How to Study the Bible III - Pivotal Interpretive issues in the Book of Rev. II

Okay, one thing is the Revelation series that I started right after 9-11 first hit in the main service and then my son-in-law Kurt and I did a year-long series in Revelation. And I'm continuing to amend that, and add to it, and change it. So anyway, I've changed four of the documents just this last week.

And something else, in last week's handout, which is derived from that, we've said that the word angelos, which is often translated angel, it's been proposed that that's angel, or pastor, or messenger. And we concluded that the one that makes the most sense is messenger. And I found something else about angel. In other words, if each one of those seven is an angel, both the first verse and right near the last verse, it's one specific angel who is ultimately responsible for conveying and no name, but an angel, and then my angel in chapter 22. So one specific angel is responsible, which would mean that the angel translation would make even less sense. So anyway. So then that's one. Another is just simply to say next year we're looking at new electives.

And at present what I'm looking at is a kind of a trio of topics. One, to start the year off with knowing the Lord. And then secondly, what God's doing in the life of the believer. which we did five years ago, but I'm looking at making some changes to it, and then what God's doing in the life of the church body, so making that kind of a trio of topics. But anyway, if you have any thoughts or ideas on that, that would be appreciated. Meanwhile, let's get back to this.

There are pivotal interpretive issues in the book of Revelation, and we talked about ten things, I can't put up ten fingers without dropping the papers, but there are ten things that we pointed out on the first page. And one of the things that people were initially surprised when I first taught it back in 2001 was I said, interpreting Revelation is a piece of cake. Because most people look at it and they just, what is this, you know? And so it's simply a matter with those ten principles that unlocks the key to understanding every single verse in Revelation very clearly. And so, we're going to be stepping into a couple of different questions.

One is, the Book of Life is mentioned several times in Revelation, but is the Book of Life only mentioned in the Book of Revelation? No, it's actually mentioned a number of times. And so what I did, because as I looked around, I looked at different commentaries and what not, and I really couldn't find anybody who had put it all together about what the Book of Life is really all about in the Bible. And the closest I could find is Hampton Keithley III, who's a fellow that Mike, he's home with the Lord now, but Mike had actually had some contact with him and then I had contact with him independently. He had written what I would say is the best, but still I couldn't find anybody that had done anything comprehensive. So, we're going to take a look at it.

What I did is, as the topic came up in Revelation as I taught through it, I continued to study it, and I said, I'm not going to teach on this yet until I feel like I've got it figured out. So, at any rate, then on Revelation chapter 20, the last half, where the book of life is brought up, that's where I taught on it, and by then I figured I'd gotten it mostly figured out. that I wrote several times since then, including this last week, in order to, again, clarify, expand, that sort of thing. The pattern is, the Old Testament, and it's in the middle of page one here, the Old Testament has ways in which it uses the Book of Life, and the New Testament has ways in which it uses the Book of Life, and they're not the same. Let's look first, there are a couple of bullets at the top of the page here that I think are going to be key.

It was common in ancient times in both Jewish and Gentile cultures to keep a record of those living in a city or an identifiable group such as the Israelites in the wilderness. To blot someone out of a book often meant that they had died. So what you would have, let's say for example the city of Aurora, were to keep a list of here's the people who are living in the city of Aurora. Keep the list and if somebody moves away, somebody dies, you take the name off the list, you blot it out. And so they would keep a rolling record like that. And the Jews would keep that list of those who are alive even when they're out in the wilderness. And those who have died and those who are born get added to the list. So they would constantly keep a list of those who are living. Now, 40 years out in the wilderness, how many are dying? All but two. Yeah, all but two. And which two? Caleb and Joshua and the rest of them are all dying off. Even Moses who lives to 120 years.

The Lord says, hey, you're done. At the end of the book of Deuteronomy, he was done. So you would have someone who would be responsible. OK, here's the birth. You add the name to the list. And then here's the death. And then the Jews also kept track of what? Genealogies. So you'd have, here's the list of those who are living. And those who are dead would be blotted out. Some calculations, 80 deaths a day out in the wilderness. In order that all of them are gone? Yeah. You know, roughly 5 million people. No, it was about 2 million people. So about 80% of them died, you know, in the middle.

I'm wondering, anybody's ever found any graves? Well, what's interesting is that there's actually places marked, including Aaron's tomb, for example. There are places that are marked out there. And part of the problem is that when you have a tomb like that, there's a tendency not to want to disturb it. But here's a for instance.

At the southern end of the Dead Sea, they have, from Sodom extensive graveyards out there. So part of the problem when you have people that are nomadic is they don't set up a graveyard. But where they do have graveyards, for example at Jericho, Dr. Brian Wood, whose name I've mentioned a couple times recently, around the tombs around Jericho and found markers indicating about what was the time period when the city stopped being occupied. So a nomadic people is tougher because it's harder to identify what they do with them.

Oh yeah, except that the question is without having a graveyard and without having real care for how do we preserve this thing, they're all scattered and things would degrade pretty easily. And it wouldn't necessarily have things well marked, it wouldn't necessarily bury them deeply because they're going to move on.

What you have is this list of living people and cities would keep them and a group of identifiable people like the Israelites would keep this list and it would be called the Book of Life. Next, we have a record that each city in the area in which John was writing the book of Revelation had a role of all those living in the city, sometimes referred to as the book of life. When someone died, moved away, or committed a serious crime, the city's record keepers blotted his name out of the city's roll. So it was a record, initially, of physical life. Alright, so now, let's look at the bottom paragraph here.

So we've got the following page, a table is entitled the Book of Life. What it presents on the leftmost column are those verses which speak directly or indirectly about the Book of Life as a physical life record. And there are verses in the Old Testament initially that do exactly that. Now, we find that there are verses in the Old Testament that record physical life, although having a Book of Life in New Testament era cities was the norm, in the New Testament, the Book of Life a record always spiritual. So it changes and there's a transition that we'll take a look at shortly here. So, next we find that these verses are referring either to physical life, and that's the Old Testament with the Jews or their enemies, life in the Millennial Kingdom, typically referring to the Jews, or to eternal life, typically for Church Age believers.

So there's a transition from a physical life record to a spiritual life record. Now the physical life record is always going to have names that get blotted out, right? Because people die, right? But we're going to see something very interesting about the spiritual life record So let's look at the top of page 2. Here's the table, and what I've done in modifying this table, even up to recent years, is to go through and look at, okay, am I being entirely consistent with each and every single verse, such that I completely understand the Book of Life as it's used from the beginning to the end of the Bible.

And so what you see is Exodus 7.14 actually refers to, I believe, the Amalekites, and ending physical life. And then Exodus 32, 32, and 33 talks about Israel, and it's in reference to ending physical life. Now, those two talk about being blotted out. So that fits the pattern of either people who are part of a city or part of a people group, like the Israelites. When someone dies, you blot out the name.

In Deuteronomy 25.6, it doesn't talk about being blotted out. It talks about being included. So that's a different kind of use.

In Deuteronomy 29.20, It talks again about being blotted out, and that pattern of being blotted out goes through Psalm 109, 13, and 14. Now, what you see beginning in Psalm 69, 28, is that while it talks about being blotted out, it also references millennial life. Life in the millennium. Are you included in that millennial life?

And so what is that assumed? That assumes resurrection. It assumes resurrection. So here you've got these ancient people, but you're going to be included in the millennial kingdom. All the way to Daniel 12, 1 and 2, which is kind of the definitive passage on the resurrection of Old Testament Saints. So Daniel 12, 1 and 2.

Now, we're going to be raptured as a part of the church, right? So that the entire church, whether it's those who have gone home to be with the Lord, or whether it's us and I hope the Lord comes today and we don't get to finish our church service, But we're going to be raptured.

But let's think about, and we're going to begin talking about, how about the thief on the cross? Is he going to be raptured? I see heads going, no, why not? Why won't he be raptured? He's still an Old Testament saint in terms of the group that he's with, because when did the church begin? Acts chapter 2, and when we get into the book of Acts next year, if the Lord allows that, we will take a look at that. But it is not until Acts chapter 2 that you begin the church and therefore have the body of people who will be raptured.

Okay, so here's the with physical life, and then that, strangely enough, the physical life aspect fades away, and with that, the other thing you see fading away is blotted out. The idea of being blotted out fades away with that. Then, when you get into the New Testament, you find a different pattern. Eternal life, rather than just being implied, is directly stated. It's directly indicated. And then what you find also is no New Testament passage talks about being blotted out, with one very important exception.

So what does that say? If you are spiritually alive and you're included in the Book of Life, And nobody's name gets blotted out. What does that say? You can't lose your salvation. So it makes an absolute statement. And the only passage that does talk about being blotted out, people have sometimes misunderstood.

So here's Revelation 3.5.

Jesus, and this is one of the promises to the overcomers, And he says, and I will not blot out his name. But as I was talking to Tristan earlier this week, we're going to take a look later on at a word pair, who may, which in the Greek comes across in English as not not. In English, we would say that's improper grammar, right? I'm not not coming to church. that's kind of confusing, but in Greek what that means is absolutely not. There's not the slightest chance.

So the only place where it talks about blotting out a name is where Jesus promises to the overcomers, there is not the slightest chance. I will absolutely not blot out your name from the book of life. That's the only way that blotting out is mentioned for church-age believers like you and me. I promise never to blot out the name. Ume. It looks like Aomi, right? It looks like Aomi. But Ume, and one of the reasons we'll take a look at it, is a very intense absolute statement.

You know, does the Bible teach absolutes? Absolutely. Right? And so 79 times in the New Testament you have Lumayun. Absolutely not. In Hebrews 3, I think it's verse 5, I will absolutely not leave you and I will absolutely not forsake you. Twice in one verse. Right? So a very powerful key and we'll be taking a bigger look at that. there is not the slightest chance that your name will be blotted from the book of life. There is not the slightest chance. It is absolutely not going to happen. And who said it? Jesus. Oh, that's one other thing. Ume is often said by Christ or God. God himself, Christ himself, makes absolute statements, including, I will never leave you. I will absolutely not forsake you. Okay, so here what we find is that the New Testament always has reference with the Book of Life to eternal life, and never blotted out, except for the promise never to blot out the name.

It has in Revelation 13.8, 17.8, and Revelation 20, 12, and 15 not written.

Now, why would it not be written? Why make reference to not being written? Because it was never done. Yeah, in other words, this would be in reference to unbelievers, right? Whose names were not written. And interestingly, in one of those places, at least, it's not written in the perfect tense. Not written, never was, and never will be, right?

So very interesting. So you look at that and then you find other than that statements that every single New Testament reference except for the ones that say not written, all of them speak of being included in a positive statement. So this is key. So with this, all the references in the whole Bible to the Book of Life are understandable and become clear. And we see that in the New Testament, it is always a spiritual reference, it's always talking about eternal life, and there's no blotting out, except for the promise never to blot out a name. He who overcomes, which is the one who believes, the name absolutely will not be blotted out. That's really cool.

So, we get to the White Throne Judgment. or unbelievers? It's for unbelievers. And one of the changes that I started making here is putting White Throne Judgment for unbelievers, because people get confused between the Bema Judgment and the White Throne Judgment, and they're very, very different. You do not want to be at the White Throne Judgment. You just don't want that. The Bema Judgment is the judgment of believers why he's motivated.

He wants to reward us. He wants to reward us to the max. He wants to reward us to the max. That's how he's motivated. It's not to sit there and say, Vern, you really messed up, you know, and let me chew you out for about five or ten years. It's not with that purpose, it's how can I reward you? That's how he's motivated. How can I reward you? And by the way, what does the Lord reward us for? Focusing on Him and just letting Him do it. Yeah, He rewards us for things that He does in and through us. Not stuff we do by our best efforts, not stuff we work really hard at and try to do. But what He does in and through us, that's rewardable. I have just a question. loosely related.

So if that's how Christ is motivated as His, because He owns us, I'm assuming ultimately that should be our motivation in interacting with one another? Yeah. And that's one reason for starting this next elective off with the topic knowing the Lord. Because it's knowing Him, it's fellowshipping with Him, it's depending upon Him. Those are the things that are going to benefit the church body. That's going to be the instrument of spiritual growth, and it's going to be what's going to be eternally rewardable. How I live now impacts my eternity, and it happens not because I try really hard or I'm a really nice guy. It happens because I fellowship with and depend upon Him.

Alright, now I'd like us to turn to the bottom of page 3. So, here's the interesting thing. People who read through the book of Philippians, it's only four chapters, short and bold, relatively speaking. People who read through the book of Philippians will often think that it only talks about a heavenly citizenship once, at Philippians 3.20. There are actually three references to our heavenly citizenship.

Let's start with Philippians 1.27-30. Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain Believe it or not, there are a lot of military and citizenship terms in this passage. And let's think why. Culturally, here's Philippi.

It is a Roman colony. What's the assignment of those living in a Roman colony? You're to represent Rome. You're to be Rome-minded. You are to live Rome. You are to represent Rome, and live out Rome, and think Roman, and eat Roman, everything. You're Roman. And you may be called Philippi, but you're Roman.

It was established by a bunch of soldiers who had actually fought against each other and then the battle was over and they settled this city. And so you have a lot of people that are second, third generation Roman soldiers. And the Roman soldiers, the typical arrangement was they would retire at age 35, unless they wanted to stay on. Retired age 35, they would get their Roman citizenship. And then as they went on with their Roman citizenship, again, their point is, I have Roman citizenship, and I'm to represent Rome and be Roman and live out, think Roman. So Paul knows that. And so he's actually dropping a bunch of terms.

They had the spiky colligate, they had the spiky sandals, so they'd stand firm. And then they'd strive together. What does that mean? They have a tortoise formation. So you've got all these, and you've got military terms just sprinkled throughout here. But the conduct yourselves is politē uomāre. Recognize the political word there? Conduct yourselves is citizen conduct. It's not just, you know, behave yourself. It's citizen conduct.

And what citizenship is he talking about? produces the citizenship with this verb, live as heavenly citizens. Then next, and this is the one people usually catch on to, for our citizenship, 3.20.21, for our citizenship is in heaven where the book of life is kept. from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of his glory, by the exertion of the power he has even to subject all things to himself." So our citizenship, and the verb here is palateumai, for conduct yourselves. And this one, our citizenship, that's palateuma.

Different form of the same word. And so this is now the second time that citizenship is brought up. And this is the one people catch on to, because it oftentimes gets translated as our citizenship. But it's connected to that verb that's there in the first chapter.

OK, but we're not done. The next place, Philippians 4, 2, and 3, I urge you, Odeon and Syntyche, I urge Syntyche, to live in harmony in the Lord. Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel together with Clement. Also, and the rest of my fellow workers whose names are in the Book of Life.

What does that mean? Their names are in the Book of Life, what does that mean? They're citizens. That also means everybody has the same shoes and the same shields and they all walk in the same formation. Is your citizenship different from mine? No. Here on planet Earth, Nancy and I are married, we have a different role. Is Nancy's citizenship different from mine? No. Her name is in the book of life and so is mine.

And that citizenship, it's the same. And so that's one of the reasons Peter would write, show her honor as a joint dater of the grace of life. She's got a citizenship just like I do. They would not have understood what he was actually saying just in the time that, you know, show her honor as a fellow citizen. She is the same as you. Yeah, a joint heir to the grace of life, we use this terminology, a fellow citizen. That's everything that's included in that.

So what you have is, here in Philippians, what's obvious to people is that Philippians 3.20 verse. But the reality is, citizenship shows up three times. And he just uses different forms each time. But it's still the same thing, isn't it?

So once we understand, okay, the Book of Life is the list of living citizens, and in the New Testament, it's spiritually alive, is what counts, not physically alive. In the Old Testament, the first part of those passages, it's only referring to physical life. So the Book of Life has a transition, but the idea for us as believers now is, if you're a believer, your name is in the Book of Life, and it's not going to be removed. Absolutely not. It's absolutely, that's a promise from Christ. And it has to do with eternal life and spiritual life.

For physical life, where is that book kept? It's kept here on earth, right? For physical life. But for spiritual life, where is that book kept? In heaven, where nobody can mess with it. Nobody's going to mess with it. You hear about how one person becomes saved and the angels rejoice?

Then they add the name to the book of life, right? So anyway, this is really, really cool. And with this we get a comprehensive understanding of the book of life and the whole Bible. And we learn some key truths from it. Oh, there's not a chance my name is going to be blotted out from the book of life. And Christ himself promises with the most extreme language possible.

Not happening. He said it in John 10 where You know, they're in my hand and they're in the Father's hand. I mean, just over and over, there's absolutely no way that you will ever lose your salvation. You'll never get out of where you are. You'll never do anything. It's like, oh, well, that's it. Got to boot you now. No, that's not even possible.

So when it talks about being judged for your works, for your efforts and things like that, then that's unbelievers. Well, actually, there are about 50 passages in the Bible, Old Testament and New, that talk about being judged according to works. And so think about this, that some of those are universal statements, everybody's going to be judged. Some of those talk about unbelievers, and some of those talk about just believers. So the idea that we'll be judged for our works is very biblical, but except for believers, what's the judgment? How can I reward you? For the unbeliever, is it rewards? No. Here's your level of punishment.

And that's why about almost a dozen places in the New Testament, Jesus says, it's going to be worse for this one than that one. It's going to be worse for this one than that one. And that's because you don't just have a uniform, you're all going to hell. But Hitler's going to be in worse shape than others. You might have some person who just never did too much terrible, criminal, wrong, awful. So they won't be going through the same experience as Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, whatever names you can think of. So then when you look at those 50 passages, generally it's true in Scripture, you have to read it in context. You have to read each one and see what it refers to.

I do have a document that I'd be happy to pass on. In the 1st and 2nd Corinthians series, the Mostly New Testament Doctrine of Proportional Punishment, just a one-pager that summarizes that kind of thing. You can have my copy and then we also have Now, let's take a look, we're turning a corner here on page 4. Should the numbers in the book of Revelation be taken literally or not? So this is a biggie because you'll run into people who will say, oh, that's just a big number, or the numbers don't mean anything, and so they'll take it just as figurative, representative of a big number, or something like that. And so there's a couple of different things to look at.

One is but we have record of people who either were discipled by John or are first or second generation after John. And so I'll just state this in summary form. For all those who were directly or first or second generation after the Apostle John, that left any record of what they thought about future things. All of them, no exception, all of them took John's prophecy literally. All of them took John's prophecy literally.

So what you have here on this map, on page 4, You have Smyrna. It is one of the seven cities, right? Smyrna, Polycarp, and Irenaeus. And Polycarp was directly discipled by John. You have in Ephesus John himself, but we also have Justin Martyr, who was not directly discipled by John. He lived from the year 100 So he was born four or five years after Joan died. He lived I think until 165 A.D. or thereabouts.

So you have that. So for instance, then we also have Papias. who may have been discipled by John, and then Apollinaris over in Herapolis. Remember, there's a trio of cities. You've got Herapolis, and across the valley Laodicea, and upstream is Colossae. So there at Herapolis is Poppius and Apollinaris. And then you have Ignatius at Antioch. There's another one kind of in that.

And so here let me quote on the very bottom of the page for Justin Martyr and his dialogue with Trifo, written about A.D. 140. So here's Justin Martyr, about 40 years old. He says, But I and others who are right-minded Christians on all points are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead in a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declared.

What does that sound like? It's all literal. It sounds like literal, doesn't it? Yes. And so here's a guy in the same city as John in probably the next generation after John died, and that's what he wrote. So let's take a look at another thing that he wrote. And he would have been aware of the Book of Revelations. Oh very much. He probably had an original that he was looking at there in Ephesus. The one that was written there from John was probably still there.

And further whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation that was made to him that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem. And that thereafter the general, and in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.

So, I think that most churches believe this, don't they? I mean, except maybe the Preterists or whatever, how you pronounce that. Well, there's actually quite a few who do not take this literally. One, the Catholic Church. The Orthodox churches do not take this literally. And then, for the most part, a lot of your Reformed churches, Lutheran churches, Anglican Episcopal do not take the numbers literally. I have been in conversation with people who are believers and go to relatively what I would say conservative churches who do not know this and who will not even get into a conversation and who will say you just can't know. You just can't know. It's almost like it's a hot topic. You don't talk about religion or politics or revelations.

And here is a summary statement. Philip Schaff is the guy who pulled together all of the early Church Fathers writings into 11 volumes. I have them electronically. He lived during the 1800s, that was his time period, but he was an American Church historical scholar and himself was a post-millennialist.

That is, he didn't interpret the thousand years as literal. Postmillennialism. Summarize the early Church's view of the Millennium. The most striking point in the eschatology of the Antonicene Age is the prominent Kiliasm, or Millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years before the general resurrection and judgment.

It was indeed not the doctrine of the Church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers such as Barnabas Papias, Justin Martyr Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius." So this is his summary statement, even himself not being a premillennialist. So, the evidence that exists points to the Apostle John having communicated a premillennial teaching with Polycarp, and possibly others, including Papias. From the evidence it appears that Polycarp communicated a premillennial teaching to others, including Irenaeus and Ignatius, and probably including Justin Martyr, Apollinarius, Melito, and Papias. Can we go back to this quote? Because I'm not sure I get it.

So what he's saying is that... This is the one from Philip Shaw. Yes, please. So he's saying, OK, here's the striking point that all of that first generation after the apostles went home to be with the Lord. They all said the same thing that you can verify in Daniel and Ezekiel and everywhere else, that that was just something they came up with. I'm really confused at what that is saying, I'm sorry. Which part are you talking about? His quote right here.

So he's a post-Millennium, so he didn't believe? He himself did not hold the position of a literal 1,000 years per se that would happen right after Christ's second coming. So is he intimating in this that that was just something that that first What is the Nicene Age?

The Council of Nicaea was held in the early 300s. Until then, the striking point is the eschatology was all And we'll take a look at that. Okay, so it is saying what I think it's saying. Yeah. In other words, even though that isn't the position that he held, he says that the early centuries of church history, just the idea that there's a literal thousand years was just across the board. All right. And we'll take a look at the timing.

And by the way, what's interesting, for more details on that, I've given several links, including the tiny URL. But one that's very interesting, Matthew Ervin I've never met, Thomas Ice and Lambert Dolphin I have met. I've been to Lambert Dolphin's house and been to Thomas Ice's house. I've met them. But what I found very interesting, Eric Frank at Western Reform Seminary, unexpectedly to me, had all kinds of background on the early church being premillennial. So, anyway, fascinating. So feel free to look that up. We have a kind of a bar chart which gives us some indications here that I think are valuable.

And that is, here's the time of Christ, and about the latest that Christ could have been born would be about January of 4 BC. Christ was crucified on April 3rd, 33 A.D. Now as you look at the lives of, here's John shown, and the time in the New Testament is written. And so you see that. Then what we have is, here is a quote from Justin Martyr and the time frame in which that is shown, with a dashed bar in there.

And then we have church fathers overwhelmingly pre-millennial if any per millennial view is stated. And then Papias, who probably, degrees of certainty are important here, probably knew John, said there will be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead when the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this earth. Polycarp did know John, and he had contact with Irenaeus, so Polycarp discipled Irenaeus. Irenaeus wrote this, John therefore did distinctly foresee the first resurrection of the just and the inheritance of the kingdom of the earth and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonized with John's vision, then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds in the glory of the Father, bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom." So, and then what you see is about the year 200 begins to be a named expression of those who disagree. So we know of no one by name who disagrees with the literal thousand year, Christ is coming, he's going to reign from Jerusalem, no one until about the year 200.

So when M.T. Wright writes that Christ intended that we understand this to be not literal, He's lying. Because there's no way to connect the non-literal understanding to Christ and the Apostles, historically. There is no connection. The ones who disagreed did so because they got their interpretive principles from Greek pagan skeptics. The Greeks, as we were talking earlier, the Greeks did not believe the myths written by Homer. And so they thought, well these must be allegories. And they began to interpret them non-literally.

So allegorical interpretation, however, cannot find its roots in Christ and the apostles and those that they disciple. Can't find it. You can make no historical connection with allegorical interpretation in Christ and the Apostles and their first, second, third, fourth generation disciples. And there's approximately a 170 year gap from Christ until the allegorical mindset took place? Yeah, and we know where it came from. We know it came from the pagan Greek skeptics. not from the Apostles and those who learned from them. The Fathers of the Church.

Now, we have one other, and this is on page 7, is the Tribulation, 7 Jewish years, 350 days long. So, we went through this in more detail in Daniel's 70th week in the Revelation series, Daniel 9, 24-27. We're running out of time, so I won't read it all there, but Daniel gives a calendar and a clock time for the first 69 weeks, and that's where Harold Hohner used it to arrive at the April 3rd, 33 AD date, based on Daniel's prophecy for Christ's crucifixion. But both the Jews and the early Christians looked at Daniel's 70th week as being yet future, including the surviving Pharisees after the 70 AD debacle.

So, birth pangs, which you see in here, was used by Christ in Matthew 24.8, by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5.3, and other Jewish literature to describe the tribulation events.

Now, here's the Messiah text, wrought by Raphael Patai, and he's dead now, but he was a Jewish scholar. On pages 95 and 96, he quoted the Jewish Talmud, a collection of Jewish traditional writings, when he wrote, The pangs of the Messianic times are imagined as having heavenly as well as earthly sources and expressions. Things will come to such a head that people will despair of redemption.

This will last seven years, and then, unexpectedly, the Messiah will come. So this is from ancient Jewish writings, the Jewish Talmud, written after the time of the New Testament era, but not long after. So what did the Jews, who essentially inherited the Pharisees, traditions where they believe that there would be a seven year period of time yet future that would be awful terrible times at the end of which the Messiah will come.

And this is after 70 AD which means they recognize that that was not the birth pains and that was not this tribulation. That was clearly not it. This was looking back at 70 AD. So, at any rate, the Jews looked upon that seven year period of time of tribulation as yet future.

By the way, their name for the Antichrist is Armilus. But they looked at it as a future period of time. And Jesus argued with the Pharisees about a lot of things. He did not argue with them about their understanding of the future coming kingdom and their literal interpretation of prophecy.

And here's one more thing. Were the prophecies about Christ's first coming fulfilled literally or figuratively? Literally. How many pieces of silver? Thirty. Out of the Old Testament. That number. It was literally fulfilled, not figuratively. And the number was literal. Born in Bethlehem. Born in Bethlehem. Thirty pieces of silver. He pierced my hands and my feet. Psalm 22. So, literally. and even to the numbers of 30 pieces of silver. Was that a literal figure or a figurative figure? It was literal.

So there is no basis for applying this allegorical interpretation except by a later tradition that was introduced by the Greek pagan skeptics. What's striking is that even today, the people in Christendom allegorize certain parts of scripture, but I imagine if we sat down with them and said, so how do you view the 40 years in the desert? Uh huh. Like was that allegorical or was that. I'm just curious if they would allegorize that as well.

Yeah, here's one of the things that happens. Once you start allegorizing, the question becomes, where do I stop and where do I start? And so if you find a range of opinions among those who are of, say, the reformed background, they disagree on how much we apply allegorical interpretation.

There was a division, for example, about a century ago in the Presbyterian Church, because there were, and still are, Presbyterians who believe in a literal seven-year tribulation period. And they didn't want to see that get lost. So, nope, it's a literal seven-year tribulation period. think about it, the Gnostics, when they had this group of people who were esoteric and enlightened, in a sense, that's what happens when you allegorize scriptures, right?

So then you're saying that you have special insights that other people don't have. And so then it's no longer for everybody, it's only for a few. Yeah, when Romans says all Israel will be saved, well that's referring to the church, right? Yeah, that's allegorizing it. What's sad is that, taking it to the spiritual, where we really are, that people cannot see that it's been the blinding of revelations and what it's saying, that they don't understand that there is a mind behind it. And it's much better if you allegorize that and people do not realize, hey, there really is a literal tribulation.

There is a literal kingdom. Pay attention to this. Because if you kind of massage it and make it a nice watercolor where we can all interpret what we want, who cares? I can do whatever I want. Well, and that's the thing. What control is there over allegorizing? When do I allegorize and when do I not? And the differences of opinion have to do with exactly that. Well, I think we need to allegorize here. I think we need to allegorize there. It needs to be a little more blue over here. Yeah.

And the reality is there isn't any control. You end up having things like interpreted tradition or something like that end up controlling. We've always done it this way. New Age religion is basically that. You take all the things that you don't like and you allegorize them. You allegorize the meaning away and make it mean whatever you want it to mean because you create an allegory to cover up anything you don't like. Right, and then you end up with love. Right? Yeah. Well, exactly. So you alienate what you can, and you ignore what you really can't ignore. It doesn't exist. Yeah. Okay, so we're going to shift on to some other topics here for the rest of the month, and I've got a plan out November and December, but if you have any input on that, something like a topic or a passage you'd like us to comb through, yeah.

I was talking to a friend of mine that's a Messianic Jew, and he said two things that I'd never heard before. One is that there have been remains of Solomon's temple, and it's not on the temple now. Have you ever heard that? Remains? Oh, yes, I've heard that. I don't necessarily believe it, but yes, I've heard that.

And the other thing was about the destruction of Damascus. that would have to happen before Christ's second coming? Is it a prophecy in Isaiah? Yes, and I've heard of that. That could still be a tribulation period, you know, fulfillment. But yes, I've heard of that.

The Temple Mount thing, what I'll do is, see next time I'm teaching is like two weeks from now, so what I'll do is I'll prepare a brief thing on that and what the controversy is. Several of the archaeologists that I follow and have had contact with for some time would disagree with that interpretation. But anyway, let's pray because people are pressing their nose up against the glass. Okay.

Lord, we do thank you for your word. We thank you for the clarity that we have in your word and even just in the historical record. following the time of the apostles and we thank you that as we look at these things you intend to transform us into changes as we behold you in your work. We pray in Jesus name, Amen.