The book of Revelation offers a rich vision of blessing and encouragement to God’s people in every generation. Given to a church struggling to reconcile the hope of Christ’s reign with the harsh realities of life in a fallen world, this book continues to speak to believers today. In this teaching series, Dr. W. Robert Godfrey guides you through the book of Revelation chapter by chapter, clears away confusion, offers practical insight, and equips you for a new and worshipful encounter with the risen and returning King.

There is nothing more foundational to knowing God than the His self-revelation to His creatures. Though He is incomprehensible, the true and living God reveals aspects of Himself in both creation and in Scripture. Theologians refer to these two ways of God’s self-revelation as general or natural revelation and special or supernatural revelation. In creation, God reveals aspects of His being, attributes, and power. In Scripture, He gives further revelation of His being, names, attributes, works, and will for the salvation of His people. All special revelation centers on the person and saving work of Jesus Christ. Jesus is Himself the full revelation of God to mankind. He is the eternal Logos who, in the fullness of time, entered the world He created to redeem a people for Himself. The Holy Spirit is both the divine agent of God’s special revelation as well as the One who illumines the hearts of believers to give them a saving understanding of that revelation.

Dr. Derek Thomas shows that amidst the language and forms that dazzle and shock the book of Revelation is above all a book about Jesus Christ. Dr. Thomas takes us through the series of seven visions which show the outworking of the words of Jesus to Peter: 'I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'

and unavoidably to the Divine One who gives or loans. That is the necessary character of general revelation.”

Sinners can resist and deny this general revelation, but they cannot escape it. All nature, all the time, shouts out the existence, power, and splendor of God. Sinners can close their eyes and stop their ears, but general revelation remains plain all around them. Only when the unrighteous actively suppress this plain truth can the testimony of general revelation be denied. Such suppression is wicked and foolish. So the Scriptures rightly declare: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good” (Ps. 14:1).

This general revelation is an inevitable result of God’s works of creation and providence. But what purpose does it serve? In the first place, general revelation is a great encouragement and support to believers throughout their lives: “Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them. Full of splendor and majesty is his work, and his righteousness endures forever” (Ps. 111:2–3). But there is another vital function of general revelation in this fallen world as well. Paul expressed this function powerfully: “So they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). Sinners are full of excuses: “I would believe if only I could see God or could hear God.” Paul says sinners have no legitimate excuses. Those who have rejected God's general revelation would not have profited from His special revelation. Indeed, all of us sinners would reject both forms of God’s revelation apart from God’s special, merciful work of regeneration in the hearts of His people.

Surely, it would be presumptuous for us to add to the Apostles’ Creed. But it might well be an improvement to say: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, the revealer, and the maker of heaven and earth.” Praise God the Revealer.

How should we respond when someone claims that God has spoken to them directly? Today, Joel Kim considers the nature of special revelation and how Christians can test such claims against God’s Word.

The Creator has revealed His existence by creating. But He has done much more than that. In this episode, Barry Cooper considers how God has made Himself known clearly and specifically by speaking to His creatures.

and adds to what He reveals in general revelation. It discloses who God is as Redeemer, the purposes of His saving acts in history, His covenant relationship with His people, and His ultimate plan of redemption through Jesus Christ. This special revelation was administered through various means throughout redemptive history, including dreams, visions, angelic appearances, theophanies, and prophetic utterances. However, it reached its climax and fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ, through whom God has definitively spoken (Heb. 1:1–2) and who is the perfect revelation of the Father (John 1:18; 14:9). The primary, final, and sufficient form of special revelation that authoritatively and infallibly bears witness to all of this is Holy Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1.1) speaks to this as well: [It] pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary.

It is this special revelation that is made effectual by the Holy Spirit for human beings to have that knowledge of God necessary for salvation, faith, and godly living, and it works in tandem with general revelation as a unified whole to provide God’s self-disclosure to human beings.

donning different disguises in different eras. Whatever forms his attacks may take, Satan is already defeated (Rev. 12:7–13; 20:1–3). So, the triumphant Lamb gave us the book of Revelation to instill in us the discernment, courage, and fidelity to hold fast to His Word as we eagerly anticipate the blessing of His presence in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 14).

Just as a painting reveals the qualities of its painter, God’s world speaks powerfully of Him. On this episode of Simply Put, Barry Cooper considers God’s general revelation in nature.

In the book of Revelation, the twelve tribes of Israel are mentioned by name. Does this imply that they were, or will be, saved? Today, W. Robert Godfrey addresses this question by examining God’s redemptive purposes.

G.B. Caird, Craig Keener, Leon Morris, Ian Paul, William Hendriksen, Simon Kistemaker, Peter Leithart (Vol. 1, Vol. 2), Vern Poythress, Dennis Johnson.

The best contemporary commentary written from a dispensationalist perspective is Buist Fanning’s commentary in the ZECNT series. A good, although very short, older preterist commentary is David Clark’s* The Message From Patmos*. After two decades of labor, Kenneth Gentry has completed his massive two-volume preterist commentary (1,600+ pages), so when it is published (Tolle Lege Press), it will likely be the go-to preterist commentary on this book for years to come.

Helpful Related Works Although it is not a commentary, I would be remiss if I did not mention the classic little book by Richard Bauckham titled The Theology of the Book of Revelation. If you are interested in understanding Revelation, Bauckham’s book is a must-read.

revelation itself. The words "special revelation" do not refer to the biblical scholar who is studying the Word of God. Nor do the words "general revelation" refer to the scientist studying God's created works.

Second, human interpretations of God's revelation, whether general or special, are not to be equated with revelation itself. The words "special revelation" do not refer to commentaries on the Word of God. Nor do the words "general revelation" refer to scientific theories about God's created works.

Third, the word "infallibility" refers only to God and His acts of revelation. It does not refer to the human interpreters of those revelatory acts (whether general or special). Nor does it refer to the human interpretations of those revelatory acts (whether general or special).

Thus, when Dr. Sproul says that interpreters of God's created works might help us correct a misinterpretation of Scripture, he is not placing fallible human science over the infallible Scriptures. He is comparing a fallible human interpretation of God's special revelation with a fallible human interpretation of God's general revelation. Those who either do not understand or who do not agree with the Reformed doctrine of general revelation will inevitably misunderstand the hermeneutical point that Dr. Sproul is making.

Again, both general and special revelation are infallible acts of God. These two kinds of revelation can never be in conflict because the source of both is the one God. Human interpretations of these two kinds of revelation, however, can be and have been in conflict. Again, God's act of general revelation and God's act of special revelation are not and cannot be in conflict. Fallible human exegesis and fallible human scientific theories, on the other hand, can be in conflict. And as Dr. Sproul has explained, if there is a conflict between fallible human interpretations of general revelation and special revelation, the conflict may be due to a misinterpretation of general revelation (e.g. an erroneous scientific theory) or it may be due to a misinterpretation of Scripture (e.g. an erroneous interpretation of one or more biblical texts). The fact that fallible human beings can misinterpret general and special revelation does not mean that God's revelation itself is fallible. It means that we are fallible.

In short, general revelation is not synonymous with science, scientists, or scientific theories, and to say that general revelation is part of the context we must take into consideration in our exegesis of special revelation is, therefore, not to say that science, scientists, or scientific theories are on the same level as Scripture.

There are a number of other distinctions that must be understood if we are to fully grasp the Reformed understanding of the relationship between Scripture and Science. Several of these are discussed in the eight-part blog series mentioned above.

: Louis Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1932), 128)

views on a number of subjects. They agreed that Scripture is inerrant, but they differed on what that inerrant Scripture means in certain places.

Many Christians do not grasp this distinction, and the result is often the misrepresentation of what other Christians believe. The problem is that these Christians confuse a difference of interpretation with a denial of biblical authority. During my final months at Dallas Theological Seminary, when I was slowly transitioning out of dispensational premillennialism toward Reformed theology, I was repeatedly informed that the only reason I was not a premillennialist was because I did not believe the Bible (specifically Revelation 20). My friends there could not grasp the fact that my difference with them had to do with a difference of interpretation, not a difference over the authority of God's Word.

This is an important point and one that has been repeatedly ignored throughout the history of the church. On any number of disputed issues, Christians will often frame the debate in a way that indicates either an inability or an unwillingness to acknowledge the difference between the Word of God and their own interpretations of that Word. "We believe the Bible and you do not" is the implicit (and sometimes explicit) affirmation. Those who disagree are asked, "Why are you rejecting the 'biblical' view"?

Such a way of framing an argument begs the question. The "biblical" view is precisely the question that is being debated, and it needs to be discerned through careful exegesis.

Unless a person has been granted the gift of infallibility, a disagreement with his or her interpretation of Scripture is not necessarily a denial of biblical authority. People who affirm the authority and inerrancy of Scripture differ in their interpretations of some biblical texts. The way to deal with such disagreements is through patient and careful exegesis, and it must be understood that this can take time. The early church took centuries to hammer out the biblical teaching on the Trinity and the Person of Christ. Some of our contemporary debates may likewise take many years to resolve.

We do not despair because of this. God knows what He intended to communicate in every word of Scripture. It is our ignorance and sin that hinders us from grasping everything perfectly. But our ignorance and sin does not alter the fact that the Scripture is the infallible, authoritative, and inerrant Word of the living God. "The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever" (Isa. 40:8).

His redemptive work through the prophets by means of dreams, visions, and theophanies. But now, special revelation has received its permanent form in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (WCF I.1).

Given this summary overview of the nature of general and special revelation, we return to the question Dr. Sproul asked his seminary class. Recall that he asked: “How many of you believe that God’s revelation in Scripture is infallible?” And they all raised their hand. Then Dr. Sproul asked, “And how many of you believe that God's revelation in nature is infallible?” And this time no one raised their hand. As we will see in our next post, the reason for the different responses had to do with the students’ right concern to recognize that Scripture is a higher authority than scientific theories. That, however, was not what Dr. Sproul asked. And therein lies the rub in many contemporary discussions of this issue. We end up talking past each other because we are not listening carefully. Dr. Sproul asked his students a question regarding something God does. And despite the misgivings of his students, the answer Dr. Sproul gave is correct. God’s revelation in creation is equally as infallible as His revelation in Scripture because in both cases, it is God who is doing the revealing, and God is always infallible. God cannot err in His work of revealing Himself. The question the students thought Dr. Sproul was asking is an extremely important question, but it cannot be answered adequately until Dr. Sproul’s original question is answered correctly.

In our next post, we will examine what may be the most important point Dr. Sproul raised in connection with the contemporary discussions, and that is the difference between God’s infallible revelation (general and special) and our fallible interpretation of that revelation (general and special). In connection with this topic, we will need to look at Dr. Sproul’s commentary on Article 12 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in order to understand the difference between scientific theories that contradict an interpretation of Scripture as opposed to theories that contradict an actual teaching of Scripture.

: Louis Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1932), 128).

heaven and earth and all that is within them. Any scientific theory that claims natural phenomena arose from purely materialistic causes is necessarily wrong.

Dr. Sproul illustrates his point about the fallibility of our interpretations by reminding us of how Luther and Calvin responded to the new astronomical theories of the sixteenth century. In our next post, we will look at this in more detail in order to discover what we might learn from the mistakes of others.

: R.C. Sproul, Scripture Alone (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2005), 152, emphasis mine. : Ibid., 153. : Charles Hodge, Systematic Theolgy, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982 [1872–73]), 1:59.

motivate us to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth. But we will secure these blessings only if we read this book in the right way and for the right reasons. We must keep Jesus Christ—not speculation about current events—as its central focus.

The mission of the church was mapped out by Jesus’ first coming. As the sacrificial Lamb, He was slain on the cross, and by His blood He “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” and “made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (5:9–10).

Through His sufferings, our Savior secured the complete redemption of a vast multitude of people that “no man could number” (7:9). Our responsibility is to get the good news of His saving work to these people so that they can be reconciled to God through faith. Sometimes, discharging this duty can be costly.

If Jesus shed His blood for individuals from every people group in the world, how can we who have been rescued by Him remain indifferent in the face of more than six thousand ethnolinguistic groups that have yet to be reached with the gospel? News of our great Savior and His redeeming exploits must be spread to the ends of the earth. Yes, the mission is dangerous. There will be casualties — martyrs who will be killed “for the word of God, and for the testimony” they bear (6:9–11). But the suffering of Christ’s followers will not be in vain because His kingdom will prevail. Victory is assured.

The end of Revelation reminds us that the church relates to her King not only as an army engaged in spiritual warfare, but also as a bride preparing for her wedding day. The Lord has chosen us for Himself. At the conclusion of the age, when all of His enemies are defeated, the church of Jesus Christ will be fully cleansed, no longer having the spots, wrinkles, and blemishes that currently mar her beauty (Eph. 5:25–27). On that occasion, all who are in Christ will be presented to the One who died for them and will appear before Him as a bride clothed “with fine linen, bright and pure” at the marriage supper of the Lamb (19:7–9).

Then our warfare will fully resolve into worship. There will be no complaints, no regrets, and no disappointments. Rather, there will be joyful, unending worship of the God who loved us and gave Himself for us.

That eternal prospect transforms all who embrace it.

of Revelation_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999); Grant Osborne, Revelation; Vern S. Poythress, The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation (Phillupsburg, NJ: P&R, 2000). Beale takes an eclectic approach with an emphasis on the idealist approach. Osborne, on the other hand, emphasizes futurism in his eclecticism. : Since I believe that some prophecies in the book have not yet been fulfilled (i.e., I take a futurist approach to some specific prophecies), and since I believe some of the individual observations made by idealist interpreters are valuable, there may be those who would refer to my view as eclectic with an emphasis on the preterist aspect. The particular label is of little concern to me. : Poythress, The Returning King, 36. 2: Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 27. : This includes many of the classic Reformation, post-Reformation, and Puritan commentaries on Revelation. Contemporary Reformed historicists cannot follow those classic Reformed historicists completely because those classic Reformed historicists were wrong about their own age being the final age. : Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 19. : The idealist approach to the text of Revelation often appears to be more akin to an application of the text than an interpretation of the author’s original intended meaning. : Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 18. : Leon Morris, The Book of Revelation, TNTC 20 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 18–19. : John himself included a prophecy of a “thousand year” period that would be followed by the final judgment (Rev. 20:1–10). At the very least, it seems reasonable to suppose that John did not believe the events that would follow the thousand year period would also be fulfilled in the very near future. : Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah WBC (Nashville: Nelson, 1987), xxxii.

of Revelation* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 406; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 618.

: See Wilson, “The Problem of the Domitianic Date,” 599.

: Cf. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX: ICE, 1989).

: Wilson, “The Problem of the Domitianic Date,” 599.

: E.g., Mark L. Hitchcock, “A Critique of the Preterist View of Revelation 17:9–11 and Nero,” BSac 164, no. 4 (2007), 480.

: Simon Kistemaker, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 472. Kistemaker also interprets the first five kingdoms differently. He identifies them as ancient Babylonia, Assyria, Neo-Babylonia, Medo-Persia, and Greco-Macedonia. But why move from literal historical referents (the first six kingdoms) to abstract referents (the seventh kingdom)? There does not seem to be a consistent reason for the hermeneutical change of direction in the middle of the prophecy.

: George R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, Rev. ed. NCB (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1978), 257.

: Cf. R.H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, 2 vols. ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1920), 2:69; Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, 257; Charles H. Giblin, The Book of Revelation, GNS 34 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991), 165.

: John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 249 (cf. Josephus, Jewish War, 4.11.4 § 654).

When studying, we find that theology is dependent upon revelation, on God's taking the initiative to unveil and reveal Himself. In this message Dr. Sproul discusses the topic of general revelation as distinguished from special revelation. We find there are many ways in which God has spoken to the whole world in general. All of this revelation reaches its pinnacle, through God Himself, in the person and work of Christ.

Continuing on the subject of revelation, Dr. Sproul discusses the topic of general revelation and distinguishes two areas within. These areas are the content of the revelation and the scope of people included as recipients of that revelation.

While Scripture is the supreme source of revelation concerning God, it is not the only source. The Bible tells us that we can clearly see God’s eternal power and divine nature in the created realm. In this lesson, Dr. Sproul affirms the biblical truth that general revelation and natural theology are sufficient to leave all people without excuse.

How do we know that God is? How does he communicate His existence? Do we feel His presence by some kind of intuition or is there some objective witness that testifies to His eternal power? Dr. Sproul discusses one of the ways God has revealed Himself to all of mankind by what is known in theology as general or natural revelation, in this message entitled "General Revelation/Natural Revelation."

The heavens declare the glory of God, but how adequate is that declaration? Is God's general revelation of Himself through nature enough for people to be saved? If not, are they without excuse if they never read the Bible? Dr. Sproul discusses the inadequacy of general revelation and the need for preaching the gospel as he continues his message entitled "General Revelation/Natural Revelation."