Revelation chapter number four. Perhaps you've heard the term gaslighting. You've heard that term, right? Typical phrase or concept that is out there. Gaslighting is psychological manipulation that leaves the recipient questioning their feelings or their instincts, even their sanity, right? That sounds pretty insidious. That sounds very wicked, but of course it can take less severe forms. Gaslighting could also be something that is a little bit, you know, more innocuous. Maybe your friend or your spouse or your sibling is upset with you for something that you did. And if you're honest about it, it wasn't your best moment. Perhaps it was selfish on your part or maybe it was hurtful to them. But admitting it or apologizing for your actions feels like it's going to open up a whole can of worms. And so the next thing, so the thing that you decide to do is you think in your mind, if I admit to this, everything's going to be my fault, there's gonna be conflict, I'll do anything to avoid that. And so rather than getting defensive or owning something, you get offensive, you deny that it happened. You insist that you didn't say or do what the person is complaining about, even though you know that they're at least partially right. And you tell them that they're crazy. They're making it all up. You get them to question whether or not maybe they were just imagining it. Maybe it really wasn't as much your fault as it really was. Well, that's the idea of gaslighting. Gaslighting came from a 1930s stage play. called Gaslight, if you didn't know. And then they made two movies about it in the 1940s, both with the same term. And the story takes place in the 1800s, and it depicts a husband who secretly dims and brightens the indoor gas-powered lights. So they have those gas-powered lights inside the house. And so he secretly dims and brightens it. And he insists to his poor wife that she is imagining the changes. And so he's messing with her mind. And so over the course of the story, she begins to think she really is crazy. And he just helps her to realize that. He gaslights her. He brings her to that point where she literally thinks that she is crazy. And he's doing it, ultimately, by slowly and subtle ways, making something appear normal that really is not normal. You say, well, why are you talking about this, right? Good question. Am I crazy, right? Have I gone off the deep end? The book of Revelation is God helping us understand that Satan and even our sin nature has been gaslighting us. That the book of Revelation from that standpoint calls us to recognize that good is more good and evil is more evil than we ever dared to imagine. That the reality of everything being completed in Christ is actually true. And it's just the entire world and the entire world system that is trying to tell you that it is not true. And so the book of Revelation is really helpful to draw us to that point. I was originally only going to preach through the first seven, the first three chapters, the seven churches of Revelation. I thought I need a short series here. Let's just do the seven churches. And so I didn't do an introduction to Revelation because I wasn't going to preach Revelation. I was just going to do the seven churches. And then I said, you can put pressure on me if you want, which I don't know why I did that. Because then I got a ton of pressure. And I was like, well, now I really can't go back. And so now we are taking the opportunity of Revelation 4 and 5 to set the stage for the rest of Revelation to say, OK, let's Let's embrace Revelation and let's consider it. And so this is what could have been the beginning of Revelation. We're now going to embrace it here because I think it fits pretty well with Revelation 4 and 5 as well. So let's start by just asking the question, who wrote Revelation? And the answer is? Right? And we see that very clearly. That's Revelation 1 and 2. Revelation 1, 9. It says, I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. So the only real question here, there's no question that John wrote the book, the only question is what? What do you think it is? Which John? Which John? So is this really John the Apostle? Or is this a different John? Maybe this is an unknown John. Maybe this is John the Baptist. There's actually an argument to be made that it was John the Baptist. I don't think it's a good argument. But that argument is out there, right? The first John, though, that comes to our mind is John the Apostle, the one whom Jesus loved. In fact, the early church fathers believed that it was the Apostle John who wrote Revelation. There are some challenges, and so in the interest of teaching and helping us understand them. Let me just identify them very quickly as we think about that. Is it the Apostle John? The first thing that is often brought up is that the writing styles are different, which is, I think, very you know, disturbing on some level, right? Because you have the Apostle John writing the Gospel of John, and that writer writes radically different than the John that's writing Revelation, the Apocalypse. He's writing radically different. And that's kind of hard to change, isn't it? If you've ever written in a certain style and then said, I'm gonna write it in another style, you have to do it intentionally, otherwise just your normal writing style will come out, almost as if you were writing a different genre. then maybe you would write intentionally, right? And I would suggest that probably is the answer, that John was writing a biography of Jesus, the gospel, and then he was writing, in Apocalypse, the revelation of Jesus, a prophecy, and it was different. And so I would suggest that's the reason for the different writing styles, but the writing styles are indeed different. The second challenge to John is that the tone of the book seems different. Because if you think about the Gospel of John, the Gospel of John portrays Jesus as being very loving. But what does the Revelation portray Jesus as? Well, yeah, some would say loving, loving. But yet he is kind of opening up the seals, and he is pouring out his judgment, and there is a lot of death and destruction. Okay, well, we do have Jesus as a judge. But if we think about this from the Gospel standpoint, The beautiful thing about the good news is that first there's bad news, right? And the bad news is that we stand in judgment. And the good news is that Jesus took that judgment. Well, revelation is no different than that. It identifies and focuses on the judgment, whereas the gospel identifies and focuses on the love. But they really are two different emphases of the same gospel. So for me, I don't have any problem embracing John the Apostle as the author. These objections don't carry enough weight to push me differently. You will have to make your decisions about that as well. Who wrote Revelation? Second question, how should we read Revelation? This is, of course, a massive question. This is a really big deal. G.K. Chesterton said this humorously about Revelation. He said, and though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his visions, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators. There are a lot of commentaries about Revelation and it is crucial to understand what viewpoint they are approaching Revelation from. So if you would say, well, if you have one commentator writing about Revelation, it's going to be very similar to another one, right? And I would say, no. That won't be the case for any book of the Bible, but it really won't be the case for Revelation. You need to find out where they're coming from, what viewpoint they have, because how they view Revelation will radically differ their interpretation. It will make how they write the commentary quite different. There are four. views of how revelation should be understood. The first is the idealist view, the idealist view. This view It doesn't take a historical or a futuristic fulfillment, but it rather sees the entire book as this symbolic presentation of good versus evil. So it would say it's nothing about history, it's nothing about the future, really. It's more symbolic. It's a ton of symbolism. It's the ideal view, if you could view it that way. And so the symbols of Revelation are not tied to specific events. They point to themes throughout church history. The seals, the trumpets, the bowls, they would say there are no such things, those are just symbols and they really are represented through repeated events throughout human history. So the trumpets might be this at this point, they might be something else at another point, they might be something entirely different at another point. The beasts that are described in Revelation, they represent many different things but nothing in particular. So it's not like you can identify this beast is this. This viewpoint would not take revelation that way at all. This is what is often called the allegorical approach. So this is the idea that everything is an allegory. And it's like this symbol means something else. It was introduced by origin. It was made prominent by somebody everybody likes to claim, and that was Augustine. Augustine made this prominent. He believed in this view for revelation. Now, many people combine pieces of this view with their view, whatever their view is, and we'll look at more of them. But let's identify some problems with this view. The first problem with this view is Revelation chapter 1 verse 1. What does it say? The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. Well, this view has a hard time doing justice to that because it says it's all symbolic. It's not talking about anything in particular that's coming. It's talking about something that is true in general. And so it's going to have a hard time even with Revelation chapter 1 verse 1. This view also destroys a literal reading of scripture because if you're taking everything as allegory, then you can take nothing as like this is actually going to happen. It all becomes subject to something else. And that of course allows for as many interpretations as there are opinions. And if you have an opinion about this symbol, then that's as valid an interpretation as somebody else's opinion. And so it becomes very, very challenging to take this approach. So this is the idealist approach. Here's the second one. This is the historistic approach. The historistic approach, I'm saying that quite just a little bit off and it's not clicking in my mind. But yeah, say it nice and loud somebody. Historicist, there we go. Putting the emphasis on the right syllable is important. the historicist approach. The historicist views revelation, it views it as church history written in advance by John, but he's talking about the time of John until the return of Christ. And they would view it all as things that have actually occurred Okay, so you have to wrap your mind around this. So the seven churches are like seven periods in church history. By the way, classic dispensationalism would sometimes embrace this. The seven churches are seven periods in church history. In fact, I'm pretty sure this might have been taught at First Baptist at some point in our history. The seven seals, the four horsemen, they would represent the doctrine of the Roman Empire. They would, you know, the locust invasion is the rise of Islam. The beast is for sure the Roman Catholic Church and the papal system, right? And so it would view all of those things within the course of church history. And it would land there. This view has its roots in the Reformation. with many of them, maybe all of them, maybe all of them, I mean, I don't know who gets to be included in all, but many of them, right, embrace this, Whitcliffe did, Knox, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Spurgeon, they all embraced this view, even Matthew Henry. You see, you can always trust Matthew Henry's commentary. Even Matthew Henry embraced this view. And so this view has adherence of it. They point to striking historical parallels to the prophecies in Revelation. And they would say, hey, look at this. And doesn't that look like this? And it'd be like, man. And will that preach? That'll preach. That'll preach. But is that exactly what a revelation is teaching? This view also sounds, in some ways, very similar to the manner which the Old Testament prophecies laid out Daniel. you know, like where we would see it, something like that, where revelation becomes very relevant to all churches from this, or all of the church ages from this perspective. So it's like saying, hey, this particular beast is identified with this empire, and it's connecting those dots because they would believe it's already passed. Okay, so how do we, what are the problems with that? The problems are that this allows for a wide variety of interpretations. that people that follow this have a tendency to interpret the text of the context of their period. So they would look at what they're doing and they would say, well, this relates to what's happening in my period. This also focuses on the church in the West, almost to the exclusion of the church in the East. And so it would really elevate the Western church and it would ignore most of, if not everything that's happening in the Eastern church, which of course, they're not intending to do, it's just part of where their mindset is and what their, you know, where their focus is. And so this view, you know, embraces that as well. And those to whom it was written, the people in John's day, With all these things not happening, they would be almost completely lost on this because it's not talking, it's talking about very specific things that they're able, supposed to figure out, but yet they can't because they haven't occurred, if you can view it that way. So that's the second view. Here's the third view, the preterist view. The Preterist view sees Revelation as largely, it sees Revelation as largely fulfilled in actual events that have now already happened. And so they would view it, the difference between this view and the last view is the last view is all about ages and periods. This view ultimately views it as occurring. It comes from the Latin praetor, which means past. And so one school of this is called full preterism. And that sees the entire prophecy of Revelation as being fulfilled by 70 AD. Because in 70 AD you see the destruction of Jerusalem. And so they would see everything as fulfilled by them. So they would say revelation is all about everything that got fulfilled before 70 AD. That's full preterism. Partial preterism, which by the way is becoming more popular now, nowadays. Partial preterism, this is the view of like R.C. Sproul, Hank Hanegraaff, they're partial preterists. And it's more orthodox and it sees most of the book as being fulfilled before 70 A.D. except for the second coming, the final judgment, the general resurrection, the new heavens and the new earth. So they would see like all the way up to like chapter 16 usually is that they would say that all happened before 70 A.D. and they would view it that way. That's partial preterism. The great advantage to this view is that it takes quite literal the time statements of passages like chapter 1, verse 1, where he says, these things must soon take place. And partial preterism would say, well, then it's got to take place soon. And so they would say it took place before 70 AD. Except not quite everything, say the partial preterists, because the second coming is obviously still coming. Or the new heaven to new earth is still in front of us. So they would view it as partially fulfilled, but not entirely fulfilled. And there's other time statements within Revelation. Chapter 1, verse 3. Chapter 1, verse 19. Chapter 22, verse 10. All of them talk about these things must take place soon. And so it does a good job of answering that. What are some problems? It must have been written prior to AD 70. Most people who are not preterists would date the writing of the book after AD 7. And so you've got that challenge. You also have the challenge of that the seven churches do not fit a pre-AD 70 culture. So there's things that are happening in the seven churches that we just examined that don't fit. In other words, it should have sounded a little bit more like Colossians and Ephesians, those letters to the seven churches, because those would have been previous to that. So it has that challenge that's there. And then also it denies a future for national Israel as an independent people of God, a preterist that's gone. because they would completely incorporate them into the church, and they would call them all the people of God. And so that is a bit of covenant theology, that is a bit of where full and partial preterists land. And I think their biggest problem is that the decisive victory given in the last chapters was never achieved. It never occurred. We missed it somehow. Or it's entirely spiritual, but it's just not there. And that becomes a major problem for any preterist. The final view is the futurist. The futurist view sees everything beginning with chapter four, which is where we're at, conveniently enough, everything beginning with chapter four and onward, as yet to be fulfilled in our future, the future of mankind. And so futurists divide the book of Revelation into three sections based on Revelation chapter 1 verse 19. I should have put this up there, sorry. Everything beginning with chapter 4 and onward as yet to be fulfilled. So they would see chapter 1 verse 19 where it says that the book of Revelation is about what you have seen, what is now, and what will take place later. And they would say the first two chapters are about what you have seen, what is now are the seven churches, and what will take place later is everything from chapter four forward. And so they would divide it that way and they would argue that that's what's happening. Futurists argue that a consistently literal or plain interpretation is to be applied in the understanding of the book of Revelation. They argue that the elements of this teaching are found early on. So they would say the early church fathers believed this. And that is true. Clement Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, others, they all had this view. In fact, the only time that it shifted away from a futurist view was when Origen came into power, into influence. When Origen came into influence and he began to push a symbolic and idealistic and allegorical interpretation of revelation. And that's when it shifted away from a futurist interpretation. That was around 200 AD. The thing that has made the futurist position very popular are things like dispensationalism. Things like Dallas institutions, like Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, other institutions like that. They have made the futurist position very popular. Problems with it. It has no problems. No, I'm just kidding, it does. They all have problems. The futurist has to deal with the time statement. How are these things to be happening soon? If it's also future from four, but six on, how is that soon? And of course, the answer would be, well, if you're God, soon looks very different. If you are an infinite being, then soon is not the same. If you're looking at the entirety of human history, soon is relative. It is indeed relative. It's a time statement, it's relative. But that's a problem that a futurist has to deal with. A second is that this particular viewpoint is susceptible to what has been called newspaper eschatology. You can imagine what that is, right? That's eschatology being interpreted by the headlines of the day. And so then Revelation is read into each headline. It's like, look at what Israel is doing today and do you not see how this is exactly what's happening in Revelation chapter number 12? And you'd say, okay, well, couldn't it be that? Yes, but what it does is it makes it very susceptible to that because you can imagine all of that conversation that happened in 1970 and 1980 and 1990 and 2000 was all wrong. It was all bad interpretation because ultimately it didn't happen. Ultimately that didn't occur. And you say, well, somebody could just say, okay, but might it be? Well, yes, of course, that would be the way to get around it, but it does make itself susceptible to it because it's like, I'm gonna look at the headlines today and I'm gonna interpret revelation in light of it. And the problem is, well, sure, but you have to hold that pretty lightly because you might very well be wrong. That's the problem with the futurist viewpoint. Now your view, of revelation will dramatically affect how you interpret it. Can you imagine holding any of these views and then approaching the book? And that's the problem, is you have to approach it with some sort of standard. You have to approach it somehow. Now you say, well, pastor, how are you going to approach it? I am approaching it with a futurist viewpoint, which is why I put it last, right? And there are some idealistic symbolic elements that I'm going to point out very strongly that I think are there. So I would probably be technically called a futurist idealist, with futurist being. the primary focus. And that there would be some symbolic elements that are there as well. Are there commentaries like that? Yes, there are commentaries like that. Are there commentaries from each of these other viewpoints? You better believe it. And you have to, if you want to really do a good study of it, you have to understand where they're coming from. Now, you can read a commentary with an idealistic viewpoint and glean good things from it if you understand where it's coming from. You can read a commentary that's approaching it as a preterist and glean tremendous things from it. You just have to understand where they're coming from. You have to put it through the filter. And so when we consider this book, I'm approaching it that way, where we view it from a futurist standpoint. Everything from chapter six, chapter four, but chapter six moving forward is yet to come and it will be accomplished literally. But we also then have to ask the question, what is the genre of revelation? When we approach revelation, it's important to understand what genre we're talking about. Is it an epistle? Well, we just went through the epistle of Jesus Christ to the seven churches. So clearly, there is an aspect where it's an epistle. Is it a prophecy? Does it talk about things that are yet to come? I just laid out that I'm approaching it from a futurist standpoint. Yeah, clearly, I would say it's a prophecy. What is this about the fact that it calls itself an apocalypse? What is that? Is it apocalyptic literature, and how are we to understand that? So I would suggest that revelation is all three. It is an epistle, it is a prophecy, and it is an apocalypse. The apocalypse is the idea of a revelation. That's the basic concept. And who is it revealing? An apocalypse is going to reveal something. In this case, it is revealing Jesus. Jesus is the one that is being revealed. And apocalyptic literature carries a few very clear elements that are there. And so as we understand those, that helps us to interpret it properly. And so in attempting to explain this, I want to approach it this way. This is part of my reason for bringing up gaslighting. Flannery O'Connor, she was talking one time not about Revelation. But she was talking about the truth that, she was talking about a truth about Christian writers, because Flannery O'Connor's a Christian writer, and she spoke often to Christian writers. And she was talking about how Christian, about how Christian writers provide the insight we need to think rightly about our worldview. And so, It's her efforts to write accurately and insightfully and relevantly to her audience. And I think that helps us understand apocalyptic literature. So she's going to make a statement here. And what I'm saying is, what she's doing is she's saying, if you're a Christian writer, you need to think about writing in this way. And I'm saying, if we're reading apocalyptic literature, what she has to say to that topic is really important for us. So here's what she said. She astutely remarked that a Christian writer will find in modern life distortions which are repugnant to him. And his problem will be to make these appear as distortions to an audience which is used to seeing them as natural. And he may well be forced to take ever more violent means to get his vision across to this hostile audience. She goes on, you have to make your vision apparent. By shock, to the heart of hearing, you shout. And for the almost blind, you draw large and startling figures. Okay, so I know this is all very literary, but please understand what she's saying. We have grown so accustomed to life under the sun that we think that's actually how it is, but it's not. that there is an entirely different world. There is the spiritual realm. There is good and evil. And the things that we think are normal and average and just ordinary are actually infused with good and evil. And if we saw them, we would be horrified or awed. And the apocalyptic literature attempts to help us see it. Because it takes that which we have become very callous to, and it paints it in startling figures. So again, her illustration is really helpful. It's if you're showing something to somebody who's blind, you make it really big. because they can't hardly see anymore. Or if they're deaf, you shout. Now I didn't say if they talk a different language, you shout, although we do that as well. But if they're deaf, right, you shout. And that's the idea, that's what's being brought across. So think then of this book as the efforts of John, the efforts of the Holy Spirit to bring to light the offensiveness and the evil and also the glory and the beauty of things that you and I, in our natural course of life, have trivialized and minimized. In a very real sense, we have dulled all the colors that surround us. And it takes a book like Revelation to show us that the problem is actually us. That in fact, the bright colors still exist. We have just grown immune to them. You know, when I was a... Senior in high school, I got my first pair of glasses. How many of you got glasses when you were a little bit older in life, glasses or contacts? Right? And I remember having become so accustomed to my vision. And I thought, well, I should probably get glasses, because I know my vision's bad, because I can't see things that people say I should be able to see. But I really didn't think it was that bad. And I thought, I should probably get glasses, because I'm going to college, and I don't want to mess with that when I'm at college. Right? So very practical. And so I got glasses, and I remember putting those glasses on and stepping outside, and it was like the world came alive. And it wasn't that I couldn't see those things, it was just like, that grass is so green. So I can't believe it's that green. And so you just stand there looking at the grass like an idiot, right? It's like, wow, man, that's green. Anybody else have that experience? I mean, it does not be grass. But that's the idea, right? Is that we just become accustomed. In a very real sense, we've been gaslighted. I was being gaslit by my eyes. It's horrific. They were lying to me about life. Life was way better than I thought it was. And that's exactly the point. That's exactly what apocalyptic literature is supposed to do. So let's see this a little bit in action with something other than revelation. As a church, we work through Daniel. Do you remember something about Daniel 7? In Daniel 7, Daniel is given a dream by God where he saw four beasts rising out of the sea. Very apocalyptic. And later in the chapter, Daniel is given the interpretation by God, and the beasts were not literal beasts. Instead, there were four kings who rose out of the earth, very naturally, the way that kings come to power. Not out of the sea, which seems very mystical and apocalyptic and weird. And so, you know, this is a picture of those beasts, right? Daniel describes it, he gave us the word picture. Here's a picture of those beasts. None of that looks normal, right? None of those beasts look normal. And it's like, why describe them as such when later we're told who they are? Why think of Alexander the Great? What's your general impression of Alexander the Great? Good or bad? I mean, Alexander the Great, he did some amazing things, didn't he? Alexander the Great was a great general. Alexander the Great was a great leader. Alexander the Great looked very normal. If anything, we would say, you know, he was probably in the upper crust of humanity. You know, he had a lot of abilities and he did some amazing things. And yet, Daniel describes him in these kinds of terms because he is what? In God's eyes, straight up evil. And you go, I don't even, ooh, Alexander, was he that evil? And I'd say, that's the point. You think he wasn't. You think he wasn't. Because God's looking at it entirely differently. And he's saying, this is a beast that's coming out of the sea, and it's miscreated. It's just this abomination, and it shouldn't be here, because it's evil, and it's contrary to what I want. And it's like, that's the value of apocalyptic literature. The point is not entirely that we should say, oh, the leopard has four heads, and so let's try to figure out exactly what those four heads are. That's not entirely the point. That'll lead us more into that kind of realm of newspaper eschatology. The point of it, rather, is to help us understand, hey, this thing is actually evil, and it really, really is evil. That doesn't mean there aren't some connections. That doesn't mean they aren't there. Because ultimately in Daniel 7, those four beasts were literally four kings that were real. And we can look back and see them all. Of course, at the time of Daniel, when it was being told to him, they would have no idea who they were. But now we look back, and it's like, that beast was this king. That beast was this king. And it's all very clear. And so this is the idea. That is what O'Connor was talking about. Apocalyptic literature helps us see in color, even when we've lost the ability to do so on our own. And so we could say that John's apocalyptic meta-narrative It's a narrative that encompasses everything. It's a narrative that encompasses all other narratives. So John's apocalyptic metanarrative, he declares to those he's writing to what is truly happening in heaven and on earth. And it's intended to do all kinds of things for us. It's intended to shock us. It's intended to amaze us. It's intended to comfort us. It's intended to scare us. It's intended to do all kinds of things. And all of that is wrapped up in what he's doing. We aren't confined to what is empirically obvious about the earthly kingdoms, about their rule over the world. John unveils for us a divine perspective. And it tells us that from God's vantage point, earthly kingdoms are ravaging and adulterous animals. But that's how God views these earthly kingdoms. And their power comes from who? Satan. Satan. Their cities are rich and dazzling and exciting, but when we see reality from the standpoint of heaven, when we grasp an apocalyptic reality, it is evident that those cities and those kingdoms are actually prostitutes. In the words of Revelation, they're whores. And all who get into bed with them are destined for the judgment that comes to them. You say, well, pastor, you got dark real quick. And I would say, welcome to apocalyptic literature. It's intended to shock. It's intended to speak the truth in vivid colors. So the apocalyptic genre then opens up our minds to the true reality of what's going on, to this heavenly perspective, a transcendent perspective. And it shocks us back to genuine sight. And I think that's good for us. Because it's good for us to ask the question, what will it take to pry us free from this world? And when I ask this question, I'm not talking about freedom from life in this world, I'm talking about freedom from a worldly point of view. You know, what will it take to free us from this world's idolatries? What will it take to keep us from trusting in things that are no gods at all? What will make us free from the world's immoralities? What will it take to make us untouched by a lust for smut that the world pedals or that which worldies, worldlings, those who live in the world, that which they ruin their lives with? What will it take to liberate us from that kind of false perspective? The perspective that assumes there is no God, that there's no revelation of truth in the Bible, that there will be no judgment. And it's like revelation, that's what it'll take. That's what it'll take. Ultimately, it'll take us seeing God for who he is and seeing the things of the world for what they are. So that's the genre, apocalyptic. Hopefully that helps. If we approach it that way, hopefully that helps. You say, okay, why the beasts? Why everything rising out of the sea? What's the deal with that? Why is everything so weird? It's like it's intentionally weird, right? That's what it's trying to do. So what is the main point of the book? As we've already stated, if we put it in one word, the main point of the book is victory. Victory. If we put it in many words, because that's what we like to do, because many words are indeed helpful, right? You know, followers of Jesus ought to endure with confidence both present and coming distress because of the firm conviction of the victory that Jesus has already secured." Man, that is such a joy and that is the point of the book. This is the idea that it's like as a follower of Jesus, I read this and it ought to build up within me confidence for endurance, because I'm not leaving this world, because this world's all around me, because it's constantly pressing in upon me, but it's I'm looking at the victory that Jesus has done, and it gives me that freedom to say, He has settled it all. And I can look forward to it with confidence. So the temporal world of temptation, the pressure to conform to secular demands, it can be endured when we realize that God is the one who is, and who was, and who is to come. And that he is the same God who has controlled the past, and he'll control the future, and he's still in control in the present, even though it doesn't seem like he is. The judgment of the wicked, the vindication of the saints, They're important elements in apocalyptic literature. They're important elements in Revelation as well. And so light of this, this ethical mandate to persevere or overcome, it's essential. Because ultimately apocalyptic literature is ethical at heart. It's calling for a moral response and it demands faithfulness on the part of the people of God. And so a reoccurring theme that we've already seen is a theme of repentance. Turn back to the one who will provide the victory so that you can overcome. That's a reoccurring thing. So how then should we understand Revelation 4 and 5? We should understand it as an introduction. That's the first way we should understand it. It is an introduction to chapter 6 through 16. Chapter 4 and chapter 5 introduces us to the seals and the trumpets and the bowls. Just like chapter 1, verse 9 through 20, remember that vision of Jesus that was given? That was an introduction to the letters to the seven churches. chapter 2 and 3. So chapter 2 and 3 had its own introduction. That was the vision of Jesus. Here is Jesus, and then it uses pieces of that to describe the seven churches. Chapter 4 and 5 is a different vision. It's a vision of God on his throne, and then it's a vision of the slain lamb. And pieces of that are going to be used in chapter 6 all the way through chapter 16. And so the same way that chapter 1 was an introduction to 2 and 3, Chapter 4 and 5 are an introduction to 6 through 16. So we should view it as an introduction. We should also view it as a fulcrum. Chapter 4 and 5 are really the fulcrum for all of the book. Everything else that takes place in the apocalypse turns on the visions recorded here. The scene that develops in chapters 4 and 5, they remind us of the big question. Who will you worship? Which throne will you serve? And it even goes into motives, like who has the biggest heart for you? Who cares for you? God or Satan? And it explores that. Chapters 4 and 5 lays out the argument that it's God. Chapter 6 through 16 says, here's what Satan has for you. Here's how he puts you first. And many people think that Satan is a better master than Jesus. They are dead wrong. Eternally dead wrong. But yet they believe that. Chapters 4 and 5 say, let me show you God. Let me show you Jesus. Why? Because he is after your heart. He wants you to follow him. And so four and five show us the love of God and Jesus in really, really glorious terms. In some ways, we can put it this way, chapter four shows that God is great, his attributes of greatness. Chapter five shows that God is good. He will only do that which is good while he's using all of his abilities to affect creation and history. So the apocalypse begins with a vision of Jesus and then it brings us into the throne room of God so that we might marvel first and best at the sight and the glory and the power and the love of our God. And so instead of being struck with awe at the two beasts, instead of standing there with our eyes wide at the whore of Babylon, instead of being amazed at the Antichrist, We're shown the glory of God. And we're like, that's nothing compared to this. And that's the purpose of chapters 4 and 5. That's why he starts there. He says, see who God is. And so it is a fulcrum for the whole book. But then it's also a proclamation of victory. Much like the gospel, the beauty of this initial scene is that we are told that this has already occurred. The work that needs to be done has already been achieved. So we get the advantage of looking back at the cross and saying look what Jesus did and so that has changed everything. Chapters 4 and 5 does the same. That it ultimately looks at what Jesus did and he said because of this All of the things that we're going to talk about are going to be fulfilled properly and in due time. But he's really looking at the what Jesus did and say it's already accomplished. It's a proclamation of victory. It's like it's going to happen in real time and space, but it's already occurred, it's done. that God's looking at it from outside of time in that sense, and he's saying, it's finished. That's why Jesus was able to say at the cross, it's finished, it's finished. Say, what's finished? Everything, everything. He did it all, it's accomplished. And so what kind of confidence does this give us? What kind of joy, what kind of peace? Because it's already accomplished. Chapters four and five make this fundamentally true. So I started this message by discussing the topic of gaslighting. Let us use revelation for that for which it was designed. And it causes us hopefully to see the insidious effect of Satan in this world of what it has had upon us, how we think about things, what we love, what we see. And so may God help us look with wisdom and understanding at all of the things happening around us so that we can stand confidently in the victory that was achieved by our Savior. Revelation, the apocalypse, is a revelation of Jesus, the one who has finished it all.