We are at the end of Revelation – Revelation 22. We finished up around verse 10 last week where the angel tells John “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” And again, he repeats that phrase which he began the book with “the time is near” or as Jay Adams said it, ‘the time is at hand’ and the word really has to do with the suddenness, the nearness of the events that are going to happen. Of course Jesus says in verse 6 “…the things which must shortly take place.” Again there’s an emphasis in the Greek there on the quickness of those things which are about to take place. So all in all, I think because John brackets the whole book with those two phrases, he’s really saying these things are going to happen quickly. Not some two thousand or more years into the future.

22:11 “Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and let the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and let the one who is holy, still keep himself holy. (12) Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. (13) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (14) Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. (15) Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. (16) I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star. (17) And the spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost. (18) I testify to everyone who hears of the prophecy of this book; if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; (19) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. (20) He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (21) The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.

 Notice that the angel says to John, let the one who does wrong, still do wrong. Let the one who is filthy, still be filthy. If we’re talking about the end of time. The culmination of God’s plan, how would you deal with that? There is a way to deal with that, the premillennial dispensationalists deal with it. If there is no more time, if this is talking about heaven, how is it that there are still those who do wrong and who are filthy? They’re in hell. That’s the way to deal with it. But, on the plain surface of it, what is it saying? That’s there’s still people who are doing wrong things. There’s still people who are doing filthy things. There’s still unrighteousness there. So in the plain sense of the text it’s not talking about heaven.

C: I would think just the opposite because it gives the idea if you’re going to say it’s the end, the final judgment has come, then you’re saying let those who are just be just… (inaudible) If you going to say time is still going on, everywhere else it says you’re a sinner, repent.

R: Okay, let me ask you a question. In hell, are the wicked going to be able to do wrong things? The answer is really no. They’re being punished for the wrong things they have already done. [“In the past. But at that point they’re already separated from God so therefore they can’t do right even if they want to.] And I think clearly that that’s what’s going on here. I realize there’s some question here and there are godly men on both sides of the fence, but in my mind what it’s saying is that this is, and we’ll get into a couple more clues later, that this is not a futuristic scenario.

C: I’d like to make a comment here. Earlier in the book there’s a lot of things saying there’s no more bad things going to happen, this is sort of saying those who are evil will still be doing their evil in the future and those who are doing good will be doing very good.

R: Right. Exactly.

Remember that we’re talking about a spiritual situation here. We’re talking about the Church in which everyone is already perfect, remember we are seated at the right hand of God the Father in Christ, and there is no more wrong doing. There is no more sin in that respect. There is no more crying. There are no more tears. But there still is in this life, because we have yet to get to that final state.

C: I don’t understand what people being able or not able to sin in hell, how that determines whether this is future.

R: I’m just saying that in my mind as I read this, when it says let the one who still does wrong still do wrong, that it’s talking about they are still able to do wrong. That it’s still in this life.

Q: You don’t think people in hell will be cursing God? Like gnashing teeth and all that?

A: Yes, I do. But I’m also saying that in the context, remember context, context, context, I think it is not speaking of a future state. Let's go on instead of hammering on this one point because I think there’s some more here.

 (12) “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.” And everybody understands this as referring to the end times, but notice Jesus says I am coming quickly… Why would Jesus say I am coming quickly if He was not going to come back for at least two thousand years? If Jesus is saying I’m coming quickly, then those people most likely understood Him to say I’m coming back pretty quickly.

Q: Is there a text that you would agree, talking about the second coming of the Lord, where it’s referred to as quickly. Since I’ve been a Christian I’ve heard that a lot, the Lord said He’s coming quickly, we use that in context of you need to live your life like it could happen tomorrow. Now the ones we’re looking through here, you’re saying that those are misinterpreted, that it’s not really talking about the second coming, it’s talking about Christ. Is there a text where that language is used and that you believe it’s talking about the real second coming of the Lord?

A: No. Not to my knowledge. Every time that Jesus…

Q: Where ever it says that, you’re going to say it’s talking about the destruction of Jerusalem?

A: I would say that, yes.

C: Or, I can’t think of where it is but I know I’ve read it that a saint died, Jesus came to him at his death.

R: Steven.

Q: The martyr?

A: He saw the Lord  is what he said. He saw a vision of heaven. He said I see Jesus seated at the right…

C: I read it or heard it in a sermon how he came as he’s dying. That’s another form of coming.

R: Again, that’s a way of dealing with the time issue. When some theologians, some premillennial pastors, when they talking about Jesus saying I am coming quickly, they say He’s talking not about the end times, but He’s talking about your personal end time. When you come to death, you come before Jesus, very clearly. So that’s a way of dealing with the time issue. But in the context, I think clearly it’s talking about something else.

 (14) Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, that they may enter by the gates into the city. “Wash” is a present participle in Greek, which implies continuous action. Again, it’s not a sufficient argument, it’s just another peg in the board I think, but why would it be necessary for people to wash their robes if they’re already in heaven? It’s symbolic. Blessed are those who do this because then they can enter in, is the way they would respond to that. But again here, look at the whole context. That’s what I’m suggesting here. Again, I’m not trying to twist anybody’s arm to believe the way I do, I’m just saying as I’ve studied this thing, I become more and more convinced because of the way things read.

C: I just want to add…the thing that tends to frustrate me… when you have these conversations, they insist in the classes that we’ve sat in on, that they are literal, we are not, and the thing that really bugged me is the word. When they want to be literal, it’s okay. But when they need symbolism, then it’s okay. That’s always the… the hermeneutics is always…

R: And I think all of us tend to do that. Jody has rightly pointed out several places where my argument tends to do that. But the key is, look at the whole of the teaching of Scripture. If we focus on a particular verse or a particular book, then our theology gets really messed up. Because we’re not looking at the whole of Scripture. I think that’s what we need to do.

 (16) I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you… The ‘you’ here is plural. It’s not to John specifically. In Greek there was a way of saying ‘you’ singular, and ‘you’ plural. This is very clearly plural. “…these things…” These things what? What are these things for? The churches. Why would He say that if we’re talking about the end times? [You’re saying this prophecy is in a letter to the churches.] Okay. Exactly. So why then, again here’s another, and it’s not a definitive argument, but again the book starts out saying these things are going to happen quickly. He writes letters to seven different churches, specific letters. Now He’s saying I’ve sent my angel to testify these things concerning or about the churches or for the churches. So the whole of this book then has what purpose? To edify the churches! What churches? Probably the seven churches that He wrote to initially in the beginning of the book. You see, John just ties everything together. Again, I think this book is a letter written to Christians of the first century churches who were going to undergo severe persecution by the Jews and by the Romans and that it was a letter of comfort saying ‘that’s okay. God’s in charge. Here’s what’s going to happen to the Jews and here’s what’s going to happen to the Romans.’ And God’s going to come back and give to every man according to his deeds, which is exactly what He did in 70 AD.

 (17) And the spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost. Or, as a gift, without cause. What is the water of life? It’s the Holy Spirit, or in the context of Revelation looking back at the beginning of chapter 22, it’s the Gospel. It’s the Gospel going out through the churches, through you and I spreading the Good News, the water of life, Jesus Christ.

Q: How does it say that?

A: He showed me a river of the water of life clear as crystal coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb. And we talked about Ezekiel, that Ezekiel 47 is talking about the church and how it spreads out from the throne and it’s a little trickle from the throne. It started with how many? Jesus. Then it went to 11. Then it went to 500. Then it went on and on and on and now it’s a deep flood that no one can ford. So we see that effect of the church flowing out from the throne of God, one man, and becoming this tremendous torrent throughout the world.

Q: That’s one other thing I always kind of… Jesus said in Matthew 7 that many are those who follow the path of destruction. Few are those that follow the trail that leads to life. Yet you have the post millennial argument that the Gospel is the tree and so on… Is there a contradiction there or is Jesus saying so many people perished...

A: Well the Bible says that those who will be saved is a multitude no one can number. But in contrast with those who have not been saved, it’s a remnant. There’s no contraction. When you look at the numbers of people there have been throughout the world, throughout history, the greater portion are unsaved.  

C: I’d like to point out the fallacy of that argument is if the preterist perspective is the correct line, thinking it is as it is, then the Gospel will flow out to all nations. All nations will become disciples fulfilling the Great Commission. At the end, with the world population expanding at the rate it is, if you have all nations being disciples and you have a lot more Christians, you may have as many Christians at the end, if you would count them all from the beginning to the end, as were unsaved. I’m just pointing out that yes, to date, in our time line, there’s been more unsaved than saved. If you plot it and look at it at the end, you may have as many or more saved as there are unsaved because of the Great Commission.

R: Yes, and that’s the post-millennial position, by the way. As the Gospel permeates the world, that more and more people will be saved and as the population expands, the proportion of Christians in the population will be greater and greater so that if some point if you look at all the people throughout all of history, there will be more saved than not saved.

C: I’d love to live to see the area like Iraq… (inaudible)

R: Yes, Amen to that!

C: Look at Rome becoming a Christian Rome. From a pagan Rome. It can happen. That’s an exciting part of this perspective is that it’s a success oriented perspective. The other ways are ‘well, we’re not going to be able to do anything, it’s got to go really bad until Jesus comes back and scoops us out and then fixes everything for us. As opposed to completing the Great Commission He gave us before He ascended.

R: Right. And remember that the first command that God gave man was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and take dominion over it. So Christians who say we can’t do anything about the world, it’s going to hell in a hand basket, are disobedient to God’s very first command. We are supposed to go out there and take dominion and that word dominion means loving, caring, concern and involvement in the culture.

C: The most convicting line that really persuaded me in this direction was Spurgeon saying, this whole thing of the premillennial dispensational notion, he was getting wind of it and he said the notion that the Holy Spirit is not capable of performing His task is heretical.

 (18) I testify to everyone who hears of the prophecy of this book; if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; (19) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. There are two schools of thought here. One is that what John is writing about is the words of the prophecy of the Revelation only. The other is that it’s also talking about the words of the whole Bible because in Deuteronomy 4:1, Moses says “And now, O Israel, listen to the statues and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, in order that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. (2) You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” So what you see then is this bracketing again. At the beginning of the Bible, you shall not add to this word, which I am commanding you, nor take away from it. And you also see that in Revelation. So the question then becomes, was John talking specifically only about the prophecy of Revelation, or was he talking about the whole of the Bible as one book?  

Q: How do you determine that?

A: I don’t think you really can.

C: He didn’t have the Bible as we have it today.

R: No, he did not. The normal view, and here I tend to think he was talking about Revelation only because the Bible was not seen as one book. It was seen as the word of God, but it was seen, even by the Jews, as multiple books.

C: It just seems clear to me while reading it in that context, that what I’m telling you, don’t add to it, don’t take away from it.

R: Right.

C: But I’ve seen this particular verse used as reasons why you can’t have the Mormons, the New Age prophets adding to this.

C: Well, Deuteronomy 4 is just as effective.

C: Yes, but Deuteronomy 4 was written way back before the New Testament. So should we have added the New Testament with that?

R: Yes, that’s a valid point. The churches dealt with this, i.e. The Mormon controversy and Mary Baker Eddy with the Christian Scientists and all this, can you add to the Canon? By definition, you cannot add to the Canon. Canon of course is a Greek word for rule. A standard by which you measure something. So the church put together the Canon, I think by the fourth century, and said this is in fact the word of God. Nothing else is the word of God. Now there were other books that were purported to be the word of God. There were things like the Gospel of Thomas and several others, the apocrypha, which are included in the Roman Catholic Bible. But the church took a look at those and said no, they can’t possibly be the word of God, why?

C: It didn’t meet the Canonicity test.

R: Which was…

C: They had to have been written by a person that was perceived to be a prophet at the time. It had to be predictive of the future, the future events had to come true, and it couldn’t contradict anything else in the Bible.

R: Okay. So they had to be true, and they couldn’t be contradictory. When you look at things like the Gospel of Thomas and Bel and the Dragon and others, there are very obviously errors.

C: There were others, you had to clearly show divine inspiration…

R: It also had to clearly speak that it was part of God’s word.

C: (Powell?) That was captured in the concept of the individual had to be viewed as a prophet during his time, by the people of his time. There are those that viewed him as a prophet. As you look at the Old Testament prophets, at least that’s how Bob was teaching it.

R: Yes. So what you see then although there were many other pieces that were purported to be part of the Bible that weren’t included by the church because they didn’t meet the test. They were in error or the person was clearly not a prophet, or whatever reason. So then the church collectively came to the point of, these are the books that should be included and no others.

Q: And rejected the apocrypha?

A: Yes.

Q: Are we any where near the time of Augustine or…

A: I think the first Canon was like in the fourth century, the first part of it. There were some books that they struggled with over a number of centuries. Esther for one, because it doesn’t directly mention God. James, and Hebrews because of the question about authorship.  

Q: Martin Luther said that Hebrews didn’t belong.

A: I’m not sure he said it exactly like that. He said James was a “right strawy epistle” of compared to Romans. People don’t realize that. They quote Martin Luther as saying James is an epistle of straw. But they don’t quote the whole context. Again. context, context, context, in which he was saying that compared to Romans, James is an epistle of straw because Romans of course has the whole theological sweep. The foundation.

C: If James is the word of God, you don’t say that

R: Sure you can say that. Why not?

C: It’s the word of God? James? If God had…

R: I missed the question.

C: If James is God’s word, you wouldn’t make any derogatory remarks about it in any way.

R: I don’t think he was being derogatory. I think he was saying in comparison with Romans, it’s very light reading compared to Romans. That’s what he was saying.

C: There was a purpose for it.

R: Absolutely. What’s the purpose? Day to day living. What’s the purpose of Romans? Doctrinal instruction. Theological foundation. Two different reasons.

C: I would be cautious about making any contrast. God’s word is God’s word.

C: …the modern age. Dave just said that James was a lighter reading than Romans. Would you consider that to be derogatory? That term? The epistle of straw I suspect in the language of that time told them that the same thing as light reading.

C: I’m just expressing caution. It made me kind of…

R: That’s just like I tell new Christians I have a reading plan for the Bible, which doesn’t include 1 & 2 Chronicles. Why? Is it any less important? No.

C: No. But for a beginning Christian you need to have a little easier reading.

R: Absolutely.

C: Just like a person who first learns who to read. They don’t start with a Bible. They start with their baby books.

R: Although God can do incredible things.

C: But you eliminate them when you had, of course all these books which were all separate, so that’s what this is telling us. This is a separate book and they’re not discussing the whole book like we put it all together so it’s easier to carry one book instead of sixty-six.

R: Right. I think John is clearly talking about the words of the prophecy of Revelation only.

Q: The Jews never appear to be (inaudible)

A: No.

Q: What about Judaism today? What do they say about (inaudible)

A: I don’t know the answer to that. I know that they were included… See they were not written until the New Testament times.

[discussion re: books and the first Canon. No particular voices are clear or complete]

A: No. The apocrypha are included between the Old Testament and the New Testament in the Roman Catholic Bible, but they were actually written in New Testament times.

Q: But they include them when they put them in, they don’t put them in any particular…

A: No, they just put them in between. They’re not considered part of the Old Testament.

Q: Then my friend must have had a different Bible then. Because she had it in between. She had books in between.

A: In between the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Q: No. Not between the Old Testament. She had, I think it was like around (inaudible) she had like Judas.

C: I have a Jerusalem Bible. It added sections to Daniel, it is all in parenthesis. And there’s other books in the Old Testament.

R: Okay. I was not aware of that.

C: There is a chunk of them, but there are other parts to Daniel and things like that.

C: That was the Council of Trent…

R: I don’t remember. It’s been a long time since I studied that.

Q: They are historically reliable, right?

A: No. They’re clearly historical errors in them. And Bel and the Dragon of course is mythical.

C: They’re typical of extra-biblical documents that they’re reasonably accurate. There are things that happened and we can point to them, and there are things that didn’t happen and you can point to those.

Q: Isn’t there like a battle of the Maccabees?

A: Yes, and that happened in the inner-testamental times.

Q: I found in Bible art that (inaudible)?

A: I don’t know, because I’ve never read that. You’d have to talk to somebody that’s read it. I’ve never read through all the apocrypha. I’ve read portions, but I’ve never read it all.

 Okay, so again you can make up your mind on this one on your own. But my personal preference is that John was talking about the book of Revelation only.

C: I think we can agree it really doesn’t matter.

R: It doesn’t matter.

C: …more fundamental probably because the order of the Bible, when it was put in as one book is sort of arbitrary.

R: Exactly. That’s a good point. It was totally arbitrary the way it was put in.

 An interesting thing that happened to me when I was a new Christian. I had a real good friend, Nate Parker, and he and I kind of learned together about reformed theology. We were in Hawaii at the time and we walked into a bookstore and they had a huge display about the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible. So I said, “Nate, we gotta check this out. I’ll bet you…” He laughed because he knew what I was talking about. We went running into the store and picked up one of the Bibles and flipped immediately to Revelation and guess what was not in there! This passage about not taking away from the words of this book. They took that piece out.

 (20) He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (21) The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.

 In the next couple of weeks we will do a couple weeks of review questions. If there is something that you don’t understand or weren’t here for…

 Q: When’s the final?!

(laughter)

A: I don’t know that! As soon as the trumpet sounds!

 After that, I haven’t really pinned it down with Stuart, but I think probably the 30^th, the last Sunday of the month, Stuart will start.

Q: Can you go over Daniel 9:24 real quick and give us the explanation on how this relates to the conversation we just had. It says fulfill a vision of prophecy. It’s talking about the time around Jesus’ crucifixion. What would be the argument be for, if you’re going to use that, what would be the argument against people saying ‘OK, well then after that time period we have all these books that are considered to be inspired scripture…

A: Because it’s a poor translation. Daniel 9:24 says “Seventy weeks have been (Seventy sevens actually – remember the Jews did not have a word for week, they used the word seven) So it’s Seventy sevens have been decreed for your people and your holy city, (to do either six or seven things depending on how you break them out.) to finish transgression (or rebellion), to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to complete vision and prophecy, and to anoint the holy of holies.” The word is “complete” or “fulfill.” It’s not seal up. Now who is that passage talking about? Jesus Christ. What did Jesus Christ come to do? Put an end to sin. Pay for the wicked – atonement. To fulfill vision and prophecy. The whole of the New Testament. If you read the New Testament it says that Jesus did this in order to fulfill the prophecy. So very clearly it’s talking about Jesus Christ and very clearly it’s not saying that there will not be any more prophecy or vision. But it’s saying that He came to fulfill the vision and prophecy.

C: Ironically, if you want to use the word blasphemous or heretical, that’s what’s really so difficult about this whole theological (inaudible) because I know that dispensationalists have witnessed to me that personally hate their sin, love God and yet this is a perfect example. The Bible is clearly teaching this is Jesus Christ and they teach that what the Bible says about Jesus Christ they say is a type of anti-Christ. That’s mind boggling.

Q: How do we know when we’re reading (inaudible)… Scripture… that after a certain point you’re not going to get any more?

A: I don’t think there’s a Scripture that says that. I think again, it’s the whole of the context of the Bible. What is the Old Testament? It’s purpose is to tell us what Christ was going to come and what Christ was going to do. The New Testament is a record of what He did in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

C: Paul does say if any man teaches to the contrary, let them be accursed.

R: And Hebrews 1 of course…

C: We can take things from the New Testament and accept that back then they believed it was inspired by God, it’s contrary to the Old.

R: No. There’s nothing in the New Testament contrary to the Old.

R: Hebrews 1:1 God after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, (2) in these last days has spoken to us in His Son whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. (3) And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the world of His power. So what Hebrews is telling us is that God used to speak to man in visions and prophets and many different ways. But now in these last days, He has spoken to us in a Son. So what it’s saying is that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s word. Jesus is the last word of God. There’s not going to be any more. 

Q: So essentially then the criteria for not allowing any more… the reason that, according to him, has something to do with eye witnesses? It has something to do with being there in front of Jesus?

A: I think so.

Q: You have people… they kind of say ‘God told me this’ or ‘I saw this’ or whatever.

A: And I say, if God speaks to anybody other than through His word, which is the final word, then they didn’t hear it from God.

C: They do a real good job though because they quote Scripture.

R: Absolutely! And I’m not saying they’re not Christian. I’m saying they’re confused. They’re wrongly taught. I had a pastor friend who was a charismatic who spoke in tongues. And then became reformed in his understanding of Scripture and he said “I used to speak in tongues. I don’t know where it was from. But I know it was not from God.”

Q: So how do you approach that? I have this one lady who always comes up and she gives me a hug, then she starts praying and doing all this stuff. I don’t know if I want to tell her to stop it or if I should just be nice and say OK.

C: She thinks she’s like a prophet.

R: The only thing you can do with those kinds of people, and we can talk more about it after class, is take them to the Word and show them that there is no more prophetic word from God. You’re probably not going to be able to do much about it because they respect the people who have taught them that. So that’s their belief. 

Let’s pray together.