.

And then that following fall, a year from then, I did teach

Revelation first time through. That was in 94. And in the meantime, in prepping for it,

I kind of came across the more what's called preterist approach to it, which tries to see

Revelation in terms of a context of first century events. And it really didn't take long to realize that's what's going on here.

All of these attempts to tie it into contemporary geopolitics and all of it.

And it was freewheeling, really almost bizarre interpretive devices that are used to to try to make sense out of the book.

To me, it was very, very comforting to say, hey, you know, there's actually a rational way to approach the book that has some objective interpretive standards to it.

It makes the book of Revelation part of the Bible. You can include it in the canon.

And and that's been that's been, to me, really a useful exercise to just see it that way.

It certainly has lessons for all Christians at all times in history. But step one is to see what did it mean to the original

Christians who were the recipients of it originally. And then I can legitimately say, OK, now, how does it apply to me?

So that's been my approach, really, since that time to this. Two quick thoughts. First, I'm so grateful that you did decide to teach the book of Revelation and get into it the way you have.

And second, memorizing the book has never been a thought that's entered my own mind. I'm grateful that you have.

So why do you think why do you think the book is so misinterpreted?

Is it fear of the book of Revelation and not wanting to get into it or hearing so many things about it that, you know, there's just this trepidation?

Why do you think it's so misinterpreted? Well, I think the most obvious initial answer is just that it's a very strange book, you know, especially to someone reading it in the 20 or 21st century.

You flip it open and you're confronted with with really extravagant imagery, stars sprawling from heaven, the sky receding like a scroll, beasts riding out of the sea.

I mean, you know, it's it's literature that that on the face of it is not very inviting, especially to us who are the recipients of a long kind of Western scientific tradition.

We tend to read star falls from the sky and think immediately, wow, a star is going to fall from the sky.

Well, it wouldn't take too many stars falling on Earth to incinerate the Earth. You know, it doesn't make sense to just take that as some sort of description of a scientific phenomenon.

But when you realize virtually every image that's used in Revelation, every image,

I think of almost without exception, is found somewhere else in the Bible. There's really not much new in Revelation.

And that when you look for those images elsewhere in the Bible, invariably they are being used poetically.

They're being used for dramatic effect. You know, David says, the

Lord is my shepherd. I shall not want. He says he makes me lie down by still waters. We don't sweat a whole lot about some image in our mind that God dragged

David out of his house and hauled him down to a pond and made him lie there in a bunch of wet grass.

I mean, you know, nobody takes it that way. It would be absurd to do that. We know intuitively and immediately that that is poetry.

But when we read Revelation, hear about a star falling from the sky, we think that's got to be some kind of scientific phenomenon.

The book of Revelation is just a wonderful, highly compacted blizzard of poetic imagery taken from all through the

Bible. But it comes to us in such forceful whiz -bang, you know, style that I think people just get confused.

They don't know what to do with it. And it's unfortunate because we deprive ourselves of a huge and wonderful, rich resource for building faith, for understanding all of history, first century, all of history, including our own day.

We see it all packaged there. But we have to see it first through the eyes of those who lived it first.

And then we can say, OK, now, how do I take those ideas and somehow, you know, in a reasonable and rational way, you know, put them to work in my own life?

Right. So if there was a key to understanding the book of Revelation, what would you say that is?

I think to me, the most critically important key is to ask in an honest way, what is the most likely sense that the first century recipients of this letter, what is the sense they would have attached to what they read?

And that that does many good things. For one thing, it's not a novel rule that only applies to Revelation.

It's a rule that's supposed to apply to everything we read in the Bible. And in fact, it's a rule you're supposed to apply to this morning's newspaper or any other legitimate piece of human literature.

I'm supposed to ask, what is the likely sense that the original author intended to communicate to the original audience?

And and I think that is a highly serviceable, you know, first rule.

Now, it requires some homework. It's not like you just immediately know that intuitively. Sometimes you have to do a little research to get to a legitimate understanding of the answer to that question.

But if we start anywhere else, if we start with any other kind of paradigm or framework of, you know, an interpretive grid, we've just jumped into a sea of speculation, of subjectivism, of impressionism.

We've just taken leave of the interpretive senses that we're supposed to have when we read anything, the

Bible or anything else. So I think that's the place to start. And it seems to me that once we do that and then say,

OK, these first century people who heard this book, many of them were steeped in the

Old Testament, knew it much better than than most modern Christians do. They recognize this imagery.

They immediately see that, you know, a reference to a beast is actually kind of an allusion to what

Daniel may have been talking about or some image that you see with respect to a temple and water is really clearly the poetic imagery from Ezekiel.

I mean, you know, it begins to be a little more clear that that these are not brand new images, that they're just being updated and reapplied in the context of what took place in the first century.

It's funny because we would never do that with any of the Gospels or any of Paul. We would always say,

OK, who is he speaking to? What are the things that he's addressing? How are the listeners going to hear what he's saying, what's going on in their lives?

Yet when it comes to the book of Revelation, it seems like that's jettisoned out the window. And here's our opportunity to use autistic license and come up with some fantastic story.

I mean, it is a fantastic story. And again, listening to your teaching, I'm growing to appreciate it more and more and more.

And we're just so excited just to let you know to go through this and listening to your teaching.

So I know typically there's four different approaches to the to the book of Revelation. There's the preterist, futurist and idealist.

Is that correct? That's my understanding. Yeah. OK. And could you just give one or two sentences about each one?

Yeah, sure. So the the the one that's probably the prevailing view in especially

American evangelical Christian circles would be the futurist view.

And that is the result of the huge impact that the Scofield Reference Bible had on American evangelical

Christianity back in the early decades of the 20th century.

And that particular view, which was popularized by Scofield, but was not original with him, it really goes back to Brooks and Darby and certain others.

But but it takes the view that Revelation is really describing events that are going to be all clustered together in the end times.

And usually it accompanies a dispensational scheme that there's going to be a rapture at some point.

There's going to be a tribulation in the last seven years. It's the 70th week of Daniel and that the events that are being described in Revelation are really just various ways of describing those events.

And in the case of Hal Lindsey, for example, and others, the bizarre imagery is understood in some cases as simply the attempt by a first century visionary to describe 21st century, you might say, photographs.

You know, you know, some guy in the first century looks at a helicopter and says, golly, that looks like a big locust, you know.

And so they think the plague of locusts must be helicopters, that kind of thing. Not not always quite that strange or irresponsible, but things like that.

So that would be the futurist approach. And I think most people, if they don't know any better, haven't heard any different, would take

Revelation that way. And then they read it and they say, well, I can't make heads or tails out of this, so I better just go buy a book and let somebody tell me what all this stuff means.

Right. The historicist approach was probably the prevailing approach at the time of the

Reformation. And to the degree that we can ascertain any view of Revelation among the

Reformers, they tended toward this historicist approach. Even my beloved

Jonathan Edwards, who otherwise I think is just pure genius on virtually anything he touches. He took that view, you know.

I don't know what to make of that exactly, except that I think there was a strong conviction among the

Reformers generally that the Pope was the Antichrist. And once you have that little linchpin, then you're kind of forced to use that as an interpretive key to everything else.

And so the historicist approach has been around. The Seventh -day Adventists continue to maintain that view.

And some people still are convinced that the historicist view is the correct view.

I think the problem with that is that it falls prey to the same problem as the futurist view.

You're just left in a sea of wild speculation. You can't find any two historicists who agree, you know, because you can just go anywhere with virtually anything.

And while one person sees a certain image in Revelation as the rise of Islam, somebody else sees it as the rise of Communism, and somebody else sees it as the

Catholic Church, and someone else sees it as something else. You know, the problem is there's no objective frame of reference by which to have any kind of certainty.

All you have are after -the -fact speculative hunches that this or that may mean this or that in terms of evangelical history, and that's not very satisfying to a student of the

Scriptures. The idealist approach is taken by some that would say, well, the attempt to try to tie what's happening in Revelation to particular historical events is misguided.

And that instead, we should read the book just trying to distill from it what are the great principles that really apply virtually at all times in history.

I mean, no matter when you're living, you can see an Antichrist. Whenever you're living, you can see a beast coming out of the sea.

You can see a beast coming out of the earth. You can see this or that, you know. It kind of makes the book really sort of a poetic description of what happens at all times in history.

You change the date, you change the century, but the basic themes remain the same. And I have some sympathy with that, actually, because I think there's some truth to it.

But I also think that until we've done the homework of seeing it in terms of how the original audience sees it, we're still left with a lot of speculation.

The preterist approach sees Revelation as fundamentally describing first century events.

Preterism, first of all, something about that term. There are two kinds of preterists in the world.

There are preterists who call themselves full preterists or consistent preterists or some other term like that.

And they would essentially take the view that Revelation, together with all prophetic material in the

New Testament, points to a terminus date of 70 AD, and that includes the second coming of Christ.

In that sense, I am not a preterist. I believe that Revelation fundamentally describes events that took place in the first century.

So I take a preterist approach to Revelation, but I do not embrace preterism, which is a slightly different thing.

So I'm fully convinced that though Revelation is describing events that took place in the first century substantially, we are still looking forward to the return of Christ, that he is on the right hand of God, and he will come to judge the quick and the dead, and that that is still a future event.

So just to make that point clear. But having said that, there are also two forms of a preterist approach to Revelation.

And part of what's given the preterist approach to Revelation a bad name is that at least one major school of thought that takes a preterist approach to Revelation sees it as describing not the collapse of Jerusalem in 70

AD, but a collapse of Rome that never happened. And so you have many who would be what you'd call broadly liberal or critical scholars who would agree fully that Revelation is describing events in the first century.

It's apocalyptic literature that's trying to assess the embattled church in its very early decades.

And usually they tie this to a persecution of Christians taking place in the last decade of the first century, emperor named

Domitian. And so they would take the position that Revelation was written to encourage beleaguered

Christians concerning the persecution they were enduring in and around the year 95

AD, and that Revelation was predicting that in the not too far distant future, the great harlot city to wit

Rome was going to collapse and burn and come under God's judgment.

Which then of course they quickly point out never happened. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion,

Revelation's a great book to read, but certainly got it wrong basically on everything. So that's that view, which has been taken by liberal scholars for a long time, is sometimes thought by people to be the only preterist game in town.

It's so if you're a preterist or a liberal, you see. But there's another school of thought which would say, no, no, no.

Revelation was not generated in 95 AD based on the persecution launched by Domitian.

But the compelling, in fact, overwhelming evidence, the internal evidence of the book, argues that it was actually written under the reign of Nero, anticipating the ferocious, much, much worse persecution launched by Nero in the mid 60s

AD, rather than the relatively brief persecution that only lasted a few months taking place under Domitian.

Well, the only problem that people run into with that is that our friend Irenaeus, who was a church father writing at about the year 180, dropped a somewhat ambiguous sentence into his writing that at least appears on the face of it to put the date for the generation of the book of Revelation in 95

AD. That's kind of a technical point that may be beyond the scope of your interest, but it has been a point of discussion.

I think there's been some great work to kind of correct that and explain what

Irenaeus was probably getting at. But be that as it may, I think, my view certainly, and I think the view of excellent commentators has been that the book should be dated back to the earlier date, the

Nero persecution, and that it really describes in phenomenal and almost breathtaking detail, apocalyptically, what in fact did happen, including the cataclysmic destruction of Jerusalem in 70

AD as advertised in the book of Revelation. And so at that point, it just seems like it's a compelling case that can be made for that particular view of its content.

So a historicist would basically take the things that are happening currently and apply the book of Revelation to it.

A few truths. Go ahead. Yeah, well, a historicist would say that Revelation is describing 2 ,000 years of history.

And so if you look at certain things in Revelation, you'll probably see the rise of Islam in, let's say, the 7th century

AD. And then you'll see the Crusades, you know, and then you'll see the Reformation.

In other words, Revelation is sort of a great big, sort of apocalyptic picture of all of history.

But generally, historicists would also say that we are at the end game of this, that usually historicists do believe we're living in the end times, and that we're living in what are kind of the last details of the picture of history as portrayed by Revelation.

Futurists put it all in the future. They say the whole book is describing kind of that last short chapter of human history.

Right. And an idealist would see that these are ongoing principles to be applied to the church throughout history.

And then preterists, not full or hyper preterists, would see the context of what's happening in the first century with a certain percentage or certain number of things to come in the future.

Would that be Revelation 20 through 22, Bruce? Well, you've got a difference of opinion on that.

I think there'd be general unanimity of conviction among people that take preterist approach to Revelation, that Revelation 20 is describing either the era in which we are now living, and the thousand years is simply kind of a symbolic way of referring to an extended period of time.

Or an alternative view, which you find, for example, in Jonathan Edwards, would be that there is, in fact, going to come a chapter in human history, yet future, which will last for a protracted period of time, the thousand years, and that that is still something we're looking forward to, a kind of future age in which the gospel dominates in human history.

I'm not dogmatic on that. My personal conviction is that Christ is building

His kingdom, that a time is going to come when the knowledge of God covers the earth as the waters cover the sea, that we should be building

His kingdom every time we pray, Thy kingdom come, in the Lord's prayer. We're praying for a further advance of the kingdom, a further influence and indeed dominance of the gospel, transforming the lives of men and women around the world, and I do believe that the promise of Scripture is that a time will come when you'll have virtually a universal recognition of the truth of the

Christian faith. It doesn't mean every living human being will be a born -again Christian, you know, but it means that that will be the dominant, widely accepted consensus view in the world, and that the staggering benefits of that, the end of conflicts, the great advances of human civilization as a side benefit of recognizing

Christ as king, are going to be a wonderful thing to behold. And so that, you know, whatever you do with the thousand years, one way or another,

I think it gives us that idea that there's an extended period of time in which the power of Christ to deceive people is restrained under the influence of the truth of the gospel.

Jesus is the light of the world, and when the lights come on, demons run for cover, you know,

I think that's what we're seeing. I think that's what Revelation is really teaching. And of the increase of His government, there will be no end.

So we should see it continue to grow over time. One of the questions

I was going to ask you, and I'm glad that you brought up full preterists, or up here we call them hyper -preterists.

Yeah. How would you guard against going in that direction?

Is there something in the book of Revelation that will, you know, tip us off and say, you know, everything has not happened yet?

How would you guard against that position? Yeah, well, I think, you know,

I think the details of Revelation argue in a different direction.

The very fact that the seven thunders seal up what the seven thunders have said, do not make it known.

Well, the whole idea of sealing up or not sealing is, the only way that term is used biblically, is whether things were about to happen or not about to happen.

I think there's a warning already right there, that not everything is going to be happening in the near term.

So John is told, don't seal up this book, because the time is at hand.

That's the fundamental rule of Revelation. But there's that one exception. Those seven thunders in chapter 10, you see, seem to be a suggestion that though Revelation is fundamentally describing events that would take place in the near term, not all of it is.

I think the thousand years, which points forward to a time at some undefined moment in the future when

Satan would be released, he'll go out once again to deceive the nations of the earth, Gog and Magog, you know, gather them for battle.

That seems to be describing something that would yet be future.

Interestingly, that particular rebellion by Satan is not accompanied by the beast and the false prophet of Revelation.

They've already been disposed of. That took place before the thousand years. But now you've got a thousand years and then

Satan is released. And it suggests, you know, that there's not just one great battle, there's another one yet to come out in the future.

It seems to me, you asked earlier about Revelation 20, 21, and 22.

I think Revelation 20 does point us in the direction of a conclusion of history, a great white throne judgment, all of that.

Beginning in chapter 21, you have John saying, I saw new heavens and a new earth.

And while I believe you can certainly envision that as also describing what is yet future, at the same time, a fair reading of the

New Testament requires that we recognize that something of that new heaven and new earth are already under construction.

If any man is in Christ, he is a new creation. The very fact that we are pictured as those who have been raised to life in Christ, that John says in 1

John, the old is passing away, not will pass away, is passing away, and the new is coming.

There's a kind of present tense emphasis in the New Testament that suggests that this new creation actually began with the work of Christ.

It is an ongoing process, and that that really is just coincident with the building of his kingdom, the spread of the gospel, and that it'll reach a consummate point at some time.

We will reach a point where there will be a fully realized new heavens and new earth, as it were, but that we can already look around and see something of the effects of that right now in the work that Christ is doing in the world.

Right. Would you look at John 1 1 and see that as applying to the new heavens and the new earth, because it begins in the beginning, same as Genesis, meaning the beginning with regards to the new heavens and new earth.

This is a new beginning, and Jesus is ushering it in. Would that apply there? I would say so. John uses language that's identical to the

Septuagint version of Genesis 1 1, and that's no accident, you know, and okay, Logos in the beginning was the word.

And you see in Mark's gospel and elsewhere, you see, you know, wonderful little hints at the idea that what

Christ is doing is establishing this new creation, the baptism of Christ, and the imagery that's used there strongly suggests the beginning of a new creation.

So I would definitely think that's at least substantially what's going on in those texts. Good. That leads me to believe

I was going in the right direction. I'm happy. Absolutely. One of the things

I wanted to ask you was, is there an official reformed view of the book of Revelation?

Was there a uniform view? And I think you've touched on it before, but could you say, is there, was there an official reformed view for the book of Revelation?

Well, I don't believe so. I think it's safe to say that there is a, pretty much an official view of what the book of Revelation isn't.

I think you can say that. I haven't met anyone solidly in the reformed tradition who takes a futurist view.

They may be out there. And so I don't want to, you know, plant my flag here too deeply, but at least in the circles that I've moved in over the years, that has not been a view that I've ever seen embraced by anyone in the reformed tradition, nor am

I aware of anyone taking that view. Alan Ladd is a name associated with Fuller Seminary, and some have argued that he takes that view.

I think that's an open question. And so I'll leave that kind of unattended in terms of what

I'm saying right now, but at least as a general rule, that would be the case. So what that means is that you have, generally speaking, in the reformed tradition, one of the other three views represented.

I'd say the bulk at the Reformation, during the Reformation, and for some time after, including the

Puritans, was, in honesty, you'd have to say it was probably the historicist view.

My own thought on that is just there was, it was just, there would seem to be such irresistible and irrefutable evidence that the

Pope represented this beastly character that they just couldn't resist drawing the conclusion.

Once you, once you embrace that, then it seems that that becomes an interpretive principle you can't avoid in terms of dealing with Revelation.

But the fact is, there was not a lot of writing on Revelation, really.

There was some, but not a lot. The only really thoroughgoing commentary on Revelation by any of the

Reformers or Puritans was Jonathan Edwards. Others wrote here and there, and you can triangulate something of their views, but Jonathan Edwards took a quite, he wrote in some detail on Revelation.

In fact, it's the only commentary on a book in the Bible he wrote. It's on Revelation, and it's there that he builds a case for a post -millennial kind of eschatology.

The view that I take, the Preterist view, has always been around, but it hasn't been, it certainly hasn't been a majority view, to my knowledge, any time.

And I don't know why that is not the case. I'm a little bit perplexed by that because it seems like there have been great minds that have been available to consider the question.

John Calvin, I would like to think if he had really sat down and gone to work on Revelation, which he did not, he didn't write a commentary on it, he might have come to that conclusion.

He was certainly one of the most sane Bible interpreters in all of human history, let alone in the

Reformation, but he didn't do it, you know. So it's a little bit of an embarrassment, I guess, to people who take the view that I take, that we can't cite all kinds of sources down through history that take a similar view, but that's just the way it is.

It seems to me that a fair reading of the book certainly leads one without much trouble to the view that I'm at least arguing for.

Yeah, I chalk it up to the T in total depravity is still true. We still have sin -stained minds and we're not all able to grasp things the way we need to.

And I'm sure if I do hold the right view of Revelation, I'm sure there's many other things that I don't hold the right view to.

I mean, the T is true, right, Bruce? Yeah. One of the things I wanted to ask you was, as a preterist, can you be premill, can you be amill, or postmill?

Does the preterist view hedge you into one particular view, or could you be any of those three?

Well, I think the hardest case to make would be a premill view. I think there are, that's what

I'm saying. I know that Alan Ladd took a view that was called a historical premillennial, not dispensational historical premillennial.

I can't say that I've studied that closely enough to have an opinion that's worth very much on it.

But who knows, maybe that represents what you'd call a reformed view that has a premillennial element to it.

But I'm going to just kind of beg off on that because I'm not well enough informed to make a responsible comment.

But I'd certainly think that the vast majority of people in the reformed tradition have not taken a premill view, that that almost necessarily requires a view of human history that is more negative in its general trajectory, that usually packaged in premillennialism is a somewhat pessimistic understanding of what the prospects are of the church in history as she seeks to do her work.

And the reformed tradition has, generally speaking, stood for just the opposite proposition, that the work of Christ is a growing and advancing labor in which we see the positive effects of the and that that is going to continue.

And that tends to militate against the premillennial view, but it certainly is compatible with an amillennial or postmillennial view.

And so it seems that most people in the reformed tradition, by far to my knowledge, fall in one of those two camps.

And really the only difference between pre and postmillennial really just comes down to is there's some protracted period of time out in the future conceived of by some as a thousand years, you know, of human history in which you'd really have the work of Christ and the place of the church really dominating in human history.

And I'd like to think that. That'd be fine with me. I'm just not sure that that's precisely what

Revelation 20 is telling us. But it could be. You know, at point I'm not very dogmatic. Is it crucial to know, for your interpretation of the

Book of Revelation, is it crucial to know when the book was written? I believe it is critical, yes.

If it was written any time later than the persecution under Nero or the destruction of Jerusalem, then it removes really, in some ways, what appears to be the facial purpose of the book.

Namely, that it's a book warning people that they're about to go through some bumpy roads.

There's, you know, these things are about to happen. That's repeated in Revelation, that the coming of Christ is going to happen soon.

But it's a coming in redemption. It's a coming in judgment. So hang in there. Be faithful.

Don't cave in. Be an overcomer. I mean, you know, why would that kind of urgency be associated with the content of the spirit of the book if it were just being written kind of in a lazy summer afternoon sitting on the beach?

I mean, it just doesn't make sense. It's a book written for people facing crisis. The only other crisis that really is conceivable would be, as we were saying earlier, the persecution by Domitian.

But that only lasted a few months. And in terms of just the historical context, it really is tough to square the seriousness of the persecution contemplated against what actually happened.

There's not actually a documented case in connection with Domitian's persecution of any

Christian being a martyr. It was tense. It was brief. But it only lasted a few months.

It was scary. But it was kind of Domitian's last gasp. He was done by 96

AD, you know. And so for a variety of reasons, that doesn't make sense. And to really appreciate the encouragement that it intends to give to Christian people suggests to me it only makes sense that it was written earlier and that that is critical to really making sense out of its content.

Would you say when the angel tells John to measure the temple, that would be internal evidence that it was written before the destruction of the temple?

I had heard you mention measuring the temple may not be measuring the actual temple.

It would be measuring people. Right. Yeah, that's a good question.

The temple, any time the temple is mentioned in Revelation, it seems to presuppose that it's still standing.

That the text you're referring to is in Revelation chapter 11. And the interesting thing is

John has said, John says, I was given a reed like a measuring rod and told go and measure the temple and the altar and count the worshipers there, but exclude the outer court.

Do not measure it. So you've got two things going on. You've got

John being told to measure, and measure biblically is the sense of to put something under some kind of protective custody, to put it in a place where it's going to be guarded from harm.

And so go and measure the temple and the worshipers are mentioned specifically in the altar.

And all of that would stand for the place of genuine worship, which is being identified with the inner sanctum.

It's measured the naos, the inner sanctum of the temple. And that would be the place of the true presence of God.

So in the imagery of Revelation, it's saying go and put a protective measure around God's people, specifically

Jewish Christians living in Jerusalem in the first century who are going to be, in the final analysis, protected from the cataclysm about to come.

But then John says, exclude, literally eqvalo, kick out the outer court.

Well there's, that's a nonsensical thing to say unless there was actually a temple standing there, a physical temple for which there could be an outer court, and which was indeed kicked out.

It was destroyed, not one stone left upon another. It was trampled underfoot. The imagery there really doesn't make a lot of sense unless the temple was standing.

But in the imagery of the statement, it is saying that God's people who have been resorting to the temple all this time are now going to be, in a sense, removed.

It's when the woman flees to the desert, when she's given eagle's wings to go to a place where she'd be protected for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach.

All of that is saying that these people who have been living in Jerusalem and had been still, in a sense, in their

Jewish Christianity, tied, tethered to a city and a temple, that was about to end.

They were going to have to get out of town. When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, get going, go to the hills, get out, because now this time of destruction is coming and you are going to be measured.

You're going to be protected, guarded, kept from harm, even when these great catastrophes fall.

What would you say to somebody who says, well, you know, the book of Ezekiel, from 40 to 49, says there's going to be a third temple that's going to be built.

So that automatically means that because the temple was destroyed, we're waiting for that third temple to be rebuilt.

Yeah, well, what I would say, I guess my short answer is no, you're wrong. I like that answer.

That might not be a very, you know, I know that's kind of an appealing view.

First of all, the book of Revelation doesn't seem to, it seems pretty obvious that Revelation is attempting to describe something compatible with what

Ezekiel describes. Ezekiel's description of a temple is in many ways, some of the details of it show up, the river running out from, you know, the temple and so on.

I mean, various, the tree, the tree of life, etc. Whatever it is, it seems to be describing the same thing.

In other words, it's not. And so, if Revelation is describing something that was conceived of as God's work in the first century, then

Ezekiel probably had the same thing in mind. The actual description of the temple in Ezekiel, on the face of it, it looks like it's the architectural plan for a real building.

But, you know, the closer you look at it, the more you realize it is not likely that such a structure could actually be conceived of in the real world.

The river that runs out from under it. Now, how exactly does that happen?

You've got a temple setting on something that is an underground spring that generates water flowing in four different directions, and the further you get from it, the deeper the water is.

You know, things like that, you immediately run into some rather challenging ideas to try to park this temple in the real world anywhere and have it make sense.

And for a variety of other reasons that are just some of the details of it, it seems that Ezekiel is actually painting a wonderful, grand, glorious picture of the true temple for which the temple in Jerusalem was only scaffolding.

And that what is actually being pictured is the true temple of the New Testament, which is actually

God's people. And so the living temple, living stones, a living cornerstone upon which the temple is built, becomes the true temple in the

New Testament. And as wonderfully descriptive as Ezekiel is,

I think that's really what he's getting at. He's getting at a living structure. Jesus says, if you drink this water, you'll have flowing out of you springs of living water.

It's a living water temple. And when you think of it in terms of the work of God's people in this world, going into all the world, being a temple everywhere they are, then that imagery of Ezekiel I think makes a little more sense and is certainly much more satisfying in terms of understanding the call that we have as Christians to labor in this world.

Yeah, you know, if the scripture said that the body of Christ was the temple, maybe you could believe that.

Oh wait, it does. Yeah, that's right. That's exactly right. You forget, you know,

Paul says, you are the temple. You know, you are the ones who are being, and Peter says, will be built up into this beautiful stone house.

So, you know, one of the reasons why I ventured into the book of Revelation is because I went through the Olivet Discourse, and I think this would be just a perfect opportunity to show how, you know, a preterist approach would apply to Matthew 24 and go right into Revelation.

And one of the things I noticed is John says he's our fellow partaker in the tribulation, but then

Matthew 24 also uses the term great tribulation. So what I'm picking up, and maybe you can help me out, is the great tribulation was for Israel and tribulation was for the believers.

Okay. John says he's a partaker of the great tribulation, and I see the great tribulation not in terms of its magnitude.

In other words, it's such horrific that there's going to be no tribulation worse than it.

I see it's the great tribulation because Israel had the greatest responsibility in recognizing the

Messiah and bringing forth Jesus, and then they rejected him and killed him and says, we have no king but Caesar.

So I would see that the tribulation that they would go through is much greater because their responsibility is much greater.

Would that work with you? Yeah, I think so. You know, certainly the term tribulation, affliction, klepsis is the word often used for that Greek word.

It applies to all Christians at all times. The term great tribulation is used only in the

Olivet Discourse, excuse me, and in the book of Revelation once,

Revelation chapter 7. And so assuming that that particular term, great tribulation, it'd be hard to imagine two different events that would both be called the great tribulation, you know.

So you have a kind of self -limiting sense to which that term has to apply presumably to some particular moment or set of events.

Jesus says that'll be a time of great tribulation such as never has been nor ever will be.

So he seems to limit it to some unique moment. And insofar as Revelation, I'm sorry, is using the same term, my assumption would be that it's using it in connection with the same event.

So I'm going to ask my wife to get me a glass of water. Honey, could you get me a glass of water?

I'm getting a little dry here. Sorry. I'm sorry to keep you so long. Are you okay? It's not a problem.

And so in Revelation chapter 7 where the term is also used, John is asked by one of the elders, who is this great crowd of people that you've seen who are dressed in white robes and holding palm branches in their hands?

And we're told these are those who have come out. Thank you. Excuse me, just a second.

No, take your time. And John is told these are those who have come out of the great tribulation.

They've washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb. They are always before the throne of God, serve him day and night in his temple.

He who sits on the throne will spread his tent over again. Never again will they hunger. Never again will they thirst.

This is the description of God's people under the protection, under God's care.

And it is describing people who have survived what is called a great tribulation.

Well, if there are people that came out of the great tribulation, Revelation 7 also describes at the front end people who are presumably going into it, who are delineated as a 144 ,000, 12 ,000 from the tribes of Israel.

So I think I'm in substantial agreement with what you're saying, that the great tribulation is referring in particular to the cataclysm that befell

Jerusalem and the people who repudiated Christ and embraced

Caesar as their Lord and King. Really, that's what they did. And that Jesus' warning and the

Olivet discourse was that that great tribulation would fall on them. And I agree with you that it's, the great tribulation is particularly appropriate to Israel because they were uniquely those who repudiated

Christ. And I also think there is, in addition to that, just the anguish that seems to have accompanied the people as they finally realized that they truly had been abandoned by their

God. There was a people who had prided themselves for centuries in the belief that they were

God's chosen people. And that even though they'd been kind of harried from pillar to post and they'd had to put up with some difficulties along the way, and now it was

Roman occupation, they still had always harbored the hope and belief that eventually there was going to be a moment when they would be rescued.

When God was going to come in and rescue them and reinstate them as the dominant city in the world and the nation in the world.

And they had, they had pinned their hopes on legitimate Old Testament predictions, but they misunderstood what those predictions were predicting.

And so it dawned on them in a sense, in a kind of spiraling insanity that they had actually been abandoned, that God was not going to rescue them.

And the anguish of disappointment and despair that would come from having to relinquish what were centuries of expectation in that last blinding gasp of unspeakable disappointment,

I think would qualify as something that had never happened before, could never happen again, kind of a unique moment of absolute unbelievable disappointment.

So I think that has to be added to the mix as well. Certainly when we think of the Great Tribulation.

Yeah, no, that's, that's great insight. Thank you for that. All right. Now, here's the big question. If I get a bill in the mail and the invoice number or the amount on the bill is 666, should

I pay that bill, Professor? Or do I just throw that out in horror and fear that something bad's going to happen?

Or is 666, is that Hillary Clinton? Which one is it?

Could you interpret that? Well, of course, when Ronald Reagan was president, it was Ronald Reagan, because his name was

Ronald Wilson Reagan. And each letter, each name had six letters. Tell a true story.

There's a guy at our church. His name is Chad. Wonderful guy. He's on the staff there and he sets up chairs and tears them down before and after my class and does a lot of other things around the church.

Just a wonderful guy. But he, he came up to me one day after class several months ago, and he said, let me show you something.

And he pulled out his social security card. And his social security card, the three middle numbers were 666.

Oh, no. And he said it was so hilarious. He when he first got this, he was, you know, he, this was years and years ago, he's a guy, you know, probably in the 60s.

Now, he said that the Social Security Administration had actually contacted him and asked him if he would like a different social security number, because they realized that that number might be regarded as a bad omen or something.

And he said, absolutely not. He was proud of that. He would never get rid of it.

So, you know, I think if you get a bill in the mail with 666, you better just pay the bill. So speaking of 666, what do you, what in your understanding does that point us to?

You know, I think it is, it is, it says in Revelation 13, that this calls for wisdom.

If anyone has insight, let them calculate the number of the beast for it is the number of Anthropos.

It is the number of, and it doesn't say the man, the Greek language doesn't have an indefinite article, a man.

So you always have to ask yourself an interpretive question. Is it saying it is the number of man?

Or is it, is it the number of a man? And it can go either way. You can legitimately, it can go either way.

My own view is very lawyerly. I think it's a little of both, you know, I think

I think it is the number of a man. And I think that in that, in so far as that applies,

Greek letters had numeric value. And if you add up the, although in this case, it wouldn't be

Greek letters, it'd be Hebrew letters, but Hebrew letters also had numeric value. If you add it up for Nero, Kaiser Nero, it, it gets you to 666.

Now you have to play with it a little bit to do that. It's Nero, it's the accusative, you know, and, and so it, but again,

Gentry wrote a great book. It's called the Mark of the Beast. He really goes into some technical detail on that.

And I think his work is, is really unimpeachable. But I also think that it is the number of man, because in the

Bible, six is the, the number, man was created on the sixth day, and it's been associated with humanity.

And you take six, repeat it three times. And what you really come up with is an idea of the ultimate humanistic competitor for God.

So I'm willing to go both directions on that. And I think either way, you come out with a, with a defensible position.

So I think in, in terms of the providence of God in history, you can say with a straight face that it probably is pointing to Nero as the, as the character in view.

But anyone reading it thoughtfully would say there's more to it than that, that it actually is a much more, you might say, emphatic way of simply saying this is man trying to be more than he is, but he also falls, he falls short.

He's, he's never seven. He's never complete. He's just six, six, six.

And that repetition three times in Hebrew literature was a way of just emphasizing something, really bringing it to its highest level of emphasis.

And I think in some ways you say this is humanity on steroids, never quite making it, but, but trying to be more than it can be.

So, you know, either way, I'm, I'll go either way on that when I teach on that topic, eventually, you know,

I'm looking forward to that one. Also the mark of the beast, that's obviously a big thing that people key in on the book of revelation.

Does that have anything to do with the phylacteries and the tefillin that we read about in the old Testament? I, I think it, it is a way of referring in a kind of, you might say, inverse application of what

Moses says when he says, write this on your, write it on your hand, write it on your head.

You know, I mean, there is a, there is that idea that what we think and what we do is supposed to reflect the law of God.

And when people follow the antichrist, when they follow the, when they take to themselves the mark of the beast, it's not so much any kind of tattoo or something like that.

I don't think it's a bar code, you know, that a person puts on their forehead. But it is following that old

Testament idea that when I began thinking and acting in a way that comports with those forces that stand against Christ, that having done that,

I have taken to myself the mark of the beast. And as a

Christian, I'm supposed to be doing just the opposite. I should have the mark of Christ on me so that my thinking and my acting, anyone taking a photograph of it would be able to figure out after a while, that guy's a

Christian. I should have it out there in the external world, visible enough that people can figure that out.

And same would be true of those who go in a different direction. Amen. Amen.

Well, thank you so much for helping answer those questions. I just want to wrap up with just a couple of other questions, not with regards maybe to the interpretation of the book of Revelation, but I see you refer a lot to Eugene Peterson and his commentary.

Would that be your favorite commentary on Revelation? Do you have any particular bent towards a commentary?

No, actually, I like Eugene Peterson and I like his commentary.

He doesn't take the approach I take, but I think some of his individual insights along the way are, he just has a great way of expressing himself.

So, you know, we have a friendly distance difference of opinion on that. And of course he's with the Lord now.

So, you know, that's right. I like, you know, my own approach to things like this is,

I like to read a lot of commentaries from a lot of points of view and see who wins the argument.

And so I like the pulpit commentary, which is kind of a very traditional view. I like the interpreter's

Bible. Josephine Massingbird Ford was the professor of biblical studies at Notre Dame for many years.

She's also deceased at this point, Roman Catholic. She took a kind of hybrid approach.

She thought she couldn't avoid believing that Revelation had deep roots in the persecution under Nero.

And so she, her commentary assumes that at many, many points.

And yet at the same time, she's trying to accommodate what was the majority liberal view that it was written later.

So she thinks it just came out in two editions. I don't think so. I don't think she had to do that, but I think she had to kind of play the politics of the deal as well as what her interpretive genius led her to.

I think David Chilton's book, Days of Vengeance, is a wonderful volume. I think he probably brings to the text a little more than is necessary to make the case, but it's certainly well -researched and readable.

I've heard that Ken Gentry's cranking out a commentary on Revelation. As far as I know, it's not out yet.

I'm sure that'll be outstanding. I think the first half of the commentary is.

I think he's doing it. Oh, is it? I believe so. I could be wrong. Have you read

Ralph Bass, Back to the Future? No. He's a fellow of the New York and it's really understandable and easy read.

I think that would be something that you'd enjoy. Yeah. I've had that recommended to me on other occasions and I need to just quit being so lazy and get that book and read it, but I haven't yet seen the time.

No, it's very easily understandable. He goes verse by verse. The nice thing about what he does is when he references an

Old Testament verse or something from the Gospels, it's all written out. It's not just the address, so you can actually read it without having, unless you have

Bible software, you can hover over it. It's right there for you. Well, Professor Bruce, I've taken up a bunch of your time and I very much appreciate it.

Just again, your work on the Book of Revelation and the historical series that you put together is a tremendous benefit for the people, the body of Christ, and I just want to thank you for it.

I want to commend you and just ask to continue to do what you're doing. It's a blessing to all of us.

Thank you very much. Well, I deeply appreciate that. It has been a joy to be involved in this project and I get lots of positive feedback and so that's made it very much worth it.

So thank you for including me in your show here. It's been a pleasure to be with you. Thank you very much.

Likewise, and if somebody wanted to find you on the net or something like that to contact, how would they go about finding your information and material?

Well, my email address is readily available and it's bruce at bruce gore dot com.

So that's certainly one way to reach me. If someone just goes to YouTube and types in my name, of course, they'll get to my channel and you can reach me that way as well.

And so I'm not hiding out. I'm trying to be as available as I can be and have correspondence going on with lots of wonderful people all over the world.

So it's been really a pleasure to have that kind of interaction with christian brothers and sisters here and there everywhere.

Amen. Amen. If you just hang out one second, I'm going to close the show and then we'll... Okay. Well, friends, thanks so much for joining us.

I hope you enjoyed the show with Professor Bruce. He does a great job. Like I said, just type in Bruce Gore in YouTube and you'll come up to his channel and you'll find a wealth of excellent information.

Also, if you're looking to find more information about reformed theology from a beginner's level, just go to reformedrookie .com.

You could also go onto YouTube and type reform rookie. We have the catechism up online in video form.

We have a series on Matthew 24. We're going through the London Baptist confession of faith also. So we have a bunch of information up there.

If there's something that you want me to go over, please type that into the comments. I'll try to do a video on it.

In the meantime, remember a life reformed is a life conformed to the Jesus of the scriptures. So to God be the glory.

Semper Reformanda. Always be reforming. Here we stand. We can do no other. I'm Anthony Avino.

Thanks again for joining us on the Reformed Rookie Broadcast. Transcribed by https://otter .ai