The Key to Revelation Has Been in Your Bible the Whole Time w/ Dr. Greg Beale

Johnny Ova: Welcome everybody to the Dig In Podcast. I am your host, Pastor Johnny Ova, and today we're going to talk about one of my favorite topics, the Book of Revelation. For that, I have Dr. Gregory Beale with us today. Dr. Beale, thank you so much for your time. I'm looking forward to our conversation.

Dr. Greg Beale: Good to be here.

Johnny Ova: My first question: what first pulled you into studying the relationship between the Old Testament and Revelation? What gripped you about that?

Dr. Greg Beale: When I was in seminary, I took a class on the use of the Old Testament in the New, and after that I did some independent studies, mainly on the use of the Old in the New in Paul and Romans. When I decided to do doctoral work overseas, I asked the professor who had taught that class, I want to do a dissertation on the use of the Old in the New. What book needs the most work? And to my consternation and dismay, he said the book of Revelation. I had no desire. I hadn't studied the book of Revelation much. I didn't even know if the trumpets preceded the seals or if the bowls came before the seals. I had no sense of the structure of Revelation or anything. But I did want to make a contribution, so I decided to do the use of the Old Testament in Revelation. That's how it all started.

Johnny Ova: So he gave you the easy book. You asked what book needs work.

Dr. Greg Beale: He gave me the easy book. And it's a little interesting, because there have been some spinoffs of other books out of my Revelation commentary.

Johnny Ova: Very cool. One thing that intrigued me, because I'm a big student of the book of Revelation myself: you pointed out that nearly every verse in Revelation echoes something from Israel's Scriptures. For someone who has always read Revelation as a standalone book, why is that such a game-changing realization?

Dr. Greg Beale: It is game-changing, because it's kind of ridiculous to even say interpreting the book of Revelation is difficult. The reason it's difficult is that people bring their own views to the book and sometimes read them in. Everybody does that to one degree or another, whether you take it as totally futuristic, or some do the opposite and take it as totally already fulfilled, or some say it's about the church age leading on into the future. So there are a couple of controls we need. If you can get some controls, what I call hermeneutical ground beneath your feet. Maybe another image is this. The book of Revelation is an apocalyptic sea. And there are some sandbars though that you can, if you find them, you can stand upon them and your head is above the water, and you can begin to get the lay of the land. Old Testament references are one of those sandbars, because you can go back to the Old Testament, see what it's talking about, and then come back and say, does that help me understand this passage? In some cases it's still difficult, but in a number of other cases it's very helpful.

Dr. Greg Beale: The other sandbar to stand on is that John, and it happens in other books too, but it really happens in Revelation, will have a phrase and then expand on that same phrase later, and expand further on it later still. Sometimes he interprets it earlier and then later he doesn't. A lot of people try to give all kinds of wild explanations, but basically the best explanation is the one he's already given. So let's let Revelation interpret itself. If you can find a clear passage earlier and a parallel later that isn't as clear, let the clear interpret the unclear. That's a very simple biblical concept, but it's very important. And it's not just the Old Testament in Revelation. The Gospels are used in the book of Revelation too. So it's the same thing: go back to the allusion in the Gospels, see what Jesus is saying, bring it over and try to understand. Revelation is very hard. You get drowned by the apocalyptic waters. So you get those two sandbars: let the clear explain the unclear within Revelation's parallels, and let the Old Testament allusions give you some grounding. It doesn't always clear things up, but I can't put a scientific percentage on it, I'd say a good 75 percent of the time it helps.

Johnny Ova: That was one thing that really stood out to me in studying the book of Revelation, and you said it 100 percent right: let the Scriptures define what the Scriptures mean, and don't bring our own interpretations there. I stand more on a historical basis with the book of Revelation, obviously, just like any other book of the Bible, with application to us in multiple ways in what God is saying and doing. I'm excited to sit on some of those sandbars in a bit. One thing I thought was fascinating, though: John never formally quotes the Old Testament in Revelation, yet I know the entire book is woven with it. How would you describe what John is actually doing with the Old Testament here? It seems like his audience would have known how to connect those dots.

Dr. Greg Beale: That's a discussion in and of itself, because you would probably have three audiences. As in the book of Acts, when Paul established a church, a remnant of Jews would have been converted, more God-fearers, Gentiles associated with the synagogue, and then the majority of the church would have been recently converted Gentiles. So how are Gentiles going to understand the Old Testament? John sounds like the worst communicator in the world, using the Old Testament with people who don't know anything about it. Well, first, there would be different levels of understanding. The Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles would have understood to a significant degree. Then, under discipleship, hearing the letter reread, the Gentiles would come to understand. That's what we call discipleship. 1 Timothy and the Pastoral Epistles talk about discipleship based on the word of God from the Old Testament as it's fulfilled in the New. John says in chapter 1, verse 3, blessed is the one who reads and those who hear the words. I don't think John is saying it's going to be read once and you'll never hear it again. We know from the early church that these things would be reread. So first, there would be levels of understanding.

Dr. Greg Beale: Second, what is John doing? The irony is that there are fewer quotations, as you said, fewer in Revelation than in any other book. It's got fewer Old Testament quotations, but it has more Old Testament in it than any other book. That's a little ironic, but it makes sense, because he's trying to cram two or three allusions into one verse. You can't quote at that point. You just pull snippets out and put them together. So I think he's putting together a mosaic of the Old Testament, showing how many of these prophecies have been fulfilled in Christ and in the church. That's the general idea. One example is chapters 4 and 5, which I think are modeled on Daniel 7:9 and following, about the Son of Man having authority and ruling over nations. There's a myriad of allusions to Daniel 7 in chapters 4 and 5. I think that's the model through which John understands Christ's work: becoming worthy, receiving the book, having been slain, overcoming, having been raised from the dead. He's beginning to fulfill the Son of Man prophecies. But within those two chapters you have many allusions to Ezekiel, Isaiah and other passages. What's going on? John is doing what we call biblical theology. He has the model of Daniel 7, but he's interpreting it, expanding and amplifying it by pulling in parallel passages, conceptually and especially verbally. So he's showing us how to do biblical theology, and I think a lot of biblical theology is the Old in the New, when you think about it.

Johnny Ova: Interesting. I know your PhD at Cambridge focused a lot on Daniel and Revelation, and we just touched on Daniel. How does Daniel serve as a blueprint for the Apocalypse? What are some of the connections?

Dr. Greg Beale: There's obviously a lot written on Daniel, but first, there are whole chapters based on Daniel. Like I just mentioned, Revelation 4 and 5 as a unit. Chapter 13 is saturated with Daniel 7 allusions again, and Daniel 7 should likely be understood as the model for chapter 13. Chapter 17 again is completely immersed in Old Testament allusion. So those are at least three chapters. Then chapter 1, verse 1 gives us the name of the book: the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must come to pass quickly, and he sent his angel and signified it to his servant John. That first verse is saturated with Daniel. There's the phrase "must come to pass," in Greek ha dei genesthai, together with the word signify. Many translations render it differently, but signify is likely the best translation. Put that together with the word revelation, apokalypsis, and the word show, and that word combination occurs only in Daniel 2. There you get that unique word for signify, semaino, you get the phrase "what must come to pass" repeatedly, and of course you get the verb form of apokalypsis, apokalypto.

Dr. Greg Beale: What am I saying? It's so saturated with words from Daniel that it's an allusion. How do you know it's an allusion? Unique words found only in one passage of the New and one of the Old. So that text is telling us the theme of the book of Revelation, probably the kingdom, because that's what Daniel 2 is about: God setting up his eternal kingdom. Remember, it was also a mystery, and John uses mystery at the end of the chapter. So first, it sets out the theme of the kingdom. The kingdom is beginning, and there's much more to come. Then at the end of chapter 1 you again get the same phrase from Daniel 2:28. He says, write what you've seen, and what is, and what must come to pass after these things. "What must come to pass after these things" is right out of Daniel 2 as well. So that bookends chapter 1. Then chapter 4, verse 1, which really introduces the whole visionary part of the book, ends with the angel saying, I will show you what must come to pass after these things. The same allusion. And how does the book conclude in chapter 22? The epilogue is introduced in 22:6 with this: God sent his angel to show to his bond-servants what must come to pass shortly. A complete verbal repetition of chapter 1, verse 1.

Dr. Greg Beale: So you really have a bookend for the whole book, a bookend for chapter 1, and 4:1 uses the same Daniel 2 allusion to introduce the visions. Now it says shortly, so some ask, what does shortly mean? Those who think the book is only about the future say shortly means quickly. The word is tachos, where we get the word tachometer, measuring speed. So some think it means when this takes place, it will take place quickly, speedily. But often the word is temporal, and here it has to be temporal. Why? Because in Daniel 2 it's what must take place after these things, or in the latter days. It's a temporal phrase. So John is saying that what Daniel prophesied would take place far off, in the latter days after the things of Nebuchadnezzar, and he replaces that with quickly. I don't think he's just saying it's about to take place now. He is saying that, but I think he's saying it's just beginning. It's on the verge of beginning. It would be as if, let's hope this doesn't happen, the Chinese attacked America and their troops began to land on the coast of California. People on the East Coast would say, the Chinese are near. Does that mean they're not here yet? Well, they are, but it's just beginning.

Dr. Greg Beale: I think that's the meaning, because later, in verse 3, it uses a synonym: the time is near. When that word is used, whether the verb engizo or engys, in the Gospels, Jesus will say, for example, the kingdom of God is near, and in context it's beginning. So I think "quickly" actually carries the idea of something barely beginning, with much more to unfold. That's a long explanation of how Daniel bookends the first chapter, bookends the whole book, and introduces the visionary part of the book in chapter 4, verse 1. So this theme of the kingdom is huge, and I think it has to do with the already and not yet kingdom. And what does that mean? Christ's death and resurrection are the focus of that.

Johnny Ova: That's a great picture of how Revelation ties to Daniel. You explained that very well. So many books bounce back and forth with Revelation. The next one I wanted to bring up is Exodus, which also seems to be everywhere in Revelation. You've got the plagues, deliverance, the song of victory. How is John using the Exodus story to frame what God is accomplishing through Christ?

Dr. Greg Beale: First of all, the Lamb slain in chapter 5, verse 6 goes back to the slain lamb of Isaiah 53, which ultimately in the Old Testament goes back to the Exodus and the Passover lamb. So you have a bit of an Exodus motif there: his slaying has to do with the beginning of an Exodus for God's people. But a lot of the way it's used is that the final Exodus of God's people won't take place until the final resurrection, when we actually do pass out of Egypt, this old world, and into the new heavens and earth, which is the Canaan, the promised land, of the new heavens and earth. Those are a couple of comments. It's already, but it is not yet. I don't know if you want to ask more about specific passages, but that's my general approach to the Exodus. It's the model for the bowls and the trumpets. I take it that the bowls and the trumpets take place over the church age, but the last couple in each series are about what leads up to or occurs right at the judgment. I do think you have to take those figuratively, but they're descriptions, and this relates to the Exodus, of God's people going through something now that leads up to an Exodus, just as the plagues led up to the Exodus.

Johnny Ova: I just wanted a good general overview, which you definitely gave, to set some of the themes. The next one is about symbolism. When I first started studying Revelation many years ago now, I did not realize how many connections there were to the Old Testament, especially in the imagery. When we start reading Revelation through that Old Testament lens, how does it change what we understand about some of the most debated symbols? I know this could be a very long answer, but one example would be great, like the beast, or Babylon, or 666.

Dr. Greg Beale: I'm going to begin by doing something maybe I shouldn't, but I've just co-edited a book called the Connecting Scripture Study Bible, on the New Testament. The quotations are always easy to see in the New Testament. They're in bold or in caps. But the allusions? You look at the margin, and there are a lot of Old Testament references in Greek texts and even English ones. Are these general parallels? Are they conscious allusions? What are they? So my colleague especially, and I've helped a little, has gone through and validated which of the references in the margins are allusions. We put the wording in the body of the text in green, the reference in the margin in green, and then discuss it at the bottom. When you turn to the book of Revelation, it lights up like a Christmas tree.

Johnny Ova: That's great. Is it out yet? Is it available?

Dr. Greg Beale: It's out. We've already sold out the first printing, and there will be a second printing. It's Broadman and Holman, called the Connecting Scripture Study Bible.

Johnny Ova: We'll make sure to put a link in our description.

Dr. Greg Beale: Let me show you an example. It may not show very well, but here's chapter 13, where my finger is. Can you see the green font? All that green font, those are allusions. Can you believe that? It's already helped me. I think it helps students, and it can help pastors. But think about it: for the first time, the regular reader of the Bible, if they can get this book in their hands, can see intentional allusions in the body of the text. In other words, they're seeing redemptive-historically how the author is placing his book and his chapter in connection with previous Scripture and redemptive history. That's why I'm almost more excited about this project than many I've done, because of its practical effect. Anyway, I wanted to bring that up. So you had a question about interpretive debates over some of the symbols.

Johnny Ova: Right. How does reading Revelation through the Old Testament lens change how we understand some of the most debated symbols, like the beast, or Babylon, or the number 666, the mark of the beast?

Dr. Greg Beale: I'll take Babylon, for example. It's very important, because Babylon is certainly based on the old, geographically located Babylon, where God's people were in exile, persecuted and tempted, and they had to persevere through that. Now, in chapter 17, verses 1 through 3, for example, John says he saw Babylon in a wilderness. And it becomes very clear that she's sitting on many waters as well, ironically, and the waters are later interpreted as peoples and tongues and nations. In other words, it's not just a woman on some kind of inner tube floating on the water. This is an image of Babylon ruling over the world. This is a worldwide regime, not just one nation that was a major kingdom in the ancient world. It's the whole world, a world system. And yet what that old local system was about carries over. It's a place of exile. It's a wilderness for God's people. It's a place of temptation, testing and persecution. So Babylon the Great really is the world system of testing and persecution, a cultural system of worldliness, in league with the political system as well, as we know from chapter 17. Then the political system turns on the cultural system and destroys Babylon.

Dr. Greg Beale: That's why chapter 18, verse 4 says, come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive her plagues. The second half of chapter 17 and all of chapter 18 are about the destruction of Babylon, but God's people are to come out of her. Just as in 2 Corinthians 6, Paul tells the Corinthian Christians, come out, come out, which refers back to Israel, who was to come out of Babylon. So wherever you are in the world, it's Babylon. Babylon has been widened to the whole earth, and that wilderness of Babylon has been widened to the whole earth. So we are in an Exodus. Through Christ's death and resurrection, we've come out of Babylon, but we are still in Babylon. It's the old phrase: we're in the world, but we're not to be of the world. As we persevere through the wilderness, eventually we'll come to the promised land, which is what Revelation 21:1 all the way to 22:5 is about: the new heavens and earth, pictured as a garden, a city, a temple, intriguingly, and a new creation. They're all overlapping images of the same thing. So that's Babylon. Now, if you want to talk about the beast.

Johnny Ova: Yeah, let's crack open the beast.

Dr. Greg Beale: There are a couple of things to say about the beast where the Old Testament really helps, regardless of your view of Revelation, whether completely past, completely future or present. Chapter 13, verse 2 says the beast was like a leopard, his feet were like those of a bear, his mouth like the mouth of a lion, and he had great authority. Those three images, leopard, bear and lion, come out of Daniel 7. But this beast is also more horrific, like the fourth beast of Daniel 7, which isn't named, so it isn't named here either. So it takes the beasts of Daniel 7 and condenses them into this one beast, because the one beast is like the four beasts of Daniel 7. The first thing we know, and it's very clear from Daniel 7, is that those beasts represent nations that persecuted God's people. So we can say the beast represents the state, the persecuting state. That's one thing the Old Testament helps us with. There may be a second thing. Each of those four kingdoms lasted hundreds of years. Could it also be that all four beastly figures are compacted into one because this is a transtemporal beast? All those hundreds of years of different beasts condensed into one to show it's not a beast of just one time, past, present or future, but a beast that's always popping up its head. That's a little more speculative, but it still makes sense and may be another implication of the Daniel 7 background.

Dr. Greg Beale: Now, as to whether the beast is a literal human, like Nero in the past, or something like John F. Kennedy risen from the dead with the wound in his head in the future, there are billions of examples of literal antichrists to come. The end of chapter 13 says, let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man, and his number is 666. First of all, that number is significant. One of John's favorite numbers is seven. There are seven plagues, seven spirits of God, and we can go on. Seven is the number of completeness, and 666 is the number of incompleteness. So whatever this beast is about, he's someone who never reaches completeness. That could only be true in Christ. Is this number a literal number? I've already interpreted it figuratively. But is it a number that can be put on our hand or forehead? There are a lot of interpretations, that it's going to be applied to barcodes, and all kinds of theories about 666. I don't think it's a literal number, not only because of its contrast with the many sevens throughout the book, but also because of the very next verse, chapter 14, verse 1.

Dr. Greg Beale: Verse 18 is the last verse of chapter 13, where it says 666. Then chapter 14 says, and I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads. The name of the beast was also written on the hand and on the forehead. So now we have a name on the forehead, and they're so close together here that it's highly probable they're related. And it's very clear that the name of the Father and of Christ written on the foreheads of the people standing before them isn't literal. It's not like they have a tattoo or something. That would be very weird. What it means is that they're in the presence of God and taking on his character. To put a name on someone is to show sovereignty over them, to show you're imparting part of your character to them. Just as I know many Christian couples who name their children with names from the Bible, hoping they'll grow into the character of that biblical figure or the meaning of the name. So it's clear from chapter 14, verse 1 that it's not literal. The name of Christ and the name of his Father written on their foreheads is certainly figurative, I think. Even those who are most literal take that figuratively. So those are a couple of examples: Babylon and 666.

Johnny Ova: Great examples. I appreciate the explanation. You've made a case that the church is the new temple as well, God's dwelling place expanding to all creation. How does the Old Testament help us come to this conclusion?

Dr. Greg Beale: Oh goodness. I've got to turn the fan on for that one. I'm getting hot.

Johnny Ova: Listen, I had to get that question in there.

Dr. Greg Beale: I'm expressing too much hot air. I've written a book called The Temple and the Church's Mission. Remember I said at the very beginning that at least one major book spun out of my Revelation commentary. In chapter 21, I remember working through it, and as I mentioned earlier, the new creation is pictured as a garden, as a square Holy of Holies, and as a city. He first sees a new creation. You'd expect a description in the rest of the chapter of mountains and valleys, rivers and seas and tundra. No. What do you get? The description of the new heavens and earth is a city in a square shape, like a garden. Weird. And I think they're all equated. It's not that he sees the new heavens and earth, and within it is a city, and within the city a garden, near a temple. No. They're equated. I'm not going to try to prove that right now, but they're equated. So I had an excursus at the end of my section on 21:1 through 22:5, the new creation section, trying to explain this, and I started by saying I think the way to find the answer is to go to the Old Testament, because chapter 21 is full of it. If you look at the Connecting Scripture Study Bible, it's a Christmas tree in green, all over the place, Genesis allusions, Ezekiel 40 allusions and so on.

Dr. Greg Beale: So I went to the Old Testament, starting in Genesis, and that two-page excursus, which I'll summarize in a second, I expanded into 400 pages, a book called The Temple and the Church's Mission. I found in Genesis 1 to 3 that the Garden of Eden, from a number of considerations and angles, was considered to be a sanctuary, a temple, and Adam was the first priest. In fact, Ezekiel 28 says there was a figure in Eden who was cast out of the sanctuaries, plural. That's verse 18. Sanctuaries, plural, is a typical word for Israel's temple, because there were sanctuaries within it. Not only the Holy Place, but the courtyard was also considered a sanctuary, so there are plural sanctuaries in one temple. So it's a way of saying Eden was a sanctuary. And I think the figure there is Adam himself, not Satan. Some think it's Satan. It's debated. But I think it's Adam, and that makes more sense, because Adam would represent the king of Tyre, not Satan, and the king of Tyre is being represented here. Then remember he has clothing of jewels in chapter 28? Ninety-eight percent of those jewels come from Exodus 28. And what is described there? The jewels on the priest's ephod.

Dr. Greg Beale: So now we have Eden as a sanctuary and someone dressed like a priest in the sanctuary. I could go on and on, but I contended that Eden was the first sanctuary and Adam the first priest. What was his duty? Genesis 1:28: God blessed them and commanded them, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the different parts of the earth. How was Adam supposed to do that? He was certainly to have offspring in his own image. When you have children, I don't know about you, if you start with a small house, you have to add on, and the house gets bigger and bigger. That's just a metaphor, really. Adam was to expand the geographical and spiritual presence of God until it reached the ends of the earth. At that point, what would have happened? It would have been the new creation, if you will. Eden would have covered the whole earth, so the earth would have come to a point of having God's presence everywhere, and there's a newness to that. It would have been all temple, and it would have been all garden. Now we have to ask, why a city? I can't go into it fully except to say there are prophecies in Jeremiah 3, Zechariah 2, Isaiah 54 and elsewhere that God would break out of the Holy of Holies and first cover the city.

Dr. Greg Beale: Jeremiah 3 says a time will come when they will no longer say, the ark of the covenant of the Lord, for Jerusalem will be called the throne of the Lord. You see, the ark of the covenant was the footstool on which God's feet rested as he sat enthroned in heaven, figuratively speaking. So the first movement outward is for the temple to cover the city. Then the city covers the land and the earth. That's the thesis. So you and I as Christians, as we speak the word of the gospel, the word of God, are Adamic priestly figures. As we do that, what happens? People come by grace into the church, and the temple grows. We're to be among those priestly people who, through our ministry, are expanding the temple until Christ finally comes. We'll never do it ourselves. Christ will come and finally do it all and create a new heavens and earth. That's a long explanation. You're not asking me easy questions.

Johnny Ova: Listen, just like your teacher told you, I'm going to give you the layup. We need some work on Revelation, so I'm coming with the hard questions today. One more question. For somebody who wants to engage with the book of Revelation, or pastors who want to teach it more clearly, what would be your advice?

Dr. Greg Beale: Teach the book of Revelation.

Johnny Ova: For pastors who want to teach the book of Revelation more clearly or study it a bit more, or maybe your everyday Christian who's scared to get into it because it's too confusing or too much, what would be your advice?

Dr. Greg Beale: First, for pastors: if you're going to preach through the book of Revelation, don't just preach the letters. That's what a lot of people do. It's safe territory. Getting into that apocalyptic sea beginning in chapter 4 is a scary thing. But I'd say jump in with both feet, and get some good commentaries. Now here we get into different views. I can recommend books supporting any view. I'll recommend the books that support my view, though I can mention some others. One of the best books, even if you don't agree that Revelation is about the already and not yet, that the visionary portion covers the church age but at points covers the very end, going back and forth, is what I'll mention in a moment. That back and forth is what we call recapitulation: the seals, the trumpets and the bowls cover the same territory, the church age and the very end of time, in each of those sevenfold units. To me that's important for understanding the book of Revelation. In other words, the trumpets don't follow the seals in time in the future, and the bowls don't come after the trumpets in time. I think they recapitulate, and that makes sense. John is a prophet. This is a prophetic book. What do the prophetic books of the Old Testament look like? I'm sure you've read them. Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah. Again and again: you have sinned, you're going into exile because of your sin, but then I'm going to restore you.

Dr. Greg Beale: It says that again and again in each book. It just recapitulates over and over and never gets tired of it. John's Apocalypse does the same thing. So one of the best books supporting this view, even for those who might not agree with it, is William Hendriksen's More Than Conquerors. It's a very good book. My wife and I read it together when I was in graduate school. It's very pastoral, but it also gives a good view of the book of Revelation. So, William Hendriksen. I'd also mention my shorter commentary on Revelation. I wrote a long commentary, 1,200 or 1,300 pages, in 1999, and people kept saying, can you shorten it? So I wrote a shorter commentary with someone else in 2015, and I've been encouraged that some people like it. Now, if you want to teach from a dispensational perspective, there's a commentary by Thomas, T-H-O-M-A-S. That would be the dispensational one. A more recent one is in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary series by Buist Fanning, F-A-N-N-I-N-G. His perspective on dispensationalism is, if I can put it this way, a little less rigid than Thomas's. I think that would be a good one for that. And then on the book of Revelation, there are some older commentaries that take a preterist view, but the most recent would be, let me think of the author. Let me see if I can put my finger on it quickly.

Johnny Ova: No problem.

Dr. Greg Beale: Because I do want to mention this. Just a second. Yes, I was able to put my finger on it. David Chilton. The title is The Days of Vengeance. It's a commentary on the book of Revelation from a preterist view. Now, there are partial preterists and there are full preterists. Most who hold it say all of Revelation is a condemnation of Israel, under the rubric of Babylon. Almost the whole book is prophesying that. A full preterist would say there's no second coming of Christ and no new creation, either in Revelation or anywhere else, which is a big theological problem, and that would deserve another podcast to go into.

Johnny Ova: Dr. Beale, I truly appreciate your time today and the recommendations. We'll link them all below. I always love giving people the opportunity to see different perspectives. I can't thank you enough for being so generous with your time today. God bless. Nice to meet you.

Dr. Greg Beale: Good to be here. You too.