REVELATION #38 – The Plagues of God’s Wrath - Continued

We are still at Revelation Chapter 16. Last week we looked at the first section of it through about verse 11 I believe. Here we see the seven angels pouring out their seven bowls of the wrath of God into the land. You remember I’m saying along with Chilton and others, that normally in Revelation where you see the word “earth”, the Greek word is more properly translated “land.” Again, my position is that this is God’s wrath against Israel, so the “land” is the land of Palestine. We also talked about the angels pouring out these bowls into the land and the plagues and how they related to the plagues of Exodus against Egypt and how we see that Jerusalem now really has become like Egypt. They have become the apostate, they have become the idol worshippers and (v6) they poured out the blood of saints and prophets. Remember that the Jewish leadership were persecuting and killing the Christians and had been doing that for a long time. Jesus of course in Matthew 23 talks about apostate Jerusalem pouring out the blood of the prophets from Abel to Zechariah, and how destruction would come upon Jerusalem for that. So we see that theme picked up in Revelation. Then we see the men in verse 9 were scorched with fierce heat; and they blasphemed the name of God … and they did not repent, … (10) … and they gnawed their tongues because of pain, (11) and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they did not repent of their deeds. We talked about the fact that no Christian has to be concerned here with all of these plagues. We see a lot of stuff in the pre-millennial Revelation press that all these terrible things are going to come and the Christians are going to have to suffer those. But, very clearly these are not Christians. These are men who are blaspheming the name of God and who did not repent. So we see there they are non-Christians because of the fact they did not repent.

Q: Going back to last week, these are all symbolic things right? These plagues?

A: Yes. I don’t think that these are actual plagues in that the river and the springs of water became blood.

Q: And the same would follow with things that seem more possible to us such as earthquakes?

A: Yes, although there’s evidence from non-biblical things that there were indeed great earthquakes during that period of time. There’s also where it talks about the blood… (4) And the third angel poured out his bowl into the rivers and the springs of waters; and they became blood Chilton relates a passage from one of the historians of the day…

C: While you’re looking that up I just want to repeat that in Matthew 24 it’s obvious that some of it is apocalyptic hyperbole – stars falling – things that are totally not possible and some of it, it’s obvious – earthquakes, famine, we have plenty of Scriptural references of earthquakes in Acts 16, Paul talks about famine. So in one apocalyptic text in Matthew 24 you have both literal fulfillment and symbolism in the same passage.

The point is that we have been taught to look at Revelation as literal in the sense of everything is coming true exactly. What I’m suggesting is number 1 it’s ludicrous, because not even the pre-millennial dispensationalists expects to see a woman sitting on a great red dragon flying around in the sky.

Q: It seems like if something seems feasible to us, we’re going to go look at history and look at the Bible and say ‘Look, this could really happen, this did really happen.’ If it’s absurd, we’re going to say ‘Of course that’s not going to happen.’ It just seems that’s what keeps happening. That ‘frogs coming out of the dragon’s mouth’ we say, oh, that’s symbolic. But the earthquake, oh, we know what an earthquake is. We’ll go an say ‘yes, see this was fulfilled.’

A: The Westminster Confession of Faith says, and I think rightly so, that we take the Bible literal where it can be taken literal. If it says that there was a great earthquake and we can prove from extra-biblical evidence that there was a great earthquake, then we accept the fact that it’s talking literally. If it says that there is a dragon flying around in the sky with the whore of Babylon on its back, and that’s something that we’ve encountered before and we can show that that portion is symbolic, then why should we not take that symbolic? Like the sun being darkened and the stars falling from the sky in Matthew 24. That’s very clearly a reference to Isaiah which was in fact a judgment against Babylon. We can show God did judge Babylon, and Babylon did fall, and we know that the sun was not darkened and the stars didn’t fall from the sky. We’ve got to understand this is apocalyptic language. It’s talking about the terrible-ness of God’s judgment in terms that are hyperbolic.

            It is hard to know when something is literal and when it is illustrative but one of the problems is that we don’t understand the history. Let me read you, this is the passage that I was talking about, it says:

            “On one occasion thousands of Jewish rebels fled to the Sea of Galilee from the moment Roman massacre at Tarichaeae setting out on the lake in small flimsy boats they were soon pursued and overtaken by the study rafts of Vespacian’s superior forces.  Then as Josephus recounts, they were mercilessly slaughtered.” Remember Josephus was a Jew but he was with the Roman army and he was a historian. He was writing this stuff down for posterity. “The Jews could neither escape to land which were all in arms against them (the Roman army surrounded the sea), nor sustain a naval battle on equal terms. Disaster overtook them and they were sent to the bottom boats and all. Some tried to break through but the Romans could reach them with their lances, killing others by leaping upon the barks and passing their swords through their bodies. Sometimes as the rafts closed in, the Jews were caught in the middle and captured along with their vessels. If any of those who had been plunged into the water came to the surface they were quickly dispatched with an arrow or a raft overtook them. If in their extremity they attempted to climb on board the enemies rafts, the Romans cut off their heads or their hands. So these wretches died on every side in countless numbers and in every possible way until the survivors were routed and driven onto the shore, their vessels surrounded by the enemy. As they threw themselves on them, many were speared while still in the water. Many jumped ashore where they were killed by the Romans. One could see the whole lake stained with blood and crammed with corpses for not a man escaped. During the days that followed a horrible stench hung over the region and it presented an equally horrifying spectacle. The beaches were strewn with wrecks and swollen bodies, which, hot and clammy with decay made the air so foul, that the catastrophe that plunged the Jews in mourning revolted even those who had brought it about.”

Q: He sat and watched all of this?

A: Yes, and wrote it down. See we don’t have that background. We don’t understand that kind of tribulation because we’ve never seen that kind of tribulation. That’s what Revelation is talking about. When it talks about the waters being turned to blood, it was literally turned to blood, stained with the blood of apostate Jews who were fighting the Romans. He goes on to talk about the siege of Jerusalem, which we’ve already mentioned, and how the women were fighting over the afterbirth of their babies and they were eating literally the leather of their shoes and straw, and fighting over rat dung and those kinds of things.

Q: I read a quote from Josephus of a mother eating her child.

A: Yes, absolutely. We don’t comprehend it because we don’t have that historical background. When God’s grace is removed, man gets terrible.

            So yes, to answer your question, I think we take these things literally when we can show that they are literal or relate them to some literal historic event. If we cannot, and we cannot find in Scripture or historical evidence, then I think we need to be very cautious about saying this is literally going to take place. On the other hand, when we can show for instance, the sun going dark and the stars falling from the sky we can show that that was Old Testament language talking about a particular historical event which we know for a fact took place. Then when it’s used in the New Testament context, we can say this is not talking about a literal event, this is talking about God’s judgment and the horrible-ness of it.

Q: Didn’t all of Revelation start off as symbolic? The reason I say that is John was having a dream, it hadn’t occurred when he wrote it down, he was prophesying the future so in effect he was given symbols by God of what was going to happen. So our starting point is, this is a written record of a symbolic dream of things to come in the not too distant future. If we take it from that starting point and say ok, when he was dreaming, which parts actually came true during the time, and which parts were tied to other symbols?

C: The treaty part, and like the churches, that he was speaking to. People will say well these are not literal churches, these are.. and then veer off on that trail.

A: Yes, and again, I don’t have all the answers here. I don’t think Chilton has all the answers. I don’t think Calvin has all the answers. I think the Bible has all the answers.

Let’s move on, beginning with verse 12: And the sixth angel poured out his bowl upon the great river, the Euphrates; and its water was dried up, that the way might be prepared for the kings of the east. (13) And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs; (14) for they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty. (15) (Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his garments, lest he walk about naked and men see his shame.) (16) And they gathered them together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon. (17) And the seventh angel poured out his bowl upon the air; and a loud voice came out of the temple from the throne, saying, “It is done.” (18) And there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake, such as there had not been since man came to be upon the earth, so great an earthquake was it, and so mighty. (19) And the great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And Babylon the great was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of His fierce wrath. (20) And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. (21) And huge hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, came down from heaven upon men; and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, because its plague was extremely severe.

            Now again, there’s stuff here that sounds incredibly far-fetched to us, but I think one of the things we need to understand is, this is a vision that John had which he wrote down, of events that were going to occur in the very near future to, I think, Jerusalem. At the same time, it is a letter of comfort to the Christians of the era who were going to be persecuted not only by Rome, but by the Jewish leadership, the apostate church. It was saying even though you’re going to suffer all these terrible things, God is in control, don’t worry about it. So when we read these things, we need to be looking at, I think again, is there some historical event that we can tie these things to. If there is, then yes, let’s accept that as true. For instance, when it says that: (12) And the sixth angel poured out his bowl upon the great river, the Euphrates; and its water was dried up, that the way might be prepared for the kings of the east. Can we look into history and realize that historically the Euphrates dried up and some great army came across. The answer is no, not that I’m aware of. Can we look at that passage and see that the kings who overthrew Jerusalem came from the east? The answer is yes. When we look at the character of Rome, what did Rome do when they conquered another army? Physically and Politically. The army was conscripted from the nations they had conquered. The Roman legions were made up of groups from different countries that they had conquered. So literally, it says, as Carrington observes “the coming of the armies from the Euphrates ‘surely represents nothing but the return of Titus to besiege Jerusalem with further reinforcements and it is certainly more than coincidence that thousands of these very troops actually did come from the Euphrates.’” They came from countries of the east under the authority of the Roman General Titus. Yes, they were kings of the east but they were under the control of Rome.

            Then when we see the mouth of the dragon and the beast and the false prophet, who is the dragon? John has already told us who the dragon is. The dragon is Satan. Who is the beast? The beast is the political entity. We see that in Daniel where it’s talking about these various beasts who were the political entities of the time. We see that in Revelation where it talks about the beast coming up out of the sea. The beast is operating under the control of Satan. So we see here’s Satan, here’s the political entity, who is the false prophet? What entity does the false prophet operate in? He’s the religious leader. So here you have Satan, you have Rome (the political leadership), and you have the Jewish leader, the false prophets who were in consonance with one another. They were working together. Rome was working with the Jewish leadership and the Jewish leadership was saying to the Christians, we’ll leave you alone, all you have to do is burn incense to Caesar as Emperor. The Christians would not do that so they killed them, they persecuted them. I think that’s what we see going on here, and we can say this is symbolic because John has already told us that Satan is the dragon. John has already told us that the beast is the political entity and I think very clearly the false prophet is the religious leadership.

Q: If the unbelieving Jews were all so willing to cooperate, compromise, somewhere along the line something changes in the Jews behavior to make Rome say now after all these years of subjugating, now we’re going to come in there and crush them. Something had to change.

A: Remember historically, and I’m not that up on the events leading up to the siege of Jerusalem, but historically the Jews had been a problem for Rome, because they were so stiff-necked. The Romans normally would go in and completely subjugate a country and implement their religious practices and their tax system. In Jerusalem, because of the Jewish resistance to worshipping other gods…

Q: So then they weren’t then. Maybe the Sanhedrin were…

A: We’re talking apples and oranges now. When I say worshipping one god, they worshipped one god, but it was not the God of the Bible. So what I’m suggesting here is the Jews were tradition-bound in worshipping the one god and they refused to worship any other gods. So Rome said ok, we will allow you your religious system. They were the only nation that Rome compromised with; and the tax system, the Israelites, the Jewish people were so adamant about the tax system that the Romans only implemented, that I’m aware of, the poll tax. The one that Jesus paid to Caesar.

Q: So where is the prostitution or harlotry of the Jewish leadership?

A: Because they were preaching a different god than the God of Scripture.

Q: But there was compromise in Rome within it right? They were talking about Jesus and saying if this guy keeps doing this…

A: He’s going to upset our apple cart. We’re going to lose our cush position, exactly.

Q: There was cooperation there with Rome with the Jewish leadership, right?

A: Yes. Remember that Rome wanted peace. You hear in the history books of the Pax Romana – the Roman Peace. Any rebellion, Rome did not tolerate. That was part of what was going on that brought Titus in because the Jews, there’s a lot of stuff going on here and I’m not real clear on this because I haven’t really delved into it, but there was this problem with the Christians creating a religious problem within Israel. The Israelites, the Jewish leadership, the false church, was trying to put that down. That was becoming more and more of a problem. In addition, you had other factions in Israel where it says the great city was split into three parts, one of the commentators – I think it was Carrington, says “the imagery is drawn from the fifth chapter of Ezekiel where God gives Ezekiel this vision…this refers to the division into three factions which became acute after the return of Titus. While Titus was besieging Jerusalem from without, the three leaders of the rival factions were fighting fiercely within the city. For this the city might have staved off defeat for a long time, even perhaps indefinitely, for no great army could support itself for long in those days in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. There was no water, no supplies. But Jerusalem had a well.” Remember they had the spring that was inside the city walls and came through in a tunnel into the city – so they had plenty of water. Here you see all kinds of these things going on.

C: If Israel were more … and Rome comes in and they were faithful to God, they would not have made these kinds of agreements with Rome.    

R: Yes absolutely, and they would not have said to the Christians you must not practice your religion, you must burn incense to Caesar and proclaim him as king.

C: There would have been people you would have thought, that would have recognized the Messiah and worshipped Him.

R: Absolutely. Those that were, did. They were Jewish Christians.

            There’s a lot of other stuff going on here. It says: (15) (Behold, I am coming like a thief. Blessed is the one who stays awake and keeps his garments, lest he walk about naked and men see his shame.)

Q: How do they know that’s the Lord?

A: Because he says in Matthew 24:15 Behold I’m coming like a thief…

Q: Now, is this John in his dream hearing what Jesus is going to say or did say? Or is he just inserting what Jesus did say at that point? Mine is in red letter, indicating that it is Jesus.

Q: Behold I am coming like a thief is attributed to Jesus, the rest isn’t. How do we know about the rest?

A: Chilton says, “This is a central theme of the book of Revelation summarizing Christ’s warnings to the churches in the seven letters. The coming of the Roman armies will be in reality Christ coming in terrible wrath against His enemies. The specific wording and imagery seems to be based on the letter to the church in Sardis. I will come like a thief and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you. That is a quote of Matthew 24:42-44.” What we see is this emphasis on ‘judgment is coming.’ You don’t know when it’s coming, but it’s coming quickly. He talks about the letter to Laodicea – “I advise you to buy from me white garments that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed.” In the original, John Sweet comments here “the tense of go naked and be seen is present subjunctive, in other words to go about naked habitually. The danger of not being caught is not momentarily but habitually off guard.”

Q: How are these red letter editions attributing this as the words of Jesus?

A: It’s strictly a translators interpretation. That’s why I’m opposed to red letter editions because, what is this book? This is the words of Jesus, this is the word of God. In fact, my new Bible is not a red letter for that very reason. So what we need to understand is there’s a false dichotomy here. It’s all the word of God. It’s all the word of Jesus. If you want a red letter edition, make it all red!

Q: Even though he’s coming like a thief, … the Christians must not have been in Jerusalem if they were paying attention.

A: They left Jerusalem when they saw the armies.

Q: So they saw the army. He’s coming like a thief, but he does give some hints.

A: Yes, absolutely, very clearly throughout the Bible. God is very clear about that. He says destruction is coming, and he gives opportunity for repentance, but there will come a point…

Q: Other things that we’ve seen previously as far as judgments and earthquakes, death and stuff, we can assume that these have already taken place?

A: No. Remember this is a vision to John of things to come. Yes, from our perspective, they have already occurred.

Q: It’s being carried out, are these things linear in that respect? By the time this is happening, kings are coming from the east possibly, have these things that we’ve already read about in Revelation taken place?

A: No.

Q: Are they all happening simultaneously?

A: Number 1, they’re not linear because we’ve seen other places where it was talking about the woman with child fleeing into the desert that not only was that talking about Israel in the desert, but it was talking about the church in the time Christ. So it’s not linear in that respect.

Q: It talks specifically about the tribulations and the judgment that Israel is going through physically.

Q: Are they all sequential based on the sequence you read here?

A: No, the visions are not necessarily sequential.

Q: When it talks about an earthquake previously in chapter 11, can that be the same earthquake that’s being talked about in chapter 16?

A: It could be, but I haven’t looked at that so I don’t know that it is. I would have to study that.

C: I know I’ve looked into that question and commentaries say that the visions that come to John, it doesn’t demand that the visions are on chronological order.

R: Yes, we think in terms of chronological order. But that’s not necessarily the case. In any eastern or middle-eastern thinking, their thinking simply is not linear, it’s more relational. So when an American reads this, they think in terms of the angel poured out his bowl, the water was dried up, the way was prepared, the kings came, that happened, that happened... and that’s not necessarily what’s being talked about here.

Q: What is being talked about here? Is there a way for us to understand what relations are tied together?

A: I think that we can look at certain parts of it and understand certain parts of it. We may not be able to understand the other parts of it. For instance, when it talks about going about naked and men see his shame. Philip Carrington explains “the origin of St. John’s solution: there was an officer on duty at the temple whose business it was to walk around and see that those who were on watch kept awake. If he found them asleep, he beat them. If he found them a second time, he burned their clothes. This is the only possible explanation of this passage. It means now is the time for those who are guarding the temple to keep awake. The whole symbolism of the sixth bowl therefore of which this is a part, has to do with an attack on the temple.” Chilton is saying since this is talking about a practice that went on in the temple, then in his mind very clearly what’s being talked about here is something that’s attached to the temple.

            Jesus said, stay awake! Be on the alert! You do not know at what hour your master is coming. To a Jewish Christian with a historical background and the temple tradition and all that, this would have been a no brainer. But for us, it’s difficult. Especially because we have to unlearn all of the stuff that we’ve been taught all of these years.

C: This helps me out understanding that verse by telling me that they burned their garments. Now this stands out and of course it makes sense. As a symbolic explanation you could say ‘you don’t want to be like these guards that ran around naked because they fell asleep on guard duty.’

 (16) And they gathered them together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon.

            Not Armageddon. Not the popular view that this is the destruction of everything. Armageddon, the battle of good and evil and the end of everything. What it really is, is ‘Har” which means mountain in Hebrew. So it’s the ‘Mountain of Megiddo.’ That’s a problem if you’re a literalist. There is no mountain at Megiddo. It’s a plain. There never was or will be a literal battle of Armageddon because there is no such place. The mountain nearest to the plain of Megiddo is Mt. Carmel. Chilton says “this is presumably what St. John had in mind.” Why didn’t he simply say Mt. Carmel? Another commentator says “one can only suppose that St. John wants to refer to Megiddo and Carmel in one breath.” In other words, he wants to tie that whole area together, is what the commentator is saying. “Carmel because of its association with the defeat of Jezebel’s false prophets, and Megiddo because it was the scene of several important military engagements in biblical history. Megiddo is listed among the conquests of Joshua. It’s equally important as the place where Deborah defeated the kings of Canaan. King Ahizaiah of Judah, the evil grandson of King Ahab of Israel died at Megiddo. Perhaps the most significant event that took place there in terms of St. John’s imagery, was the confrontation between Judah’s King Josiah and the Egyptian Pharaoh Necco.” By the way, Pharaoh Necco is the first name in the Old Testament that we can positively identify with a real person. We know from extra-biblical evidence that battle did in fact take place. “Josiah faced Necco in battle at Megiddo and was mortally wounded, 2 Chronicles 35. Following Josiah’s death, Judah’s downward spiral into apostasy, destruction and bondage was swift and irrevocable.” The problem as Chilton points out for the literalists is, that there is no Mt. Megiddo. There is no Armageddon. There is no place where these great forces will come together in battle.

C: You know what’s a real bummer? R.C. Sproul is the editor of my Bible and in the note in here it says that this is the site of the future climatic battle.

R: R.C. Sproul has changed his mind. I think I mentioned last week that Table Talk came out last month, and he has changed to a preterist position on Revelation. I think realistically if people study what the Bible says and not what people tell them it says, they will come to a preterist position.

(17) And the seventh angel poured out his bowl upon the air; and a loud voice came out of the temple from the throne, saying, “It is done.” Again, this signifies that this is God’s judgment. (18) And there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake, Chilton points out that what we see here is again this phenomena the Shekinah glory cloud. The peals of thunder, the lightning, and the great earthquake and that the earthquake is mentioned seven times in Revelation. So I don’t know the answer to the question as to whether we’re talking about separate earthquakes or not, but we can visit that next week.

Q: In my Bible it says the voice from heaven says “It is done.” Isn’t that maybe alluding to Jesus on the cross?

A: It’s a different word. The voice proclaims it is done. The utterance is a single word “ghegonen.” The word that Christ used on the cross was “tetelestai.”

C: I know we’re out of time, we can’t just say three sentences about verse 16 and end it.

R: No, we’ll come back to it.

C: There’s too much made of Armageddon. It’s the central focal point of those who are futurists.

R: We’ll talk more about Armageddon next week.