วีดีโอ

Hi. Thanks for your comment. I want to apologize right at the beginning for what looks like a very long written response. I am just trying to be thorough and address your comment the best I know how. Regarding the amount of details in Ezekiel 38-39... I totally get what you are saying. I have heard others express the same thought. Basically, it just feels like it has to be literal. However, despite what it might feel like, there is no rule of interpretation that says that if there are more than X number of details per X number of words then it must be interpreted literally. Sometimes the details are there only so that the hearer can better get "the picture". The details themselves have no discrete meaning and do not contribute to the overall meaning beyond their utility in giving you a better view of the picture. This is the case with parables. Consider the Good Samaritan. The donkey, the bandages, Jerusalem, Jericho, the robbers, the clothing, the beating, the priest, the oil, the wine, the inn, the two denarii--in fact, each of the many details in the parable has no independent meaning and are useful only insofar as it contributes to the picture that is the basis for Jesus' teaching. This observation about details is true to a greater or lesser degree for each genre of literature that relies on figure and metaphor to communicate its message. Of course, this includes poetry, most prophecy (which is a sub-genre of poetry and is laid out as such in most Bibles), and visionary (apocalyptic) literature, such as parts of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation. Ezekiel--including specifically chapters 38-39--is considered to be apocalyptic, or, some say "proto-apocalyptic". Anyway, my point is that according to the rules for interpreting literature, the details in the Gog and Magog oracle are used to fill-in the picture, and are not included as additional items that must be explained. This, of course, is only true IF that piece of Scripture is in the apocalyptic genre. Most interpreters think it is (it has all the earmarks of an apocalyptic writing), and, I also think so. Have you listened to my teaching about the genres of the Book of Revelation and how identifying the genre helps us in interpretting the book? If you are not familiar with the subject (of genres, etc.), that teaching would probably be a good place to start. Here's the link: th-cam.com/video/Qijk73GcqBQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=kg1fv1lG-vUuvgvv

Thanks! I use a better mic for my newer videos.

Doesn’t negate the possibillity if it being Rome though.

@@MrBlockHead Thanks for commenting. Yes, in the Bible the sea represents (or at least is strongly associated with) the Gentile nations. See Daniel 7, which is the back ground for Revelation 13. I am not sure I said (or meant to say) that the sea in Revelation 13 IS Rome. What I meant to say was that the Beast in Revelation IS the fourth beast of Daniel's vision, which is Rome. The sea in its figurative use is not always a metaphor for Gentile nations, though. Sometimes the sea is associated with the wicked, even the wicked among God's own people. Isaiah 57 is addressed to the people of Judah. In vs 20 God says this about the wicked (Jews) among them: But the wicked are like the tossing sea; for it cannot be quiet, and its waters toss up mire and dirt. The raging of the sea is equated with the raging of any people (even Israel) against the Lord and His anointed (Psalm 63). The sea is also associated with death (Psalm 68:19-23, note the parallelism between vss 20, 22). There are probably other uses of "sea" that I am not remembering just now. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for writing. I agree with your comments. May the Lord bless you! Chuck

I am very happy that my comments were useful to you. Regarding commentaries, it is hard for me to narrow down just 5. In addition, I have been helped very much by other books that are not commentaries, per se. Here is a link to a handout I had of helps for a recent study in Revelation. Pages 46-50 of the handout set contain an annotated bibliography of books I have found helpful. I have highlighted in yellow the ones I found most helpful. If you were to buy two books only, I would suggest the book by Steve Gregg ("Revelation: Four Views") and also "The Last Day's According to Jesus" by RC Sproul. If you were to buy three, I would also get G. K. Beale's commentary, which, although I disagree with him at several points, is still very good. Here's the link: drive.google.com/file/d/1iHkxbSF26K0nwIv-4XgmA3tAZaNcmsv6/view?usp=drive_link

I have read Gregg’s book I’ve not read Sproul’s but I’ve read Demars last days madness and Chilton. I have Beales shorter commentary one of my friends gave me a copy. Edit: seems I have nearly everything on your list of books ahah.

@@Holestic_Honesty Good! Have you read Milton Terry's "Biblical Apocalyptics?" I think you can still get that for free as a pdf. Just google the title. The book by Albertus Pieters is also very good and may be available online. What are your top five?

@@biblematterswithchuckschussman I’ve been trying to find a book that holds that revelation is half about Jerusalem and is real and half about Rome that’s modern I think Bahnsen and Mose Stuart had this view , but wanted to find a new one with that view someone had to

@@Holestic_Honesty Doug Wilson has/had that view also, but he did not write an extensive commentary on Revelation, only a very small book. I cannot recall if I have come across anyone else who holds that understanding.

Hi, Thanks for your comment. It is good that you have been thinking about what the word "soon" and its related words mean in the Revelation. In my opinion, understanding these terms helps alot in interpreting the book. By the way, I really enjoy Neal Morse's music. (And Spock's Beard, Transatlantic, NMB, Liquid Tension Experiment, etc....). I grew up listening to progressive rock (Peter Gabriel era Genesis was/is my favorite). Take care!

Wow that’s so cool he’s my favorite Neal is the man I’ve seen him live 5 times haven’t seen him in a bit since Covid had to watch the streams but still fun.

Thanks. Did you have any thoughts about the video?

@@biblematterswithchuckschussman just wanted to share an important aspect revealed in Revelation many miss.

@@AllOtherNamesUsed Thank you. Yes, these verses are very important in identifying the City, as are 13:15, 16:3, 17:6, and 18:24 (which recalls Jesus' words at Matthew 23:35-36 and other places.)

@@biblematterswithchuckschussman good point connecting Matt 23.35-6 and verse 7 too with Rev 18.24. The woman riding the scarlet beast is also described wearing the colors of the high priestly garments described in Exodus. Today the Temple Institute and rabbis are looking for a perfect red heifer (scarlet beast?) as prescribed in Torah to prepare the way to renew the Sinai covenant (which came with the name of the Lord sealed in the forehead and hand as symbolized by the tefillin worn over these areas), the priesthood, sacrifices and temple and they expect the prophet Elijah to do this when he returns which answers to the second beast/false prophet of Rev 13, in defiance of the new covenant announced by Jeremiah.

​@@AllOtherNamesUsed Thanks again for engaging me in conversation. Respectfully, I do not think that the Bible teaches that we are to interpret the body of Revelation (chs 6:1-22:5) as predicting events in our future. Rather, I am persuaded by the time texts (Revelation 1:1, 3; 3:10, 11; 22:6, 7, 10-11, 12-13, 20), inclusio (Rev 1:1 with 22:6), and echoes of Daniel 2 (Rev 1:1 with Daniel 2:27-29, and Rev 22:6 with Daniel 2:45b --- by the way, Daniel 2:45b forms an inclusion with Daniel 2:27-29 so that the Book of Revelation is -- as to its structure and content -- a reproduction of the interpretation/content of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, which dream is repeated in Daniel 7, which brings us back to Revelation 13)--- anyway, this is a very long sentence (sorry for that). What I mean to say is that these factors, plus the recognition that the Book of Revelation is a letter (with all that that implies for the original audience and their ability to understand it)--these things persuade me that the persons/events/conditions of chapter 13 were in the near, soon, and at hand future of the original recipients. (And so they are in our past). On this understanding, Revelation 11:8 is referring to 1st c. Jerusalem and the Book of Revelation is announcing judgment on said 1st c. Jerusalem and is preparing God's 1st c. people to endure with faith the terrible times leading up to and during that horrific event. Evidence for the entire book being a letter (one letter) comes from comparing the way that the book opens and closes (1:1-4, 11 and 22:21) with the standard way that NT letters open and close. This comparison reveals that there is no difference -- so the Revelation is a letter. Now what is the implication if Revelation is a letter? One implication is that the original readers were meant to understand and apply the contents of the letter. That this is the case can be seen by spending a few minutes thinking about what Jesus is asking his 1st c. readers to do when He tells them they are blessed for hearing and keeping His words (1:3). This blessing/command is repeated in 22:7 indicating that they were to understand and apply the entire Revelation. For confirmation that the "keep" Jesus' words = to understand them see John 14:23-24. There are other reasons that contribute to my present understanding, but this should do to give you an idea of where I am coming from, and why. I am happy to discuss these things with you, but you might also want to know that I go over much of this in the earliest videos in this series. In fact, I think the first two are about Revelation being a letter, apocalypse, and prophecy and what those things imply as to how we are to read it. God bless you. In Christ, Chuck

Hello Just from Catholic, Thank you for your comments, and thank you for reminding me of John 5:29. I read over your comments more than once. I am pleased that you ground your thoughts in Scripture. I don't want to misunderstand you, so could you perhaps clarify this statement: "Scripture says that through Christ we are made righteous (Rom. 5:19). Righteousness may come through faith in Christ or God because faith is counted as righteousness (Rom. 4:3) and through doing what is right as Scripture says in 1 John 3:7 " he who does what is right is righteous"." In particular, I am asking about the word "and" (after your reference to Rom. 4:3). Would it be correct to say that on your understanding the sinner is made righteous by the work of Christ plus our own works done by His grace? If that is your understanding, then it would appear to me that we (you and I) don't hold the same view of justification (where the sinner is declared righteous based on the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to him). However, if we are talking about the biblical teaching that those who are justified must live holy and sanctified lives (or else it is made clear that they are justified in name only, but not in fact), --if we are talking about that, then I, as a Protestant, would agree with you that such subjective righteousness is essential for salvation. (Salvation being understood here as being the pronouncement of God that comes at the end of one's life, or at the judgment, wherein He publicly names His own on the basis of their transformed life in and through Christ.) I appreciate your input and your willingness to have a dialogue with me about this. I am also curious about your thoughts as to whether, in the video, I fairly and graciously represented the Roman Catholic position. That was my intention. God bless you. -Chuck

@@biblematterswithchuckschussman You neither caricatured what Catholics believe nor explicitly explained what we believe. That is my opinion on your video. As far as I know, according to the Reformers, through faith (alone) in Christ we are NOT made righteous, but only (legally) counted as righteous based on alien/external righteousness of Christ imputed on or credited to Christ. At the same time your sins, past and future, are imputed on or credited to Christ, who bore them on the cross. Following the Reformers justification is instantaneous and is by faith alone. Sanctification, through which we are made righteous, inevitably follows justification but it is never perfected in our life. This means we may still die with sins, but it will not affect our salvation - they are imputed on or credited to Christ. Catholics understand justification as a process through which we are made righteous through Christ (Rom. 5:19). It starts with faith and include sanctification. I already explained that according to Scripture we lose righteousness through sinning (Ezek. 33:12). Our sins are neither imputed on nor credited to Christ, but they must be forgiven, after we repent. God sanctifies us wholly (1 Thes. 5:23). According to Scripture there are deadly and non-deadly sins (1 John 5:16-17). We enter heaven when we die in righteous state, that is, free from un-repented deadly sin. It neither depends on how many good works nor on how many sins we commit through out our life (Ezek. 33:18-19). We will be judged when we die (Heb. 9:27). If we die in righteous state, then we are declared righteous in true sense, because we are indeed (made) righteous through Christ. In contrast, according to the Reformers, when we die God declared righteous based on external righteousness of Christ imputed on us, while we may not be righteous.