All right, if you take your Bibles and turn with me to Revelation chapter one. Tonight, we are coming to our eighth and final in a series on eschatology. We've been doing to wrap up our study of the confession. which we began, I was looking at this the other day, we began in April of 2019 is when we started. So off and on over the last four years, we've been working on this, working through this. It's been a good journey. And I've got a couple more things that I'll be doing. I'll explain this in a bit, but on this Lord's Day, we'll actually technically bring this to an end. I'm not going to preach from the confession. I would think it would be inappropriate to preach from the confession on a Lord's Day service. I'm going to preach from 1 Thessalonians 4 on the second coming of Christ. Because when you look at the end of the confession, how's it end? It ends with us looking to the eastern sky, anticipating his coming and hastening and saying, Lord, come quickly. uh to return to your people and so it seems to be a fitting way to end uh the confession or our study of the confessions by preaching the scriptures but using the title that's the last words of the confession as the title for the sermon and then two weeks from now next week we'll have a concert prayer two weeks from now God willing, I want to do one more thing with the confession, and that is talk about what is its role in church life, in the life of our church, and so that will be the conclusion of our study. For tonight, we want to wrap up the part on eschatology, and so I want to begin by reading Revelation 1, verses 1 through 3. The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants, things which must shortly take place. And he sent and signified it by his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy and keep those things which are written in it, for the time is near. Let's pray. Our father, we would ask that the spirit of God would help us as we consider many things tonight. and pray that you'll give us illumination and clarity where perhaps there is obscurity or confusion. And certainly you will be our teacher and help us, Lord, whatever our views of the end times, to always keep our gaze fixed upon the sure hope and the certain hope of Jesus Christ returning to take us home. We ask this in Jesus name. Amen. As we have studied these things together, what I've been doing is trying to ask and answer questions. And basically, let's start off with as 12 questions has turned into 14. And we've covered those first 12 questions together. Our 12th question was, what is the relevance of the revelation to Christians today? And I took two Wednesday nights to try to answer that question tonight we're going to deal with what are the four different views of the revelation held by Orthodox Christians. And then, what is the nature of the millennium spoken of in Revelation 21 through 15 I feel quite certain that whatever view of the revelation you come up to whatever. viewpoint is there, that the things we studied in our last question are still relevant. In other words, these are things you can take away no matter what view you hold. But we want to consider what are the four different views tonight, and then try to look at something of the nature of the millennium and Revelation 20 together. And I have, I'm already certain I'm not going to answer all your questions, but at least hopefully it can give you, at least give you some direction in that basic general direction, point in a direction to go in. I'm going to end by making some book recommendations if you want to do some further reading. So the first question then for tonight is what are the four different views of the revelation that are held by Orthodox Christians? Four interpretive schools of thought that conservative Bible-believing Christians hold to are these. The first is called the futurist view. And that is the one that you are probably most familiar with and the one that you've probably been taught. Secondly is the partial preterist view. The third is the historicist view. And the fourth is known as the idealist view. And I think what you'll find is there are legitimate points that you can glean from every one of these views. And perhaps some other things that aren't as helpful, but there are legitimate things to draw from all of them. So let's work through them all. But before we do, I've told you in past lessons that our confession would exclude dispensational premillennialism and what's known as theonomic postmillennialism. But it would include things like historic premillennialism, amillennialism, and pietistic postmillennialism. In other words, you can hold any of those three views and be within the boundaries of confessional subscription. What's interesting about these four views of the revelation is that one way, shape, or form you could hold to any one of these four views and be within the boundaries, not only of the Orthodox Christian faith, but within the boundaries of our confession. For example, the dispensational premillennialists are all futurists. But dispensationalism is excluded by the confession. But what if you're an historic premillennialist? you're inside the boundaries of the confession in a historic premillennialist also holds the futurist view of the revelation. In other words, brothers who hold to all four of these different schools of interpretation can be within the boundaries of the confession, which should be an encouragement to us. So with that in view then, let's consider the futurist view. Futurist view is held by both dispensational and historic pre-millennialists, and I'm certain that you're familiar with this interpretation. Basically, futurists would interpret Revelation chapters one, two, and three as referring to the seven churches in Asia Minor that existed in the first century AD. Basically, then everything from chapters 4 through 19 for the futurist described events that are still in our future. That is, it's talking about a seven-year tribulation that hasn't happened yet. And so all that stuff is about God pouring out temporal judgments upon all the nations. It's about the rise of the Antichrist three and a half years into the tribulation and the destruction of that Antichrist at the end of the tribulation. And then Revelation 20, one through six, the premillennialist and the futurist all believe is a literal thousand year period where Christ descends from heaven, establishes an earthly rule upon the earth that lasts a thousand years. And as he does so, glorified saints live upon the earth with unregenerate sinners for that thousand year period. And then at the end, Revelation 20 verse 7 to 10 speaks of when Satan is released for a short time after the millennium is completed to wage war against the saints, but then is ultimately defeated Revelation 20 verses 11 to 15 describe the final judgment of all men before the throne of Christ. And then Revelation 21 and 22 describe the new heaven and the new earth. Now, again, another interesting point. Every single one of these views holds that Revelation 20, 11 to 15 is talking about the final judgment before the seat of Christ and that Revelation 21 and 22 are all talking about the new heaven and the earth and the age which is to come. So in other words, when it comes to those particular portions of Revelation, all four of these views are futurist in their orientation, that these are things that are yet in our future. So there's common ground here between our futurist brothers and others. Now, here's the difficulty I have personally with a futurist view. It doesn't seem to take Jesus' words that he was going to take, that these things are referring to things that are going to take place quickly or shortly to take place very seriously. In other words, how can it be 2,000 years plus and counting before these things happen? And Jesus said, these things will happen quickly. The other question mark in my mind is, what's the relevance for the church in every single age to these things if all this stuff is thrown to the future? Those would be my question marks, and what I would see as some of the weaknesses of a futurist view. With that in view, let's go to the second interpretive school, which is partial preterism. Partial preterism, if futurism throws the tribulation into our future, Then partial preterists let the pendulum swing the opposite direction and say, nope, the tribulation is in our past. I have told you before that my view of the Olivet Discourse, which is given to us in Matthew 24 and 25, Mark chapter 13 and Luke 21, that the tribulation spoken of there is the tribulation that led up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So for me, I take a partial preterist view of all the discourse. Well, obviously, partial preterists who hold a partial preterist view of Revelation believe it's talking about the same thing. That it's talking about the events that took place under Nero, the persecution that took place under Nero, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem. Partial preterists would agree that we should interpret Revelation chapters 1, 2, and 3 as referring to the seven churches in Asia Minor in the first century AD. But again, chapters 4 through 19, they believe are things that are in our past. rather than things that are in our future. And it does have the strength of certainly taking things seriously, that if the revelation was written in 64-65 AD, which is pivotal to the partial preterist understanding, then this was talking about the rise of Nero. As a matter of fact, partial preterists would describe the horrible persecution that arose under Nero, who was the sixth Caesar of Rome, basically that this is the beast of Revelation 13. And they make what I think is a fairly compelling case that the mark, the number 666, is actually a reference to Nero. Whether you're convinced of that or not, though, they see all this culminating in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem. And then partial preterists would interpret Revelation 21 through 6 differently, depending on what kind of millennial view they hold to, because you can have an all-millennialist or a pietistic post-millennialist or a theonomic post-millennialist could all hold to a partial preterist view of the Revelation. And then Revelation 27 to 10, partial preterists would view the loosing of Satan as a brief time before return of Christ, when Satan is loosed to allow him to stir up worldwide persecution against the church. And they would see in that time, the rise of the antichrist, the man of sin, and that man of sin is destroyed by the second coming of Christ. The strength of partial preterism is that it takes the words of Revelation 1.1 very seriously, that these things are to shortly take place, to soon take place. And as you might expect, there are elements of partial preterism that appeal to me. I tend to agree with the early date of authorship in the year 64 AD or 65 AD for the revelation. And I do tend to view revelation as the New Testament sequel to Daniel's prophecy. in which he repeatedly talks about four kingdoms that would rise up, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and then Rome. So I see it as something of the New Testament sequel. And I do think the beast of Rome spoken of in Revelation 13 does share a lot of things in common with Nero, certainly, among men who hold to the partial preterist view, or I should say hell because they're with the Lord, of the revelation of men like R.C. Sproul Sr. and J. Adams. Believe it or not, though, even though I hold a partial prejudice view of the Olivet discourse, I'm not completely sold on the partial prejudice view of the revelation. I'm sympathetic to it. But there are some things that I question about it, because how does it apply to the church through the ages if most everything is in the past? How do we work through those kind of questions? Leads me then to the third view. And I hope you're following this. I hope this is making some sense with the background we've given. The third view is the historicist's view. Historicist's view is if you have partial preterists going way back and saying, nope, this is something in our past, and futurists are saying, nope, this is all something in our future, the historicist believes that the revelation is chronicling the entire church age from the ascension of Christ until the second coming of Christ. In other words, that it unfolds in a way that each of the events is depicting different things that have happened over the last 2,000 years. So the historicist would look at Revelation 2 and 3, the letters to the seven churches, and see those as, while they would say, yes, these were literal churches in Asia Minor, they would also say these are symbolic of different church ages, if you will. And most would say that now we're living in the seventh church age, which is the Laodicean church. In other words, they would look around and see the widespread apathy and compromises and all that that's going on in the church today and say we're living in Laodicea. Now on that point, even though I'm not a historicist, I would have a hard time arguing with them when you look around and see where things are today. But they would see everything that way as unfolding as linear history. So for example, Revelation 13 is often interpreted as the rise of Islam. And then Revelation 17 is seen as the rise of the Roman Catholic Church. Because you have the city on seven hills, but they're not thinking of the Roman Empire in the first century. They're thinking rather of the rise of the Roman Catholic Church and that the pope is Antichrist and all that kind of thing. According to Dennis Johnson, who is a modern scholar, 18th century American minister Jonathan Edwards was a historicist and he believed that he was living between the pouring out of the sixth and the seventh bowls in the Revelation. there were a number of men who were enamored with the historicist's view. In fact, it's said that almost all of the reformers in the 16th century were historicists in the way they understood the revelation. One of the difficulties of the view, it has the benefit that obviously there's some relevance for the church in every age when you're thinking this way, The difficulty is no two historicists seem to line up the specific visions with the same exact historic events over the last 2,000 years. What Dennis Johnson says about it, though, is this. There's two things they all share in common as historicists. Quote, first, the literary sequence of visions in Revelation reflects the historical chronological sequence of the events that they signify. So in other words, this is linear history being prophesied and foretold. Second, John's visions symbolize specific identifiable historic developments. So properly interpreting revelation involves correctly correlating the visions with events that would occur centuries after John and his readers lived, end of quote. So that's the historicist view. Now, again, the historicist would have a futurist understanding of the judgment of Christ, the final judgment of Christ in Revelation 20, 11 to 15. And then they, like us, would say Revelation 21 and 22 are all about the new heaven and the new earth. So again, there's common ground here. The strength is that it does see the relevance of the revelation for every age of the church. The weakness is identifying which historic event corresponds with what vision. So that leads us to the fourth view, which is known as the idealist view, sometimes also known as the recapitulation view. This school of interpretation is advocated by William Hendrickson, G.K. Bill, and Dennis Johnson. As with the other three views, it sees Revelation 20, 11 to 15 as talking about the future judgment, Revelation 21, 22 about the new heavens and the earth. Now isn't it nice that when you're looking at the revelation, there's at least something we can all agree on and say, yep, there's some things we all agree are future. But what the idealist believes is that the cycle of events and plagues that are depicted in the revelation aren't necessarily future or past or even historic. So, so to speak, it's seven different views of the same pattern happening over and over again throughout church history. That is that when we look at all the turmoil of our culture, when we look at political upheaval and revolutions and all the things going on in the rise of dictators who persecute the church and that kind of thing, what's going on is that there's a spiritual war making itself felt in our culture. And that what the revelation is depicting is that reality that was going on in the first century AD that's going on in the 21st century AD and has been going on every time in between. And so the what it's saying is this upheaval when you see all these things happening realize it's not just men are warring with men, it's that there is a great war taking place in the heavenlies Dennis Johnson. gives a helpful description. He himself is an idealist. He says this in his book, The Triumph of the Lamb, quote, idealism sees revelation symbolism as heavily dependent on the Old Testament and expressive of the unseen spiritual warfare behind the scenes of public human history to which politics, economics, armed conflict, and organized religious structures belong. I find idealism most persuasive because idealism offers interpretations that would have been intelligible to john's first readers in their context confronted by Rome's military and economic power and the growing influence of the imperial cult, which blended religious devotion with political loyalty to the state. Yet idealism sees behind the specifics of the early church's historical and cultural context to deeper spiritual forces and trends that would long outlive and far transcend ancient Rome. Issues that confront 21st century Christians just as they confronted our first century counterparts. Now, I admittedly have a long way to go in my own understanding of the revelation. But I'll tell you where I tend to be myself. I find myself kind of a hybrid between some of the partial preterist view and the idealist view. I see some benefit in both. That being said, if you're an idealist, you see something about how the revelation applies to every era of church history, which makes you a little bit of a historicist, but you also see the reality of how it applied to the first century AD, which makes you something of a partial preterist. But you also see how it can apply to the church in the future, and that makes you something of a futurist. So it just seems to me, it's the best of all the worlds. And so that's kind of where I am. So I think idealism has a tendency to blend the strengths of the three other views together into a good whole. Well, I've just exhausted for you everything I know about the revelation, I think. And if you don't know where you stand on it, join the club. But at least that helps you understand that there are godly men, godly women, who hold different views of the revelation. But there are commonalities between them all. And we're all looking to the same glorious hope of the second coming of Christ. This leads us then to our final question. which is this, what is the nature of the millennium spoken of in Revelation 20 verses 1 through 15? And all I'm going to do is take a stab at answering this from the best that I can understand as a man who is anomalous. So let's first of all turn to Revelation 20 and actually read the text that has caused so much controversy over the centuries and try to at least think about how to approach it. Revelation 20, verse one. Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he cast him into the bottomless pit and shut him up and set a seal on him so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things, he must be released for a little while. And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until 1,000 years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such, the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with him 1,000 years. Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints in the beloved city, and fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. The devil who deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone with a beast in the false prophet ark. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged according to their works by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, and anyone not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Now, as we approach this text, there's something that we need to bear in mind, which is an interpretive principle of Holy Scripture that is recognized by every conservative Bible-believing theologian that there is. And that is that difficult or obscure passages of Scripture must be interpreted by the clearer light of plainer texts. In other words, plainer teaching texts, their clearer light has to be brought to more obscure texts, not the opposite way around. The Book of the Revelation is not written as plain historical narrative. Instead, it's known as apocalyptic literature. That's what makes interpreting the Revelation so very difficult, because it's written in symbolic, allegorical language. That is, the metaphors and the pictures we're seeing, they symbolize something. They symbolize something real, but the question is, what is it they symbolize? That's the hardship of interpreting the book. As a matter of fact, have you ever noticed that even the numbers in the book of the Revelation seem to have symbolic significance? For example, the number seven. I think I've read somewhere that the number seven is used like 52 times in the book of the Revelation. So you have seven spirits of God, seven churches, seven golden lampstands, seven stars, seven letters, seven wax and seals on a scroll, seven trumpets, seven bowls of wrath. The harlot sits on seven heels. I mean, the number seven is repeating there, and that's obviously more than coincidence. There's a reason that that's there. The number seven in Holy Scripture is a number of completion or of consummation, because God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. So the seventh is a day of completion. We talked about the last time, why are there 24 elders? There's two sets of 12. There's 12 patriarchs in the Old Testament. There's 12 apostles in the New. We have the New Jerusalem that has 12 gates and then 12 foundation stones upon which are the names of the patriarchs and the apostles. So clearly, numbers have a symbolic meaning when you come to the book of the Revelation. My point being, when the Revelation 20 speaks of 1,000 years, Are we necessarily meant to understand it in literal terms? That's a question mark that we have to raise. And this leads me to two points of application when it comes to interpreting the millennium of Revelation 20. First is this. You cannot interpret Revelation 20 in the same way that you would interpret Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Genesis 1 and 2 are set forth as historic narrative. There is absolutely nothing in Genesis 1 or in Genesis 2 that should lead us to conclude that the Spirit of God is talking about anything but six literal days of creation. That is how they're set forth. Evening and morning were the first day. Evening and morning were the second day. Even in Exodus chapter 20, the fourth commandment refers back to the six days of creation and tells us why were the Jews supposed to rest on the seventh day? Because God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. There were six little days and there was a seventh day of rest, even so the Jews were to do that. So I hold tenaciously to a six-day creation, because I believe it's very important, because it's set forth that way in historic narrative. Is Revelation 20 in the 1,000-year millennium to be interpreted in exactly the same way that Genesis 1 and 2 are? And I would suggest, no, they're not, because this is apocalyptic literature, not historical narrative like Genesis 1 and 2 are. And if you get nothing else from what I'm trying to say to you, get this, please, because this is important. Beware, because of the allegorical nature of the revelation, it is a massive mistake to force a dogmatic interpretation of a portion of the revelation onto the rest of the Bible. Because if you do, what you're going to do is you're not going to take other plain teaching texts literally. Instead, you're going to put in pauses and gaps and holes and all this kind of stuff that's just not natural to the text. It's just wrong to take a dogmatic interpretation of an obscure text and force it upon a text that speaks more plainly. Specifically, what I'm getting to is this. If you're looking for the clearest, what we call didactic teaching in all the scripture on the second coming of Christ, do you know where you should go? You shouldn't go to the revelation. You should go to first and second Thessalonians, because in those two epistles, the apostle Paul has more to say about the second coming of Christ than any other place in all the Bible. As a matter of fact, if you've ever noticed the five chapters of first Thessalonians, all of them end with a reference to the second coming of Christ. Then all of 2 Thessalonians 1, all of 2 Thessalonians 2 deal with aspects of the second coming of Christ as well in very clear, unmistakable language. I'm convinced it would be a mistake to take a dogmatic interpretation of the revelation and to force it upon Paul's writings, because if you do so, you're just going to do violence to it. And this is my beef with dispensationalists. They see pauses and gaps and holes between the 69th and the 70th week of Daniel's prophecy, where none really should exist. They tell you that there's a rapture being spoken of in 1 Thessalonians 4, but a second coming of Christ visibly in 1 Thessalonians 5. Well, again, the division is very arbitrary. So with that approach to Revelation 20, Let me just briefly remind you of the answers I gave you, and I tried to show you from the scriptures why I was giving these answers, to some of our other questions. We asked the question, how many peoples of God are there? Well, Ephesians chapter three tells us very plainly, there's just one. There's one people of God, not two. How many returns of Jesus Christ will there be? I said, my answer from what I see in scripture is one. Is the tribulation Jesus speaks of and is all the discourse a past or a future event? I'm convinced it's a past event. Is Jesus going to return 1,000 years before the last hour of the last day? Or is his second coming going to occur on the last hour of the last day of this present age? And because of just the overwhelming number of places where the scriptures say he's coming again on the last hour of the last day, I conclude that he will come at the end of this present age and will inaugurate the age to come. Therefore, how many future bodily resurrections will there be? Only one. How many future judgments will there be? Again, only one. Will humans continue to be born and to die after Jesus returns? I would say no. Can men continue to be born again once Jesus comes back? And again, I would say no, it's too late by the point he comes back. So then what is the nature of the millennium spoken of in Revelation 20, one through 15? My answer would be, it is a present event. that we are currently living in the millennium is consisting of the entire period between the ascension of Christ and a short time just before his second coming, when Satan is loose for a brief time. So let's note four key features about Revelation 20. And again, I know this isn't going to answer all your questions. In fact, I may raise more for you. But let's think about four things I think we can all agree on. Number one, whatever this millennial reign is describing, Satan is bound at the very beginning of it. That's clear. Second, the text says that the souls of the saints who had been martyred came alive and ruled and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. Now, there's two things I want you to notice about this. First of all, the text does not say that all the saints who had died are raised in this particular context. It says only those who are martyred, and actually those who are martyred in a specific way, by beheading. Those are the ones who come to life. Secondly, do you notice the text never says that these martyred saints were raised bodily at this point? John specifically says, I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for Jesus and the word of God. It doesn't say I saw their bodies. I saw their souls. What I'm getting at is I believe that what John is speaking of here is not the physical resurrection of all who've died at the end of the age. What I believe he's speaking of here is the intermediate state, that there were brothers and sisters who were losing their friends in martyrdom. And what this is meant to do is to comfort them. They are perfectly safe. Their souls are alive and reign and rule with Jesus. And at the end of the age, when Jesus comes again, he's going to raise them bodily from the dead. And we're going to be united to each other forever and a day. That would mean, then, that when he speaks of them, this first resurrection, he's contrasting it with the second death, which is hell. Those who live and reign with Christ in their souls and then are ultimately going to be raised bodily, they will not experience hell. They won't experience a second death. Now, you may struggle with, how is it that there's a spiritual resurrection here followed by a bodily resurrection? But that's not actually absent from the writings of John. Turn with me to John 5, verses 24 to 29. I want to show you something. Where Jesus himself speaks of a spiritual kind of resurrection, then follows it by speaking of the bodily resurrection of the last day. John 5, verse 24. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has everlasting life and shall not come into judgment but has passed from death to life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming and now is when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. for as the father has life in himself, so he's granted the son to have life in himself and has given him authority to execute judgment also because he's the son of man. What's being discussed here, what's being talked about here is a kind of resurrection when we go from being dead in trespasses and sins to being made alive in our souls because the spirit of God quickens us, enables us to believe on Christ. But then after speaking of this spiritual resurrection of soul, notice that Christ goes on to speak of the resurrection of the last day. Do not marvel at this for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth. Those who've done good, the resurrection of life and those who've done evil to the resurrection of condemnation. So here's the bodily resurrection and notice one general resurrection at the end of the age. where all who are in the graves hear his voice, some rise to a resurrection of life, others a resurrection of condemnation. So here in this John 5 text, Jesus refers to both a spiritual and a physical resurrection. I believe that's exactly what's going on in Revelation 20. The idea is if you have lost brothers and sisters in Christ to martyrdom, Please take comfort. They are in the presence of Christ. They're perfectly fine. They're awaiting the resurrection of the last day, and they're ruling, and they're reigning with Christ in the meantime. So third observation, then, is at the end of the 1,000 years, Satan is loose for a brief time to deceive the nations and bring persecution against God's people. I believe we can all agree on that. And fourth, all this ends with the final judgment and the inauguration of the age to come. So let me summarize that again real quickly, four things. Satan is bound at the beginning of the millennium. The spirits of those who are martyred live and reign with Jesus Christ throughout the entire duration of the millennium. Third, Satan is loose briefly at the end of the millennium. Fourth, the final judgment takes place after this and the eternal state is ushered in. Now, no matter what view you hold, surely we can agree on those four things. That being said, here's my question. Is there any other text in the New Testament that says something that's similar to that. Satan being bound, Satan being loosed, and things of that nature. The reality is there is a place that speaks like that. It's 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. That's the last place I'm going to have you turn tonight. Turn there, if you will, because I think we're going to see some things that it's amazing. It's almost uncanny how many parallels there are between 2 Thessalonians 2 and the Revelation 20. 2 Thessalonians 2. verses one through five. Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to him. So what are we talking about? He's talking about the second coming of Christ and us being caught up in the air with him. We ask you not to soon be shaken in mind or troubled either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. In other words, don't be troubled as if somehow you've missed the second coming of Christ. The resurrection is already passed. Let no one deceive you by any means, for that day will not come. And then he mentions two specific things that have to happen before Jesus comes back. Unless the falling away comes first, that's the first thing. And secondly, the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was with you, I told you these things? It seems that the church in Thessalonian had been troubled by the false teachers, Hymenaeus and Philetus, whom Paul speaks of in another place. They had said that Jesus had already come. The resurrection was a past event. In other words, they were partial preterists or full preterists living in the first century AD. They were denying the future second coming of Christ. And Paul's language here suggests that some of that doctrine had gotten to the Thessalonian church and had troubled them. because they thought somehow we've missed the Second Coming of Christ. So he writes by inspiration of the Holy Spirit to reassure them the day of Christ has not yet come. How do you know? There's two things have to take place before Jesus comes back. There's going to be a massive worldwide falling away. by many in the visible church. In other words, an apostasy that takes place among false Christians within the church, perhaps because of persecution or whatever, they fall away and prove not to be true disciples. Well, if persecution hit the church today, what will we see? We would see much of that. And this is not the only place that scripture prophesies this is going to happen. First, Timothy 4.1 says, now the spirit expressly says that in latter times, some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies and hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron. The second thing Paul says is going to happen is that this man of sin, whom he calls the son of perdition, is going to be revealed. I believe that this is talking about the final Antichrist, whom John refers to in the book of first John chapter four, which I'll quote in just a moment. But Paul says to the church, apparently in his aspiration, don't you remember that when I was with you, I told you that these things had to happen first. In other words, how could you be deceived? I warned you against this specific heresy and you fell for it. But he's telling them, remember the things I told you when I was with you. Jesus hasn't come again because the great falling away hasn't happened yet, nor has the man of sin been revealed. Well, then he goes on to elaborate a bit more beginning in verse six. And now you know what is restraining. You hear that? Something's bound, something's held back. Something is restraining that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains will do so until he's taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will consume with the breath of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan with all power signs and lying wonders and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish because they did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved. And for this reason, God will send them strong delusion that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Paul says the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. There's something already going on in the world. Satan is alive and well on planet earth. And it's obvious that deception is in every place. But something or someone is restraining some of this lawlessness so that it's not as bad as it could be. But then once he does release it, the man of sin will be revealed and things will get even more intense and persecution will increase. In other words, just before the Lord returns, this restraint will be loosened. The man of sin, the antichrist, will be revealed. Like Jesus, he claims to be God, but unlike Jesus, he's lying. He claims to be deity, God incarnate somehow. All this sounds a whole lot like what John says in 1 John 4 verse 3, when he says, and this is the spirit of antichrist, which you have heard was coming and is now already in the world. In other words, right now, there are lowercase a antichrists in the world already. There have been in every century. But the capital A Antichrist is coming just before Jesus comes back. In other words, the lowercase A Antichrist are precursors getting ready for the main event, as it were. In our study of Daniel, for those of you who were here a couple years ago when we were studying through Daniel, you remember we kept encountering what was called a little horn? Little horn would rise up from the Medo-Persians. Then a little horn would rise up from another country and all that kind of thing. In other words, there were these dictatorial military religious leaders who rose up and persecuted God's people. And scripture identifies them. For instance, one of them was Antiochus Epiphanes. Nero was another little horn. You can start multiplying them, start talking about Adolf Hitler. start talking about Joseph Stalin, different men who've raised up throughout history as Little Horns. Well, those Little Horns are Little Antichrists, and they're getting ready for the Little Big Horn, which is the final Antichrist, the capital A Antichrist. All of them are precursors to that. In other words, the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, and that there is deception going on in the world right now. But then let go of all of the restraint that's restraining them, and how bad is it going to be? Even worse, even worse. So let me put it this way. Jesus has already defeated Satan. We're not waiting for a future event. He defeated Satan upon the cross. Now, there's a lot of deception going on by Satan and his hosts in the world right now. The mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Many antichrists are right now in the world. But just think of the damage that Satan can do if he's fully unleashed, if he's not restrained to some degree. Once the devil is unleashed, men who have not loved the truth of God will be full-on deceived by him, and he will stir them up to persecute the church worldwide. That seems to be what the scriptures are teaching. Now, maybe some of you are going, wait a minute, pastor, you're telling me that Satan's restrained right now? Have you looked at the news recently? Have you looked around at our culture? Have you seen how things are in the world? I understand what you're saying. But let's put it this way. Two illustrations maybe will help. First illustration, I have been, just whatever reason lately, the bug has hit me, and I have been devouring books on World War II. starting with a book about Winston Churchill in his first year as prime minister in London called The Splendid and the Vile, just finished it recently. Very, very helpful, very good. Well, it was during his first year as prime minister that Nazi Germany began sending their bombers to drop bombs all over London. Literally thousands of tons of bombs were dropped from airplanes. Millions of dollars in property damage was inflicted. Food was in short supply. The English had to ration everything. Churchill was desperate for Franklin Roosevelt to declare war because he needed American help. He could not survive without it. But most tragically of all, throughout the bombings, thousands of innocent civilians were killed, including women and children, by what was going on in London. But as extensive as the damage was, One of the most famous German pilots, get this, this German pilot was very famous, but he loved chewing on cigars. He had a cigar going on all the time. So Hitler, Hitler, okay, you're saying Hitler would not allow him to be photographed with a cigar in his mouth, because it would be a detrimental influence upon children. Hitler was a nice guy, wasn't he? He's going to exterminate Jews and teach all kinds of ethnic genocide, but he doesn't want people to be influenced to smoke because their favorite pilot smoked cigars. But anyway, I digress. Nonetheless, this man, he lamented the fact that as much damage as their airplanes were able to do on London, their fuel capacity in their tanks was limited. So all they could do is go from Germany to London, drop their payload, and immediately they had to turn around if they want to have enough gas to get back to Nazi Germany. And he said, too bad that our fuel runs out, that we don't have bigger gas tanks or couldn't refuel in the air somehow, because then we could do even more damage. So here's a wicked man whose heart is set upon the destruction of Great Britain, but he's limited as to how much he can do. If he had a greater fuel capacity, he could have done even more, he's saying. A second analogy is one I've already used, and you'll hear all millennials using this analogy a lot. But suppose you had a metal pole that was concreted into the ground, and it had a 50-foot length of chain on that pole. And somebody took a mad, rabid dog, and they tied it to the end of that chain. There would be literally a 100-foot area you know, 50 feet on each side of that pole where you could not enter unless you wanted to get hurt because that dog could hurt you. So he's got that entire area covered. But let's say you stand 50 feet, six inches away from the pole on any side. The dog could come at you, snap at you, growl at you, bark at you as loud as it wanted to. It could foam at the mouth, but it can't touch you because the chain keeps it from going farther than it already is. But what happens if the owner suddenly unleashes the chain? And suddenly you're not safe, even if you're 51 feet away from the pole. Even so, Satan is somewhat restrained now, not completely, but to allow for the gospel to be proclaimed. That is for the gospel to spread among all nations. Don't have the time to prove it or show it here. I touched upon this in the series on all the discourse last summer, but basically one of the seven signs that is typical of the age between Christ's ascension and his coming is the fact that the gospel is being preached among all nations. But what happens when Satan's unleashed? Remember what Jesus said, work while it's day because night is coming when no man can work. Well, it seems to be what's going on here. Brothers and sisters, I've spent eight Wednesday nights trying to teach you the best I can about the subject of the end times. I truly hope you found it helpful. I hope that it at least helps you have a guideline of knowing where to go. Let me emphasize this before I make some book recommendations. If you get nothing else, Go back to the seven principles of fundamental eschatology that I taught you on the second and the third Wednesday night. If you get nothing else but that, this will have been time well spent. That there are some things that are absolutely non-negotiable that we absolutely know because the Word of God makes it clear. And the creeds and confessions of the last 2,000 years reiterate the same truths over and over and over again. The church for 2,000 years has recognized these things as absolute truth. Jesus is coming again. There's going to be a resurrection at the last day. There's going to be a judgment. There's going to be the abolition of the new heavens, or the abolition of this heaven and earth, and the creation of a new heaven and earth, which righteousness dwells. All men are going to live in either heaven or hell, body and soul, for all of eternity. These are things that are absolutely certain, because the scriptures make them so very, very clear. So let's not focus upon the secondary issues as much as we should upon the fundamentals of the gospel itself. Well, with that being said, let me read you the last paragraph of our confession to give you a foretaste of what's coming in this Lord's day, God willing. It says this in chapter 32, paragraph three. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity, so will he have the day unknown to men that they may shake off all carnal security and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come, and may ever be prepared to say, come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen. That's my sermon title for Sunday. Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen. because isn't that a wonderful way for the confession to end, pointing us to our glorious hope of the second coming of Christ. Okay, just remains for me to make some book recommendations. I've listed the books out for you. I'm gonna show you and say a few things about each one of them. Obviously, these books show some of my own bias, so just be clear about that. But as well, there are some things I disagree with in these books, and I'm advocating some of the books even that I disagree with. But it will be helpful if you're wanting to think through some things. And then we'll pause and take some questions and comments. I'm going to recommend books to you about eschatology. The very first one I'll tell you to start with is one called How Will It Really End? Eschatology for Young People by a man named Steve Daniels. Steve Daniels is a confessional reform Baptist. He goes to, I believe, a PCA church in Athens, Georgia, last I heard. I don't believe that there's a professional Baptist church near him, if I'm not mistaken. He and I have corresponded a little bit by email. But this is a wonderful introduction to end times. And what's interesting about it is he never uses terms like rapture or millennium or any of those things. He is coming from an all-millennials perspective. But what he gives you basically is just what the scriptures say. And each chapter ends with an evangelistic appeal. It's a very warmly evangelistic book. Sometimes the best way to approach a subject is by reading children's books about it. or books that are written for youth. Years ago, I got interested by reading David McCullough's book 1776 and the history of the Revolutionary War, never had read much about it. So the very first thing I did was I got a children's book, a scholastic book about the Revolutionary War, because they don't assume that you know all the terminology or all the history. Read that first, and you go, oh, OK, I'm going to learn something here. And then you can read more advanced books. This little book is a goldmine. It's very, very good stuff. And so if you're going to start reading on the subject, I would encourage you to read this because it's just giving you from the scriptures what does the Bible say about Jesus' second coming. Next book has a different cover now, but The End Times Made Simple by Sam Waldron. The cover looks more like this now. But there is no book about the end times that has been more seminal in my own thinking than this book. I got it when it first came out, which I think was 2004, 2005, somewhere in there. And no, I think it's 2003, actually, the year our church started, and devoured this book. So helpful for me to understand what the questions were. He's coming from an Amilino's perspective, but he deals with other perspectives and shows you where they're coming from and tries to open the scriptures. I found it very, very useful. So if I was going to recommend just one, this would be the one. What can be better than The End Times Made Simple, except more of The End Times Made Simple, the sequel to the first book in which he addresses some other issues that the first book doesn't cover. I don't like this one quite as much as the first one, but it is still useful and helpful. And he does follow through with some other questions that you may have. Next one, The Bible and the Future by Anthony Hokema. This is a more thorough treatment than what Waldron had done. And things that came out of this particular book, I remember not really thinking that the intermediate state was a part of eschatology. That is, where does your spirit go when you die? Never thought about that as a part of it. And he addresses things like that here. Very, very useful, very good stuff. Next one is a case for amillennialism. Understanding the End Times by Kim Brillbarger. He is, I got this, believe it or not, in a Southern Baptist bookstore many years ago. But this brother is a Presbyterian, and I believe he's at Westminster Seminary, if I'm not mistaken. But again, I found it very, very useful. Now, those are all amillennialists, so put my cards on the table. The next two are not written by amillennialists. This is written by a Pietistic Postmillennialist who is one of my two favorite authors of all time. My two favorite authors of all time are J.C. Rowell and Ian Murray. J.C. Rowell, or Ian Murray, wrote a biography seven years ago about J.C. Rowell. You know, for me, that's just a win-win. You know, my favorite author writing about my other favorite author. That's just great. But this book is called The Puritan Hope. It's put out by Banner of Truth. The subtitle is Revival in the Interpretation of Prophecy. Now, I do not hold Iain Murray's view of this future revival. And yet, I would tell you, get this book and read it. Because you don't have to hold his millennial view to profit from it. Because any book that Iain Murray writes, he's going to be just full of the gospel. And this book is no exception to that. He talks about how eschatology affected William Carey, of all people. He tells a lot about William Carey. Now, Ian Murray's a Presbyterian, William Carey was a Baptist, but he has so much rich things to say about Jonathan Edwards and about William Carey and their motivation and the things that press them on towards missions. So very, very good stuff. Here's another one that's another Pietistic Postmillennialist by Keith Matheson, Postmillennialism and Eschatology of Hope. Again, I don't agree with his perspective, but I found it a very rich and edifying read nonetheless, partly because he deals a lot with covenant theology and the implications of covenant theology, which are always edifying and encouraging. Let's put it this way. Keith Matheson is one of those guys that even if you don't disagree with him, you can't help but love the way he makes his case. And again, I found his treatment very, very helpful. Two more. These are by an all-millennialist, but it's not as all-millennialism that's the issue. This is J. Adams. This book is called The Time of the End, and the subtitle is Daniel's Prophecy Reclaimed. It's by J. Adams and Milton Fisher. The introduction, the forward, is written by R.C. Sproul Sr. When I preached through the book of Daniel, this was absolutely pure gold for me. Now, I didn't agree with every single thing that Jay Adams had to say. But I found it a very hopeful way of getting past the dispensationalism that I was taught growing up in church and really thinking through, OK, what's this have to do with these prophecies, with the book of the Revelation, and with all the discourse, and things like that? I just found him so helpful in this little book. So between this and then Del Ralph Davis's commentary on Daniel, there was a lot of good stuff to be found. And then the final one. This is Jay Adams again. Time is at hand, prophecy in the book of Revelation. He's giving a partial preterist view of the Revelation, which, as I've told you, I'm not completely convinced of. I am sympathetic to, not fully on board with. But I think he does a good job, and particularly does a good job, handling the millennium of Revelation 20 and showing how it's parallel to 2 Thessalonians 2, which I've tried to just introduce you to tonight. But I found it helpful. One of the book I don't have, I don't think I have it on your, yes, I have it on your list, but I don't have it with me because I loaned it to somebody. It's a small little book by Jay Adams called Preterism, Orthodox or Unorthodox. And that book is pure gold. It's just a short little work, maybe 70 pages long, but basically what he's dealing with is he's tackling the subject of full preterism. Jay Adams was a partial preterist, but basically he's saying partial preterism is within the boundaries of the Orthodox Christian faith. Full preterism is heresy. It's a denial of the gospel and a denial of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. If you've ever encountered a full preterist, you'll find that they are very loud about their beliefs. They'll usually self-identify within two minutes. We've literally had a couple of them walk into our church before to visit. They didn't come back very much after that, but they will self-identify within two minutes of meeting you. There tend to be a minority, but they're a very loud minority, as many minorities can be sometimes in their minority position. But it's a heresy, not a disagreement to be tolerated, but a heresy that denies the fundamentals of the faith. So that's enough certainly to keep you off the street for a while if you want to read all those things. But that's my recommendations for what they're worth.