I think it is both, really. Eschatology is primary in the sense that we are called to live with our attention focused unrivaled on the return of Christ and our readiness for that Day. But it is secondary with regard to the precise ordering of the accompanying events that surround that Day. Those signs remind us that Jesus’ coming is near, but we should not be arguing or, still less, dividing over how best to order them.

Absolutely, there are basically four distinct approaches to the book of Revelation, four systems of interpretation. Here is a brief summary definition of each.

Idealist/Symbolic/Allegorical – Revelation refers to a sort of Christian philosophy of history, a symbolic representation of general principles of God and His administration.

Preterist – All of the events of Revelation (possibly excepting the last couple of chapters) are past, and already were past by the end of the first century. They were fulfilled in and around the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thus, the suggestion is that Revelation had to be written prior to AD 70.

Historicist – Revelation lays out all of church history through the centuries in prophetic and symbolic terms. Luther, Whitefield, Wesley, and many of the Puritans believed this. We are not sure about Calvin. But the rest of these held variations of this view.

Futurist – Revelation describes events still future to us, not just future to the first century. Modified futurists would grant that larger portions of Revelation are relevant to the church age, but the focus and purpose still spotlight the future.

So, which is right? I believe each has something to add to our understanding of this unique book. A British preacher has explained this well. He said: Revelation must be interpreted in a manner consistent with other biblical prophecy. Isaiah can be used as a helpful example. It is certainly anchored in contemporary historical events which we must know about in order to understand his message (Isa.6:1) [Preterist]. It leaps forward at times to the end of the age, the final and cataclysmic Day of the Lord (Isa.13:6ff) [Futurist]. It makes explicit prophesies about things like the return from exile or the coming of Christ (Isa.7:14→Mat.1:22-25; 9:7→Luk.1:32-33) [Historicist]. And whatever part you read, you understand that he is speaking of things that are universally relevant even apart from the historical setting in which they take place (Isa.25:1-4) [Idealist]. The point is that the prophets blend and weave these different interpretive schemes together so that no one of them covers the whole book. They are all knotted together. It is as though in their prophetic consciences time collapses; they interpret all events from God’s point of view (Clements).

Our aim is not to eliminate systems. In fact, there is no way to interpret the text consistently without some system(s) emerging, clarifying, and functioning to assist our work, especially with a unique book like Revelation, so complex in its intertwining of genre—apocalyptic, prophetic, epistle, to name the main three, but also a bit of poetry, historical narrative, paraenesis (exhortation/instruction/advice). Bottom line, there are three main purposes for identifying systems in the way we have in this study.

First, we need to recognize that we have systems, we need them, and we use them all the time. We just need to be clear on which one(s) we are gravitating toward, and for what reason(s), and how we are using it/them. Which system (or combination of systems) seems to treat the text most carefully, clearly, and defensibly as God’s infallible Word, written by His appointed servant and in His appointed genre?

Second, we need to make sure the system is not getting in the way of our hearing and interpreting the text. In other words, the system needs to serve the text, not vice versa. This problem might show itself as we believe we know what a text must mean even before we determine what it actually says—some of the handlings of Rev.3:10 are a good example here; I do not believe any among the faithful in Philadelphia would have heard Jesus saying He was going to take them out of this world to keep them from the hour of trial that was coming on everyone else. I believe that reading comes from imposing a system on the text then pressing the text to agree (more on this in question 10 below).

Third, recognizing that there are different systems, identifying them, and understanding how they work is one of the greatest safeguards against misinterpreting the book of Revelation. Put differently, understanding systems helps keep us honest in our handling of God's Word, especially in portions as challenging as Revelation. How is this particular passage (e.g. Rev.3:10) understood within the different systems? What is the range of meaning it could honestly be communicating? Within this range, which interpretation(s) best fit(s) the flow of the text, the immediate and broader context, and the role this book plays in Scripture as a whole?

This description comes up again with varied wordings in Rev.3:1; 4:5; and 5:6, so, four times in the first five chapters. Personally, I have gone back and forth on whether we should understand this as referring to a high orders of angels surrounding the throne of God (Mounce 46-48; Carson 1995) or to the fullness of the Person and ministry of the Holy Spirit (Beale 1999 189; Ladd 24-25). Currently, I favor the latter, primarily due to the grouping of the seven spirits who are before the throne (Rev.1:4) with the Father (him who is and who was and who is to come [Rev.1:4]) and the Son (Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings on earth [Rev.1:5], making this a trinitarian greeting at the opening of the letter. Also, the seven spirits of God grouped with the seven torches of fire that were burning before the throne of God (Rev.4:5) seems to draw from Zec.4 where a lampstand all of gold, with… seven lamps on it… (Zec.4:2) is identified as the eyes of the Lord, which range through the whole earth (Zec.4:10), a good image of the Holy Spirit and quite similar to the description here in Rev.5:6 of the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth that are identified with the seven eyes of the Lamb [that looked] as though it had been slain. Also, this Zec.4 passage is where we read the familiar word of the Lord that came to Zerubbabel saying (6): Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts. All this makes me lean toward understanding these seven spirits as representing the Holy Spirit.

First, Ephesus is included, and that is a pretty prominent NT church. But as to the rest of the seven, John is writing from the island of Patmos just off the coast of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) and these seven churches line up according to the mail delivery route in that area. Even so, it is hard to believe their ordering is that random because there is also a chiastic structure discernible in their messages (Beale 1999 32-33). Plus, there were at least twice this number of churches in Asia Minor at the time (Wilson 256). So, I think John’s location accounts the geographic zone of the letters. The circumstances each church was facing accounts for its selection. And, as we have said elsewhere, the selection of seven likely represents Jesus’ intention to address all churches through this group.

From a 2018 report on what appears to be a reputable website, we learn that there is a small Protestant church of Muslim-background-believers in Selçuk, modern day Ephesus. There are some 500 believers scattered among twelve churches in Ismir, Smyrna, mostly from a Catholic or Orthodox background, but with a growing number of Protestants. There are a few known believers around Bergama, Pergamum, but no churches. There are no churches and no known believers in Akhisar, Thyatira, Sart, Sardis, or Alasehir, Philadelphia. And there are perhaps three or four known Muslim-background-believers in Denizli, Laodicea.

Some say this word angel, ἄγγελος, should be translated messenger, so Jesus is likely addressing the pastor of each church. I like that! But nowhere else in Scripture is this word translated that way. Others think it might refer to the messenger who delivered John’s letter to the churches, but in all the rest of the sixty-seven uses of this word in this book it refers to heavenly beings. So, it seems best to understand each of these messengers to be an angel assigned by God to each of these churches. We know that children have angels (Mat.18:10; cf. Heb.1:14), as do nations (Dan.10:13, 20; cf. 12:1). But why would God tell an angel to tell John (Rev.1:1) to tell another angel what Jesus had to say to each of these churches? I believe the answer is that, in some way which is not entirely clear, each angel represents its church as something like its heavenly counterpart (Beale 1999 217). That may sound odd, especially since there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1Ti.2:5), and He is our great high priest who always lives to make intercession for [us] (Heb.7:25). So, why would churches need a representative angel? Well, there is evidence elsewhere in Revelation of angels being identified with Christians in somewhat unusual ways. For instance, John is so impressed with the message of an angel in Rev.19:10 that he fell down at his feet to worship him, but [the angel] said to [John], “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! Even more unusual, though, is John’s description in Rev.8:1-2. At the opening of the seventh seal (Rev.8:1), he wrote (Rev.8:2-4): I saw the seven angels who stand before God, and seven trumpets were given to them. And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne, and the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel. I am guessing most of us do not picture our prayers being met at a golden altar before the throne of God by an incense-burning angel who delivers them! So, while we freely admit that there is not enough explicit information here to develop a full-blown theology of angels (Carson 1995), we do know something of their roles, as we have seen in these texts. And I believe all of this flows together to suggest that the angels of the churches are actual angels, heavenly beings so closely associated with them as their representatives in heaven that they even share accountability with the churches for their victories and struggles (Beale 1999 217).

Removing the lampstand does not equate on any level with losing one’s salvation. A bit at a time in Ephesus it appears that the people’s faith turned from trusting Christ to affirming truth, as though they were justified by sound doctrine. And that can happen to a church. But that does not mean any individual along the way was truly justified and then lost his/her salvation. It just means that, over time in this church there were fewer and fewer genuine believers until the church finally imploded, so to speak, from lack of genuine faith. I believe that is how it would have looked to an outside observer, but we can see right there in Rev.2:5 that this was actually a direct act of God’s judgment.

The only way we even know there was such a group is from their mention here in Rev.2:6 and 2:15. We know nothing more about the Nicolaitans otherwise, even from extra-biblical sources. There is a fair amount of speculation about who they may have been or what they may have believed, but nothing persuasive.

In Rev.3:10 the little Greek word ἐκ is translated from in each of our favorite translations (KJV, NASV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, YLT, and others), and here we just need to keep our eye on the ball of good biblical interpretation. Put most simply, we want to understand what Rev.3:10 is telling us. And as we are pursuing that understanding, John used this little word ἐκ which, in context, can complicate our pursuit a bit. The range of meaning for this word is summarized by Strong just as you said: out, from, away from. Louw & Nida add free from, apart from, independent of. But our question is not, what is the definition of ἐκ, but, what is Rev.3:10, which uses ἐκ, telling us? Better put, what do we believe the Philadelphians heard Jesus saying in Rev.3:10? This question is the beginning of sound biblical exegesis (pursuing the A/author’s intent and the original audience’s understanding of what he wrote). The most literal translation of Rev.3:10 is: Because thou didst keep the word of my endurance, I also will keep thee from the hour of the trial that is about to come upon all the world, to try those dwelling upon the earth (YLT). And, as I said in my sermon on this passage, I believe the best summary of what this verse means (free of systems at this point, just attempting to say what the text says, meaning, not yet attempting to interpret or apply what it says) comes from David Aune (239): I will preserve you from the time of affliction which will come upon the whole world, or, to paraphrase, the exalted Christ seems to promise that the situation of the Philadelphian Christians will not be adversely affected by the hour of tribulation that is approaching. This restatement from Aune might help us understand why each translation team favored from over out of; this is what each of those teams hears the text actually saying. Then Aune adds his summary paraphrase to clarify what it seems John meant. And we still have not yet begun to ask the ‘system question’ of whether he means the church will be removed from these circumstances or just protected from them in some other way. The original language could allow either meaning (and whichever meaning is intended, this would be the best way/word-choice to say it), but which is most likely? Which do we believe Jesus intended the Philadelphian church to hear? We could take a long time tracing out an answer to this question. And different systems would answer it differently. But from the immediate context of this letter, and of the seven letters as a unit, and from the book of Revelation as a whole, together with Jesus’ teaching on the end times (Mat.24, Mar.13, Luk.21), and that of the OT prophets, then adding in Israel's history, it seems much less likely to me that Jesus is telling the Philadelphian faithful that He will remove them from this world than that He will protect them during this coming hour of trial—they did not desert Him and He surely will not desert them as that hour arrives. We even see a model for this in Scripture, namely, Israel was kept safe during the plagues without being removed from Egypt (their deliverance came after the defeat of their/God’s enemies). Therefore, bottom line, I am not saying that ἐκ means through more than out of. I am saying that this, above, is what I believe Rev.3:10 is telling us, using ἐκ along with each of the other words in that verse. Quick illustration: if I am playing outside with my kids as storm clouds are gathering and they become concerned, I might say to them, “Let’s continue playing, I will keep you from getting caught in the rain.” If I then get them inside the house before it starts raining, I have kept my promise just as much as if I got them into the car and drove them to a place where it is not raining. In both cases I have kept them from the rain. But I believe the former (getting inside the house) is more what they understood me to be saying than the latter (I will take you away to a place where it is not raining). I also believe this is what the Philadelphians understood Jesus to be saying, namely, “I will put a roof over your heads while it is raining,” not, “I will take you away to a place where it is not raining.” And, honestly, apart from Dispensationalists needing some proof in Scripture for their postulation that Christ’s return will come in two stages (a secret rapture or ‘catching away’ of the church followed seven years later by His second coming), I do not believe Rev.3:10 would ever have been understood to be saying what they suggest, namely, that Jesus is telling the Philadelphian faithful He will remove them from this world before the coming hour of trial.

Yes, I believe in a rapture, meaning Paul’s caught up together (1Th.4:17; the Latin translation of the Greek word ἁρπάζω is raptio, from which we get rapture). I just favor the idea that the rapture is all of one piece with the second coming of Christ. Paul mentions the trumpet of God in 1Th.4:16, which I believe is the same as the last trumpet in 1Co.15:52, the loud trumpet call in Mat.24:31, and the seventh… trumpet in Rev.11:15ff. (cf. Rev.10:5-7). I see no reason to separate these into different events. Yes, we are in the tribulation now; I believe that period extends from Jesus’ ascension until His return (Mat.24:9ff.; Carson 2010 557), and I believe evil opposition, the wrath of the beast (Rev.13:5-8), will continue escalating, increasing in the frequency and intensity like birth pangs (cf. Mat.24:8), throughout this time. But I also believe that God will keep His people from feeling His wrath as it is poured out in His appointed hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, just as Jesus promises in Rev.3:10. This promise is real, unshakable, and quite comforting to His church. And it is also important to mention again here that the wrath of God fell on Jesus for all those who have trusted Him for reconciliation with God. So, there is no divine wrath left for them.

We apply this promise to the church as a whole in the same way we have done with all the other teachings and promises in these seven letters. As one commentary puts it: If the church here is taken to be typical of the body of Christ standing true to the faith, the promise seems to go beyond the Philadelphia church to all those who are believers in Christ (Walvoord & Zuck 940).

To begin, the quickest, clearest definition of repent is turn around. To repent is to reverse course. Repentance is accompanied (even facilitated) by confession of sin (cf. 1Jo.1:9), which is our agreeing with God that our direction is wrong, and that is preceded by a sense of godly grief (essentially a troubled conscience due to our sin) which Scripture says produces repentance that leads to salvation (2Co.7:9-11). This, I believe, is where we see 2Ti.2:25 come into play. Surely our salvation is a gift from God; therefore so must be the repentance that brings it about—we can barely see our sin, and so surely could not grieve over it, confess it, or turn from it apart from God’s direct enabling. Even so, the charges to repent in Scripture, and most specifically to five of the seven churches in Rev.2-3, are active verbs. Repentance is something we are charged to do, not just charged to receive. So, repentance involves an act of our wills in response to the godly grief over our sin that is awakened in our souls by the work of the Holy Spirit, a divine enabling which opens our eyes to agree with God about our sin, and so to turn away from that sin (rather than to defend it or excuse it or diminish it) and return to doing what pleases God on the other side of this course reversal. Bottom line then, first, repentance is followed by returning, so they are not the same thing. And, second, repentance itself is a God-enabled act (something we could not do without His enabling); we receive His enabling in our hearts and minds by faith and act on it by our wills to turn away from our sin and begin a new course. That is what Jesus was calling these five churches to do. His knocking at the door (Rev.3:20) is an image of His calling us to repentance, and our answering of the door would be an image of our hearing His call and responding with repentance.

In four of the five charges to repent in these seven letters (Rev.2:5, 16; 3:3, 19), the verb is singular. And the fifth (Rev.2:22) is plural only as a matter of syntax, meaning, the way the sentence is structured requires a plural verb even though individual repentance is still clearly in view (note the singular expressions in Rev.2:23c and 2:26), just as in the other four charges. So, even if the problem being addressed is characteristic of the church as a whole, Jesus' call to repentance is to be heard and responded to individually. I am actually not sure what corporate repentance would look like apart from it being the collective expressions of repentance from a significant percentage of the individual people within the church.

This is an important question that has tripped up many in their interpretation of this book, and of other biblical passages both OT and NT. Some believe that all who have been addressed in these seven letters are true believers who will arrive in heaven, but that Jesus is calling as many who will respond to live more holy and circumspect lives. Thus, they believe that the ones who conquer are a subset of all believers; these conquerors will receive greater rewards because they live more faithfully than other Christians do. To be as respectful as possible without sacrificing clarity, I would say that I see no indication in the text that this is the case. I believe the one who conquers is a blood-bought believer in Jesus who is destined for heaven and any who do not conquer are unconverted and destined for eternal judgment. I am sure that there will be some in the latter category who thought they were in the former; as Jesus said (Mat.7:21-23): Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?” And then will I declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” I believe when Jesus speaks of the one who does the will of my Father (Mat.7:21), He is referring to the one who conquers (Rev.2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21). These two are the same; both descriptions refer to genuine believers and the only alternative is to be an unbeliever. Put differently, there is no category established in Scripture of genuine believers who do not endure in faith and good works. But to the contrary, the category is clearly established of people who thought they were genuine believers just because they did good works or appreciated the gospel or enjoyed Christian people, but they never savingly believed; they never repented, turning away from their sin by faith in Jesus. Therefore, you cannot be a true Christian without being one who conquers. All Christians are conquerors. And all conquerors are Christians.

The way you have formed your question immediately strikes at the heart of any confusion on this issue in that the word wealth in Rev.5:12 is not referring to cash currency that facilitates buying power in heaven. Wealth is a single-word description of all the glories of God in heaven. Paul refers to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich (2Co.8:9). Clearly Paul is not telling the Corinthians that rich Jesus gave them His monetary wealth, leaving them rich and Him poor. He’s telling them that Jesus, the eternal Son of God, in the greatest expression of humility (Phi.2:8) and grace, set aside the glories of heaven, came to earth in human form, and took upon Himself the guilt and punishment of their sin so that they might be reconciled to God and enjoy all those glories along with Him. It is these glories that are referred to here as riches and in Rev.5:12 as wealth. Likewise in Eph.3:8, Paul wrote that, though [he was] the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ. Again, monetary wealth is not the picture here. Rather, every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places (Eph.3:1) is the picture. So, the hymn in Rev.5:12 is saying that Jesus is worthy of receiving all of the glory that due to God because of the great salvation He accomplished on the cross. In the words of George Eldon Ladd (93), commenting on this verse: All that belongs to God the Father also belongs to the Lamb because of His redemptive work.

These are indeed confusing categories. Essentially, when we die, our spirits are separated from our bodies. Our bodies go into the ground awaiting the day of resurrection, after which we will be judged (Rev.20:12; cf. 2Co.5:10), and our spirits go into the presence of God (2Co.5:8), just as we see with the martyrs under the altar (Rev.6:9-11). Our souls in heaven, then, seem to be fully conscious and aware, worshiping and engaging with God (Rev.6:10; 7:9-17), clothed in white (Rev.6:11; 7:9, 13-14), which is a metaphor describing our temporary state. We will be in this state until the day of resurrection, after which, again, we will be judged (Rev.20:12; cf. 2Co.5:10), then we will receive our new bodies (1Co.15:35-49), all believers at the same time. So, bottom line, the departed saints in heaven are longing for the day of resurrection, the redemption of our bodies (Rom.8:23), right along with the saints on earth and, indeed, with all of creation (Rom.8:22-23).

Indeed we are thinking along the same lines. In His Olivet Discourse, Jesus said regarding the accumulating signs of judgment as the end times progress, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Mat.24:34). I believe this means not only that "the last days," "the end times," began with Jesus' death/resurrection/ascension, and arguably even with His incarnation, but that all the signs which needed to take place before His return took place before that first generation passed away, climaxing in the events of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Ever since then we have just been seeing the repetition of the same sorts of signs, oscillating (but overall intensifying) in severity and frequency such that, not only that first generation of the church, but every generation since then, could rightly believe that Jesus' return is imminent. So, the focus for each generation, from the initial recipients of John's letter to the seven church (written after AD 70) right up through our day and on until that generation in whose time Jesus actually will return, is to "stay awake" (Mat.24:42-44; Mar.13:33-37). That is how we best honor this teaching in our lives. That is what we do in response to Jesus' teaching on the end times—and John's and Paul's and Peter's and Jude's, and Isaiah’s and Jeremiah’s and Ezekiel’s and Daniel’s and Zechariah’s, etc.! This teaching is intended for the encouragement of the church toward continuing on in worship, obedience, and endurance no matter how bad or hard things get in their present generation.

Most broadly, I do not believe worship in heaven ever ceases, for any reason. But I also do not believe that the silence in Revelation 8:1 necessarily impedes worship. Let me explain as I address your question more particularly. I will begin by saying that we need to be careful how we understand the ceaseless worship around the throne, not just this mysterious half-hour of silence. While it is true that the worship of God in heaven is unceasing, this does not imply that nothing else can be said or done there. For instance the four living creatures… day and night… never cease to say, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty…” (Rev.4:8). And yet, it is the four living creatures in succession that give the command to each of the four horsemen to Come! (Rev.6:1, 3, 5, 7) Likewise, the worship of the twenty-four elders has them unceasingly saying: Worthy are you, our Lord and God… (Rev.4:9-10). And yet it was one of the elders who said to John: Weep no more; behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah… (Rev.5:5). So, do the four living creatures and this particular elder stop saying one thing to say the other? Or are they perhaps supernaturally enabled to say two things at once? Obviously these questions are straining in the wrong direction. First, we have already seen that apocalyptic can mix metaphors (e.g., a Lion who is also a slain Lamb [Rev.5:5-6] or Jesus holding seven stars and also touching John, both with His right hand (and in successive verses [Rev.1:16, 17]). But also, second, we must recognize that unceasing does not always mean the same thing as incessant. My wristwatch runs unceasingly, meaning, incessantly—it runs constantly to maintain accurate time. On the other hand, my refrigerator runs unceasingly, but not incessantly—the compressor turns on and off to maintain a constant (unceasing) temperature inside. (This, by the way, is how I understand our call in 1 Thessalonians 5:17 to pray without ceasing—we pray more like a refrigerator than like a wristwatch.) So, the worship statements made by the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders, etc., might very well be unceasing without being incessant. And I believe this is as far as we can press the descriptions of worship in heaven with regard to earthy definitions and analogies. The most we can say is that the unceasing expressions of the hosts of heaven do not necessarily mean that they say or do nothing else. It means something more like, they just keep circling back to these expressions—the expressions themselves are never out of their minds. Thus, when we read that there was silence in heaven for about half an hour (Rev.8:1), I suspect that John means there was a conspicuous absence of sound and other activity for a brief time; but I doubt he meant there was some resulting absence of awe and worship during that time. The hosts of heaven may not have been speaking, but I seriously doubt that this gave any impression of silenced, or even diminished, worship. Rather, much as we can experience even in this fallen world during seasons or sessions of richly meaningful corporate worship, such times are often marked by moments of uniquely profound silence. If anything, such silence just magnifies awe and worship at those moments. And this is surely what I believe we should hear in Revelation 8:1.

This is a very good and well-formed question. In short and straight to the point, I believe the seventh trumpet announces the finish of the ultimate and final round of great tribulation, heralding the rapture/return of Christ (Mat.24:31/1Th.4:16-17/1Co.15:51-52/Rev.11:15-19) and the first resurrection (Rev.20:4, the resurrection of the the righteous to reign with Christ [cf. 1Th.4:16-17]), which then ushers in the millennium (Rev.20:1-6). The events of Revelation 12-19 are either crunched into that same time-period initiated by the seventh trumpet, or they happen prior, or they even stretch throughout the whole era of the last days as we mentioned, for instance, with regarding the first four seals (Rev.6:1-8). We see a similarly extended scene described in Rev.12:1-17. But the seventh trumpet announces the end of this present world order prior to the first resurrection and the millennial reign of Jesus on earth (Rev.20:1-6).

This is a very good question and I do understand the need for clarification. Let me answer in two parts. First, in short, surely it is true that the whole of Christ's time on earth through His ascension and seating on the throne is the basis for Satan's defeat. Surely also the imagery in Revelation 12 is intended to capture the fullness of Jesus' saving work through the birth-and-catching-away of the woman's male child together with John's explicit mention of the blood of the Lamb. But the key question is, did John intend the ascension of Jesus to be the primary meaning his reader's would hear in his mention of the birth-and-catching-away of the woman's male child? I believe the answer to this question is, no. While the ascension as the culmination and vindication of Jesus' saving work surely provides helpful context for understanding what Revelation 12 is teaching, the primary meaning we should discern from the birth-and-catching-away of the woman's male child is God's sovereignty and power to achieve His saving work through Jesus despite Satan's powerful opposition to that plan. (Similarly, God's supernatural deliverance of the woman displays His sovereignty and power to protect Christ's Bride from the powerful opposition of Satan.) And honestly, if we were reading Revelation 12 by itself (without referring to a commentary), I do not believe we would conclude that John is illustrating Jesus' ascension in v.5. I believe we would conclude that he is illustrating God's protection of Jesus as His Instrument of salvation. So, that is my intent in saying that I don't believe Revelation 12:5 is a picture of the ascension of Jesus. I am not meaning that Revelation 12:5 has nothing to do with the ascension, but that the ascension is at most standing in the background in that verse, with God's sovereign preservation of His appointed Savior and His salvation plan standing in the foreground.

Second, I have said that Revelation 12 is not an allegory not simply as my latest charge to the body not to try to tie off every sign and image in this book to some current event, or to try to put it all in chronological order. I have surely made this more general hermeneutical point several times during this series, but I am not making it again here. Rather, here I am saying that Revelation 12 is not an allegory in order to help free us from our inclination to read it that way. The two main characters are introduced as signs and are such vivid illustrations of two real entities (namely, the people of God and the enemy of God) that we are sorely tempted to read Revelation 12 as allegory. However, it is actually the absence of specific elements in this narrative that illustrate the key stages and events in Jesus' life and saving work (namely, His ministry, death, burial, and resurrection) that helps us see this is not an allegory. And it is in answer to the question, why would such elements be missing in this narrative, that we are clued in to the main point, namely, God's protection of His salvation plan (including His Son, the Savior) and His covenant people who are saved by that plan. If John were writing an allegory here, then every key element of the story would be represented by a symbolic substitute. But he has not done that. Rather, he has employed a rich and layered illustration using apocalyptic signs and symbols to drive home his important and deeply encouraging central point (the protection of His plan and His people). And in addition to this, there are other rich symbolic elements that are included (e.g., the wilderness, the river from the dragon's mouth, the earth opening, the eagle's wings) which, although each has echoes in various places in Scripture, do not tie off to particular events in the life of Israel or of the church. For these reasons, then, I do not believe Revelation 12 should be read as an allegory.

The quick answer to your question is, I believe these time-descriptions are used both literally and symbolically; that is actually what adds some layers of complexity to our understanding of them. Let me explain. To begin, three-and-a-half years—forty-two months, 1,260 days, a time, times, and half a time—is a description that first appears in Daniel 7:25 as the prophet is receiving more information about the terrifying fourth beast in his vision, the one which most immediately represented the Roman Empire. A time, times, and half a time is the language used in that verse to identify the period during which the saints shall be given into his (the fourth beast’s) hand, and he will wear [them] out. The same time period shows up again by implication two chapters later in Daniel's prophetic vision of seventy weeks of years (Dan.9:24-27). Stepped up persecution will uniquely characterize half of the final week of years (Dan.9:27), which is a three-and-a-half-year period of time. I believe Daniel’s seventieth week was ultimately describing the sacking of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in AD 70. And that event had already been “prefigured” in some notable ways with the desecration of the temple in 167 BC under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (cf. Dan.11). Most particularly to our point, though, the time periods surrounding these two massively important events (167 BC and AD 70) were each roughly three-and-a-half years. So, in this sense I believe these descriptions are pointing to a literal duration of time—three-and-a-half years, forty-two months, 1,260 days (forty-two months of thirty days each)—but I also believe they have a symbolic meaning in the sense that, as I said in my sermon on Revelation 11, by the time John was writing this apocalyptic prophecy, three-and-a-half years had become a metaphor in Israel for a season of intense suffering from persecution. And when one or another of these time-windows is referenced in this section of Revelation (cc.11-13), it is used as a description of the time during which the beast, the ultimate and final Antichrist, will be allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them (Rev.13:5-8). Now, this future time-window may surely end up being a literal three-and-a-half years once again—I would not be at all surprised if it is—but regardless, I believe the primary point John wants his readers to learn here is that this will be one final season of intense persecution under the ultimate Antichrist—one which recalls 167 BC and AD 70 but is even worse—such that his reference to forty-two months or 1,260 days or a time, and times, and half a time is not primarily telling his readers how long that future persecution will last, but what sort of persecution it will be when it comes. Thus, in this sense the symbolic meaning of these time-windows takes precedence over their literal meaning in this context, even though they may end up being true both literally and symbolically. (Just for the record, here are the passages where these time-windows appear: Dan.7:25; 9:27; 12:7; Rev.11:2, 3; 12:4, 6, 14; 13:5; cf. Luk.4:25; Jam.5:17 [1Ki.17-18]; Rev.11:11.)

Finally, you did hear me say that the tribulation should be understood as extending from Jesus' ascension to His return. Most simply, when He said in his sermon on the end times that this generation will not pass away until all these things take place (Mat.24:34), He was talking about all of the distresses He had just described (Mat.24:4-28) which are the details of the tribulation. So, those signs will surely increase in intensity and frequency until the very end, but all of them appeared before that first generation passed away. And surely by AD 70 and the destruction of the temple by Titus Vespasian, all of them had happened at least once. As I said above, I also believe that this was the time Daniel was speaking of as the seventieth week of years (Dan.9:27). That seven-year period will surely have echoes at the very end of days, as several prophets make clear, but I believe AD 70 was the targeted climax of Daniel's seventy weeks (Dan.9:24-27). And on that point, it is Interesting to note that, with all the appearances of the number seven throughout the book of Revelation, nowhere is a seven-year period of tribulation mentioned. The closest things to this that we see in the text are these various references to three-and-a-half years, a period of half that length.

The most challenging aspect of your question (for ones like us who have come from a Dispensational background) is the natural follow-up: what happens to Israel once they have trusted Christ as their promised Messiah? Answer: they become part of the church, which is Jew and Gentile together in one new man with the dividing wall of hostility that stood between them broken down in the body of Christ at the cross (Eph.2:14-16). Once they savingly believe, there is no separation between Jews and Gentiles any longer; believing Jews join in with believing Gentiles from every tribe and language and people and nation to make the one new people of God, the new covenant community, the church, ethnically disparate branches grafted into the same olive tree (Rom.11:13-24—an image of the Jewish root of the omni-ethnic new covenant community). Jews do not cease being Jewish. But they do become Christians. And the church, Jew and Gentile together in Christ, is the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham that through his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. Galatians 3:27-29, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise."

Now concerning God's promises to Israel, they are all fulfilled in Jesus (cf. Rom.15:8-12; 2Co.1:18-22), and not just spiritually but literally. In Christ, Israel will be in the land for all eternity as the people of God together with the elect from all the nations, again, in fulfillment of His promise to Abraham (Gen.12:1-3). In Christ, Israel will be under the reign of Christ, the Son of David, for all eternity, along with all those from the nations who receive Israel's Messiah by faith. How many times in the Psalms alone is it affirmed that all nations will join in worship of God through Israel's witness? One example, Psalm 67:1-3, "May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine upon us, that your way may be known on earth, your saving power among all nations. Let the peoples praise you, O God; let all the peoples praise you!"

Now concerning Israel's future salvation, it will surely happen just as Paul has written in Romans 11:25-29. When will this take place? We cannot be certain. George Ladd (and others) believe it happens in Revelation 11:1-6 with the measuring of the temple and the ministry of the two witnesses, but I am not sure I agree with that (as you heard when I preached that passage). But even if Scripture hasn't made it explicitly clear when this will happen, it has made it explicitly clear that it will happen. Ethnic Jews will embrace Christ by faith sometime during these end times, once their partial hardening by God's sovereign will has been softened. I must state again here, though, that when this happens, they will become part of the church. They will be saved into the new covenant community made up of believers from all nations; they will not remain a separated people of God distinct from the church. They will be grafted back into the one olive tree (Rom.11:13-24, on this point see especially verse 24).

Finally, concerning the great tribulation happening for the purification of Israel with believers in Christ from the nations (the church) being in heaven during that time, I have several concerns. First, there really is nothing in Revelation 4:1 to suggest that this verse is an invitation to anyone except John to come up here. Apart from looking for some place where the church is raptured prior to the return of Christ, we would never hear come up here as an invitation to the whole church. Second, if the tribulation described in Revelation is intended for the purification of the Jews, it seems odd that this letter would be addressed to seven predominantly Gentile churches in Asia (Rev.1:4). But these churches are the intended audience. Third, twice in the letters of Revelation 2-3, unbelieving Jews (who were causing problems for the churches just as they had done during Paul's ministry) are called a synagogue of Satan (Rev.2:9; 3:9). This is Israel apart from Christ, opposing the gospel. Jews who receive Christ become part of the church, the new covenant community, the one new man. And fourth, surely it is not through suffering in the tribulation that believing Israel will be purified, but through trusting in Jesus Who suffered on their behalf as their substitute sin-bearer as described in Isaiah 53, the fruit of which is seen in Ezekiel 36, Jeremiah 31, and other passages that include new covenant promises.

The questions you ask are not easy ones to answer. Since Scripture does not address either directly, we have to sort of back into an answer from the things we do know. So, let me give that a try, working on both questions at the same time. We do believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, the "rapture" passage, is speaking of the second coming of Christ. So, when that takes place we would expect all believers, both living and deceased, to be "caught up together... to meet the Lord in the air" (1Th.4:17), perhaps to "appear before [His] judgment seat" at that point (2Co.6:10), to receive their glorified bodies (1Co.15:51-52), and then to return with Him immediately to the earth to establish His thousand-year reign (Rev.20:4-6). But since the second resurrection does not happen until after the millennium, the unconverted who are alive on earth when Jesus returns will be those who continue to produce offspring throughout that time period. We recognize the strangeness of having glorified and mortal bodies present on earth at the same time, but if the aim of this age is to show the unconverted the fruit of repentance and reconciliation to God in Christ, then seeing evidence of His goodness both in His perfectly just reign and in (the beginnings of) His inheritance to the saints would offer a full and rich testimony to the glories of His salvation.

This is a good and important question. And the answer is formed most clearly, I believe, not by looking first into the text of Revelation, but by reviewing how sexual immorality is addressed in the balance of Scripture. We know, for instance, that one of only ten commandments (the seventh [Exo.20:14]) focused exclusively on forbidding sexual immorality, while anonter (the tenth [Exo.20:17) identified it as a category of illustration. We know from Jesus that the line is crossed with regard to the seventh commandment far sooner than we might imagine (lust brings guilt [Mat.5:28]). And we know from Paul that there is a uniqueness to sexual immorality in that it is not simply an offense against another person, or even against the definition and vows of marriage, but it is also an offense against the responsible handling of one's own body (1Co.6:18). And beyond all of this, we see routinely in Scripture, especially in the prophets, that sexual immorality has a metaphorical definition that stands side-by-side with its literal definition as, if possible, an even more important category. This metaphorical category, if offended, brings on guilt at the points of the first, second, and third commandments (Exo.20:3-6)—sexual immorality is a metaphor for idolatry, worshiping and serving false god, breaking covenant with God by offering our affections and allegiance to other gods, lesser gods, false gods, when those expressions are due exclusively to Him. It is this understanding, I believe—the fullness of it, both the literal and the metaphorical meanings—that has sexual immorality so present on the pages of Scripture more broadly and of Revelation more particularly. In Revelation 17-18, then, we see this subject recurring several times to convey both the moral and the spiritual corruption that characterize Babylon, the epitome of political, religious, and economic life in rebellion against God.

The description of the New Jerusalem as a whole is intended to help the reader understand “that the entire people of God redeemed throughout the ages will experience consummate security in the inviolable new creation because of God’s permanent and consummate presence there” (Beale 1999 1079). As for the twelve jewels, they recall the twelve stones on the breastpiece of the high priest (Exo.28:17-20; 39:8-14), but not exactly. Eight of the twelve are the same, but the remaining four listed here are semantic equivalents of the remaining four listed there (Beale 1999 1079). Given that the high priest’s garments were designed to reflect the tabernacle and the “breastpiece was intended to be a scaled-down version of the holy of holies”—the breastpiece being “made of the same material and formed in the same square shape” (Beale 1999 1081)—this description makes sense.

However, there is an addition observation that is too interesting not to mention and too particular to believe it is random or unintentional. When the twelve stones listed here are placed around a square in the unusual order of the points of the compass listed in Revelation 21:13 (east, north, south, west), the order is the exact reverse of the path of the sun through the twelve signs of the Zodiac (Carson 1995). Strange as this observation may sound, again, it seems almost impossible that it is merely coincidental. Thus, if we were to discern some meaning from it, perhaps we would say that what God is doing in this new heaven and new earth is the exact opposite of the pagan practices that characterize this present world.

In any case, perhaps one of these responses (or both) helps us appreciate the detailed listing of the twelve jewels in this passage.

The mention of the bright morning star is related to the other self-descriptions of Jesus given here (Rev.22:16), namely, the root and the descendent of David. Almost certainly this star image is drawn from Balaam’s final oracle in Numbers 24:15-24, most specifically Numbers 24:17. “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near: a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the forehead of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth.” This is a reference to Israel’s future hope, their promised Messiah rising up from the line of Jacob through David to defeat every enemy and reign in fulfillment of all the prophesies about Him in God’s Word.

Additionally, though, remember that this image also appeared back in Revelation 2:28. As Jesus described the reward to the one who conquers from the church in Thyatira, He said “I will give him the morning star.” Since Jesus identifies Himself by that description here, we suggested there that He may be referring to Himself as their reward, as the long-awaited fulfillment of Balaam’s prophesy. And all this does seem to fit together well. Thus, I believe this is the best way to understand the bright morning star—Jesus is Israel’s promised Messiah and the reward of all those who receive Him by faith.